What's new
  • As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
  • ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

What are the current laws for cannabis posession, sale, and "production" in Canada ?

C

c-ray

from http://www.globalnews.ca/entertainm...with+various+challenges/6442776611/story.html

Mandatory minimums may face tough year in the courts with various challenges

Allison Jones, Friday, December 21, 2012 12:00 AM

TORONTO - The coming year could bring some clarity to the murky legal waters of the federal Conservatives' law-and-order agenda, particularly mandatory minimum sentences, even as new complications are added to the mix.

One of the government's omnibus crime bills churned through the courts in 2012, with several planks falling victim to declarations of unconstitutionality. Meanwhile, a new slew of provisions entered the fray in the form of a second omnibus bill.

Major players in the legal community are predicting 2013 will bring even more questions about the constitutional validity of the two bills, both heavy on mandatory minimum penalties and tougher rules for violent offenders.

But at least some of the questions already raised will be answered by Ontario's highest court early next year as it is set to convene a special five-judge panel for February to rule on mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes.

Several different judges in Ontario this year had to consider the constitutionality of those firearm laws. Their differing decisions left a fragmented landscape. Hearing six of those cases at the same time gives the Court of Appeal for Ontario the opportunity to deliver a uniform ruling.

The mandatory minimums were upheld in most of the cases the panel will hear. The case in which the law was struck down is that of Leroy Smickle — a man who very well demonstrates the problems with the legislation, said his lawyer.

The "very foolish" Smickle was alone in his boxers in his cousin's apartment posing with a loaded handgun while taking pictures of himself to post on his Facebook page, the judge found.

Unbeknownst to him, members of the Toronto police Emergency Task Force were amassing outside to execute a search warrant in relation to Smickle's cousin, who they believed had illegal firearms. Smickle was caught red handed.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Anne Molloy convicted Smickle of possessing a loaded illegal gun, but found that sending the first-time offender to prison for three years was cruel and unusual punishment. She struck down the mandatory minimum, declaring it unconstitutional.

The government is appealing, and at the special hearing in February both federal and provincial Crowns are set to make arguments.

The Department of Justice said no one was available for an interview, and sent a statement touting its tough-on-crime agenda.

But critics of mandatory minimum sentences say they don't actually help reduce crime and do more harm than good.

"In terms of reducing crime they're usually thought of as having a possible general deterrent effect," said Anthony Doob, a criminology professor at the University of Toronto.

"There's been so much research on this that I don't think that's really a question anymore. Anybody who looks seriously at the effect of mandatory minimums...would know that they're not going to reduce crime in that way."

Having mandatory minimum sentences means more people will end up in prison, and putting a first-time offender through the paces of prison culture can leave them at the end of their sentence more likely to re-offend, Doob suggested.

"So what you may be doing in these circumstances... is in the long term an increase in crime," he said.

Mandatory minimums are nothing new — both Liberal and Conservative governments have enacted them. Commissions looking at the issue going back several decades have called for mandatory minimums to be abolished.

Court decisions striking them down aren't new either. One of the biggest cases was from 1987, when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a seven-year minimum sentence for importing a narcotic.

But this year saw a torrent of new legal challenges as the provisions from the 2008 legislation finally made their way through the backlog of the courts.

And those court delays will only get worse with the flood of new mandatory minimums, suggested Rick Woodburn, the president of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel.

He wouldn't comment on the validity of the legislation, but said "a bill like this increases the workload."

Crowns typically offer plea bargains with conditional sentences to less serious offenders, but with more lenient sentences for certain crimes gone, guilty pleas — which save court time and resources — are drying up, Woodburn said.

"We're seeing that the delays are starting to get longer and longer in a very short period of time. There's no coincidence that delays across the country can be directly linked to the omnibus bill."

Another frequent criticism is that mandatory minimums strip discretion from judges, who know all the facts of a case and are the best equipped to determine an appropriate sentence. It's a blunt instrument to deal with a complex problem, said Smickle's lawyer, Dirk Derstine.

"Our judges know perfectly well that possession of firearms is a very, very serious thing," he said. "Really, what this indicates is a lack of trust in the judiciary."

Derstine also represents Hussein Nur in another case that will go before the Appeal Court panel in February. In that case, which came a few months before the Smickle decision was issued, the trial judge found merit to the constitutional challenge, but dismissed it.

Superior Court Judge Michael Code found that there were many circumstances in which a three-year sentence could end up being cruel and unusual, such as in the case of John Snobelen, a former Ontario cabinet minister who never got around to registering a gun in Canada after buying it among the contents of a ranch in the U.S. His wife told police about its existence during marital difficulties.

But the judge said the Crown, as it did in the Snobelen case, can decide to proceed to a summary conviction, which is treated less seriously and with less jail time than indictable offences. Snobelen was granted an absolute discharge.

That option in the firearms offence saves the law from being declared unconstitutional, Code said. But, he warned, "one unwise Crown election" may invalidate the whole sentencing scheme.

Nur also argued that the difference in penalties for summary conviction and indictment is arbitrary and Code agreed.

The government raised the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm from one year to three years as part of the 2008 omnibus bill. But it didn't change the sentencing options for the same charge under a summary conviction.

The maximum sentence on a summary conviction for the crime remained one year. That has left a two-year gap that "makes no rational sense," Code said. It appears as though it happened by mere oversight, not by some advertent decision, he said.

He found that Nur's charter challenge of arbitrariness had merit, saying the gap "emasculates" the sentencing provisions and "will inevitably lead to unfit sentences" for less serious firearm cases. But Code found that he had to dismiss the challenge on a technicality.

In Quebec, the provincial bar association launched a legal challenge last month seeking to strike down sections of the 2012 omnibus bill involving mandatory minimums. The bar association said mandatory minimums don't protect the public and represent an unconstitutional interference from one branch of government, the legislature, in the business of another, the judiciary.

There will be more challenges to the new sentencing laws in the new year, professors, lawyers and other legal experts predict. University of Ottawa professor Carissima Mathen suggested that minimum sentences for some drug laws that came into effect this year are vulnerable.

Some experts say the new provisions mean that someone growing six marijuana plants in their own home could be sentenced to six months, but a person growing the same amount in a rental unit could get nine months.

Enacting mandatory minimums is an easy way to appear tough on crime, critics say.

"The reality is, if you don't care about sentencing policy but want to show some activity...you can pick a random offence and give it a mandatory minimum," Doob said.

Francoise Boivin, the NDP justice critic in Ottawa, said many problems will arise from the fact that the raft of new sentencing laws were enacted as part of omnibus bills.

"This is a huge, huge overhaul of the whole system to really implement your ideology on the issue," she said. "It's scary to know that you've changed so many laws — and not simple laws. Each one would have deserved a long and hard look. You're talking about child pornography in one minute and then you're talking about terrorism the second half of the meeting. It's completely nuts."

Many of the constitutional challenges, including the one being heard en masse in Ontario in February, are expected to eventually be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
 
C

c-ray

from http://www.ottawacitizen.com/busine...uture+marijuana+regulation/7734383/story.html

RIGHT TO KNOW: Colorado pot luck — the future of marijuana regulation?

By Dominic Lamb, Ottawa Citizen December 21, 2012

7734384.bin

Recreational use of marijuana is now legal in Colorado, a stark contrast to the approach in Canada, where marijuana laws have been toughened.T
Photograph by: Aaron Ontiveroz , AP


OTTAWA — In the US elections in November, Colorado and Washington State both passed ballot initiatives that could fundamentally and forever change the way the United States deals with the regulation of marijuana.

What exactly did they do? Residents of both states voted to effectively decriminalize the production, possession and consumption of the substance, and regulate it in a manner very similar to the way they currently regulate alcohol.

In the words of the Colorado state constitutional amendment, “in the interest of the efficient use of law enforcement resources, enhancing revenue for public purposes, and individual freedom, the people of the State of Colorado find and declare that the use of marijuana should be legal for persons 21 years of age or older, and taxed in a manner similar to alcohol.” The amendment continues, declaring that in the interests of health and public safety the people find and declare that marijuana should be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol.

These changes to state law in the U.S. are a seismic change in public attitudes toward marijuana. It is not so long ago, that California’s “three strikes” laws were subjecting people found in possession of marijuana to a lifetime behind bars.

So what about Canada? We have a tendency to frown on our U.S. cousins as not being as progressive and sensible in their approach to certain public policy, and at times, in a very smug way, we have a tendency to pontificate as to how we are quicker to create rational and evidence-based public policy.

Indeed, candidates vying for the leadership of the federal Liberal party have made reference to the legalization of marijuana, and some years back there was legislation drafted to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Alas, if we are going to be smug on this issue, it is because we have decided to make our marijuana laws tougher.

So as the state of Colorado introduces law to allow personal possession of up to an ounce of marijuana and personal possession of up to six plants, along with licensing cultivation facilities, the Criminal Code of Canada was amended this past Nov. 6 to impose a mandatory jail sentence of six months for anyone who grows more than five marijuana plants for the purpose of trafficking.

The new mandatory minimum sentences for growing marijuana can be as high as three years, depending on the number of plants being grown, where a person is growing the marijuana, whether the growing caused a potential security, health or safety hazard to people under 18 or a residential area, or if the location housing the marijuana was booby-trapped in any way.

Those found guilty of growing marijuana can only avoid the mandatory minimum sentences if they successfully complete a drug treatment program approved by the Attorney General or a treatment program approved by the province.

Colorado is also in the midst of legalizing the commercial sale of marijuana. Under the proposed new regime, sale of marijuana or marijuana products to consumers, if the person selling the marijuana has a valid licence to operate a retail marijuana store, or is employed by that person, will be legal. Authorized “cultivation facilities” will be allowed to traffic in marijuana at the wholesale level.

In contrast, our new legislation puts in place possible mandatory minimum sentences of up to two years in jail, depending on the amount of marijuana involved, and the circumstances surrounding the selling of the drug.

Last weekend, our federal government announced that it is getting out of the medical marijuana business. Currently, the government is involved in authorizing the possession and growing of marijuana for medical purposes. It also operates a cultivation facility that will provide marijuana for those unable to obtain medical marijuana from an individual approved to grow marijuana for medical purposes. In its announcement, the government has advised that it will licence private businesses to grow and sell marijuana to individuals in possession of a medical prescription to use marijuana.

The new legislation emulates much of what is set to be put in place in Colorado, in that it will introduce private authorized vendors of medical marijuana that will replace the current regulations that allow individuals to grow marijuana either for themselves or for others who have a licence to possess the substance.

Many have said that the prohibition on marijuana is an example of failed public policy and has led to an unnecessary drain on public resources, from policing to fire services. As we move to bolster our prohibition with these new mandatory minimum sentences, U.S. states are blazing a trail toward legalizing and regulating marijuana.

The stark contrast between our “Canadian approach” and the Colorado experiment gives a fascinating insight into the unexpected direction democracy can take our criminal law. Yet there seem to be hints, particularly with the announcement of our new medical marijuana supply plans, that our government is preparing for the possibility that the Colorado “pot luck” could lead to high times across the continent.

Dominic Lamb is a criminal defence lawyer with Edleson Clifford D’Angelo LLP. He can be reached at [email protected] or 613-237-2290. Follow Dominic on twitter@dominiclamb.
 
C

c-ray

from http://www.straight.com/news/mp-joy...s-why-shes-seeking-federal-liberal-leadership

MP Joyce Murray tells constituents why she's seeking federal Liberal leadership
by Charlie Smith on Dec 1, 2012

kalkman%2520joyce%2520murray%2520014.JPG

Dirk Brinkman and Joyce Murray own a reforestation company that has planted more than a billion trees across Canada.
Charlie Smith


Vancouver Quadra MP Joyce Murray has called for a "price on carbon" and legalization of marijuana.

In her first speech to constituents after entering the Liberal leadership race, Murray also promised to appoint a minimum of 40 percent women to cabinet and to government boards, commissions, and agencies.

She claimed evidence shows that organizations are more successful when women—"with their cooperative problem-solving"—are included on boards of directors.

"Liberal governments have introduced most of the practical and bold initiatives that have made this country great," Murray said to a capacity crowd at the Jericho Saling Centre meeting room. "And that's what we need right now: a vision that's not only bold, but is achievable through experience and pragmatic decision making."

She sprinkled her speech with personal anecdotes, including one about how she and her husband Dirk's reforestation company has planted more than a billion trees across Canada.

She also mentioned that when her mother Charlotte decided as a mother of three to attend the UBC school of architecture—and was the only woman in the school at the time—she had to obtain her husband's permission.

In addition to the price on carbon and legalizing pot, she urged Liberals to work cooperatively with New Democrats and Greens in the next federal election if this is the desire of riding associations.

"I am against a merger," Murray noted, "but what I am for—for the next election only—is working with my party to adopt a system of voluntary cooperation at the riding level with riding associations having the veto."

She added that the "worst thing would be to continue to let Prime Minister Harper and his government dismantle our democracy and dismantle our social-safety net, and more than that, dismantle our environmental-safety net".

"I find it unimaginable that we can't find the will to cooperate on these key issues for Canadians," she said. "So I will be leading the charge on that."

Murray opened her speech by praising First Nations for making decision on the basis of their impact on the next seven generations.

"My vision is for a truly sustainable society in Canada—one that is socially, environmentally, economically, and fiscally viable—for the next seven generations, and not just the next seven months of an economic plan or the next seven minutes of a news cycle," she said.

Murray condemned Environment Minister Peter Kent for standing against taking action on climate change in Doha, calling this "reprehensible and an embarrassment".

"In Canada, we have to end the phoney debate in Parliament," she said. "We need to put a price on carbon, and I will work with Canada's CEOs to discuss the best way to implement this carbon price and ensure that they have the predictability and stability that business needs. Business does need to be involved here and be a leader."

Joyce Murray's first speech in Vancouver since joining the Liberal leadership race.

After her speech, the Straight asked Murray if a "price on carbon" meant a carbon tax.

"That's one option," she acknowledged. "I think we have to look at the way that is the most efficient, effective, and fair—and a lot of economists would say a carbon tax is. We know that in British Columbia, our province created more jobs last year than any other province in the country, and we went that route to meet our targets for greenhouse-gas reductions. So obviously, it's working in British Columbia. It is working in other parts of the world. If somebody has a better idea for a more fair, efficient, and cost-effective approach, I'm open to it."

With regard to marijuana, she said it has been her belief for a long time that it's foolish to turn young people into criminals for using a product similar to alcohol or tobacco.

"If you regulate, tax, and control cannabis, fewer young people would have access to it," Murray said. "It's less likely that the cannabis will be contaminated with other drugs....Right now, cannabis is regulated and controlled by criminals. The profits are going to criminals, and it's creating harm for young people. So I'm saying let's take the monopoly out of the hands of the criminals and put it in the hands of government, so we can tax and control it."
 
C

c-ray

from http://joycemurray.ca

Quiet, competent Joyce Murray brings message of sustainability to federal Liberal race

Posted: December 10, 2012
Vancouver Sun
By Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun columnist

7677825.bin.jpeg

Joyce Murray, MP for Vancouver Quadra, announced her candidacy for the federal Liberal leadership race on Nov. 26.
Photographed by: FRED CHARTRAND, THE CANADIAN PRESS


Joyce Murray may lack the national profile enjoyed by other Liberal MPs hoping to lead their party, but her policy platform is a surefire attention grabber.

The MP for Vancouver Quadra would legalize and tax pot, slap a price on carbon, kill the Northern Gateway project, ban oil tankers on B.C.’s north coast, ensure 40 per cent of federal appointees are women, ditch Canada’s first-past-the-post voting system, and address vote splitting through a voluntary system of partisan cooperation at the riding level to allow joint candidates to compete against vulnerable Conservatives.

As the 58-year-old South Africa-born wife and mother of three adult children points out, she’s the only one of as many as 11 candidates seeking to replace Bob Rae to have any governing experience.

Before becoming an MP in 2008, Murray served in former B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell’s government. She was Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, then Management Services, from 2001 to 2005.

Murray also touts an impressive private-sector past. She and husband Dirk Brinkman have built a reforestation and sustainability company now operating in six countries.
And importantly for the party, Murray is a Westerner, giving the party badly needed regional credentials.

Liberals won a scant four seats in the West in the 2011 election.

But Albertans might be reluctant to embrace Murray’s candidacy given her push for a price on emissions, an end to oilsands industry subsidies, and opposition to pipeline proposals to carry bitumen to a B.C. port.

Murray says she wants more oil to be refined and upgraded in Canada, and believes this country should be focusing on achieving energy self-sufficiency.

Murray opposes not only the Northern Gateway pipeline but also a proposed expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline to Burnaby, arguing neither has sufficient public support.
Pipelines to export oilsands product to Asia, she says, conceivably could go through Eastern ports or be transported to an existing port in Valdez, Alaska.

Murray jumped into the leadership fray two weeks ago to champion sustainability as it relates to the environment, the economy and social programs.

Her campaign chair is Jamie Carroll, a past Liberal national director who in 2006 crafted former Liberal leader Stephane Dion’s highly unanticipated winning campaign.
Murray is not a particularly high-profile caucus member, having held relatively minor critic roles — for amateur sport and Western Economic Diversification, for example, rather than Foreign Affairs or Finance. (Although fellow candidate Justin Trudeau also has held only minor critic roles.)

Two private member’s bills Murray sponsored sought to ban tanker traffic in the Pacific North coast and exempt bicycle-related purchases from GST.

While the Vancouver MP exudes quiet competence, she lacks flash or charisma, describing her own style as collaborative and pragmatic.

So, how does she intend to outmuscle someone such as Trudeau at the party’s leadership convention next April?

“I present who I am,” she responds. “I announced my candidacy knowing Justin would be running. It’s wonderful that he’s bringing so much attention to the race.

“I am going to have a campaign of ideas and policy, and I have a track record of implementing ideas.”

Murray says she has been studying French since 2008 and her speaking ability is “very good.”

She argues it would be a bonus for Canadians to have more female leadership on Parliament Hill; Canadian politics would benefit from a more collegial style exhibited by women politicians.

Observes Murray: “The testosterone-fuelled combative approach of both the current NDP and Conservative leaders will not lead to more respect in Parliament.”
[email protected]
 

The Boys

Member
i just wanted to add, HARPER CAN SUCK A DICK !!! if it is up to him ther will probably never be a vote for legalization while hes "in power"

ps. STEVEN HARPER, SUCK A DISEASED DICK !!!
 
P

Prairie Boy

MMAR aside,blatant lies such as the f-35 bullshit,sneeky fuking omnibus laws,gutting of resourses,union bashing,on and on.Should be a public hanging.

Cheers PB
 

teemu shalanie

WeeDGamE StannisBaratheoN
Veteran
as if any of us would vote for harper ,pardon my french,...... u stupid bitch

PS. terrible 1st post ,

TS
 
C

c-ray

from http://cannabisdigest.ca/harsh-laws/

A LAWYER’S VIEW ON NEW MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES

By Kirk Tousaw

In Nov. 2012, the Harper Conservative government ushered in new mandatory sentencing legislation for certain Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences. Despite criticism from outside and inside government, and clear evidence that such sentences are harmful to the criminal justice system and society, the ideologically-driven rules are now law and are binding on judges throughout Canada.

These draconian punishments radically change the risks involved in producing and distributing cannabis, even for medical purposes. If someone is convicted of the offence of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, and the amount of cannabis (or cannabis-based products) weighs over three kilograms, (6.6 pounds) the mandatory jail terms apply. Keep in mind, edible makers, that the entire weight of your product will count—not just the weight of the actual cannabis used in the product.

Offenders will be sentenced to one year in jail if the crime is committed by organized crime, if the accused uses or threatens violence, or if the person has been convicted or imprisoned for a designated substance offense (meaning just about anything but possession) some time in the prior 10 years.

Offenders will be jailed for two years if the crime is committed in or near a school, school grounds, or any public place usually frequented by persons under 18; in prisons or on their grounds; or if the offender uses the services of or involves a person under 18 years of age. The legislation is not clear on what “near” means, nor does it detail what a “place usually frequented by persons under 18” might be.
Cannabis farmers also face long mandatory jail terms. The penalties imposed depend on the number of plants and whether any aggravating factors are present.

The jail term is six months if six to 200 plants are produced for the purpose of trafficking and increases to nine months if factors are present. Produce between 201 and 500 plants, for any reason, and you will spend one year in jail, with the term rising to 18 months if any aggravating factors exist. Finally, producing 501 or more plants will result in a two-year jail sentence, or three years if any aggravating factors are proven.

The aggravating factors applicable to the production offence are: the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence; if the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to persons under the age of 18 yearswho were in the locationwhere the offence was committed or in the immediate area; or if the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or the person set or placed a trap, device or other thingthat is likely to cause death or bodily harm to another personin the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area, or permitted such a trap, device or other thing to remain or be placed in that location or area.

The Harper government failed to provide clarity in the legislation, leaving Canadians to wonder precisely what a “potential security” hazard is and what the “immediate area” of the offense might be. With the public, and even some judges, apparently convinced that producing cannabis is automatically a safety hazard, one can envision these aggravating factors being applied with far too much vigor.

As if this was not bad enough, the legislative changes have other effects. It used to be that I could make a strong case at sentencing that medical cannabis producers and distributors should receive a discharge. That is, a finding of guilt but no entry of a criminal conviction. Unfortunately, that is no longer available to anyone who sells cannabis or possesses it for the purpose of selling it (if the amount is over three kilos). Nor is a discharge available to anyone who produces cannabis—even those who produce less than six plants or who are growing it for their own personal use.

Relatedly, offenders convicted of selling (or possessing with the intent of selling) more than three kilograms of cannabis, and producing any amount of cannabis, are also no longer eligible for Conditional Sentence Orders (CSO). A CSO is a custodial sentence served in the community—house arrest, in other words. This was a common sentence imposed on first-time offenders. The idea behind it is to impose a severe sanction, but to also allow the person to be a productive member of society, work, take care of their family, and avoid the devastating negatives experienced in jail. Thanks to the Harper Conservatives, this is simply no longer available to judges.

There are some bright spots in an otherwise bleak future for the Canadian criminal justice system. A judge can refuse to impose the mandatory sentence if the offender is not given notice, before entering a plea, that the Crown intends to seek the punishment and prove any necessary elements of the crime. A judge can also avoid imposing the mandatory prison time if the accused person successfully completes a period of court-ordered drug counseling.

Finally, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms may provide some assistance to citizens facing these draconian punishments. Section 12 of the Charter the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments. The Québec Criminal Lawyers Association has already filed suit in the Québec courts seeking a declaration that the Harper incarceration agenda violates the Charter.Individual accused can make similar challenges when the time comes.

For now, however, the Harper Conservatives’ mandatory sentencing regime is valid law and is being applied to jail Canadians whose only crime is growing or selling a relatively safe plant that a million Canadians consume each year for medical purposes.

Kirk Tousaw, JD, LL.M., is a barrister and social justice advocate practicing primarily in British Columbia, Canada. His work focuses on helping the victims of cannabis prohibition by providing vigorous defence of possession, trafficking, and production charges at all levels of Court. He has litigated several successful Charter challenges including R v. Beren and R v. Smith, both of which resulted in the Court finding that Health Canada’s Marijuana Medical Access Regulations were arbitrary and too restrictive. He can be reached by email at <[email protected]> or by telephone at 604-836-1420.
 

teemu shalanie

WeeDGamE StannisBaratheoN
Veteran
i guess these goofs r gunna start to weight jars , basically 1 tree would weight more than 6 pound wet with dirt/sticks, these regs u wont even be able to rock 4 trees cause they will get u on the weight, man back to the shadows ,....

TS
 
P

Prairie Boy

^^
Fuk em!

That drug councelling bullshit the biggest crock of shit I've heard from these fuktards yet.Its not a drug,its not addictive,and I would never sign into that shit to get a reduced sentence!

Know your roll and shut your mouth regards.

Cheers PB
 

The Boys

Member
supposedly, rougfly 8% of people that smoke weed become addicted to it ( even the american based research has found that) where 15% of people that drink become addicted to alcohol. ( ciggarettes rate at 90%) either way this is bullshit, i dont want to wonder what harpers real motive(s) behind these laws (are) is, what is his intent ? how does he justify his dicision ? what does he believe, that the general public doesnt ?

HARPER IS CHRISTIAN ! ........MABEY HES JUST SUCKING HIS "HOLY ENTITY'S" DICK !
because you know the christian "god" want a bj, not equal and fair treatment of all people. WTF IS WRONG WITH ALL THESE RELIGIOUS ASSHOLES ?

THESES LAWS STRIKE ME AS LAWS AN AMERICAN REPUBLICAN WOULD ENDORSE AND PASS.

canada has decriminalized nationally , obama promised decriminalization ...... which hasnt happened. but two states have legaized,

what happened to democracy, why was thereno vote on this issue ?

ps. FUCK harper for what he's done !
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top