Editorial:

Brian Taylor Editor

The Canadian Supreme Court decision finding Canadian marijuana laws constitutional, was a psychological blow, if not a strategic set back. Rendering some speechless with indignation it seems to have challenged others to search for new paths to enlightenment. Three out of nine ain't bad, but it shows the need for education, beginning with our children and it places the responsibility squarely on the rule makers, the politicians.

The Goose Creek incident has shaken America; like a drunk waking up in the gutter, Americans saw themselves as hitting bottom. My god we are now arresting our children.
Canadian schools face many of the same challenges that US schools face. Kids want schools to be safe and clean of drugs. Like a microcosm of the larger community, school safety often comes with a price, less privacy, and less respect.

Since I have on a few occasions expressed my frustration with Health Canada and the Medical Marijuana Access Program, let me give credit to some hard working front line staff. Recently I was re-applying for a production license for a new patient, and for whatever reason I messed up the paperwork. The staff that dealt with me recognized the panic in my voice and helped me out of a fix by expediting some of the process. The lesson I sometimes forget is that individuals we need to influence are ones closer to the top, the generals who place parameters on the flexibility of front line staff.

Molson is a small town down the road a few miles to the West of Grand Forks, BC on the US side of the border, actually right at the border. In the heydays of prohibition the Molson crossing was one of many routes for Canadian booze flowing south. And yes, this is the same family that has become synonymous with quality Canadian beer.

The Barrie Molson Park grow op bust had an interesting impact on the cannabis debate, it was not the 1000 lights or the fact that 50 people worked the show, or even that several other businesses shared the site, it was the 'hit you on the head' comparison to alcohol prohibition. The light went on for a new segment of the Canadian population, this was hard-working entrepreneurs taking over abandoned space and putting dozens of people to work. Today Molson's, tomorrow Maple Leaf Gardens. Could this be jobs that breathe fresh life into the stagnating Canadian economy, and maybe, maybe, fund some of Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise of a new deal for provinces. Sorry about gas tax revenues but let's see what you can do with pot.

Our next edition will once more focus on the economics of cannabis. In this annual look at the often overlooked business side of this legal and emotional issue, the journal will look at companies with progressive labor practices, new ideas and original concepts that are positioning them to be part of the cannabis boom.
BT

Behind Ned

LETTERS

Dear Uncle Gord
I'm writing to let you know of my first successful grow using The Grow Safe.
Using a 1000w light and a 400 CFM fan with 10 plants in 5 litre pots, I was able to produce 1.5 lbs. in the first cycle. In the 5.5 ft. cubed. box, the light is so intense that when the plants were introduced from outside, they immediately stopped upward growth and bud development was spectacular!

I have a few suggestions for improving the product that I 'm hoping you can pass on to the manufacturer. A smaller door, no pre-cut top air hole and they should try to make the floor flatter.
T. Hinter, California

Uncle Gord says:
Thanks for the great letter. All of the above suggestions have been incorporated into the new design.

Send me more Blueberry
Across Canada police are cracking down on marijuana growers, busting big growing operations. While this may please the supporters of prohibition to hear, it is doing nothing, not even putting a dent in the quantity or the quality of marijuana. While the American government complains and threatens Canada about harmless marijuana, tons of cocaine is flowing through the United States into Canada.

I commend the brave Canadian growers for their part in supplying "me" with marijuana in the United States and the part they play in over growing their government. Marijuana would be legal in Canada if only the Canadian government was half as ingenious and successful as Canadian marijuana growers. Keep up all the good work and if I may make a suggestion, please send us down more Blueberry!
J. A. California

L.E.A.P. in Canada
Thanks for sending me the sample copies of your excellent journal. I have really enjoyed reading them, and have passed a few copies on to a relative who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis and may someday need to seek relief using cannabis. If she ever does, I want her to be able to make informed decisions and the articles and advertisers in the journal will help her do so.

Aside from the journal's content, which is extremely well written and presented, the physical quality of the journal itself - with its glossy paper, excellent typesetting and rich colour is yet more evidence to me that the war on cannabis is in fact already over. Were the responsible use of cannabis not already sufficiently supported within a large segment of mainstream society, the journal would be an underground newsletter printed on smudged 8 1/2" x 11" photocopy paper instead of the high quality visual and intellectual delight that it is. If only our lawmakers could understand this.
Enclosed is my cheque for a two-year subscription. Please keep up the good work!
Sincerely, John A. Gayder, Founding member - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, St.Catharines, Ontario. E-mail info@leap.cc

Off the Wire

Principal Resigns Over School Drug Raid
MONCKS CORNER, S.C. Source: Associated Press Pubdate: 01/5/2004 (AP)
A high school principal announced his resignation Monday after coming under fire over a November drug sweep in which police with guns drawn ordered students to the floor. "I realized it is in the best interest of Stratford High School and of my students for me to make a change," George McCrackin said in a statement. School officials asked Goose Creek police to come into the school Nov. 5 after receiving reports of marijuana sales on campus. Police said dogs sniffed drug residue on 12 book bags but found no drugs. No one was arrested. The raid led to allegations of excessive force and racism, because many of the students were black. District Superintendent J. Chester Floyd said McCrackin will be reassigned to
a still-undetermined position, but he said McCrackin will probably spend the coming weeks preparing for two lawsuits filed by students over the incident.

POLICE WARN OF "GROW-RIPPERS" Source: Province, The (CN BC)07/01/2004 Police issued a warning yesterday about a scary trend in the marijuana industry. "Grow-rippers" intent on stealing top-quality B.C. bud are targeting grow-ops, and mistakenly hitting the homes of innocent people who have moved into the site of a former grow-op. Grow-rippers have hit four homes in Richmond in the past month and two were the homes of innocent people.

BRITAIN RECLASSIFIES POT Source: The Western Gazette of 29 /01/2004
The new British Cannabis Law took effect on January 29. The drug has been downgraded to the same status as anabolic steroids and antidepressants. This means that cannabis possession will no longer lead to arrest in most casses. According to a new poll of 2,500 Britons 52 percent said they supported reclassification.

Kubby, Federal Exemptee, reports Police harassment
On Wed. February 4th Steve and Michele Kubby went for a hike on the Sunshine Coast of BC, as part of Steve's daily therapy to help burn off his excessive and toxic levels of adrenaline. When Steve went to find a discrete spot to medicate, he saw a hiker and two dogs approaching and took an alternate trail. The hiker then altered his course and came up to Steve asking if it was pot that he smelled and when Steve said it was, the hiker/undercover officer grabbed Steve's only joint and crushed it on the ground.

Michele was very disturbed that an officer would confront her husband and deprive him of medicine. The confrontation was an unwarranted and reckless threat to her husband's health.
Friday morning Corporal Meyer phoned and explained that if Steve could produce a letter from Health Canada saying that patients are specifically allowed to smoke in public he would immediately e-mail every officer on the Sunshine Coast and tell them to leave Steve and all other exemptees alone.

The Kubbys immediately tried to contact the Director Generals Office but everyone was out till Monday.

This is obviously a very important issue. The patient card needs to have language that officers can easily understand and follow. Furthermore, rather than Health Canada issuing letters to all the patients so that they can carry this letter with them and educate police that exempt means exempt, the police should stay informed as to what the law is! Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for the police to use either.

Michele Kubby added that as Libertarians, we hate the idea of having to carry any kind of identification or letters, but this is war time and we've got to stop the killing before we focus on curing.

Legal Eagle
The Supreme Court of Canada appeals - Malmo-Levine, Caine and Clay. Reflections one month later and the implications for medical marijuana users, growers and dealers now that recreational users, growers and dealers have been relegated to the criminal classes.

As I am sure all of you are now aware, on December 23rd, 2003, just a few days before Christmas, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered, what in my opinion, is not only the most disappointing judgement of the Court that I have read in a long time, but also its most political and the most inconsistent with some of its prior decisions. Betting my money on the courts proved to be an unmitigated disaster, not only financially, but also emotionally and intellectually. We were robbed of the victory to which we were entitled!

The court ruled that our Federal Canadian Parliament can prohibit the possession of Cannabis (marijuana) to control it as a psychoactive drug that causes "alteration of mental function", under its broad 'criminal law power', because the use of cannabis clearly raises issues of public health and safety, both for the user and those in the broader society affected by the user's conduct. It held that Parliament is entitled to act, on a reasoned apprehension of harm, even if on some points "the jury is still out" on the existence of any harm at all. They can even criminalize conduct that threatens no harm or even just harm to the particular users.

In the courts opinion, Parliament is entitled to choose a public policy to advance the protection of certain vulnerable groups, constituting a small percentage within the marijuana consuming population that cannot be determined in advance, namely, chronic users, pregnant women, schizophrenics, those with pre-existing illnesses and immature youths (who among other things might become chronic users). These are the harms that the legislature has in mind to suppress as ""the evil or injurious or undesirable effect" upon the public to which the criminal law, with appropriate penal sanctions, is directed.

Just because Parliament has chosen this policy with respect to Cannabis does not mean that it has to choose the same policy in order to protect vulnerable groups affected by the consumption of alcohol, tobacco or users of other psychoactive drugs that alter mental function. Indeed in their prior decision in RJR MacDonald (the tobacco advertising case) the Court held that Parliament could criminalize the consumption and sale of tobacco (remember the evidence supports that tobacco kills) but had chosen not to do so because it would be impractical. The message that some will draw from this will be, it's now a purely a political matter and the way to win is to make the law impractical to enforce. In other words a policy of continuing to "overgrow the government" would appear to be the likely appropriate activist's response, make it impractical! It seems to me that we are already quite close to that now if we haven't already passed that milepost.

While, very disappointingly, the court rejected the harm principle  as a "principle of fundamental justice" under s. 7 of the Charter and a limiting factor on Parliament's 'criminal law power', it seized upon "the avoidance of harm to those subject to the law" as being a state interest which would justify Parliamentary action. Once it is established that there is a reasoned apprehension of harm from the conduct in issue that is not "deminimis" or "not insignificant or trivial", the precise weighing of the nature and extent of the harm is for Parliament. As long as Parliament's response is not "grossly dis-proportionate" to the state interest it seeks to protect, it can do so within its constitutional powers. In other words, if the use of the criminal law is shown to be grossly disproportionate to its effects on accused persons, when considered in light of the objective of protecting them from the harm caused by marijuana use, the prohibition would be contrary to fundamental justice and s. 7 of the Charter.

The problem with this of course is that until this decision, the test under s. 7 was one of "disproportionately" and not the higher standard of "gross disproportionately" that is used under s. 12 of the Charter to establish that one has been subjected to "cruel and unusual treatment or punishment". Now the citizen, to establish a s. 7 violation has to establish that Parliament's response is not simply "disproportionate" but that it is "grossly disproportionate", before the onus of proof shifts to the government under s. 1, where, among other things, in an attempt to justify the law as a reasonable limit on constitutional rights, the government only has to show that its response was "proportionate". Presumably we are now back to the situation that if a s. 7 violation is made out then, absent a war or national emergency, the government could never meet the test under s.1.

Never mind that in all of the court's prior interpretations of s. 7 and its relationship to s.1, the test has been enunciated to be one of "proportionality". This time the Court decided that threshold would be too low, when the onus is on the citizen with few resources, and when the government is the party in possession of the evidence upon which it relies to assert potential harm and justify restricting our liberties. In effect, they 'changed the goal posts', on us by raising the standard to the degree of "gross disproportionality". Implicit in the decision of the majority is that they too found the law to be "disproportionate" like the minority, but decided that the test was now higher 6 to 3. Under the law that existed at the time the case was started in 1993, and at the time of argument in the Supreme Court of Canada in 2003, some ten years later, it should have been 9 to 0 for the free citizens. As I said above, we were robbed!

The court did say that, except in very exceptional circumstances, imprisonment for simple possession of marijuana would constitute a demonstrably unfit sentence and, if such a sentence was imposed, would rightly be set aside on appeal. It said that imprisonment is generally reserved for situations that also involve recidivists, trafficking or hard drugs. Just because the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (the CDSA) makes imprisonment available when it deals with a variety of prohibited drugs, doesn't make the criminalization of possession of a psychoactive drug like marijuana contrary to the principles of fundamental justice. The availability of imprisonment in such a statute is not unconstitutional and its rare imposition for marijuana offences should be dealt with under ordinary sentencing principles.

While the court goes on to say that it is not unconstitutional for the state to attempt to deter vulnerable people from self harm by criminalization of the harmful conduct backed up, where appropriate, by the "threat  of imprisonment", they nevertheless say that the vulnerable groups that are the target of the deterrent approach, are not (presumably in reality), in fact threatened with imprisonment nor would the imposition of a prison term, in the circumstances, be upheld as a fit sentence or a constitutional sentence for such persons.

Let's see if we can make sense out of that! It's okay to threaten simple possessors and those in the vulnerable groups with imprisonment but don't worry, because judges don't have to sentence such persons to imprisonment and because of a well developed sentencing system, judges, in their discretion, won't impose unfit sentences and if they do, it is simply a matter of appealing to a higher court. No question about the cost of doing this is mentioned of course nor their prior decisions in which they have made it very difficult to win sentence appeals because of the general principle of deference to the trial judges imposing sentences and a need to show an error in principle or that a sentence is outside the range. Something that is very difficult to do given the broad sentencing ranges that have been set both by Parliament and the courts.

Further, it looks like this might encourage a person to become a member of one of those vulnerable groups as soon as possible so as to avoid imprisonment because it looks like it's all the others who might go to prison for a second offence. I guess the "chronic user" category is the best bet for those who are older, aren't or can't become pregnant, and not yet insane. Once again this would appear to result in exactly the opposite occurring to the message the Court says Parliament is trying to achieve by the so called deterrent aspect of the law itself.

On the sentencing issue, let's take for example the recent decision of the BC Court of Appeal in the case of Paul Hornby (it's on my webpage in the library under medical marijuana) who was growing, at no more than cost, special strains at the request of the BC Compassion Club Society that its members said were specifically working for them. He was also testing the marijuana for molds and metals to ensure that it was safe for their consumption. He received an 18 month conditional sentence order with house arrest etc. at trial, primarily because he displayed some hope for future financial reward from his work if he found the magic bullet that would enable the production of the medicine without the intoxicating aspect.

The BC Court of Appeal upheld the sentence as fit. This was notwithstanding the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig, which affirmed the need for medical users to access the black market as a result of the government's inadequate program. While Dr. Hornby was helping fill the exact void left by the government and identified by the Ontario Court of Appeal, he received a sentence as if he was a commercial grower. The past decision of the Court of Appeal in BC in similar circumstances was that of Bill Small, who received an absolute discharge for his first offence from Mr. Justice Wong, in BC Supreme Court and then a conditional discharge from the Court of Appeal for his second offence of growing for the BC Club. Suddenly the range of sentence for growing and dealing for and with a compassion club has gone from an absolute discharge to an 18 month conditional sentence of imprisonment. So much for the principle of similar sentences for similar conduct and what does it tell us about the subjective nature of this concept of "proportionality". If anybody out there has $50,000 USD to fund an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, or at least an application for leave to appeal so we can throw these lines back at them, please let me know as soon as possible.

The other problem is that this resort to discretion to avoid a constitutional violation based on a reasonable hypothetical that - because imprisonment is available for simple possession, a court could impose a sentence of imprisonment on a simple possessor, including one belonging to one of the vulnerable groups, is inconsistent with the Courts prior analysis in such a situation in R.v.Smith, where it held that the exercise of a discretion could not avoid the provisions of s. 52 of the Charter which says that if the law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution it is, to the extent of its inconsistency, of no force and effect.

In Smith, the accused was charged with importing cocaine and subject to the mandatory minimum seven-year sentence of imprisonment. The mandatory minimum was challenged as being unconstitutional as contrary s.12 of the Charter in that it could result in the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. In analyzing the situation the court said it was appropriate to look at reasonable hypothetical circumstances such as the possibility that a person could be given a sentence of seven years imprisonment for bringing one joint of marijuana across the border. The government argued that Crown prosecutorial discretion would ensure that would not happen and that the person would only be charged with simple possession and not importing. The Court said that resort to such discretion could not avoid the hypothetical constitutional violation and struck down the mandatory minimum. Smith got more than seven years in the circumstances because the court felt that his conduct warranted a greater sentence though the mandatory minimum was struck. For some unexplained reason it is now acceptable to resort to judicial discretion to avoid the potential constitutional violation here when it was not acceptable to resort to prosecutorial discretion to avoid such a potential violation in Smith.

So the situation for medical growers and dealers in this province is between the decisions in Small and Hornby, anywhere from an absolute discharge to a conditional sentence order of imprisonment. Medical possessors, who do not have a government exemption, are not likely to go to prison except in exceptional circumstances, if they have a past record and are trafficking as well or dealing in hard drugs. In my opinion medical users are likely to be categorized in the same or better fashion than those in the "vulnerable groups" category. Medical users have the best chance of establishing that criminalizing their conduct is "grossly disproportionate" under the new s.7 test and that to prosecute them is unconstitutional. While one apparently brings the weight of the criminal law power, and all of its consequences down upon oneself if use is recreational, the element of choice is removed if use is medical. As the Supreme Court said at paragraph 88 of Malmo-Levine, and Caine:

'However, if the marijuana was required for medical purposes, a very different issue would arise.'

This paragraph also hints that if the drug in question is addictive then different considerations might apply. Consequently a test case challenging the entire CDSA should be taken using heroin and crack cocaine statistics to establish the ineffectiveness of prohibition generally and how this policy approach has resulted in approximately 5,500 deaths in BC alone in the last 8 years and is continuing on an almost daily basis. I wonder if that would be sufficiently "grossly disproportionate" for them? Again, anybody out there with at least a half million USD to fund a test case from scratch all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada over the next five years, I'd like to hear from you as soon as possible. Please don't ask me to do it again pro - bono or even partly so. I'm all tapped out literally and figuratively and I have to be paid properly if I'm to go back there and possibly hear them say the test has been elevated to "very gross disproportionality"!

Hopefully, the Hitzig appeal will be won and we will be back to the old pre - Parker regulation 53 but with the Parker established constitutional right of access so as to avoid your having to choose between your liberty and your health. Hopefully medical access will be from a regular market and not some government monopoly.

Gonthier J. has now gone from the court and Major J. is next to retire. That will knock the six down to four. Morris Fish J. replaced Gonthier J. and from all accounts is most likely to side with the rest of the minority from Quebec making it a 4-4 split with Major 's replacement holding the swing vote. Binnie, Bastarache, Iacobucci and McLachlin C.J. are for the government. Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and likely Fish are with the people.

I am exploring the possibility of a motion for re-hearing under s.76 of the Supreme Court Act with my Ottawa agents. It is obviously a long shot. However I am told that such re-hearings are granted sometimes when:

1. An entirely new issue or argument has arisen in the course of the internal discussions among members of the Court after argument and the Court feels that it is only fair and appropriate to hear from counsel before issuing the final judgment;

2. The case is decided but on a point which was never argued by the parties and the parties apply for a re-hearing.

It seems to me that we fit into both of these categories and that there is also some internal inconsistency in the courts reasoning. The transcript of the hearing in December 2002 (on my webpage in the Caine archive) when they adjourned us to the spring seems to make it clear that certainly Major J. in his interchange with me and, more importantly, Binnie J. in his several exchanges with the Crown, David Frankel, thought the test was one of "proportionality" consistent with the courts prior decisions. That they were considering a new test was not made known to us and, in fairness, it should have been.

However, such applications are rarely successful and only granted in unusual cases. The question is whether or not there is evidence we could have adduced in light of the new standard so that we can persuade the Court that perhaps a different order disposing of the case should have been made. Can we establish that there was unfairness to the Appellants in that they could have put forward additional evidence which might have affected the result? If the consequences of the criminal law from arrest to conviction and record are discounted by the Court is being self-induced, the question is what other evidence could we have brought forward to meet the higher test of "gross disproportionality" now? Are we precluded from establishing "gross disproportionality" now because Cannabis is non-toxic and nobody dies? Would police corruption, as alleged in Toronto, or taking the law into their own hands, as admitted in Vancouver, bring us up to and over the line? I think I'd settle for a direction to have a new hearing in one or two years, giving us that time to collect a sufficient number of horror stories across the country in an effort to tip the balance in our favour. By then we will know who has replaced Justice Major and we will be in a better position to assess whether the time and money spent would be worth the effort. Any thoughts or funds to carry on would be appreciated.

Finally, what implications arise from these decisions for the new Cannabis Bill (C-38)?
In my opinion there are three, as follows:

If the government truly "decriminalizes" by legislating regulations under a different head of power such as the POGG clause, their jurisdiction is tenuous as they will have to establish that the subject matter "goes beyond local or provincial concern and must, from its inherent nature, be the concern of the Dominion as a whole" (see paragraphs 69 - 70). This is probably why the government has stopped using the 'decrim' term and now calls it alternative measures.

The new Bill should not contain threats to liberty by way of imprisonment for a first offence of simple possession. This seems to be a political given.

The government should be careful if it decides to include mandatory minimum sentences for any offences as they may be found to be "grossly disproportionate" under s.7 or 12 of the Charter.
I am told that a great big cheer went up from BC's growers and dealers when we lost. No doubt similar but perhaps more discreet cheers also went up from the Defense Bar, and all the ad hoc drug prosecutors. The police? Well that's a given isn't it.
Remember what Doris Lessing said in her book 'African Laughter'- "There is no one more furiously cynical than an idealist betrayed".
John W. Conroy QC, Counsel to the Appellant Caine.
John Conroy, Q.C., CONROY& COMPANY
Barrister and Solicitor 2459 Pauline Street, Abbotsford, BC V2S 3S1 Telephone: (604) 852-511 Fax: (604) 859-3361, Website: www.johnconroy.com

Learn from history: Prohibition causes Corruption
Recent developments across Canada remind me of an old adage about history, if we do not learn from it, we are doomed to repeat it.

The developments also highlight one of the many evils caused by our current drug policies, official corruption reaching to the highest levels. Because of prohibition, the drug business is extremely profitable. Marijuana (a plant that grows like a weed, pardon the pun) is a multi-billion dollar industry in British Columbia alone, with further billions in profit generated in every other province in Canada. And that is just marijuana; the cocaine, heroin and other drug markets reap major profits each and every day across this nation.

With that kind of money at stake, it should come as no surprise to learn of corruption of police and government officials. From the allegations of massive corruption in the Toronto drug enforcement squad to the suspected links between organized crime and British Columbia bureaucrats (and prominent Paul Martin supporters), we see indications that prohibition-related drug profits are corrupting those in whom we repose our highest trust.

And, let us be candid, these allegations may be just the tip of the iceberg. It is not unreasonable to assume that instances of police and official corruption often go undetected. Or, if detected, unreported because the very persons charged with investigating illegal activity are those that may be participating in it.

But this should not be a surprise, advocates for drug policy reform have pointed out for years that official corruption is an unavoidable by-product of prohibition. And, make no mistake, prohibition is the culprit. Without prohibition, the massively inflated profits from the drug markets disappear. Moreover, in a legal, regulated environment, corruption is drastically reduced or eliminated. Starbucks is not bribing police to stay away from its operations, nor are the provincial liquor stores.

And the corruption is not going to go away. Nor will harsher penalties solve the problem. If anything, increased enforcement will make things worse. With increased risks to the participants come increased incentives to corrupt. Bottom line: prohibition causes corruption.

How do we know this? History teaches us. Alcohol prohibition created all the same harms that drug prohibition currently causes. For example, Mackenzie King and other members of government were touched by, or directly implicated in, the Customs Scandal of 1926, a situation involving alcohol smuggling to and from the "dry" United States and official corruption by customs officials at the highest levels. Why? Because alcohol was tremendously profitable to smuggle into the prohibitionist United States.

The parallels between the 1926 case and the recent allegations in BC are informative. Then, high-placed officials with ties to the Prime Minister were implicated in wrongdoing. Now, high-placed officials with ties to the Prime Minister may be implicated in wrongdoing.

Then, alcohol would be smuggled into the US and, in exchange, drugs and cigarettes would be smuggled back into Canada. Now, marijuana goes to the US and guns and cocaine come back. Then, police made enormous efforts to curtail the smuggling, to no avail. Police efforts are similarly ineffective today.

How did we put an end to this corruption? Not with increased enforcement and harsher penalties. The corruption ended when prohibition ended. Faced with increasing corruption, the rise of organized crime and the widespread violation of anti-alcohol laws, the US finally ended prohibition in 1933. It was the most rational solution to the problem of official corruption and the other social ills created by prohibition.

Unfortunately, those ills have been reborn under drug prohibition. History teaches us that prohibition causes corruption. The question now is whether we will learn from it.
Kirk is the Policy Director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. He has held this position since April, 2003. Previously, Kirk was an LL.M. student at the UBC Faculty of Law, where he researched cannabis prohibition.  He is an articling student with the Law Society of B.C. and is admitted to practice in the state of Michigan and the United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeal. Prior to coming to B.C., Kirk practiced commercial and criminal litigation at Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, P.C., one of the largest firms in Detroit, Michigan. Kirk holds a Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from Wayne State University School of Law and is a member of the Order of the Coif. In addition, Kirk obtained his Bachelor of Arts from James Madison College, part of Michigan State University, where he majored in political philosophy

Fill the Hill
Hello, my name is Jody Pressman. I am writing today to ask you to be a part of a concerted, organized, and united effort by the marijuana community to stage a historic political demonstration on Parliament Hill on Saturday June 5, 2004. It is important to capitalize on the growing media interest and public awareness of the need for an honest debate on the issues important to our community. I have admired the actions of other activists in the community for a long time but only recently decided to become more active in doing my share to help change the marijuana laws. I have done this because I realized that if I wasn't prepared to make an effort why should I expect anyone else to?

I am a student at Carleton University in Ottawa studying Law and Political Science, and have had an avid interest in politics for as long as I can remember. I can remember seeing a CBC documentary featuring Alan Young who reminisced that his interest in the law was sparked by his rambunctious youth and his curiosity as to why seemingly benign behaviour would be so harshly targeted by the full force of the legal system. Alan's constant questioning of the status quo and desire to better understand how the political and legal system work, played an important role in sparking my own interest in politics and the law.

Prior to prorogation of parliament in the fall, I attended all of the public hearings on Bill C-38 (the so-called 'decriminalization bill'). I saw first hand what most had feared all along, most elected MP's aren 't really listening to the marijuana community. They don't feel public opinion is on our side, and they don't feel pressured to act for change. In the wake of the callous disregard that the federal government has shown medical users, and the disappointing Supreme Court decision, 2003 was a disappointing year. Both medical and recreational users looked forward to the Supreme Court decision as a day of liberation; unfortunately it turned out to be a black day with crushed dreams, hopes, and expectations.

With five solid months of pre-planning and organization, we will orchestrate a very powerful expression of our strength and organization as a marijuana community, and we need your help and support to do it! This event will be an esteem boost, providing empowerment and a newfound sense of dignity for all marijuana users across Canada. Far too long have politicians, police, and other prohibitionists dominated the debate on what Canada should do with marijuana. With the Supreme Court ruling making it clear that drug reform must come from parliament, it is imperative that we bring our voice to Ottawa and put a new face on the marijuana debate.
The Fill the Hill: Freedom March on Parliament Hill event is an important opportunity for national expression by all Canadians who are tired of continued contempt for cannabis users demonstrated by our federal government. Please help the movement for change and be there in Ottawa, Saturday June 5th, 2004.

For more information,
visit www.fillthehill.ca

NDP Candidates
Alex T Atamanenko
I have decided to run in the next federal election because I feel that the NDP presents the only viable alternative to a Paul Martin led Liberal government.

We as Canadians seem to be under more and more pressure to conform to the American corporate agenda. A direct example of this is our province where social services, health care and education find themselves under assault as a result of the provincial Liberals' ideology. In addition, our foreign policy is under pressure to conform to American led initiatives such as the war in Iraq and the proposed Ballistic Missile Defense Program (BMD).

It is time to stand up for those Canadian values that we believe in, such as a publicly funded healthcare system, working through the United Nations to promote peace, and fighting poverty by closing the gap between the rich and the poor.

A New Democratic government will work with Canadians to promote social justice and will ensure that we have a good economic relationship with the U.S. based on mutual respect and understanding. We realize that 87% of our trade is with the U.S., but this does not mean that we have to become subservient to American protectionist trade measures whether it be in softwood lumber or beef.

The NDP remains faithful to the 1999 convention resolution calling for the decriminalization of cannabis. We want Canada to take steps that reflect a more intelligent and compassionate direction for marijuana use. This, together with our support of same sex marriage, is one area that differentiates us from right-wing Ameri