|
Activists try to free the weed '90s-style by challenging Canada's narcotics laws in court by TRACEY PEEVER
But such commonplace stimulants and depressants aren't the only chemicals finding their way outdoors. With the onset of summer, the distinct scent of nature's answer to stress--marijuana--wafts across much Montreal airspace. For dope smokers, summertime cloud-watching can become an all-day activity. Truth be told, the criminal code doesn't do much to deter people from the wacky tabacky come summer. And depending on what happens in an Ontario courtroom over the coming weeks, the criminal code may soon have nothing to do with it. The trial against Christopher Clay of London, Ontario could become an important step toward legalizing cannabis use for industrial, medicinal and recreational purposes. Clay's case received a helping hand from two Montreal academics: criminologist Marie-Andrée Bertrand of Université de Montréal and psychiatrist Heinz Lehmann of McGill University both testified on behalf of the defence at Clay's trial. In their testimony the two academics, both part of the 1969 LeDain Commission on the decriminalization of cannabis, presented the commission's conclusion that cannabis is a non-addictive substance that "neither leads to harder drugs, nor produces aggressive, criminogenic behaviour." Both Lehmann and Bertrand believe the defence has reason to be optimistic. Bertrand commented that the prosecution was "incredibly weak and poorly prepared," which has led many to believe that victory for Clay is inevitable. And according to Lehmann, judge John McCart seemed "particularly interested in this case." The case against Clay, which began on April 28, has evolved into a constitutional challenge to Canada's current drug laws. Clay was busted on December 6, 1996 at his store in London, The Great Canadian Hemporium, for selling hemp seeds classified as "narcotics." Under section 462.2 of the criminal code, Clay faces a possible $300,000 fine and/or one year in jail. Court proceedings for the case wrapped up last week; a decision is expected by the end of the summer. Although Clay's case has generated a great deal of excitement among hemp and marijuana activists, the movement to legalize marijuana has a longer history than most people might realize. As part of the five-member LeDain Commission appointed by Pierre Trudeau in 1969, both Lehmann and Bertrand helped carry out a four-year study on cannabis use. Their report concluded that cannabis possession shouldn't be classified as a criminal offence, but the federal government ignored the Commission's findings. Lehmann says Parliament's unwillingness to act on the cannabis issue illustrates the importance of fighting Canada's drug laws in the courts, rather than in the House of Commons. "Politicians are afraid to bring it up in Parliament," he says. Bertrand adds that the Supreme Court has already given two signs that the narcotics law is in need of serious revision. "Firstly, in 1985 the RCMP were required to have a warrant for search and seizure," she notes. "Secondly, it was deliberated that proof of a defendant's intent to traffic narcotics was required above and beyond having a certain quantity in one's possession. But Parliament never moved on this second issue." Bertrand sees these recommendations as potential stepping stones to total decriminalization. Montreal cannabis users already benefit from relatively slack enforcement of drug laws. "The laws in the country are unevenly applied," says Larry Duprey, owner of Chanvre en Ville on Parc. "Stores in bigger cities don't face the same persecution that shops in smaller towns do." Stores in big cities blatantly carry drug literature and paraphernalia without risking arrest--despite the outright breach of the criminal code--while stores in small towns, like Clay's, are carefully watched by the authorities. Despite less stringent enforcement, Bertrand says that "millions of dollars are spent each year on prosecuting these people on simple possession charges." According to a report prepared by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, the costs of prosecuting cannabis users run upwards of $400 million dollars. Amazingly, 63 per cent of drug-related offenses in 1993 were for cannabis alone. "Sixty million people in North America smoke marijuana," says Duprey. "Any further prosecution of these people is a waste of money." So what will it take to decriminalize cannabis in Canada? Bertrand says it will require a Supreme Court concession that marijuana is not the dangerous or harmful substance Canada's drug laws currently maintain. "Once a person is not penally reprimanded in the Supreme Court for marijuana possession, a precedent will be set for other judges to follow, regardless of whether this decision is legislated in Parliament," Bertrand says. Both Bertrand and Lehmann also underline the fact that no study has proven a conclusive link between cannabis use and health concerns--which doesn't surprise Chanvre en Ville's Duprey at all. "The government doesn't care about our health and welfare," says Duprey. "If they did they would ban alcohol and tobacco, which have led to countless deaths and illnesses." Tokin' representation Opening the cannabis closet We're all familiar with the "celluloid closet" and the host of thinly veiled queer icons that populate our daily entertainment. There's another closet next to it, though: the chronic marijuana user needs role models too, and the worlds of film, TV and literature provide a wealth of them. Nor is the cannabis closet a recent phenomenon. The golden age of animation presented Snow White's little pal Dopey and Tex Avery's "easygoing" Droopy Dog. Even the far-flung future has its share of secret stoners. What do you think inspired Spock's psychedelic jam session in the renowned Star Trek space-hippie episode? A particular trio of buzzards, though, stand out from the rest. Gilligan: What with the island's hemp-friendly climate and a Professor with the skill to Macgyver a bong out of bamboo, it's no surprise that "little buddy" was such a paragon of doofish distraction. Skipper's apparent ignorance was, of course, designed to make Gilligan's covert habit palatable for prime time.
Jughead: Even the straight-laced '50s decade had its reefer crisis. Apathetic, pin-eyed and plagued by the munchies, Jughead's lackadaisical ways set off "jay-dars" around the world. Besides, only a terminal blunthound would wear such a stupid hat. The pothead parade continues today. Blatant bongsuckers like The Simpsons's Otto stand inches away from proclaiming, proud and out loud, "Man, I'm so stoned." But the self-image issue arises. Are these shiftless ne'er-do-wells the mirror in which we want sensitive young tokers to see themselves? Well, I had a point to make about that, but I forget what it was. Screw it... I got a bag of Pirate cookies to finish. --Rupert Bottenberg |
Ah, the warm weather--so cherished by Montrealers. Terraces have already begun to buzz with caffeine and alcohol consumption.
Shaggy: Skinny, disheveled, irresponsible and neurotic, this dogfood-gobbling dork was resurrected by ravers and grunge types alike as an immortal example of the weed-warped weirdo. Tell me this fool wasn't hotboxing the Mystery Machine at every available opportunity.