Source: http://www.cfdp.ca/clayjudg.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 15:05:14+00:00

Document:
Heard at London: April 28, 29, and 30, and May 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20 and 22, 1997.
McCART J.: (Delivered orally August 14, 1997) The accused were jointly charged that on or about the 17th day of May, 1995 at the City of London did unlawfully traffic in a narcotic, namely cannabis sativa, contrary to s.4(1) of the Narcotic Control Act and further, that on or about the 17th day of May, 1995 at the City of London did unlawfully possess a narcotic, namely cannabis sativa, for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s.4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. In addition, Clay alone was charged that on the same date he did unlawfully traffic in a narcotic, namely cannabis sativa; that he did unlawfully possess a narcotic, namely cannabis sativa for the purpose of trafficking; and did unlawfully cultivate marijuana contrary to s.6(1) of the Narcotic Control Act.
Further, on or about May 18, 1995 the accused Clay along with Zachary Bassett and Patricia Prescott were charged with (simple) possession of a narcotic: to wit, cannabis sativa.
I made a ruling that these three did not have status or standing to challenge the provisions relating to that offence as it was not before me but in Provincial Court where they had elected to be tried by a Provincial Court Judge. Prior to May 14, 1997 counsel for Clay had expressed a clear intention to re-elect to be tried before me in the Superior Court. However, this reelection did not occur until subsequent to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act coming into force and which provided that the charge of simple possession was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Provincial Court where the amount involved was not more than 30 grams of marijuana. Clay had been charged with possession of 6.1 grams. On the authorities cited to me by Mr. Young, but with some reluctance, I am prepared to accept Mr. Clay's re-election and the matter can be dealt with when I give judgment on the constitutional issues.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
In other words, has there been a deprivation of one or more of these rights, and if so, was the deprivation contrary to the principles of fundamental justice? I think it is clear that the onus is on the applicants; Cunningham v. Canada (1993), 80 C.C.C. (3d) 492 at 496. (S.C.C.).
7. Whether the inclusion of cannabis sativa in the Schedule of the Narcotic Control Act as a narcotic is an arbitrary classification which violates principles of fundamental justice. Under the new Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, marijuana is no longer classified with the so-called hard drugs and some of the penalties have been eased; this can no longer be an issue.
8. Whether inclusion of cannabis sativa in the Schedule of the Narcotic Control Act violates the principles of fundamental justice on the basis of overbreadth in that no meaningful exemptions are provided which allow for cannabis sativa to be used for legitimate medical purposes, and in that no meaningful and operative distinction is drawn in the legislation between conduct relating to or facilitating personal consumption of cannabis sativa and conduct which forms part and parcel of the commercial trade in this psychoactive substance.
4. An order suspending the operation of the prohibitions contained in the Narcotic Control Act as they relate to cannabis sativa until such time as Parliament has a sound scientific basis for criminalizing conduct relating to the consumption and personal possession of cannabis sativa, or, at least until such time as Parliament conducts sound scientific studies as directed and recommended by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
5. An order granting a stay or proceedings with respect to any offence which this Honourable Court declares is violative of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and/or The British North America Act.
The applicants further submitted that the sought after declaration of constitutional invalidity should issue for the following reasons.
e) The criminalization of conduct relating to the personal and private consumption of cannabis sativa, and the criminalization of small- scale trafficking and small-scale cultivation which is in no way related to the black market drug trade, is ultra vires Parliament of Canada in that it is not a valid exercise of the criminal law power contained in s.91(27) of the British North America Act, nor does it fall within the residual power of "Peace, Order and Good Government".
Where, as here, the Legislature has deliberately chosen a specific scientific or technical term to represent an equally specific and particular class of things, it would do violence of Parliament's intent to give a new meaning to that term whenever the taxonomic consensus among members of the relevant scientific fraternity shifted. It is clear that Parliament intended in 1961, by the phrase cannabis sativa L to prohibit all cannabis. The fact that some possibly a majority of botanists would now give that phrase a less expansive reading in the light of studies not undertaken until the early 1970's, does not alter that intention.
During the course of the trial, on May 14, 1997 the Narcotic Control Act was repealed and was replaced by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It is interesting to note that sativa L no longer appears in the Schedule to that Act. Accordingly, I find no merit in the argument of the accused and find that the Crown has proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
At this point it might be useful to outline the historical background what led up to the inclusion of cannabis sativa as a prohibitive substance. In the course of these reasons I use the terms cannabis, cannabis sativa and marijuana interchangeably.
The first narcotic prohibition legislation was the 1911 Opium and Drug Act and which contained no reference to marijuana. It was not until 1923 that marijuana was added to the schedule of prohibited drugs. Curiously, there was no discussion or debate in the House of Commons about its inclusion other than the bald statement, "There is a new drug in the Schedule". There was no correspondence in the Narcotic Control Division files about the addition of the new drug. One might ask why it was included because until 1937 there were no convictions for possession of marijuana and for the ensuing 20 years the annual conviction rate fluctuated between 0 and 12. There were no significant numbers of recorded offences until the late 1960's. From that time on, there has been an escalation in prosecutions for not only possession of marijuana but for trafficking.
Persons using this narcotic [marihuana], smoke the dried leaves of the plant, which has the effect of driving them completely insane. The addict loses all sense of moral responsibility. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence, are immune to pain, and could be injured without having any realization of their condition. While in this condition they become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence to other persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of moral responsibility .... If this drug is indulged in to any great extent, it ends in the untimely death of its addict.
There was absolutely no truth to any of those wild and outlandish claims. It was in this climate of irrational fear that the criminal sanctions against marijuana were enacted.
Next, it may also be useful to outline the direction in which other jurisdictions are going. In particular, I will refer to the situations that presently prevail in the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Italy, some of the United States, and Australia. Of all of the major western countries outside of North America, only France and New Zealand have taken no measures to ease the impact of cannabis laws. The national governments of Canada and the United States appear to be somewhat out of step with most of the rest of the western world.
In 1976 the Opium Act in the Netherlands was amended to draw a clear distinction between so-called hard drugs on the one hand and cannabis products on the other. Since that time there has been a policy of non-enforcement of the law as it relates to marijuana use and possession, although possession continues to be a criminal offence. In fact, marijuana and hashish can be openly purchased in hundreds of licensed cafes throughout the country. Studies have shown that since 1976 the consumption of marijuana and hashish has not significantly increased.
The consumption of marijuana in The Netherlands is substantially lower than that in the United States. Current use by high school students in The Netherlands is much lower than use in the United States (5.4% vs. 29% respectively).
In Germany, public prosecutors have been given discretion to dismiss minor cases of drug possession unconditionally or on condition that a fine be paid or that community service be completed. Prosecutors have used this discretionary power to dismiss minor drug cases in which the offender purchased or was in possession of drugs for personal use. Each of the German states has developed its own guidelines as to when it would be permissible to dismiss a drug case.
In Spain, a 1995 amendment to the Penal Code stipulates that a criminal offence for drug possession is only established upon proof of a subjective intent to traffic or facilitate drug use by others. Possession of any illicit drug for personal use is no longer subject to any criminal or administrative sanction.
In Italy, there has been a movement towards replacing the criminal sanctions for drug use and possession with an administrative sanction. Essentially, the Italian drug laws put the drug user beyond the reach of the criminal law by creating drug law exemptions for possession, purchase and import of drugs for personal use while still keeping the drug user under administrative controls.
In Alaska it is not against the law to possess marijuana in the privacy of one's residence, but it is still illegal to possession marijuana anywhere else in the State. However, Alaska appears to be moving towards overturning decriminalization. In Alaska, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska and Oregon, possession of small amounts of marijuana is treated as a "civil violation" rather than a crime, much like minor traffic offences. In California, New York and North Carolina, possession of small amounts is deemed a misdemeanour; in Ohio it is a "minor misdemeanour" and in Colorado it is a "petty offence".
I wish to refer to two American decisions. Ravin v. State of Alaska, 537 Pacific Reporter, 2d series 494, to which I was referred by the applicants, does not assist them. The Alaska court held that possession of marijuana by adults at home for personal use is constitutionally protected. The court based its ruling on a new provision of the state constitution that explicitly guarantees a right of privacy. Without that constitutional provision, no such right would exist.
The respondent referred me to the decision of NORML v. Griffin Bell et aI., 488 F. Supp. 123 (1980), a decision of the United States District Court of the District of Columbia. This case stands essentially for the proposition that the prohibition of the private possession and use of marijuana does not violate the constitutional right of privacy in one's home, since smoking marijuana does not qualify as a fundamental right. Reference may also be had to NORML v. Gain et al, 161 Cal. Rpt. 181 (1979).
Thus, it can be seen that nowhere in the United States has the simple possession of marijuana been legalized, although, as noted above, in many of the states the consequences of simple possession have been eased to a greater or lesser extent.
In 1987, in South Australia, and in 1992, in the Australian Capitol Territory, "expiation" schemes were introduced which effectively de facto de-criminalized the use and possession of cannabis. Under these schemes, the police have the option of issuing an expiation notice to anyone caught with a specified amount of cannabis instead of charging the individual with a criminal offence. The expiation notice allows the offender to pay a small fine and avoid being saddled with a criminal record. Small-scale cannabis possession, cultivation or use remain criminal offences: but they are no longer penalized as though they were. In South Australia, the designated amount allowing for the issuance of an expiation notice in lieu of a criminal charge is 100 grams of cannabis or 20 grams of cannabis resin. In addition, an expiation notice can be used for someone cultivating up to 10 cannabis plants. In the Australian Capital Territory, an expiation notice can be issued for 25 grams of cannabis or up to 5 plants being cultivated.
In most of the so-called "decriminalization" areas, the possession of marijuana remains against the law, although the penalties have been eased. However, in no western country has cultivation, trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking been decriminalized, nor have the penalties been reduced.
12. Consumption in so-called "de-criminalized states" does not increase out of proportion to states where there is no de-criminalization.
13. Health related costs of cannabis use are negligible when compared to the costs attributable to tobacco and alcohol consumption.
Having said all of this, there was also general consensus among the experts who testified that the consumption of marijuana is not completely harmless. While marijuana may not cause schizophrenia, it may trigger it. Bronchial pulmonary damage is at risk of occurring with heavy use. However, to be fair, there is also general agreement among the experts who testified that moderate use of marijuana causes no physical or psychological harm. Field studies in Greece, Costa Rico and Jamaica generally supported the idea that marijuana was a relatively safe drug - not totally free from potential harm, but unlikely to create serious harm for most individual users or society.
The LeDain Commission found at least four major grounds for social concern: the probably harmful effect of cannabis on the maturing process in adolescence; the implications for safe driving arising from impairment of cognitive functions and psycho motor abilities, from the additive interaction of cannabis and alcohol and from the difficulties of recognizing or detecting cannabis intoxication; the possibility, suggested by reports in other countries and clinical observations on this continent, that the long term, heavy use of cannabis may result in a significant amount of mental deterioration and disorder; and the role played by cannabis in the development and spread of multi-drug use by stimulating a desire for drug experience and lowering inhibitions about drug experimentation. This report went on to state that it did not yet know enough about cannabis to speak with assurance as to what constitutes moderate as opposed to excessive use.
The Report of the National Task Force on Cannabis, Canberra, Australia, was delivered on September 30, 1994. This Task Force concluded in general, that the findings on the health and psychological effects of cannabis suggest that cannabis use is not as dangerous as its opponents might believe, but that its use is not completely without risk, as some of is proponents would argue. As it is most commonly used, occasionally, cannabis presents only minor or subtle risks to the health of the individual. The potential for problems increases with regular heavy use. While the research findings on some potential risks remain equivocal, there is clearly sufficient evidence to conclude that cannabis use should be discouraged, particularly among youth.
Sometime prior to the Canberra Report, the Royal Commission into the non-medical use of drugs in South Australia was released. This Commission concluded that marijuana is not an addictive drug and "is comparatively harmless in moderate doses, although there are effects on skills such as those required for driving, and its effects may be greater if it is taken in combination with other drugs. It is almost certainly harmful to some extent in high doses. The summary of the scientific and medical evidence does not entirely resolve the policy questions, since further value judgments have to be made."
Finally, I would refer to a commentary by Dr. Harold Kalant on three reports which appeared in 1982 respecting the potential health damaging consequences of chronic cannabis use. The one report is that of an expert group appointed by the Advisory Council on the misuse of drugs in the United Kingdom. The second is that resulting from a scientific meeting sponsored jointly by the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario and the World Health Organization. The third is that of a committee set up by the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, of the United States of America. There was general agreement by the three groups after a review of essentially the same body of evidence. In brief, the verdict in each case has been that the available evidence is not nearly complete enough to permit an identification of the full range and frequency of occurrence of adverse effects from cannabis use, but that the practice can certainly not be considered harmless and innocent.
I can only conclude from a review of these reports and the other viva voce evidence which I heard that the jury is still out respecting the actual and potential harm from the consumption of marijuana. It is clear that further research should be carried out. While it is generally agreed that marijuana used in moderation is not a stepping stone to hard drugs, in that it does not usually lead to consumption of the so-called hard drugs, nevertheless approximately 1 in 7 or 8 marijuana users do graduate to cocaine and/or heroin.
There have been a number of studies commissioned with respect to potential harms and benefits of marijuana consumption. I have attached as an addendum to these reasons a digest of the reports prepared for the benefit of the court by the accused Christopher Clay which I accept as accurate, as far as they go.
A number of studies have shown that marijuana is effective in reducing nausea and vomiting. Lowering intra-ocular pressure associated with glaucoma, and decreasing muscle spasm and spasticity. People undergoing cancer chemotherapy have found smoked marijuana to be an effective anti-nauseant - often more effective than available pharmaceutical medications. Marijuana is also smoked by thousands of Aids patients to treat the nausea and vomiting associated with both the disease and AZT drug therapy. Because it stimulates appetite, marijuana also counters HIV-related wasting allowing Aids patients to gain weight and prolong their lives.
In 1986, a synthetic THC capsule (Marinol) was marketed in the United States and labelled for use as a anti-emetic. Despite some utility, this product has serious drawbacks, including its cost. For example, a patient taking three 5 milligram capsules a day would spend over $5,000 to use Marinol for one year. In comparison to the natural, smokable product, Marinol also has some pharmacological shortcomings. Because THC delivered in oral capsules enters the bloodstream slowly, it yields lower serum concentrations per dose. It more frequently yields unpleasant psycho-active effects. In patients suffering from nausea, the swallowing of capsules may itself promote vomiting. In short, the smoking of crude marijuana is more efficient in delivering THC and, in some cases, it may be more effective.
As an aside, Parliament may wish to take a serious look at easing the restrictions that apply to the use of marijuana for the medical uses as outlined above as well as for alleviating some of the symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis, such as pain and muscle spasm. There appears to be no merit to the widespread claim that marijuana has no therapeutic value whatsoever. In any event, as I understand it, Marinol is not available in Canada.
With legalization, there is a strong possibility that the number of regular users will increase and that the effects of cannabis intoxication will be observed in a greater number of people. It is also expected that a certain number of cannabis users would go onto other hallucinogens and would make greater use of barbiturates, tranquilizers and alcohol, as well.
I must dissent from the recommendation of the majority of my colleagues and recommend that the prohibition on the possession of cannabis be maintained, for the time being at least. Possession of cannabis should be punishable, upon summary conviction, by a fine of $25 for the first offence and by a fine of $100 for any subsequent offence. This recommendation is not too dissimilar from the present law under the ControlIed Drugs and Substances Act.
It is respectively submitted that the failure to draw a meaningful and operative distinction with the Narcotic Control Act between private "vice" and the business of encouraging, promoting and profiting from the activity for commercial purposes is inconsistent with the modern legislative approach to consensual crime and does not serve a valid legal objective, By widening the net this broadly, the offences contained in the Narcotic Control Act go well beyond serving a valid state objective (i.e. combatting the social evils of the black market drug trade) and serve to promote a form of "legal moralism" which has been frowned upon by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Furthermore, in his submissions Mr. Young agreed that Parliament has a right to intervene in the commercial trade and the black market trade in marijuana.
It may be instructive to note that, with one exception, none of the witnesses who testified recommend legalizing the cultivation, trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking. The one exception, Mme. Marie Bertrand who was a member of the LeDain Commission recommended the removal of cannabis from the Narcotic Control Act. She further recommended that the sale and use of cannabis be placed under controls similar to those governing the sale and use of alcohol, including legal prohibition of unauthorized distribution. Thus, even she was opposed to the unrestricted cultivation, trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking.
Subject to its constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal system, each party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or psycho-tropic substances for personal consumption contrary to the provisions of the 1961 convention, the 1961 convention as amended, or the 1971 convention.
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraphs, in appropriate cases of a minor nature, the parties may provide, as alternatives to conviction or punishment, measures such as education, rehabilitation or social re-integration, as well as, when the offender is a drug abusers, treatment and after care.
As stated previously and to paraphrase s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, no one can be deprived of the right to life, liberty and security except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. In other words, (a) has there been a deprivation of one or more of these rights, and if so, (b) was the deprivation contrary to the principles of fundamental justice? The onus is on the applicant to establish these two things; Cunningham v. Canada (1993), 80 C.C.C. (3d) 492 at 496 (S.C.C.) (per McLachlin, J.). I am prepared to concede that the applicants, who are facing criminal charges with most serious consequences, have their liberty and security in grave peril. The question is whether the provisions of the Narcotics Control Act under which they are charged violate the principles of fundamental justice.
In attempting to arrive at what is meant by the term "principles of fundamental justice", I have gleaned the following from a review of some of the cases referred to me.
The principles of fundamental justice are concerned not only with the interests of the person who claims his liberty has been limited, but with the protection of society. Fundamental justice requires that a fair balance be struck between these interests both substantively and procedurally: Cunningham v. Canada (1993), 80 C.C.C. (3d) 492 at 499 per McLachlin J.
A mere common law rule does not suffice to constitute a principle of fundamental justice, rather, as the term implies, principles upon which there is some consensus that they are vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice are required: Rodriguez v. B. C. (A.G.) (1993), 85 C.C.C. (3d) 15 at 65 per Sopinka J.
Where the deprivation of the right in question does little or nothing to enhance the state's interest (whatever it may be), it seems to me that a breach of fundamental justice will be made out as the individual's rights will have been deprived for no valid purpose: Ibid at p. 68.
It follows that before one can determine that a statutory provision is contrary to fundamental justice, the relationship between the provision and the state interest must be considered. One cannot conclude that a particular limit is arbitrary because (in the words of my colleague McLachlin J.) it bears no relation to or is inconsistent with the objective that lies behind the legislation without considering the state interest and the society concerns which it reflects: Ibid p.69.
Discerning the principles of fundamental justice with which deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person must accord, in order to withstand constitutional scrutiny, is not an easy task... principles upon which there is some consensus that they are vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice is required. Ibid p. 65.
The principles of fundamental justice cannot be created for the occasion to reflect the court's dislike or distaste of a particular statute. While the principles of fundamental justice are concerned with more than process, reference must be made to principles which are "fundamental" in the sense that they have general acceptance among reasonable people. Ibid p. 78.
Unlike the situation with partial decriminalization of abortion, the decriminalization of attempted suicide cannot be said to represent a consensus by Parliament or by Canadians in general, that the autonomy interest of those wishing to kill themselves is paramount to the state interest in protecting the life of its citizens. Ibid p. 71.
Reviewing legislation for overbreadth as a principle of fundamental justice is simply an example of the balancing of the state interest against that of the individual: R. v. Heywood (1994), 94 C.C.C. (3d) 481 at 516, per Cory J.
Freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience. R. v. Big M. Drug Mart Ltd. (1985), 1 S.C.R. 295 at 336-7 per Dickson, J. as he then was.
At this juncture it will be useful to indicate what Canadians think about the laws pertaining to the possession of marijuana. In 1977, a Gallop Poll reported that the majority of Canadians opposed the harsh criminalization of cannabis possession. In particular, 36 percent of Canadians wanted to see cannabis possession sanctioned by a fine at the maximum, whereas 23 percent thought it should not be a full criminal offence, and only 35 percent wanted the offence to be a full criminal offence. More recently, Health Canada released a public opinion poll in 1995 which found that 27 percent of Canadians believed that possession of marijuana should be legal, while 42.1 percent believe it should remain illegal but only be punished by a fine or a non-jail sentence. Therefore, in 1995, it is apparent that 70 percent of Canadians are opposed to the use of incarceration to combat marijuana use. On the other hand, a significant majority of Canadians do not believe that possession of marijuana should be legal.
I will now attempt to address the several issues raised by the applicants.
With apparent reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Reference Re: s. 94 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (1985), 23 C.C.C. (3d) 289, it is the applicants' position that the illegal conduct causes actual harm before Parliament is entitled to legislate against that conduct. I could find no authority for that proposition and in any event I believe I have amply demonstrated that the consumption of marijuana does cause harm, albeit and perhaps not as much harm as was first believed. Reference may also be had to: R. v. Hinchey (1996), 111 C.C.C. (3d) 353; R. v. Audet (1996), 106 C.C.C. (3d) 481; R. v. Butler (1992), 70 C.C.C. (3d) 129; and Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) (1989), 58 D.L.R. (4th) 577.
I believe it is the applicant's submission that it is a violation of the principles of fundamental justice to create an arbitrary and legislative classification in which marijuana is subject to the same legislative regime as the harder drugs is answered by the passage of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In this Act marijuana is listed in a separate schedule from the so-called hard drugs and the penalties for simple possession of small amounts of marijuana have been significantly reduced. Given the actual and potential harm which results from the consumption of marijuana, there can hardly be any argument that its prohibition is arbitrary or irrational.
The applicants submit that the prohibition on the use and distribution of marijuana is overbroad in that (a) no meaningful exemptions are provided for legitimate medical use and (b) the legislation fails to make any meaningful distinction between personal and private acts of consumption or distribution and acts which form part and parcel of the illicit drug trade. I have already dealt with (a), finding that the applicants have no standing in that neither of them have need to consume marijuana for therapeutic purposes. With respect to (b) I believe the simple answer is that in certain circumstances the consumption of marijuana is harmful in a variety of respects. Furthermore, as many of the studies have indicated, further research is necessary to determine the long-range effects of marijuana consumption.
Thus, an aspect of the respect for human dignity on which the Charter is founded is the right to make fundamental personal decisions without interference from the state. This right is a critical component of the right to liberty. Liberty, as was noted in Singh, is a phrase capable of a broad range of meaning. In my view, this right properly construed, grants the individual a degree of autonomy in making decisions of fundamental personal importance.
While I was in dissent in that case, I agree with that statement.
Few would believe they have been deprived of something of critical importance if deprived of marijuana.
Private possession of marijuana....cannot be deemed fundamental.
The Charter does not protect against insignificant or 'trivial' limitations of rights.
On the basis of my findings, there can be no doubt that the Narcotic Control Act addresses a concern which is national in scope and in my view it falls within the competence of the Parliament of Canada as affecting the peace, order and good government of Canada.
Reference may also be had to R. v. Cholette, a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Dorgan, J.) released March 23, 1993 and R. v. Hamon, a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, (1993), 85 C.C.C. (3d) 490. In both of these cases the prohibition against the cultivation and possession of marijuana was held not to infringe s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I adopt the reasoning in both of these cases. For whatever significance it may have, in R. v. Hamon, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused on January 27, 1994. While I have not referred specifically to all of the submissions and the case law, I have considered everything that was put before me and referred to only what I felt was necessary to reach my decision and explain my reasons.
Congressional action must be upheld as long as a rational basis still exists for the classification. The continuing questions about marijuana and its effects make the classification rational.
Furthermore, judicial deference is appropriate when difficult social, political and medical issues are involved. Courts should not step in when legislators have made policy choices among conflicting alternatives. That this court might resolve the issues differently is immaterial. "When Congress undertakes to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, legislative options must be especially broad and courts should be cautious not to rewrite legislation, even assuming, arguendo, that judges with more direct exposure to the problem might make wiser choices." Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 427, 94 S.ct. 700, 706, 38 L.Ed. (2d) 618 (1974).
Thus, this court should not substitute its judgment for the reasonable determination made by Congress to include marijuana under the C.S.A.
C.S.A. stands for Controlled Substances Act. In R. v. Heywood, supra, Cory J. says much the same thing at p. 524.
...the court must be conscious of its proper role in the constitutional makeup of our form of democratic government and not seek to make fundamental changes to long-standing policy on the basis of general constitutional principles and its own view of the wisdom of legislation. On the other hand, the court has not only the power but the duty to deal with this question if it appears that the Charter has been violated... The principles of fundamental justice leave a great deal of scope for personal judgment and the court must be careful that they do not become principles which are of fundamental justice in the eye of the beholder only.
While any legislative product touching governmental activity is, of course, now subject to Charter scrutiny under its ss. 32 and 52 [Constitution Act, 1982], the practice of judicially upgrading that product should be strictly disciplined. This is because of the spectre of constitutionally hyperactive judges in the future pronouncing all of our emerging rights laws and according to their own values; judicial appetites, too, grow with the eating. Equally undesirable is the prospect of Canada's legislators, painfully aware of later electoral rejection for backing the wrong political horses, further acquiescing in the growing (and painless) expedient of shipping awkward political questions to the judiciary for decision, thus reserving to themselves the privilege of possible later disclaimer.
I commend a reading of the entire judgment which, in a brilliant manner, delineates the relative roles of the legislature and the judiciary in relation to our Constitution.
As I stated previously, the two questions required to be answered are (a) do the accused or either of them stand at risk of being deprived of their right to life, liberty and security, and, (b) if so, is that deprivation contrary to the principles of fundamental justice? Accepting that answer to (a) is yes, then clearly, for the reasons I have stated, the answer to (b) must be no. In other words, with respect to marijuana, the prohibition against the possession, possession for the purpose of trafficking, trafficking and cultivation do not infringe s. 7 of the Constitution.
The overwhelming weight of the evidence which I heard supports legislative controls over any scheme which might ease or remove the criminal sanctions for simple possession of marijuana. As I have already stated, with one exception, nowhere in the western world has trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking and cultivation been decriminalized, nor has there been any recommendation (save for one) that this should take place. As I have already pointed out, easing of restrictions on the possession and use of marijuana is within the domain of the legislative branch of government. I do not believe there is any dispute that this court has power only to declare that the Narcotics Control Act as it pertains to marijuana is either constitutional or it is not.
With the passage of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the consequences of being convicted for possession of a small amount of marijuana has greatly eased. Furthermore, s. 717 of the Criminal Code now provides for "alternative measures" other than judicial proceedings. Thus, Parliament is moving away from the harshness of the penalties for possession of marijuana and perhaps, some day, they may adopt some of the measures which exist, for example, in Australia and which I do not believe would meet with much objection from an informed public.
Having found that the Narcotics Control Act as it pertains to marijuana does not infringe s. 7 of the Constitution, I am prepared to hear further evidence and/or submissions pertaining to the substantive charges.
ADDENDUM TO THE JUDGMENT OF McCART J.
and would feel a sense of deprivation if they were unable to obtain what they regard as a beneficial stimulant.
laryngitis may be induced, so, too, may a similar condition be caused by excessive ganja or charas smoking. (p.
associated with the practice of smoking marihuana. (p.
*The publicity concerning the catastrophic effects of marihuana smoking in New York City is unfounded. (p.
subjects who are withdrawn and introversive stay that way, those who are outgoing remain so, and so on.
characteristic effect is ataxia. ... In rabbits a characteristic effect of marihuana extracts is corneal areflexia. (p.
rather unexciting compound of negligible immediate toxicity at the doses usually consumed in this country. (p.
America, would appear to be much less serious than those which may result from excessive use of alcohol. (p.
undue depression or adverse effects. Such a dose in a non-tolerant individual would be extremely unpleasant.
of alcohol five times greater than that normally consumed for a social high may produce coma and death. (p.
*The general effects of cannabis can be described as producing a state of well-being, relaxation and sedation.
desirable from the user's point of view. ... Both the psychological and physiological effects are short-lived. (p.
the brain. This is consistent with the evidence for only subtle cognitive effects from chronic cannabis use. (p.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.