The Minister of Justice, the Health Minister and the Solicitor General had a press conference this morning, announcing the Government’s intentions with respect to changes to the laws governing cannabis in Canada. The bill is apparently going to be introduced in Parliament later today, but their press release material indicates that simple possesion of up to 15 grams will no longer be a criminal offence, simply a ticketable one, with decreased penalties:
This is a substanial decrease in the penalty for simple possession, which I think is currently a maximum fine of $1000, six months in jail, or both: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 4(5).
At the same time, penalties for growing will go up:
[QUOTE]
Currently, production of marijuana is a single offence punishable by up to seven years of imprisonment. The proposed legislation will create four separate offences with penalties that better fit the seriousness of the crime:[ul][li] an individual found growing one to three plants would face a summary conviction offence with a fine up to $5,000 and/or 12 months in jail;[/li][li] four to 25 plants would constitute an offence punishable by up to $25,000 and/or18 months in jail on summary conviction or, if pursued by indictment, five years less a day imprisonment;[/li][li] growing 26 to 50 plants would result in a sentence of up to 10 years; and[/li][li] the penalty for growing more than 50 plants would be up to 14 years, double the current maximum term of imprisonment.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
In addition, the Health Department is going to be spending more money on explining the health risks of excessive consumption, etc.
Saw an interview with the reps from some of the opposition parties on CBC immediately after the ministers’ press conference. The Alliance MP’s comments struck me as odd. He agreed that the police aren’t enforcing the current law because the penalties are high and out of whack with the perceived seriousness of the offence, but he didn’t like the proposed changes. His solution: increase the penalties. That’ll fix the problem of under-enforcement. :dubious:
Wonder how the U.S. Administration will react; the emphasis on the increase in penalties for growing seems to be aimed at them.
sailor, you’re right about pure possession - several European countries have greatly reduced or eliminated it as an offence. Here’s what the media release said:
It also gives information about developments in the U.K. and Australia, moving away from criminal sanctions for simple possession.
The media release doesn’t mention how these countries deal with growing/trafficking in marijuana - do you have any info on that, sailor, to provide some comparison? I’d be interested in seeing it.
Reading this list of names, I wonder how long the U.S. will be able to find a “coalition of the willing” for the “war on drugs” - at least with respect to marijuana.
The bill is now available on the parliamentary web-site, as Bill C-38. Since it’s an amending act, it’s pretty technical and hard to follow unless you also have the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act side-by-side, to put the amendments in context.
It’ll be interesting to see how this comes out in the wash, as it has significant potential U.S. immigration implications for those Canadians who have been convicted of drug-related offenses. There are differential penalties in U.S. immigration terms for those who have been convicted of an offense for which the maximum term of imprisonment that could have been imposed was 365 days or more, regardless of what sentence was actually imposed (even if it was probation or supervision).
I wonder how U.S. immigration law would handle it if there was a different penalty at the time of conviction, but now the penalty is basically just a small fine? Lucky me; I don’t have to write these briefs, since I’m not a lawyer.
It widely depends on the country. AFAIK, the only european countries where possession of limited quantity of drug isn’t punished are currently the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Spain (there’s a fair chance that that my isn’t complete. Feel free to correct me).
On the other hand, the laws may not be actually enforced. For instance, in France, theorically, you could be jailed for merely having some weed in your pocket. Practically, the police officer will most likely confiscate the weed and scold you. However, the risk still exists. If you’re caught, say, with some heroin and the police officer is in a bad mood, doesn’t like you, or has any other reason for wanting you behind the bars, he may brought charges against you and you’ll end up before a court. Of course, the court might be lenient, but it might not be.
Also, contrarily to the example given in the OP for Canada, or other countries were mere possession has been decriminalized, if possession is still a crime in country X, there will be no defined limit under which you’re considered a mere “user” and above which you’re considered a “trafficker”. So, it will be up the the police/prosecutor/court to decide. So you could be taking a real risk if you own a little bit more drug than an average user is expected to have. Also, as it happens sometimes here, you could be sentenced for having sold a little bit of your cannabis to a friend out of convenience, or for having bought weed for several friends and giving it to them.
What I mean is that, excepted for some countries were drug use isn’t any more a crime, european countries might be more tolerant than the US, but in most of them, mere possesion is still punished (and sometimes harshly) according to the books, and there’s always a risk that, depending on circumstances, these laws will actually be enforced.
Actually, it’s sometimes a debate between european countries. In particular, for instance between France (which tends to have a hard stance concerning drug consumption) and the Netherlands (well-known for its tolerance) since french people are going to Amsterdam in order to buy their weed. However, on the overall, the general tendancy is towards more and more leniency, both practically and legally (the laws have been changed very recently in Belgium, for instance), and will be probably result in mere possession and use not being an offense any more in any EU country.
Here’s an old twist to the argument: An 18 year old American can cross the border into Quebec (19 in most of Canada) and legally buy beer at the nearest convenience store, does that make him a criminal? Is there currently a problem with 18 year olds traffic-ing beer back into the states?
(by the way, Canadian super beer is 5% alcohol, that’s waaaaay more dangerous than 4% )
Even if possession and personal use are no longer criminal offenses in certain countries, old convictions may still have practical implications, especially with increased cross-border information sharing. A friend of my mom’s found this out the hard way a while ago. He had a very old (30 years) possession conviction from his student days in France, which he sincerely thought had been expunged ages ago. Last spring he flew from Chicago to Kiev, with a stopover in Amsterdam to change planes. Even though he wasn’t going to leave the international section of the airport, the Dutch authorities ran a background check on him and Bing! Up popped the conviction.
The Dutch immigration personnel were polite about it, but almost didn’t let him board the ongoing flight for Ukraine, saying that they would have loved to take his word on the nature of the conviction, but were required to obey EU rules regarding immigration restrictions on convicted criminals, and the computer system just didn’t show that level of detail on a conviction that old. They advised him to write the French government, explain the situation, and try to have the conviction expunged and the computer record updated, but that sure sounds like an uphill bureaucratic battle if ever there was one. Eventually they let him board his connecting flight, but he had to cancel his plans to stop off in Amsterdam for a few days on the way back. He’s frustrated, because he travels a lot and thinks the whole thing is stupid, but it just goes to show that not even European authorities are all-forgiving.
Contrary to popular belief, beer alcohol content doesn’t vary between the two countries; it varies by BRAND, and American brands cover the same range of contents as Canadian. Virtually all regular brands of pilsner are a hair below 5% alcohol in both countries.
The alcohol content numbers you see on beer bottles are approximations, to boot. When it says “5%,” that often means 4.89% or some such thing.
The “American beer has less alcohol” stuff is sheer myth.
Cannabis is about to be reclassified as a class C drug here in the UK which means that although theoretically you could be prosecuted for possession, practically you won’t be for small amounts. It is the official policy of the police in parts of London to give an official warning for possession of cannabis, rather than be cautioned or arrested. Effectively this means you get let off as official warnings aren’t even entered into the national police database.
Most Euro countries, but definitely not Sweden. They have a zero-tolerance policy on drugs. In fact, during their EU presidency they were going to press for a drug-free Europe, but it got shelved. Do not do drugs in Sweden!
Here in the Czech Republic they have a strange drug law. They don’t classify between hard and soft drugs, and the difference between a wrist slap and 10 years in jail is in the eye of the beholder/police. When caught if you have “a little” you get a fine, if you have “more than a little” you go to jail. Yes, that is how it is worded in the law “more than a little.” So if the cop wants to screw you, he can say that your 2 joints are “more than a little.” There are new laws being voted on that would change this, but I don’t know what is happening with them.
There was when I was going to school near the Canadian border. At least to the extent of college kids driving over, loading up the trunk of their car with booze, and then coming back to party.
However, the U.S. customs people were wise to this. Two buddies of mine once pulled up a the booth with a trunk full of vodka. The agent asked, “Anything to declare?”
“No.”
“OK, I’m going to ask you that again. And if I don’t get a different answer I’m going to search your car. If I find anything that doesn’t belong, it will be confiscated, the car will be impounded, and you will be arrested. Now. Do you have anything to declare?”
I say good for Canada. I did hear some commentators (not sure if this is the administration’s position) say that Canada needs to consider the effect on the US. That seemed ridiculous. Does the US consider whether it’s laws will impact Canada adversly? I doubt it. Reasonable people can disagree on drug laws. This is a very grey area with lots of room for a variety of beliefs and opinions.
Oh, God. I hope you Canucks don’t end up with those ridiculous “Marijuana: It’s More Dangerous Than We All Thought” commercials like we get here in the U.S…
The possession laws are actually much looser in many states (New York and Washington spring to mind), so I wouldn’t worry at all about US reaction to this bill.
In addition, there is a chance this may not actually get passed before the year ends. I hope that when it does there are several changes, because this bill actually has quite a few flaws (namely keeping pot production in the hands of organized crime).
)