# Cdn marijuana possession laws not in effect
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cdn-marijuana-possession-laws-not-in-effect/146436
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [January 3, 2003, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cdn-marijuana-possession-laws-not-in-effect/146436 "2003-01-03T16:16:09Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [January 3, 2003, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cdn-marijuana-possession-laws-not-in-effect/146436/1 "2003-01-03T16:16:09Z")
I put this in GQ because I am looking for law based answers not how much anyone likes/hates marijuana laws. If it is inappropriate for this forum I hope the mods feel free to move it to GD.
Here’s the CBC story [link](http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/02/marijuana030102)
From story :
> [@](#):
>
> Canada’s law on possession of small amounts of marijuana is no longer valid, an Ontario judge ruled Thursday.
> …
> Windsor Justice Douglas Phillips made the decision as he dismissed two drug charges against a 16-year-old local boy.
Basically , in July 2000 the possession law was struck down since it made no provision for medical use of marijuana. Since then the gov passed separate legislation for medical mj. The ruling seems to say that the original (possession)law is void because it wasn’t re-enacted? Must the possession law specifically refer to the medicinal law?(and vis versa?)
Also this court decision is apparently not binding on other courts, Why is that? I could see it not binding other province’s courts but surely it holds for lower Ontario ones…
---
### Author:  [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)
#### Post date: [January 3, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cdn-marijuana-possession-laws-not-in-effect/146436/2 "2003-01-03T16:34:37Z")
As far as I know, the law is still in effect, however it is being debated in the House and has a few cases heading upwards to the Superior Court.
Basically, the fact that lower courts are not convicting people means that the higher-ups need to look seriously at the possibility of policy-change. The law is still in effect though, and if you want to take risks, you never know what kind of judge you’ll get.
---
### Author:  [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)
#### Post date: [January 3, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cdn-marijuana-possession-laws-not-in-effect/146436/3 "2003-01-03T16:36:35Z")
Apparently it doesn’t hold, and the charge was merely possession. AFAIK, the boy wasn’t under the influence, so to speak, when they discovered his horde.
However, many judges have said that while they aren’t bound, they will take this ruling into consideration into future cases.
That’s what I head on the radio, anyway.
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [January 3, 2003, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cdn-marijuana-possession-laws-not-in-effect/146436/4 "2003-01-03T16:40:10Z")
If anyone’s interested there is a realplayer interview with the defendents lawyer linked on that CBC page.