Go to previous post:
Just to answer

Go to Electrolite's front page.

Go to next post:
Longtime readers

Our Admirable Sponsors

January 3, 2003

I was under the impression that Canada’s Liberal government was talking about passing a decriminalization bill this spring, but this may be a bit more abrupt than they had in mind.

It will certainly outrage all the right people, many of them on this side of the border. Should be an interesting next several months. [05:35 PM]

Welcome to Electrolite's comments section.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

Comments on I was under the impression that:

Derryl Murphy ::: (view all by) ::: January 03, 2003, 11:44 PM:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/03/potappeal_030103

The Feds'll appeal, says the article. I suspect they'll want to do this their way, once they've guaranteed another majority government.

Graydon ::: (view all by) ::: January 03, 2003, 11:50 PM:

They don't want the precedent to stand of having to do something about a judgement at a lower court than the Supreme Court, I suspect.

I also suspect that they're going to change the law right around the time the US starts the land war in Iraq, since the trick with this isn't Canadian political support (all the people who are against it don't vote Liberal *anyway*) but rather the reaction of the US, in particular the INS segment that runs the border stations.

Vicki Rosenzweig ::: (view all by) ::: January 04, 2003, 08:13 AM:

They may have to pitch this to the US government as the perfect excuse to hire lots more border guards. Either that or a token $5 fine for unlicensed possession in any amount (handled like a traffic ticket, and nobody actually running around looking for people who have the stuff), so they can tell the War on Some Drugs loons that it's not actually legal, except for medical purposes, and then it's up to the US to decide how much it wants to slow border traffic with inspections.

My Montreal-to-New York train was late in part because we spent longer than scheduled at the border; if the law changes, I suspect the nice men who check passports will be accompanied by one with a dog. And lots of annoying delays as they sort out that yes, this person has a marijuana smell on her jeans, but she doesn't actually have drugs with her, that was from a party last night and perfectly legal.

Debra Doyle ::: (view all by) ::: January 04, 2003, 09:11 AM:

This is going to open up whole new vistas of opportunity, though, to teenagers living in small towns along the US-Canadian border. Excursions to Canada to take advantage of the lower legal drinking age are already common practice (the brighter specimens of Today's Youth even settle in advance on a designated driver for the trip back.) I suspect that we'll soon start seeing excursions to partake of the Demon Weed as well.

Bob Webber ::: (view all by) ::: January 04, 2003, 01:45 PM:

I had the same thought as Vicki re the addition of dogs to the complement of agents of the US government boarding trains and busses. The delays were always unpredictable: the bus to the Buffalo airport to catch PeopleExpress to Newark was sometimes delayed by its failure to restart after the US-required shutdown of its engine during the searches and interrogations. It wasn't uncommon to lose a couple of passengers on a trip even in the early 1980s.

Of course, then they were guarding more against Socialists than against the Darkly Complected and Muslims. Canada-US relations seem to be in pretty sad shape these days, and I suspect that they will be on the "other" side of an "US against the World" which is likely to result if Republicans control the State for very long.

In other legal developments, NPR was bleating about the status of several asylum requests pending before Canadian courts for US citizens (presumably naturalized) and Green Card holders. The Canadian attorney they interviewed noted that some of these cases were people trying their last implausible manoeuvre to avoid expulsion and exposure to criminal charges on reentry.

The refugee claims being filed to avoid return to the US apparently are challenging the presumption in the Canadian courts that the legal system of any country with a democratically elected government will treat citizens with at least as much fairness as Canada's. In order to advance a claim for refugee status w.r.t. the US, a claimant must make arguments which adequately counter that presumption. The current crop are apparently bringing in evidence of the broad powers of Federal prosecutors and Grand Juries, as well as (I speculate) transfer of civilian prisoners to military judicial systems, detention without access to attorneys, &c. as a basis on which to mount a challenge to the presumption of judicial fairness in the Untied Snakes of America.

Bob Webber ::: (view all by) ::: January 04, 2003, 01:47 PM:

Debra, sorry about your youth getting corrupted and all, but you know that thing Chrétien said about it always being easy to score points by criticizing the actions of the American government? Nobody ever got voted out of office for encouraging Americans to come for a visit and leave lots of money, either.

Mary Kay ::: (view all by) ::: January 04, 2003, 06:26 PM:

Huh. Perhaps it's Toronto or Montreal we should be moving to instead of Seattle...

MKK

James D. Macdonald ::: (view all by) ::: January 04, 2003, 07:19 PM:

Debra isn't the least concerned about youth getting "corrupted," Bob.

Debra Doyle ::: (view all by) ::: January 04, 2003, 10:38 PM:

Hey, I'm just an amused observer of local small-town customs.

Bob Webber ::: (view all by) ::: January 05, 2003, 10:40 AM:

Sorry, Debra, I'd meant to use your name only to make a link in a comment chain, not to impute an opinion about corruption of da yout' to you. Just sloppy writing on my part.