Canadian Senate ammends C-15
The Senate Constitutional and Legal Affairs committee today voted to remove under 201 plants from C-15's mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, so long as the production occurs outside of residential areas and in properties owned by the grower.Let me be clear:
If you produce 1 plant in a residential neighbourhood, C-15 still prescribes a 9 month sentence.
If you produce 1 plant in a rented property, C-15 still prescribes a 9 month sentence.
If you produce 1 plant in a house that you own, C-15 still prescribes a 9 month sentence.
If you produce 200 plants on a farm that you own, C-15 does not apply.
Unfortunately, the Committee was missing the two most prominent critics of C-15 during the clause-by-clause debate today, and were unable to propose ammendments to remove 1-201 plants in residential or rented properties.
This was a victory today, but a small one, that primarily effects rural areas, leaving urban areas under the thumb of these ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences.
Print PageWe need your postal code to tell you your Member of Parliament!
Upcoming Events
-
Friday, September 10, 2010 - 16:00
-
Saturday, September 18, 2010 (All day)
Comments
you most walch this
you most walch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drDs7qoHTu0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1vDLgqliRE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1vDLgqliRE&feature=related
Why the confusion about the 1-200 plants?
The wording is clear. Not good, but clear. If you produce a small amount of marijuana in a home you own, for personal consumption, and use a setup similar to any other house plant setup (which often include lights, irrigation and temperature controls), you are not subject to the mandatory minimums.
Jacob Hunter, you are scaremongering with your synopsis of the legislation.
You wrote: "If you produce 1 plant in a residential neighbourhood, C-15 still prescribes a 9 month sentence."
Not true. If you produce one plant with intent to distribute, or if you do it in a rental property, or if you do it in a way that could be reasonably expected to cause harm to others in the area, or if you set traps, you are then subject to the mandatory minimum.
But if you produce a plant in a home you own, don't put your neighbors at risk, and do it for your own consumption, you aren't subject to the minimum.
That's still not fair, but at least it's accurate.
Huh x 2
I'm reading the bill from
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?List=ls&Query=5739&...
And it says:
The term of imprisonment will be at least six months ***if the number of plants produced is more than 5*** and fewer than 201 and the production is for the purpose of trafficking.
Am I missing something? O_o
Here's the line your missing:
Here's the line your missing:
The minimum penalty increases to nine months where the number of plants produced is fewer than 201, the production is for the purpose of trafficking, and any of the health and safety factors also apply.
There were 2 sections that applied to 1-200 plants, one was amended in the House to 5-200, the other was not.
thanks
Hmmm true....so you think it's pretty clear?
The 'purpose of trafficking' seems to be the crucial point...what if you have 3 plants, no scales, no bags?
If you have a low plant
If you have a low plant number (less than 5), no scales, no bags, etc, you may be okay in most major cities (places where police and crown are more lenient).
However, trafficking includes passing a joint, so that's something to be very aware of under this bill. If police and crown want to push, it may be very easy for them to prove trafficking under this bill.
Thanks again :)
This whole thing is so sad.... and many Canadians aren't even aware of this!
Scaremongering?
Commonly in Canada if you grow marijuana in excess of a few plants you are charged with trafficking. In smaller towns, the number of plants required is lower, in larger cities, higher.
Canadians are regularly charged with trafficking for passing a joint (ask Marc Emery who served 3 months for passing a joint).
If you grow in a non-residential property that you own, you are not subject to a mandatory minimum, that is correct. However, you are eligible for property seizure (even in places like Vancouver, where minor drug offenses cause police to apply for property seizure).
This legislation is designed to look reasonable, but when combined with police which regularly declare any production as a public safety hazard, and any production as trafficking, this bill becomes pretty horrendous.
I hope that clears it up for you.
C-15
It wasn't that long ago that the country was on the edge of having a vote of non-confidence in the government and forming our first coalition in history. Australia's workers have much more pull with the government and have had coalition governments for years.
I don't have confidence in a government that forms legislation like C-15. We are a left country, but the split vote leaves the right in every time, the only way the majority will be heard is with a NDP/Liberal Coalition. Please don't argue with that being a potential future, just look at our present. United the people will never be defeated.
i agree, our government is
i agree, our government is controling way too much. what ever happend to the people movement why issent our voice louder!!
HUH?
I read the bill and it seems that people will be allowed to have a maximum of 5 plants without being charged. Am I getting it wrong?
what a horrible government we
what a horrible government we have,
so let me get this straight, the only way i can have pot growing is in the eye of the helicopter police and all the thieves out there. this is medicine people, the police are too scared to go after the real criminals with the hard drugs and big weapons, because that might risk their lives, so instead they go after the ppl that arent harming anyone, and surely wont harm them.
fuckin pussy police we canadians have.
I read through the bill and
...it seems to me that there will be a five plant, not a one plant, minimum for the mandatory minimum sentencing for producers. As per part 3 of C-15 which is amending section 7 of the CDSA regarding producers:
"(b) if the subject matter of the offence is cannabis (marihuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years, and to a minimum punishment of
(i) imprisonment for a term of six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five, and the production is for the purpose of trafficking,"
Am I missing something?
One other thing
... I was encouraged to see that C-15 included a section requiring a "comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Act, including a cost benefit analysis of mandatory minimum sentences", yet very discouraged that the only real requirement is for a report to be submitted to Parliament about it within three years... where I'm guessing it will be ignored like all prior Senate committee recommendations on our cannabis policy.
All my info from http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Par...
Bill C-15 Media Reports
This is somewhat confusing.. I understand the changes made as outlined on this website, however the media is currently reporting that mandatory minimums have been removed for under 200 plants in general. This is false I presume?
If so, we should inform the media that their reports are inaccurate and misleading.
So if u grow more then 201
So if u grow more then 201 plants then what?
Residential area
By the way, what does residential area mean?
If you mean like zonage wise, then pretty much all of the amendement doesn't change a damn thing 'cause residential areas represent like 90% of where people live...
Exactly, it's not defined and
Exactly, it's not defined and covers most Canadian residences.
Who were the 2 missing critics?
Re: Unfortunately, the Committee was missing the two most prominent critics of C-15 during the clause-by-clause debate today, and were unable to propose ammendments to remove 1-201 plants in residential or rented properties.
Who were the 2 missing critics?
The 2 missing critics were...
The 2 missing critics were Senator Nolin and Senator Campbell.
Bill C-15 hearings YouTube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/CannabisFactsForCdns
Transcripts of the Bill C-15 hearings:
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/SenateCtteeMtgs_BillC-15.html
-FrankD
Yes but it was a senate
Yes but it was a senate procedure or something like that...
Senator Nolin took an other senator's place in an other commitee that day...
He didn't want to look like a fool voting to support c-15 even with amendments....
Unconstitutional?
Well, i saw in the senate committee transcripts that an awful lot of people who testified kind of think that this law would be unconstitutional.
We would need a person that appeals right up to the supreme court if lower courts declared this law valid. That would effectively kill the bill (in a loooooonnnng time unfortunately)....
Pretty sure section 7 of charter would apply here...
Court Challenge
Absolutely!
We will be looking for individual with an appropriate case as soon as this becomes law, and proceeding to challenge this law. We will not be alone in this!
C-15 will be fought in the courts, and we can keep escalating our fight against the Conservatives going forward to stop more C-15's from coming along in the future!
I agree. Making sentencing
I agree. Making sentencing dependent on property ownership smacks of gross discrimination -- the goal of this measure cannot be described as anything less than class warfare.
I only hope that by enacting this law the government ends up shooting itself in the foot by making the entire law unconstitutional.
Let's fight this out in the courts. I suggest the establishment of a Legal Defense Fund.
Liberty
The dictionary definition of Liberty is freedom from government restriction and control.
Well doesn't this just SLAP section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the face!
How about a class action lawsuit against the government?
wow
I don't even know what to say, while America is building laws to helping marijuana - over 12 states; decriminialized. Over 3 states; sold in shops.
Canada? we're going backwards, we're throwing these people in jail for a harmless act.
Who does this help?
C15 passed senate committee
So, if a Canadian citizen grows cannabis on crown land , say 10 plants for example, he/she is still in for a mandatory minimum sentence.
Thats bogus if that is the case.
Important victory for BC's
Important victory for BC's rural economy. Nice work!
Is there anything left to do?
I saw all the Bill C-15 hearings and I can't believe that all the testimonies given by cops, lawyers, doctors and educated people didn't convince the Senate Committee to get rid of this fascist bill/law. Something smells bad and it's depressing to see that Canadians doesn't seem to be eager to fight for their freedoms.
Is there anything left to do?
I will point a finger at CBC
I will point a finger at CBC for having next to nothing to say about this law as it was coming down the legislative pipeline. The mainstream media -- yes, CBC, that means you -- you have betrayed Canadians.
Is there anything left to do?
Is there anything left to do?
For starters, you could contact the Senate and tell them that they should be ashamed of themselves for supporting Bill C-15.
Now, is not the time to give up!
all there is left to do is
all there is left to do is kill the bill before passage by overtrowing the harper government and have elections!
GG?
Can we convince the GG to not sign off on the bill in the end?
It would be a great way for the "monarchy" to stand up for the rights of it's peasants.
I'll kiss the queen if her representative stops this madness.
Pipe dreams, my friend. The
Pipe dreams, my friend. The only way to stop this tyranny is to oust Harper in the next election. Not that the Liberal Party will be much better. Let's not forget that they conspired with the Conservatives to get this little piece of fascism into the Senate in the first place.
Diddo!!!
Diddo!!!