Cannabis Law Unconstitutional? – Cannabis News, Lifestyle

Is the Cannabis Act Unconstitutional? The Canadian government enacted the Cannabis Act in 2018. Since then, Canadians have been able to enjoy legal cannabis regardless of their medical status. Canada’s old medical regulations have been dissolved in light of the new recreational rules. To throw everyone under the same regulatory framework.

But has the abolition of the old medical prescriptions violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Shaun Howell’s charge

On March 24, 2017, Shaun Howell was charged with possession of over 3kg of cannabis. The police spoke of human trafficking. Howell was also charged with illegal cannabis production. He pleaded for his charges to be dropped. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the old Medical Cannabis regulations violated his rights under Section 7 of the Charter.

The judge, Judge Robert A. Graesser, ruled that Howell’s human trafficking charges did not violate the charter. But interestingly, Judge Graesser ruled that the THC limits were a violation. According to cannabis law, THC oil cannot exceed 30mg per milliliter and capsules cannot exceed 10mg.

Which can be well and good for an occasional recreational user. But for a medical patient, this is insufficient and on a large scale. And Judge Graesser’s ruling seems to indicate that the cannabis law is unconstitutional.

Medical Cannabis Law Unconstitutional?

If the medical patient cannabis law is unconstitutional, it wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened. From its inception, medicinal cannabis has had a rocky history in Canada. It started as a court order for fair access to medicinal cannabis. The government responded by allowing medical patients to grow their own or find a designated grower. There was a legal producer.

In the early 2010s, Stephen Harper’s administration attempted to end all personal growth. His government drafted new regulations for medicinal cannabis. This included many more licensed producers but no ability to grow your own.

Patients sued and the result was the Allard verdict. Because Canadians have a charter right to reasonable access to medical cannabis, the Allard ruling includes home cultivation as part of that reasonable access clause. Patients can also designate someone to grow for them.

In response to the Allard ruling, the newly formed Trudeau government responded with the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Act (ACMPR). These new regulations retained licensed producers throughout the Harper era, but included home growing required by the courts.

On October 17, 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force. The Cannabis Act replaces the ACMPR as the government argues patients can still grow their own, have someone do it for them, or buy directly from a state-licensed producer.

But this Alberta court ruling says the THC limits violate Section 7 of the charter. It makes the Cannabis Act unconstitutional.

Battle lines drawn for the next battle?

Judge Graesser notes that his ruling grants “declaratory relief” since the ACMPR is no longer in effect. Which means that the court decides who is right and who is wrong. But the court awards neither damages nor penalties.

This ruling does not change the current THC limits enforced by the Cannabis Act. Although it leaves the door open for a future charter challenge. However, these types of challenges never come cheap, especially when the defendant has tax dollars to use. Also, medical cannabis patients have been fighting with the government for at least twenty years. Many of them don’t have the energy to keep fighting.

Even if that means the cannabis law is unconstitutional.

Post a comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *