Supreme Court upholds Quebec home-grow ban – Cannabis | weed | marijuana

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a ban on home growing in the French-speaking province of Quebec.

Federal law allows Canadians to grow up to four plants per household, but the Quebec government prohibits it.

Janick Murray-Hall challenged the ban in 2019. The Quebec Supreme Court ruled that it was indeed unconstitutional. But the Quebec government continued to appeal.

Last Friday, Canada’s Supreme Court overturned the Quebec Supreme Court’s ruling and sided with the government.

Accordingly, legalization is about public health and safety, not your individual rights. As such, the Quebec government’s ban fits well with the stated goals of federal legalization.

Details of Supreme Court Upholding Quebec’s Home Grow Ban

On what grounds would the Supreme Court uphold the ban on home growing in Quebec? Quite simply, legalizing cannabis has nothing to do with your rights.

The Supreme Court said we shouldn’t interpret the law allowing home growing as “a positive right to home grow.”

The verdict is:

While the colloquialism and even speeches of some parliamentarians often refer to the creation of exceptions or exemptions to a criminal offense as a “legalization effort”… This rhetoric is incorrect and incorrectly suggests that positive rights have been granted to the public which encourage certain conduct authorize.

At least we have it in writing now. Legalization is not about your right to physical autonomy. It’s a privilege that Parliament or the courts can withdraw if they think it runs counter to “public health” goals.

Or as the verdict reads:

Quebec lawmakers saw cannabis possession and personal cultivation not as a social evil to be suppressed, but as a practice that should be banned in order to steer consumers toward a controlled source of supply.

In other words, you’re too stupid to make your own decisions. The Quebec government doesn’t trust you to get high on your own stash.

follow the money

Such is the case in a province that also bans certain foods based on a man’s value judgments.

In reality, the ban on home growing probably has more to do with money. Quebec has the Société québécoise du Cannabis (SQDC), a government agency that has complete control over the Quebec cannabis market.

While other provinces such as Ontario or British Columbia use state wholesale but allow private retail operations, in Quebec everything is handled through the SQDC.

It’s no wonder the Quebec government doesn’t want anyone growing their own cannabis and giving it away legally. It would interrupt their monopolistic greed for profit.

The Supreme Court is a joke

Canada’s Supreme Court, which upholds Quebec’s ban on home growing, is another example of the institution’s futility.

After hearing the verdict, the applicant’s lawyer told the Canadian press: “There is certainly some disappointment, but it is the decision of the highest court, it is a constitutional decision and we have no choice but to rely on it. ”

And while that’s what you’d expect from a professional attorney who probably doesn’t want to be disfellowshipped, some of us don’t need to worry about offending Supreme Court justices.

In fact, it is time that this sacred institution was put under scrutiny.

Judicial activism is a charge often brought before Canada’s Supreme Court. And for a good reason. Whenever the court uses its power to influence policy rather than interpret the law, they engage in legal activism.

And since the passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the be-all and end-all of individual Canadian rights, our system has rewarded judicial activism. Meanwhile, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the foundation of Canadian democracy, has been lost.

Even among conservatives and libertarians, people hold onto the charter as the source of our freedoms.

But in doing so, we allow an elite unelected council of nine to govern over 38 million people and offer “expert” opinions on their rights.

Our only remedy: the no-objection clause

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the ban on home growing in Quebec. The applicant’s lawyer said it was a constitutional decision and “we have no choice” but to accept it.

Except we don’t.

For one, Parliament itself can amend the Cannabis Act to clarify that home cultivation is a protected right for all Canadians.

But suppose the Supreme Court turns this legal framework, enacted by a democratically elected legislature, on its head (as they like to do).

Suppose the Supreme Court narrowly and selectively interprets the charter, which says no matter what the House of Commons votes for, the Quebec government has the right to ban home-growing.

In this case, Parliament still has the exception clause.

At least for now. Recently there has been a concerted effort by the extreme left to eliminate this democratic device against the absolutism of the Supreme Court.

And with today’s social cult of “I support what’s current,” the campaign to abolish the no-objection clause could pick up some steam.

Especially when it’s conservative parties using it to undo leftist damage.

The Quebec Supreme Court’s ban on home-growing typifies previous decisions

The Supreme Court, which sided with Quebec for banning home-growing, is typical of previous decisions by this body.

Look no further than the Cambie Surgery Center by Dr. Brian Day. For the past 14 years he has been involved in litigation surrounding his for-profit surgical clinic.

Last week the Supreme Court declined to hear its case that private health services should be included under Section 7 of the charter on the right to life, liberty and security of person.

But the court said no. If the Soviet healthcare system makes you suffer or even die, Canada is a country where you have the right to end your life, but no right to pay for the services that can heal you.

The Supreme Court is not an impartial, “neutral”, transparent decision-maker. It is an unelected council of the ideologically obsessed.

And I mean that positively.

The Myth of Legal Objectivity

Finally, as the legal scholar John Hasnas has pointed out, “The stability of the law derives not from any feature of the law itself, but from the overwhelming uniformity of ideological background among those empowered to make legal decisions.”

For centuries this unified ideology was the Greco-Roman, Germanic, and Judeo-Christian worldview. Especially the parts that recognize and celebrate the individual and the power of forgiveness and redemption.

Now? They are far-left theories that use mob mentality to achieve their anti-liberal goals.

It is about the benevolent state and the belief in the power of government to supplant or even surpass bourgeois institutions and free markets.

Or, even worse, the belief that state and society are one. This is how you come to see yourself as part of the “government”.

Where decisions clearly about money and power become “public health and safety”.

Where the Supreme Court upholds a ban on home growing in Quebec but allows private healthcare. Unless you are an English speaking Canadian. Then you cannot get private health care, but you can grow up to four plants per household.

It’s true: Canada is broken.