JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Paul Lewin writing for the Canadian Bar Association : http://www.cba-alberta.org/Publications-Resources/Resources/Law-Matters/Law-Matters-Summer-2016-Issue/The-Fight-For-Cannabis
Paul Lewin : The Liberal Party Will Ruin Legalization
- Thread starter JungleStrikeGuy
- Start date
jafro daweedhound
Well-Known Member
Damn - somebody gets it !!!!
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Actually, the guy sounds like a complete idiot with a personal axe to grind looking for 15 minutes of fame. Sucks to be a CON.The article starts with unsubstantiated allegations and predictions, and then goes on to treat those predictions as though they were fact.
"In April 2017 the Liberals will introduce, not pass, legislation that will contain few details. In 2018 or 2019 the Liberals will officially ruin legalization with punitive, elitist, and unmanageable rules which will be followed by years of conflict, litigation, and legal confusion." Where is even a sliver of evidence to support that comment? He is so confident....except he's not quite sure which year it'll happen... Years of conflict,litigation and legal confusion sounds like a pretty lucrative time for Mr. Lewin's career,- any chance he may be engaged in a little fear-mongering as a future make-work project?
The Liberals may not get legalization right the first time around, but unless Paul Lewin has another option, I'd say they are the only choice in town. Just like every other piece of legislation ever introduced, it will be subject to tweaks and changes as the wrinkles get ironed out. Is this lawyer aware of a secret, super-species of politician that pleases all Canadians all the time? I know I'll hear from the Liberal haters, and be called all kinda names. Save it. Here's an idea, print that article and paste it on your fridge, as legalization rolls out, you can refer to it and see it there is any accuracy.
"In April 2017 the Liberals will introduce, not pass, legislation that will contain few details. In 2018 or 2019 the Liberals will officially ruin legalization with punitive, elitist, and unmanageable rules which will be followed by years of conflict, litigation, and legal confusion." Where is even a sliver of evidence to support that comment? He is so confident....except he's not quite sure which year it'll happen... Years of conflict,litigation and legal confusion sounds like a pretty lucrative time for Mr. Lewin's career,- any chance he may be engaged in a little fear-mongering as a future make-work project?
The Liberals may not get legalization right the first time around, but unless Paul Lewin has another option, I'd say they are the only choice in town. Just like every other piece of legislation ever introduced, it will be subject to tweaks and changes as the wrinkles get ironed out. Is this lawyer aware of a secret, super-species of politician that pleases all Canadians all the time? I know I'll hear from the Liberal haters, and be called all kinda names. Save it. Here's an idea, print that article and paste it on your fridge, as legalization rolls out, you can refer to it and see it there is any accuracy.
GroErr
Well-Known Member
Really? Do you argue for the sake of arguing? He has some very valid and likely positions. Yes some of it is speculation but I haven't seen any lawyers like the big names come out with anything even close to "getting it". The Liberals have already fucked this up, it's clear they're all about control, a closed market for some big boys with big bucks and legal battles just waiting for the legislation to drop. It's looking much like AUMA in California, a tax grab and control, not freedom, open market or legalization.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
No I prefer to deal in fact and reality rather than get worked up over some lawyer's fear-mongering. "The Liberals have already fucked this up" really? How have they fucked up legalization when this article predicts it won't happen until 2019? The FACT is none of us knows what legalization will look like, so this lawyer is merely playing on the fears of a segment of cannabis users. My guess is at least as good as anyone else's.
You don't think this is a marketing campaign to make a name for himself? If Mr. Lewin was truly concerned the task force was going in the wrong direction and he has the knowledge and expertise to do it right, writing a paper or making a presentation to the task force explaining his position would have been much more effective than publicizing his personal opinion without proof they will materialize and without providing any solutions. His goal is to create conflict, doubt and mistrust and get a slice of the ensuing legal challenge.
The Hippy
Well-Known Member
I feel it was one of the best honest predictions I've heard. My faith in Trudeau and greedy friends is pretty limit.
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
I knew I would draw some flak, but I don't agree with what the lawyer is predicting. I don't put any faith in anyone other than myself...never have. I'm just saying this article is a work of fiction based on someones predictions. The fact that he is not of the same political leanings as the current government is quite obvious and clouds his judgement, imo. While some of what he says may very well happen, it will be challenged and corrected. This is a major shift in law and societal acceptance and it will be (unnecessarily) complicated. I'm not expecting to be thrilled with everything included in legalization, but it gives us a starting point. We demand changes to the parts the infringe on our rights and freedoms. What did the lawyer say was the alternative...?
I guess I'm just old... you know I have no trouble speaking out when there is something to fight about, but I don't see the point of bashing anyone over something they haven't yet done. The only way to ensure we end up with something close to acceptable is to keep the pressure on the Liberals and the task force, tell them what we expect, and keep it in the public eye. Bashing people over a bunch of what-if's does nothing to advance our position.
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Lewin has tried many cannabis related cases, so he is far from 'some lawyer', and has no need to make a name for himself.
Much of what he said has already happened, from fear-mongering from the police, LP's, etc. You can bet the LP lobby group is telling the Liberals nothing but 'prohibit home growing, only we have the expertise'. They said most of that in what they submitted to the task force.
Parts such as Liberals not passing the legislation until the latter part of their mandate is speculation, but his speculation comes from a place of having fought for patients the same way Tousaw and Conroy have. Legislation can take a long time to get passed, and I'm sure at least the CPC will kick and scream, they're already saying the LPC is 'moving too fast'. MADD will kick and scream too, and if you think they don't have any influence, they are the ones who sponsored a 'pilot' to swab 'volunteers' at roadside stops.
No one can say what will be tabled, but we can make some educated guesses, and also look to how the LPC handled the assisted death legislation (horribly). The ACMPR is turning out to be not quite the 'win' that everyone thought it was, I'm going to stop short of agreeing with commentary that the government had 'back door meetings' with the CMA and others, but it's clear unreasonable and overbroad prohibitions are now the purview of medical associations who 'don't know enough', and they are far, far harder to challenge than the government due to precedents.
We'll see what happens next year, but Lewin has very much been 'in the trenches' so I'm going to say he has the experience to back up his position.
Much of what he said has already happened, from fear-mongering from the police, LP's, etc. You can bet the LP lobby group is telling the Liberals nothing but 'prohibit home growing, only we have the expertise'. They said most of that in what they submitted to the task force.
Parts such as Liberals not passing the legislation until the latter part of their mandate is speculation, but his speculation comes from a place of having fought for patients the same way Tousaw and Conroy have. Legislation can take a long time to get passed, and I'm sure at least the CPC will kick and scream, they're already saying the LPC is 'moving too fast'. MADD will kick and scream too, and if you think they don't have any influence, they are the ones who sponsored a 'pilot' to swab 'volunteers' at roadside stops.
No one can say what will be tabled, but we can make some educated guesses, and also look to how the LPC handled the assisted death legislation (horribly). The ACMPR is turning out to be not quite the 'win' that everyone thought it was, I'm going to stop short of agreeing with commentary that the government had 'back door meetings' with the CMA and others, but it's clear unreasonable and overbroad prohibitions are now the purview of medical associations who 'don't know enough', and they are far, far harder to challenge than the government due to precedents.
We'll see what happens next year, but Lewin has very much been 'in the trenches' so I'm going to say he has the experience to back up his position.
jafro daweedhound
Well-Known Member
the only part of the future that I don't understand is the history that I never learned or lived....
As far as the liberals "fucking something up" well they would never do that to line their pockets and control us. Never.
Please put your trust in our leaders they are our friends
see.
does anyone know what HC means when they say, "this system is temporary", but wont give any detail ???
As far as the liberals "fucking something up" well they would never do that to line their pockets and control us. Never.
Please put your trust in our leaders they are our friends
see.does anyone know what HC means when they say, "this system is temporary", but wont give any detail ???
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
We'll see what happens next year, but Lewin has very much been 'in the trenches' so I'm going to say he has the experience to back up his position.
I appreciate that you respect this lawyers position, but I simply don't. The article was written on suppositions. I also hear your dislike of Trudeau, much like this lawyer, yet nobody can name the PM that has ever gotten this close to legalizing before now. I'm no fan of politicians, but this one has done more in 12 months than anyone in my 35 years of advocating for legal cannabis. If we are gonna rip this government for attempting to satisfy society's demand for legal cannabis, we should probably have a better alternative, don't you think? Otherwise we're just bitching for the sake of bitching. It will be much more effective to pressure the government to make changes to their alleged plan rather than toss the whole idea out. I have as much trust in lawyers as I do in doctors and cops...less than zero. You ever met a lawyer whose main thought process didn't focus on money? What of my suggestion that presenting his points to someone with more influence than a newspaper reporter might have been a better use of his time? If he was concerned with making a difference rather than making a dollar, he would have made a point of addressing the task force. Surely someone with that much experience in marijuana law and all that time in the trenches could have some influence. Every part of legalization will need to satisfy our constitution and charter or face legal challenges. Doctors colleges, doctors, and HC have no say in limiting the rights of recreational users. Again, I am on the unpopular side of this argument, but I'm not going to change my beliefs in order to conform to anybody's thinking. I don't think the result is going to be nearly as bad as some like to project, and whatever we don't like, we get fixed.
I appreciate that you respect this lawyers position, but I simply don't. The article was written on suppositions. I also hear your dislike of Trudeau, much like this lawyer, yet nobody can name the PM that has ever gotten this close to legalizing before now. I'm no fan of politicians, but this one has done more in 12 months than anyone in my 35 years of advocating for legal cannabis. If we are gonna rip this government for attempting to satisfy society's demand for legal cannabis, we should probably have a better alternative, don't you think? Otherwise we're just bitching for the sake of bitching. It will be much more effective to pressure the government to make changes to their alleged plan rather than toss the whole idea out. I have as much trust in lawyers as I do in doctors and cops...less than zero. You ever met a lawyer whose main thought process didn't focus on money? What of my suggestion that presenting his points to someone with more influence than a newspaper reporter might have been a better use of his time? If he was concerned with making a difference rather than making a dollar, he would have made a point of addressing the task force. Surely someone with that much experience in marijuana law and all that time in the trenches could have some influence. Every part of legalization will need to satisfy our constitution and charter or face legal challenges. Doctors colleges, doctors, and HC have no say in limiting the rights of recreational users. Again, I am on the unpopular side of this argument, but I'm not going to change my beliefs in order to conform to anybody's thinking. I don't think the result is going to be nearly as bad as some like to project, and whatever we don't like, we get fixed.
JungleStrikeGuy
Well-Known Member
Chretien had legislation to decriminalize, but died on the order paper. So there you go. Most of Lewin's comments are based on things that have happened, so it is most certainly not 'based on supposition'. Also his comments were made as a submission to the Canadian Bar Association, not to 'some newspaper reporter'.
As far as 'Doctors colleges, doctors, and HC have no say in limiting the rights of recreational users', recreational users don't have a 'right' to use cannabis, any more than they have a right to use alcohol. The s.7 interest present in medical cannabis cases isn't there for recreational, as you are not choosing between health and liberty. Tousaw will be challenging on other grounds, however that challenge will be more like the original R v Parker case, rather than defending previous precedent, as the right to a constitutional exemption from prohibition is based on the s.7 interest mentioned above.
And secondly, Doctors will absolutely have a say in the legislation. The Liberals have over and over again said they will pursue this from a 'public health' standpoint, the CMA, as well as CAMH have made submissions. The doctors are the ones pushing for the minimum age limit of 25, and the two ministers that will be involved are both Justice and Health.
Arguments like 'criticizing the Liberals is bad because lawyers only want money' belong in bad stand-up comedy acts, not a serious discussion on legalization.
As far as 'Doctors colleges, doctors, and HC have no say in limiting the rights of recreational users', recreational users don't have a 'right' to use cannabis, any more than they have a right to use alcohol. The s.7 interest present in medical cannabis cases isn't there for recreational, as you are not choosing between health and liberty. Tousaw will be challenging on other grounds, however that challenge will be more like the original R v Parker case, rather than defending previous precedent, as the right to a constitutional exemption from prohibition is based on the s.7 interest mentioned above.
And secondly, Doctors will absolutely have a say in the legislation. The Liberals have over and over again said they will pursue this from a 'public health' standpoint, the CMA, as well as CAMH have made submissions. The doctors are the ones pushing for the minimum age limit of 25, and the two ministers that will be involved are both Justice and Health.
Arguments like 'criticizing the Liberals is bad because lawyers only want money' belong in bad stand-up comedy acts, not a serious discussion on legalization.
GroErr
Well-Known Member
A lot of what's in that article has a basis in history, some interpretation/speculation of course as they haven't come out with a final plan. However, if you argue against the fact that the Liberal mandate is all about control and $$ all you have to do is read the primary objectives of the task force.
Hell, you don't even need to read the details, just read the heading on the web site:
"Toward the Legalization, Regulation and Restriction of Access to Marijuana - Discussion Paper"
2 + 2 = 4 no matter how you add it up
Hell, you don't even need to read the details, just read the heading on the web site:
"Toward the Legalization, Regulation and Restriction of Access to Marijuana - Discussion Paper"
2 + 2 = 4 no matter how you add it up
VIANARCHRIS
Well-Known Member
Clearly you are all right and we are doomed. The Liberals are going to take all of our weed. Things were so much better during prohibition. Stop the damn task force now! 
There, feel better?
I could try to explain my very valid arguments and why I think things will go the way I predict, but it's obvious the naysayers aren't interested in logic or constructive discussion. Clearly my interpretation and prediction/educated guess can't possibly hold any merit... kinda like my position on mmj grows? Remember how Trudeau was taking those...didn't happen. "recreational users don't have a 'right' to use cannabis, any more than they have a right to use alcohol." Perhaps someone can list all the other legal products that government can deny adults access to. What argument is used to treat cannabis more strictly than tobacco or alcohol? How does a government determine which citizens they discriminate against? Chapter 7 isn't the only relevant piece of the Charter when it comes to restricting freedoms with legislation.
I said it before and I'll say it again, legalization will include limited personal grows. I'm not sure what else people expect, but if one can grow,possess and consume without risk of prosecution, I'd call that a win. Those interested in the commercial aspect may have more work to do, but that don't concern me.
So I'm going to sit back and enjoy the comedy show and we'll compare notes when it's over. Carry on.
There, feel better?I could try to explain my very valid arguments and why I think things will go the way I predict, but it's obvious the naysayers aren't interested in logic or constructive discussion. Clearly my interpretation and prediction/educated guess can't possibly hold any merit... kinda like my position on mmj grows? Remember how Trudeau was taking those...didn't happen. "recreational users don't have a 'right' to use cannabis, any more than they have a right to use alcohol." Perhaps someone can list all the other legal products that government can deny adults access to. What argument is used to treat cannabis more strictly than tobacco or alcohol? How does a government determine which citizens they discriminate against? Chapter 7 isn't the only relevant piece of the Charter when it comes to restricting freedoms with legislation.
I said it before and I'll say it again, legalization will include limited personal grows. I'm not sure what else people expect, but if one can grow,possess and consume without risk of prosecution, I'd call that a win. Those interested in the commercial aspect may have more work to do, but that don't concern me.
So I'm going to sit back and enjoy the comedy show and we'll compare notes when it's over. Carry on.
nobody important 666
Well-Known Member
The government controls almost everything we do. You also ask how they fucked up, how about trudeau's campaign promise of getting rid of pot convictions. If his last year in office is any indication of how legalization will be we are truely fuckedClearly you are all right and we are doomed. The Liberals are going to take all of our weed. Things were so much better during prohibition. Stop the damn task force now!
I could try to explain my very valid arguments and why I think things will go the way I predict, but it's obvious the naysayers aren't interested in logic or constructive discussion. Clearly my interpretation and prediction/educated guess can't possibly hold any merit... kinda like my position on mmj grows? Remember how Trudeau was taking those...didn't happen. "recreational users don't have a 'right' to use cannabis, any more than they have a right to use alcohol." Perhaps someone can list all the other legal products that government can deny adults access to. What argument is used to treat cannabis more strictly than tobacco or alcohol? How does a government determine which citizens they discriminate against? Chapter 7 isn't the only relevant piece of the Charter when it comes to restricting freedoms with legislation.
I said it before and I'll say it again, legalization will include limited personal grows. I'm not sure what else people expect, but if one can grow,possess and consume without risk of prosecution, I'd call that a win. Those interested in the commercial aspect may have more work to do, but that don't concern me.
So I'm going to sit back and enjoy the comedy show and we'll compare notes when it's over. Carry on.
Growdict
Well-Known Member
From the Health Canada Website it even adds a word
The Task Force will seek input on the design of a new system to legalize, strictly regulate and restrict access to marijuana. Their advice will be considered by the Government of Canada as the new framework is developed.
If the timeframe is correct, it makes the decision to not immediately decriminalize much worse.