Pubdate: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 Source: Sentinel Review (CN ON) Copyright: 2003 Annex Publishing & Printing Inc. Contact: http://www.annexweb.com/sentinel Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2385 Author: Bruce Symington Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n890/a03.html COURTS ACTING PROPERLY ON GRASS POSSESSION I read with interest your editorial in the June 10 Sentinel-Review entitled "Ottawa playing catchup." I am interested in your piece for its lack of understanding of the role of the courts in this country. The statement "To have them challenging laws debated and decided by those we vote in to do the job is beyond their mandate," is entirely incorrect. The role of the courts in our country is precisely that. The underlying rule of law in the country is the Constitution. It is there to protect the people from the politicians and the government. When the courts decide, as the Ontario Court did, that the law is unconstitutional, what they are saying is, that the politicians have overstepped their bounds and the people must be protected from that overreaching. The court is the only place where we can be so protected and it is refreshing to see judges who possess the testicular fortitude so lacking on Parliament Hill. Every major study of the subject of prohibition of cannabis, going back all the way to the British study of Indian Hemp, has determined that its prohibition is more harmful to society, the users and those around them, than is the use of this innocuous substance. Unfortunately, the oft-repeated lies of those who would retain its prohibition have put the politicians in the position of being unable or unwilling to deal realistically with this matter. The courts are doing what is right and they are fulfilling their duty as defined in the Constitution and the Canadian Bill of Rights. For the author of the editorial to decry this correct action on the part of the courts is truly shortsighted and exposes their bias and ignorance. Bruce Symington Medicine Hat, Alta. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake