Experts in marijuana and the law predict that this is the case that could really do it. The wall of misinformation and misunderstanding may come tumbling down, and Cannabis Canadians are looking forward to that happy day!

    It all started on May 17, 1995, when Hemp Nation proprietor Chris Clay was arrested for selling viable cannabis seeds and cuttings from his store in London, Ontario. Clay got together with Osgoode Hall law professor Alan Young and his partner Paul Burstein to launch a constitutional challenge to Canadian cannabis laws. Professor Young had been planning and dreaming of such a case for over ten years.
Clay and Young prepared for the trial in the months that followed, carefully enlisting expert witnesses and publicizing their efforts through the media and on their website. As the trial date approached, the powers-that-be apparently began to become concerned about the seriousness of Young's case. The Crown offered to drop all charges against Clay if he would plead guilty to simple possession, but he refused.
On December 6, 1996, in an obvious effort to put pressure on Clay to plea bargain and drop his court challenge, RCMP and London police raided Clay's office, warehouse and the retail outlet of Hemp Nation. Police confiscated about $40,000 worth of seeds and paraphernalia along with the store's computers and financial records. They simultaneously raided Chris' home. "I was just waking up and heard a loud banging at the door; once I opened it, the police poured into the house and searched it, finding a gram of marijuana. I was placed under arrest and taken to jail, where I remained for four days."
    The police had purchased seeds in June of 1996, but had waited until the store received its Christmas stock before making the raid. They deliberately busted Clay on a Friday, forcing him to spend three nights in jail before he could seek release on $10,000 bail the following Monday. "While the raids took place a man robbed a bank a block from our store, then had some drinks at a bar two doors down before escaping on foot." remarked Clay.
    After the December raid Clay re-stocked Hemp Nation with only hemp products, such as paper, clothing, soap, and food, avoiding seeds and paraphernalia for the time being.

    The trial extended from April 28 to May 14, and received a fair amount of media coverage in Ontario, including an introductory story in the Toronto Star, occasional articles in the Ottawa Citizen and almost daily coverage in the London Free Press, as well as a spot on the CBC news program The National. Brief trial accounts were also made on many local radio and TV stations across Canada, but the trial garnered no comprehensive national coverage.
hemp or marijuana
     Alan Young began the trial on April 28 by clarifying the difference between industrial hemp and marijuana. Young argued that Clay's seeds and cuttings had not been tested for THC content, and that had they been tested, they would not have exceeded the internationally accepted 0.3% THC hemp/marijuana threshold established by defense witness Ernest Small of Agriculture Canada.
    Young pointed out that, under the Narcotic Control Act, the hemp tie Chris Clay was wearing to look properly respectful and spiffed-up for the trial would likely test positive as "cannabis marijuana".
hemp potential
    Gordon Scheifele, a former agronomist who grew licensed plots of cannabis plants in Ontario and plans to grow more, told the court he sees great potential for hemp as an alternative cash crop. Scheifele testified that hemp can be used for paper, fabric, building materials, automobile interiors, seed oil, and binding material.
driving & social skills
    Expert psychiatrist Heinz Lehmann testified that a driver talking on a cellular phone is more of a menace on the roads than one who has just smoked a joint. Lehmann has treated nearly 20,000 patients in his long career. He squelched theories of developing tolerance from marijuana use, and the idea that marijuana use leads to the use of other drugs.
    Lehmann cited a study which found that youths who have experimented with cannabis are better adjusted and have superior social skills than teens who "just say no".

the costs of prohibition

    Eric Single, preventive medicine and biostatistics professor at the University of Toronto, testified that the total financial cost of all substance abuse in Canada was $18.5 billion. Illicit drugs accounted for only $1.4 billion, with alcohol and tobacco costing Canadians over $17 billion.
    Single also cited a 1994 Health Canada poll which found that 69.1% of Canadians do not support criminal punishment for cannabis possession.

a tool of oppression

    On May 12, Simon Fraser University criminology professor Neil Boyd discussed the history of Canadian cannabis laws. Boyd told the court that cannabis laws were quietly enacted without informed debate as a tool to oppress Canada's Asian minority.
medicinal use
    Lester Grinspoon, a psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School testified there is no justification for prohibiting cannabis for medicinal use. The professor concluded that cannabis is the safest of all intoxicants, on a level with caffeine, yet beneficial for alleviating pain and other discomforts.
Grinspoon emphasized that it is impossible to overdose and there have been no deaths from cannabis intake. "In the future, marijuana will be recognized as a remarkable medicine" Grinspoon told the court. He said cannabis should be legalized and controlled like alcohol.

medicinal relief

    On May 13, two women told the court that illicit cannabis smoking has been the only medicinal relief they have found for their ailments. Lynn Harichy, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, praised Clay for referring her to a London cannabis buyer's club. Brenda Rochford, a victim of Ehler Danlos syndrome, told how smoking cannabis helps her cope with her constant pain and intense muscle spasms.

low level harm

    Dr John Paul Morgan, medical professor at the City of New York Medical School, has spent 21 years studying all facets of drugs, primarily marijuana. He testified that smoking cannabis, even heavy smoking, is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. Dr Morgan also testified that the effects of cannabis are "low level", in the range of caffeine, and he challenged much misinformation about marijuana, blaming the media for being biased to "show harm".

the new law

    On May 14, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act replaced the Narcotic Control Act of 1961. The new law broadens police powers of search so that they can use a single warrant to search every person in a bar or pub. It also allows for the seizure of homes used to grow cannabis, and eliminates jury trials for possession and trafficking in under 3 kilos.
    Defense lawyer Alan Young said he thought that the new legislation did little to improve the acceptance of cannabis in Canada. "It gives the police the ability to do reverse stings. In other words, they can sucker people in by trying to sell them drugs." said Young during a break.

the crown's expert

    Also on May 14, the Crown presented their only expert witness, 76 year-old Dr Harold Kalant from the Addiction Research Foundation. Under cross-examination, Dr Kalant concurred with defense witness Dr John Morgan that there is no measurable difference in the levels of tar in cannabis and tobacco smoke.
Saying he would not consider cannabis use by his own children criminal behavior, Kalant called Canada's treatment of cannabis users "regrettable".

right the wrong

    The trial concluded with Alan Young asking the court to right the wrongs that have been inflicted on Canadian society, and change the cannabis laws. Mr Young said that if politicians won't change the law, then they must be prodded by the courts. "I hope I've provided you with sufficient tools for this court to be a vehicle for change."
    Crown attorney Kevin Wilson disagreed, saying that this area is not up to the court, and should be left to the legislature. "This is a policy issue and the Charter does not empower the courts to take over policy making from Parliament."
    Wilson also cited the recent Senate committee report on Bill C-8, which stopped short of recommending that the House of Commons decriminalize marijuana. "Because they thought it would be futile." replied Justice John McCart, showing that he had been paying attention, and hopefully betraying his sympathies as well.
    According to Chris Clay, "Judge John McCart seemed quite fair and had an open mind... he made some very interesting comments that showed he's absorbing the evidence."

coming this summer

    Judge McCart will take more time to absorb the many thousands of pages of evidence. He is expected to announce a date for his decision on June 24 and will likely render judgement in the late summer or early fall.
University of Ottawa professor Joseph Magnet, an expert in constitutional law, says Clay's chances are credible. "Young has made a very serious defence," he said. Similar arguments succeeded in overturning Canada's abortion laws and almost succeeded in making prostitution legal. If Judge McCart accepts Alan Young's argument, then it could serve as a precedent for courts across the country.
    At a minimum, a verdict in Clay's favour will put cannabis laws in limbo until the Ontario Court of Appeal renders a decision. Even if Judge McCart only partially agrees with Clay, accepting the argument that Clay might have been selling industrial hemp seeds and plants, the Crown will likely appeal the decision at their own expense of around $10,000. If the decision goes against Clay then he will have to pay the $10,000 for an appeal. For now the ball is in the Judge McCart's court.

For More Info
Contact Chris Clay at Hemp Nation: 343 Richmond St, London, Ontario, N6A 3C2; tel (519) 433-5267; email chris.clay@hempnation.com; www.hempnation.com.