Iqaluit Pot Activist Released From Custody

Ed Devries displays his ordination certificate as a minister of the Church of the Universe and the official charter for the Best Plant Believers Mission of Nunavut last year.Ed Devries displays his ordination certificate as a minister of the Church of the Universe and the official charter for the Best Plant Believers Mission of Nunavut last year.Iqaluit marijuana activist Ed Devries was released from police custody Monday after RCMP raided two local residences late last week.

Devries, 51, a self-described healer and founder of the Qikiqtaaluk Compassion Society, was arrested after RCMP found 0.9 kilograms of marijuana and $7,200 in cash in a search of his home and the Iqaluit marijuana club on Friday afternoon.

He was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

Devries’s release from custody, which came with a number of conditions, drew applause from about 40 supporters at the Nunavut Court of Justice on Monday afternoon.

‘Made things better’

The Qikiqtaaluk Compassion Society dispenses medical marijuana to more than 400 members in Nunavut, Devries’s lawyer said in court.

“We just got tired of people getting ripped off by drug dealers all over the city and smoking crappy weed,” Mark Fauchon, a founding member of the society, told CBC News outside the Iqaluit courthouse.

“So Ed came up with an idea: he cut the price and he made things better for everybody.”

Devries said he plans to fight the charges, as he said they violate his rights and freedoms on the premise that there is no reasonable access to medical marijuana in Nunavut.

Charged last year

Devries, who served jail time in 2006 for drug trafficking, was also charged last year with four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The four charges are still before the court.

“We don’t want him to go away again,” Devries’s wife, Ruth Devries, said outside court. “We love him and we want him home.”

In court Monday, Devries’s lawyer argued that her client poses no public threat and had tried to conform with Canada’s medical marijuana access regulations.

Crown prosecutors argued that Devries is likely to reoffend if he is released.

In the end, Devries was released on an undertaking and is scheduled to reappear in court on Feb. 15. He is barred from having any involvement with the Qikiqtaaluk Compassion Society in the meantime.

– Article from CBC News.



  1. Anonymous on

    What this activist needs to do is to gather up all the people who made purchases and get them to make statements describing how his illegal activities impacted their lives. The answer is victim impact statements. Normally, there are no such statements in a marijuana trafficking trial, so the judge ASSUMES marijuana is harmful and ASSUMES that someone must have been hurt by the perpetrator’s actions. But if all the judge hears are positive things from the “victims,” then the judge will have no choice but to give a lenient sentence. In other words, the marijuana offender needs to refute the presumption of harm by providing evidence of no harm. Note that the victims are the Crown’s witnesses. It’s actually up to the police and Crown Counsel to gather the evidence and present it!

  2. Anonymous on

    Still dont get it? you and all your people are subjects of the crown? Why not, try looking up what subject means? Find out just what you are,and how little freedoms you dont have by, not living in a true republic?

  3. Arbitrary Or Legal? on

    This kind of stuff is unconstitutional. We need better abilities to hold officials accountable, there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that has no effective mechanism for ensuring that abuses of power do not occur on all levels, by anyone. See, the issue deals largely with consent, If I was slipped alcohol or anything for that matter that might result in danger to me, we could argue that I had been put at risk though whether there was criminal harm would depend on whether I was demonstrably harmed, whether I was the victim of criminal intent however with no criminal harm may be the case otherwise, but I personally do not believe that intentions alone without an actual attempt to inflict harm would carry the same wight in court. However if a person say for example me, willing fully, takes alcohol or whatever else for that matter, into my system, then it is consensual and I can not blame someone else for what happens unless maybe something unintended or undisclosed enters my system as a result of this, so technically so called trade secrets in growing and processing and preparing things like tobacco, coffee and alcohol products or even for that matter cosmetics and personal care products such as toothpaste must disclose all information otherwise you are not consenting to taking the various things into your system, because uninformed consent, is not consent. Its just like consensual contracts, and consensual sexual and sexual related activity, if it can be shown if a person is show to have been forced for fear of criminal harm coming to them to consent to activity then it is not truly consensual, or rather the other persons(s) are still guilty of causing the victim to partake because the person had not just a fear for there safety otherwise, but a legitimate tangibly provable fear. I forget who the onus is on here but I’m quite sure whenever such a time comes as this is treated properly, someone will be able to determine this. I mean facts are facts, they pretty much speak for themselves, especially when everything is on the table. I don’t understand how people just let these bullies continually abuse them with methods that have allready been show to be unconstitutional. Perhaps they need to be reminded of the illegality of assuming a person criminality is provable just because they are someone who uses cannabis or posses it or does whatever they want pretty much with it so long as it is consensual anyways, such facts and actions do by themselves not constitute evidence to rule out the possibility that their use is within the rights of Canadians, nor is there any constitutional LAW that states a person must have an illegally difficult to acquire license under some unconstitutional regulations, so that they can be presumed innocent on these related grounds, since they have not yet been proven guilty. Ever notice that Cannabis prohibition offenses are not valid offenses? Ever notice they can only try when they take you to court, argue that somehow it is their right to violate the constitution, or have to prove it with evidence that they can violate the constitution and that there is _no_ way in god’s universe so help them god whole truth nothing but that there is anyway at all under the sun beyond a shadow of a doubt that you could have benefit from this or that you consent to its use etc, etc. please this is so over ten years ago, what is wrong with these officials, and why are they so hell bent on abusing people’s rights? what’s in it for them? this isn’t helping any of us, so who told them to do it and what does the person who told them get out of it? we must uncover this injustice. there is nothing constitutional about any of this abuse of Canadians by the systems that are intended to serve them. enough is enough, already. it seems we just can’t live without hate and unjust discrimination, perhaps we should have the courts order the officials involved with each case to undergo hate therapy.