Bill S-10: Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Marijuana

CANNABIS CULTURE – Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada have reintroduced drug legislation that includes mandatory minimum sentences of 6-9 months for growing 6 or more marijuana plants, and 12-18 months for making any hashish (including baked goods!)

Read Bill S-10 and then CLICK HERE to help stop it from becoming law.

“The bill is a disaster for Canada,” said activist Jacob Hunter of “S-10 will imprison thousands of Canadians for victimless crimes, send people to jail for growing 6 marijuana plants, making any hashish or baked goods, and a host of other offenses.”

The bill, last known as C-15, was introduced for the third time after two previous deaths, and has been criticized by scientists and drug policy critics who say it will only inflame current problems with organized crime and gangs.

“There is no evidence that S-10 will work,” Hunter said. “Indeed, every scientific study says it will fail. We know that prohibition has never worked, and we know that mandatory minimum sentences only increase the violence in our society.”

Help stop S-10 from becoming law!

Call the Conservative Party office (866) 808-8407 and let them know you oppose S-10. The science is clear, mandatory minimum sentences increase violence, fail to decrease crime, and cost billions of dollars. To top it off, the Conservatives propose these measures while crime in Canada is at a 30 year low.

Also, call

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson: (613) 995-1547

Conservative Senate Leader: 1-800-267-7362

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: (613) 995-9364

Please contact your Member of Parliament (Login to, your MP will display in the top Right of the page) and let them know you oppose S-10 or any mandatory minimum sentence for marijuana.

For more information about the bill:

Read the Conservative announcement of the bill.

CLICK HERE to sign up at WHYPROHIBITION.CA and fight Bill S-10 and mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana.



  1. FrankD on

    Bill S-10 information page:

    Highlighted Senate transcripts of the 3 Bill S-10 debates that have taken place in the Senate so far. (includes photos and related info/links) May 11, 12 & 13:

    1) Senator John Wallace (Conservative MP who introduced S-10)

    2) Senator Baker (Lib)

    3) Senator Nolin (Con)
    [*Sen. Nolin chaired the Senate Special Cttee that recommended legalizing and regulating cannabis in 2002. ]

    Overview of the process of passing Bill S-10:

    Video: “Senator John D. Wallace just doesn’t get it!”

    This video reveals Senator Wallace’s lack of basic understanding about the legislation (C-15/S-10) and shows his lack of credibility on the matter. Ironically, he is the Senator who introduced S-10.

    Part 1)

    Part 2)


  2. Steve Plastino on

    With mandatory minimum sentences, you can expect a major backlog in the court system.

    Anyone who gets charged and faces a mandatory minimum sentence will undoubtedly plead not guilty to try and fight the charge.

    You will not have the option to settle for a plea bargain for a lesser sentence if you plead guilty early.

    Since the judge has no discretion in the sentence, there will be no incentive to plea bargain and every case will go to trial instead.

  3. patrick on

    on the part about the baked goods. Preferably the author who wrote this article. Take some responsibility. Where does it say that in the text of the bill?

  4. Anonymous on

    I always here people bitchin but then if u look at the voting recoreds here in Canada……nobody votes anyways…. I belive that the only way we can change anything…is to get out and start voting in the first place….lol what a joke…ppl need to get out and vote this time around…

  5. DirtBiker on

    IMHO.. its always about the money! if you sold a product like alcohol, and drugs, And someone was taking away your sales with a alternate like pot, and it had a ‘federal’ Achilles heal.. (Illegal presently) of course the special interest groups would ‘slander’ it in any way they can.. Even if that meant making it illegal to do scientific ‘testing’ for any merits of healthy, and helpful benefits for some things.. No one has ‘ever’ overdosed from pot.. that says a ‘lot’ in itself.. Freedom is never free.. it’s a shame that mark has to be taken by the US war for ‘money’.. when it could be a new trade by making it legal.. Stop the War! or at least justify it? (Science is needed!)

  6. rennet b. on

    thats the point here, the canadian constitution ; if weed is legal based on constitutional grounds why is the government of today trying so hard to make it illegal!!! the other members in the house of representative are there to defend the canadian charter of rights and freedoms, or is this just a big conspiracy… the government in office has lost all credibility to govern in my view, a vote of non-confidence should be tabled in the house so that canadians go to the polls to elect new representatives and government… why are they not listening to the will of the people; unless this present minority government is a dictatorship empowered by special interests… sad to say but, democracy is dead in canada if s- 10 becomes law…

  7. patrick on

    Or hashish for that matter? I did a few ctrl-f’s in it, but couldn’t find anything. Please reply back.

  8. Anonymous on

    It remains unconstitutional that a politician has a say in who smokes pot if some who is ill can be allowed their quality of life to be enhanced by the consumption of marijuana. The charter of rights is applicable to all in Canada, not just a chosen few.

  9. Anonymous on

    But he’s as crazy as Jack Nicholson in the Shining. Heeere’s Robby.

  10. Anonymous on

    Why is growing in a rental property an aggravating factor? Does Heath Canada tell med weed patients that they can only grow if they own their own home? Why the double standard? All that electrical equipment is CSA approved. Only people who hack into the power main should have extra penalties. Nicholson didn’t even mention that. That’s how stupid he is. Why should people stop hacking power when there’s no mandatory minimum for it? So the message from Nicholson is to grow 200 plants and steal power to do it. Okay Jack, whatever you say.

  11. DiamondInDaRuff on

    as an american who had grandparents who were from Canadian decent, I love you all……you make me laugh with your comments on these pages….Mr. Harper, well, I don’t know him, but he sure is getting chewed up hilariously on here…poor guy….I do believe he was one that I called or emailed about Marc…about setting our leader free….lol…beam me up, Scotty…….lol…..from Boca Raton, Florida…

  12. Anonymous on

    Apparently that last quote was from Hawaii’s medical mj program, not Canada’s, but it’s pretty much the same in Canada. Giving your doctor too much control over your choice of medicine. Sorry about the sidetrack from S-10.

  13. Anonymous on

    Look how unfair section 2 is in the ruling;

    Ҥ329-B Medical use of marijuana; conditions of use.

    (a) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the medical use of
    marijuana by a qualifying patient, or the furnishing of marijuana
    for medical use by the qualifying patient’s primary caregiver
    pursuant to this chapter, shall be permitted only if:

    (1) The qualifying patient has been diagnosed by a physician
    as having a debilitating medical condition;

    (2) The qualifying patient’s physician has certified in
    writing that, in the physician’s professional opinion, the
    potential benefits of the medical use of marijuana would
    likely outweigh the health risks for the particular
    qualifying patient; ”

    Why do you need to find a doctor who has an “opinion” that the benefits would outweigh the risks? There are no significant risks anyway. I think enough experts have concluded that weed is worth the risk of a sore throat in order to reduce chronic pain or treat numerous conditions. Why does your doctor have to agree with an expert, who is far more qualified than him? Just get one doctor to put in writing that weed is worth the risk for the following medical conditions, then list them all. Now everybody in Canada with those same conditions automatically has section 2 covered. Tat means all he needs to get from his own doctor is a diagnosis.

  14. Anonymous on

    At what point are the protest no longer peaceful is an excellent question.
    With bill C-15 being reintroduced as bill S-10,Stephen Harper giving his fluffy cloud response to the top questions on his Youtube interview,legitimate medical cannabis cardholders getting busted and the possible extradition of a Canadian citizen for selling seeds. All this seems to be giant steps backwards to the end of prohibition here in Canada.
    It’s really frustrating knowing that the polls are in favour to legalize it, that there’s scientific evidence of its amazing medicinal benefits and industrial uses, and yet our marches,phone calls and petitions don’t mean a thing when you look at what the political side is doing right now.
    If S-10 passes then what?? What’s next?

  15. Anonymous on

    I should have included this part, which is just before the above quote and which deals with the issue of “liberty”;

    “Second, as this case arises in the criminal law context (in that the state
    seeks to limit a person’s choice of treatment through threat of
    criminal prosecution), liberty includes the right to make
    decisions of fundamental personal importance. Deprivation of
    this right must also accord with the principles of fundamental
    justice. I have little difficulty in concluding that the choice
    of medication to alleviate the effects of an illness with life-
    threatening consequences is such a decision.”

  16. Anonymous on

    Here’s what the judge said;

    “3. The right to security of the person implicated by the
    marihuana prohibition

    [93] This case also clearly implicates the right to security of
    the person of Parker and others who claim to need marihuana for
    therapeutic purposes. In Morgentaler, Dickson C.J.C. held at p.
    56 that “state interference with bodily integrity and serious
    state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law
    context, constitute a breach of security of the person”. Beetz
    J. held in the same case at p. 90 that security of the person
    “must include a right to access to medical treatment for a
    condition representing a danger to life or health without fear of
    criminal sanction”. Wilson J. held at p. 173 that the security
    of the person guarantee protects “both the physical and
    psychological integrity of the individual”.
    [94] In R. v. Monney (1999), 133 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (S.C.C.) at 156,
    Iacobucci J. held, relying upon Singh v. Canada (Minister of
    Employment and Immigration), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177, that “state
    action which has the likely effect of impairing a person’s health
    engages the fundamental right under s. 7 to security of the
    [95] In G. (J), Lamer C.J.C. writing for all members of the court
    on this issue held, at p. 147 that, “the right to security of the
    person does not protect the individual from the ordinary stresses
    and anxieties that a person of reasonable sensibility would
    suffer as a result of government action”. However, he held at p.
    147 that it does protect against “serious and profound effect on
    a person’s psychological integrity”. The effects of the state
    interference “must be assessed objectively, with a view to their
    impact on the psychological integrity of a person of reasonable
    sensibility” (at p. 147).
    [96] The Supreme Court also had to deal with s. 7 in the context
    of the criminal law and medical treatment in Rodriguez v. British
    Columbia (Attorney General), a case concerning the validity of
    the assisted suicide provisions of the Criminal Code and their
    impact on a terminally ill woman. Sopinka J., speaking for the
    majority of the court at pp. 587-88, summarized security of the
    person in that context as follows:

    In my view, then, the judgments of this Court in
    Morgentaler can be seen to encompass a notion of
    personal autonomy involving, at the very least,
    control over one’s bodily integrity free from state
    interference and freedom from state-imposed
    psychological and emotional stress. In Reference
    re: ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(c) of Criminal Code (Man.),
    supra, Lamer J. (as he then was) also expressed this
    view, stating at p. 106 that “[s]ection 7 is also
    implicated when the state restricts individuals’
    security of the person by interfering with, or
    removing from them, control over their physical or
    mental integrity”. There is no question, then, that
    personal autonomy, at least with respect to the right
    to make choices concerning one’s own body, control
    over one’s physical and psychological integrity, and
    basic human dignity are encompassed within security
    of the person, at least to the extent of freedom
    from criminal prohibitions which interfere with these.
    [Emphasis added.]

    [97] In view of these very broad statements, I conclude that
    deprivation by means of a criminal sanction6 of access to
    medication reasonably required for the treatment of a medical
    condition that threatens life or health constitutes a deprivation
    of security of the person. Such a deprivation fits easily within
    any of the above statements. It falls squarely within the
    holding by Beetz J. in Morgentaler. Depriving a
    patient of medication in such circumstances, through a criminal
    sanction, also constitutes a serious interference with both
    physical and psychological integrity.”

    Well, now Health Canada is violating your s. 7 Charter rights by requiring a doctor’s permission. That’s the same as prohibition in the first place. Somebody is standing between you and your medicine. Doctors could all just refuse to ever sign such a form and you’d be in just as bad of shape as if it was the cops. Doctors are the new weed cops. That’s unconstitutional. Get up, stand up.

  17. Anonymous on

    You shouldn’t even need a prescription. That’s bullshit. All you should need is a diagnosis from a doctor which says that you have epilepsy. That doctor shouldn’t even need to be told that you plan to apply for an exemption. That should be your private business. You should just have to send a copy of the diagnosis to Health Canada and get a card allowing you to have 4 ounces of weed at any one time, or an ounce of hash or 10 grams of oil.

    Why should you need a prescription for a non-toxic herb? Why should you need a doctor to agree with your choice of herbal medication for your condition? We have the Internet now. People can investigate the medical benefits of Cannabis for themselves and decide if they want to try it or not. As long as they have one of the conditions listed by Health Canada why should they need a doctor’s permission? Why are doctors given the power to decide whether you live or die, by denying you the medicine that you need? Who the hell made doctors God? I know they all think they’re God, but I beg to differ.

  18. Anonymous on

    If the provinces suck the money out of tax payers for this process, and as mentioned Federal does not have to pay at all, then WTF is HST????? HST???? Harmonized… what a idiotic description of their scam attempts, Feds & Prov should have to both if it happens, but we don’t want it to. The fact is, another fraud shown… feds do not pay, province does.. = UST – Un-harmonized Sales Tax!

  19. Anonymous on

    just because you may have one of the disabilities or medical issues listed on what can be capable of getting medical marijuana prescribed, doesn’t mean you’ll get it. Doctors are too scared to put their career on the line. As an example….
    Epilepsy – won’t prescribe MJ unless seizing all day long almost in status epilepticus – potentially fatal (oh, if you almost die, maybe you can have some weed). If the doc knows you smoke, they’ll just say, oh that keeps you cool eh, you smoke is your own illegal and deny you access, because they know you already got it, they will know you smoke, but they won’t help you get it legally).
    Prescribes chemical pills that eat your liver, and if you miss 2-3 pills YOU MIGHT DIE, withdrawl symptoms are DEATH, not cold sweats and anxiety out the ass. The pills are limited to what you can carry, so if a power outage caused a Pharmacy to shut down and coudln’t get them, you will die within 1-2 days. THANKS HARPER FOR THIS PREFERENCE OF HEALTH CARE. Its the Final Confrontation!!!!!!!!!. Pharmaceutical companies… will pay you off you little bitch of a Country rep. People don’t even want to listen to your laws, it won’t matter, you will just push them further and further to the thin ice that will break anytime, and maybe…. just maybe…. the rage attack will snap at the wrong place at the wrong time.

  20. Anonymous on

    We have protested peacefully long enough, to no avail. What more can we do? There are so many injustices happening right now in our country, and Canadians have become passified and just look the other way. The amount of Canadians that lack any form of intellectual curiosity astounds me these days. I can not believe the number of people who have no idea as to the level of corruption within our government, but what really erks me are the people who know about it and don’t care about it. We can write and call and make petitions all day long, nothing ever gets done. I for one have had enough, but I am at a loss like most people as to what to do. I feel powerless. I am so so so mad, like I am in a borderline rage for real when I think about it, but no one gets it and nobody cares. Why as one of the most advanced nations on the planet (or so we would like to think) are we totally incapable of doing the right thing for the right reasons. Making the right choices on a moral basis. Has self interest become so addictive that our leaders are hooked on it? That is your gateway drug right there.

    But as long as MTV keeps running and we have a 25th season of American Idol to look forward too, then all is well in our own little worlds. I am at the point where I am so exhausted from explaining the truth to people that I do really care to even try anymore.

    Voting isn’t real, political parties don’t exist. When will people realize that it is all just a distraction to turn us against each other, Liberal, Conservative, Green Party, Purple Party. They are all motivated by self interest. I could go on for days, but I must retire to my yelling room now and go and pull some more hair out.

  21. Anonymous on


  22. parksvillain on

    What would Bob Marley do?

  23. Anonymous on

    Not the link to the site, the link to the petition on the site. I should have been clearer.

  24. Forced to be Anonymous on

    World politics are a joke. Literally; an act. Special interest groups, who organize through masonic means have demonized cannabis. This is a fact, and when you start to look into who profit from this prohibition, you will find that not only politicians, auto/oil company owners, lumber industry people, and of course the ‘food’ industry (they process food until it is either devoid of nutrition, or literally becomes poison [could always just add lots of preservatives haha]) but even the orchestrators of organized crime are members of the ‘brotherhood’. A massive eugenics procedure is under way globally. The current deficits of north america serve to enslave the general population under excessive taxes for countless generations, and that’s based on current populations. When the population thins, the debt number does not thin in accord. Keep that in mind. Obama’s cheif science adviser is a massive eugenicist, he even co-authored a eugenics book in ’77 mandating FORCED ABORTIONS, and FORCED STERILIZATION of ‘UNDESIRABLES’. They have been sterilizing us for quite some time with the toxic additives. Minimum wage = slave labor. You live to work, and work to live. At minimum wage, you can afford to live in a hole in the wall, and eat garbage- almost literally.

  25. Jodie on

    I can’t find the broken link; works for me…?

  26. Pete in Calgary on

    Re: Harper. Can you imagine the stunts this asshole would be pulling with a majority?

    Speaking of REAL majorities …

    Majority of Canadians Would Legalize Marijuana, But Not Other Drugs

    Published on Apr 15 – 2010

    Two-in-five respondents believe Canada has a serious drug abuse problem that affects the entire country.The views of Canadians on the legalization of marijuana have not shifted over the past two years, with a majority of respondents calling for the substance to be readily available, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

    In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,010 Canadian adults, two-in-five respondents (42%, -2 since May 2008) believe Canada has a serious drug abuse problem that affects the whole country.

    A similar proportion of Canadians (40%, +5) think the country’s drug abuse problem is confined to specific areas and people. Roughly one-in-ten Canadians (11%, -4) believe Canada does not have a serious drug abuse problem.

    Government Proposals

    Many Canadians side with two proposals to deal with drug abuse that have been outlined by the federal government over the past four years: the introduction of a National Anti-Drug Strategy, including a nationwide awareness campaign to discourage young Canadians from using drugs (83%) and the plan to ensure mandatory minimum prison sentences and large fines for marijuana grow operators and drug dealers (70%).

    However, just over a third of Canadians (36%) agree with two other ideas: scrapping the previous government’s marijuana decriminalization legislation and eliminating “harm reduction” programs, such as supervised injection sites and needle-exchange programs.


    As was the case two years ago, a majority of Canadians (53%) support the legalization of marijuana. People in British Columbia (61%), Alberta (59%) and Ontario (57%) hold the highest level of support for the legalization of cannabis.

    Less than one-in-ten respondents believe other drugs—such as ecstasy, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine or “crystal meth”—should be legalized. In fact, when the numbers are compared to the May 2008 Angus Reid survey, support for the legalization of these drugs has fallen by at least three percentage points in each case.


    A high proportion of Canadians are in favour of two of the measures proposed by the current federal government to curb drug abuse in Canada. However, just like in 2008, marijuana is in a class of its own. While the level of support for the legalization of so-called “hard drugs” is negligible—and actually dropped further since the 2008 Angus Reid survey—a majority of Canadians have no qualms about making cannabis legal.

    Full Report, Detailed Tables and Methodology (PDF)

    CONTACT:Mario Canseco, Vice President, Public Affairs

  27. Medicinal Mike on

    Well The Harper Dictatorship has done it again. This time he stacked the deck so the senate bill will go through. If I was going to do something Illegal and would get the same amount of time if I grew 6 plants or 200, you know I would be forced to create 200 plants, just so my risk would be spread out and the potential profits worth it. Thanks to this bad bit of law, I expect our taxes to go way up and we will invite eager prison builders to come up here and build prisons at a huge profit, then we need some slave labour to be housed inside. Some guards will be needed and then we can all look forward to the provinces going bankrupt. Of course the Feds do not have to pay a penny for this;this is on the backs of the provinces. Harper gets to look like he is “Tough on Drugs” at the direct expense of EVERYONE else, litterally.

  28. Anonymous on

    Damn right we need to show our MP’s what it is all about.

  29. Paul Goodman on

    Having used both substances going on 35 years I can say in all honesty that marijuana is obviously safer and far more enjoyable. To prove the point I suggest we all drink ourselves into a stupor, stumble down to our local MP’s office and throw up on them.

  30. persecutedinalberni on

    Good eye Joe I saw that too and since my father was a small boy in Holland when the war was on and knows the effects, I too had those thoughts pop into in my head when I saw it on TV.

    As the little shit stood there yakin away about being liberated and free I was thinkin yeah they were freed by a country that pretended to be free but eventually it to was taken over by that very same evilness.

    Funny they will free and protect jews from persecution but will persecute anyone who grows and smokes a plant,all the things Hitler would do too.

    But yes Joe I too said effin Hitler to my TV when I saw mr Harper stand there and talk like he was into freedom lol, that’s friggin funny.

    And to the trekki yes lol I agree SEIZE HIM is right but the problem is they are all the same and the next person to replace him will just be another puppet like Harper.

    Oh and that other force you spoke of that is countrolling him I would safely say they are american.

    If we don’t fight bills like this it won’t be long and they will be passing laws that state anyone not wearing a micro chip will get six months in jail,just a matter of time.

  31. Anonymous on

    They also put amphetamines, ecstasy and GHB into schedule 1 with opiates. Oddly, they left Cathinone in schedule 3. On the good side, maybe now the Vietnamese will stop coming here to grow houses full of weed, though the sentences are still probably less than in Nam. Anyway, be careful out there and remember if you’re going to grow 6 plants you might well grow 200, thanks to Harper, Iggy and that turncoat Layton. Why take a prison sentence for a measly 6.

  32. Anonymous on

    If by nut you mean psychopath, a person who cares nothing about others and everything he does is to help himself at the expense of anyone who stands in his way.

    So what can we do? Remember how in Star Trek whenever Captain Kirk was under an alien influence and started acting weird they would have security grab him and lock in in the brig and then Spock took over command because the Captain was clearly not in a rational state, just like Harper. Don’t tell me the founding fathers didn’t even put a clause in the Canadian political system to allow for that. That would be stupid. Then Harper could do crazy stuff like acting in direct contradiction of all the studies done on the subject and also the report from the Senate of Canada and nobody could stop him. He’s clearly under some alien influence. SEIZE HIM!!!

  33. joe on

    This Harper is a nut. First he goes to honor our fallen soldiers in Holland. And then wants to imprison the solders grand children for a victimless crime a while taking the rights of these grand children. So what did the Canadian solders dye for the freedom of government dictatorship.

  34. Anonymous on

    It might help if the link actually worked when you got there. has had a dead link on the petition for months now.