TURMEL: Judas Kid Pressman aids Gvt spin tonight

From: John Turmel (bc726_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: 26 Sep 2004 15:15:25 GMT

JCT: Jody Pressman, one of Alan Young's supporters, is going
to be spokesman for the medpot movement tonight. Any bets on
whether he challenges the existence of the law with POLCOA
or he supports Alan Young's Hitzig Resurrection?

JP: DALE GOLDHAWK LIVE CALL-IN on Pot laws TONIGHT @ 8
Date: Fri Sep 24 2004

Next On Goldhawk LIVE

This summer, the Prime Minister said he would re-introduce a
law to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. With only a
week to go before the opening of the new session of
parliament, the debate is heating up again: should marijuana
be decriminalized in Canada? Should it go one step further
and be legalized, then taxed for revenue? If Canadians are
only fined, not charged, while in possession of small
amounts of marijuana, what would this new relaxed penalty do
to security at U.S. borders?

Host Dale Goldhawk welcomes two guests to his Ottawa studio:
Tony Cannavino, President of the Canadian Professional
Police Association, and Jody Pressman, Executive Director of
NORML Canada (National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Law). Call in to Goldhawk Live and tell us what
you think: should it be a criminal offence to possess small
amounts of marijuana? Share your thoughts by calling toll
free 1-877-296-2722.

JCT: Notice the question presumes it's still illegal! It's
not a question of whether it should be made a criminal
offence again once it's admitted prohibition is now dead It
presumes that an opinion in the Hitzig Resurrection
decision which Judge Doherty specifically refused to turn
into an Order is all they've got.

JP: Sunday 8pmET/5pmPT Live on CPAC, Dale Goldhawk will be
doing a live call-in show dedicated to the marijuana law
reform in the coming session of Parliament.

I will be appearing in my role as Executive Director of
NORML Canada, up against Tony Canavino, President of
Canadian Police Professional Assocation.

Please be sure to watch and call in to speak articulately
and politely in support of marijuana legalization and
regulation.

JCT: So Jody Pressman is going to pushing the government
spin that marijuana is still illegal and still needs to be
legalized and regulated. I think it's too non-toxic a herb
for it to be regulated until they've regulated garlic and
Apricot seeds too.

JP: Here is a press release sent by Cannavino's assocaition
to the Prime Minister back in October 21, 2003
http://www.oacp.on.ca/uploads/committees/CACPPrimeMinister.pdf

Cannavino's major issues appear to be concerns over impaired
driving, putting in place a so-called 'national drug
strategy' ($250 Million over 5 years) before reforming the
laws, and keeping marijuana away from young people.

JCT: Remember, I already beat up the police on all these
things in my Professor Cammy shows from May 2003
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/???

May
756 On CFRA Sunday MedPot debate with police
762 #A CFRA MedPot Debate with RCMP
763 #B CFRA MedPot Debate with RCMP
764 #C CFRA MedPot Debate with RCMP
June
822 #A: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot
824 #B: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot
825 #C: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot
826 #D: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot
829 #E: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot
831 #F: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot
834 #G: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot
836 #H: CFRA Prof. Cammy Show: Driving on Medpot

JCT: You'll be able to compare Jody's answers with my
strongest ones. If anyone thinks he found a better kill on
an issue, I'd sure like to hear about it so I can adopt it
too but I'm not going to read this though I enter it into
my medpot archives for you to read before tonight's show.

See http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/medpot/message/828
which is "DUPUIS SAYS MARIJUANA CULTIVATION NOT BANNED TOO"
about Johnny Dupuis announcing the first Krieger cultivation
challenge in Quebec. Then Ed Pearson's interference deterred
him from going through with it.

JP: It should be a very interesting show, be sure to tune in
and CALL IN to offer your support for legalization! Thanks,
Jody Pressman

JCT: So everyone tune in to watch a Kid on the Alan Young
Judas Goat Team playing the part of a medpot fighter who
accepts that the Hitzig case resurrected the prohibition.

That's the only role the Young team have left. To be media
spokespeople helping pretend they're fighting while actually
helping the government with its spin. If they have been
chosen for TV, it's usually because the controllers think
they're going to help the spin. Someone like me who'd stop
the spin in its track gets on by accident before they have
realized the dangerous point I would make to the heart of
their spin or doesn't get on at all. Terry Parker doesn't
get on. The TO Trio, the Nielsens, anyone arguing the truth
that the law is still repealed doesn't get covered. You
won't hear the word "repealed" unless it's to point out how
the Hitzig case un-repealed what had been repealed. They
need Judas Goats on TV seen arguing vehemently for our
legalization team (when it's already legal).

JP: PS: You can watch the show live via www.cpac.ca when it
is broadcast, Sunday 8pm ET / 5pm PT

JCT: So tune in and watch Alan Young's Judas Kid pretend the
law is still alive to help with the spin on the Alan Young
Hitzig resurrection.

>guardian99 old hand
>Re: DALE GOLDHAWK LIVE CALL-IN on Pot laws SUNDAY at 8
>Date: Sun Sep 26 2004

JCT: Remember, I've already dealt with all of these lies.
Notice Raf Soucar isn't there though he was the spokesperson
for the police on Play Goes to Pot with every other Alan
Young mole or moron supporter on the show. But Gian Gomeshi
didn't manage to notice the Engineer on the Medpot scene or
in all the Medpot cases.

Cannavino's opening statement before the SNUD C-38 hearings
in 2003:

Mr. Tony Cannavino (President, Canadian Professional Police
Association): Good morning, my name is Tony Cannavino. I am
the President of the Canadian Professional Police
Association. For 31 years I have been a police officer with
the S{reti du Quibec and for most of my service I have been
involved with the drug squad and the suppression of
organized crime.

The CPPA is the national organization representing 54,000
active police officers throughout Canada. Through our member
associations, CPPA membership comprises police personnel in
small towns and villages in Canada as well as the large
municipal, provincial and federal police organizations.

The CPPA is happy to have this opportunity to appear today
before the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Non-
Medical Use of Drugs as part of the study on Bill C-38 on
the decriminalization of marijuana.

Today our association joins forces with the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police and MADD Canada in an
ultimate effort to call on the government to end the race to
pass Bill C-38, the marijuana bill. There are too many
serious flaws in this bill, and the approach advocated by
the government to deal with the plague of marijuana is
altogether heading in the wrong direction.

In order to be more efficient, we have mutually agreed that
I would address the issues related to grow operations,
laboratories, and the need for adequate legislation and
tools to deal with drivers on our highways who are impaired
by drugs.

When it comes to hydroponic labs, the measures contained in
Bill C-38 relating to the increasing numbers of such labs
are inadequate and unsatisfactory.

At the present time it is estimated that there are over
50,000 such operations in Canada and most Canadian
municipalities are faced with this problem. My two
colleagues who spoke previously touched on this subject,
drawing your attention to the drawbacks of the present
situation, as well as the consequences and dangers.

Policemen assigned to the dismantling of hydroponic labs
require specialized training and must be provided with
specialized equipment to deal with the risks of
electrocution, exposure to chemicals, traps and the
likelihood that the occupant of the premises will be armed
and dangerous.

In order to deal with the problem of the proliferation of
hydroponic labs, police require deterrent measures such as
stricter penalties. Once again, Bill C-38 fails to respond
to the needs of the police.

First of all, there is no provision for a minimum sentence.
Minimum sentences are required in order to underline the
gravity of this criminal act. In this respect, the
provincial ministers of Justice formulated recommendations
similar to that of the federal Minister of Justice quite
recently at a meeting in Charlevoix.

Secondly, for the hydroponic growing of fewer than 25
plants, maximum sentences are in fact reduced, in this way
conveying to magistrates the message that marijuana is not a
dangerous drug.

As for drug impaired driving, our police officers require
laws and tools to take action against drivers whose
faculties are impaired by drugs. Legislation dealing with
this matter must precede any liberalization of our laws with
respect to the use of marijuana.

We are disappointed by the refusal of the Minister of
Justice to include such measures in Bill C-38. We also know
that Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD Canada, share
our concerns on this matter. The police require laws,
training and proper equipment to deal with situations where
they have reason to suspect drug impaired driving.

Lastly, although the police are in favour of using alternate
measures, it is our position that the police must maintain
discretionary powers, that is the power to lay a criminal
charge or to issue a ticket for any offence of possession,
whatever the quantity involved, since this could be required
by certain situations.

Bill C-38 is on the wrong track. Why the need for such
haste? If you want to send out a clear message to our youth
and convince them not to use marijuana, we call upon you to
stop this race to pass Bill C-38. Instead, we recommend that
you go ahead with a national strategy, an anti-drug program
which will set out our priorities in the field of prevention
and education with the appropriate focus on such activities.
Thank you. I'm now ready to answer your questions.

guardian99 old hand
Re: DALE GOLDHAWK LIVE CALL-IN on Pot laws SUNDAY at

Mr. Tony Cannavino: I don't know where your statistics come
from because this summer, at our general assembly where we
invited colleagues from Australia, Britain and other
countries and where there were a number of representatives,
we put the question to these people since we always hear
about these famous reports on particular countries, mainly
Australia, as was mentioned on a number of occasions. It so
happens that the conclusions they shared with us were quite
different.

When people talk about small quantities, it's quite
interesting to find out what they mean. When we asked people
if they know what 15 grams of marijuana amounts to...
Fifteen grams, that amounts to approximately 30 joints. If
someone is walking around with 30 joints in his pockets, I'm
not sure that's for personal consumption at a party. If this
person smokes 30 joints at a party, you can be sure that you
won't be hearing from him for several days. So I think that
personal consumption is excessive, in such a case

Mr. Tony Cannavino: The other point, the cornerstone, would
be the implementation of a strong, national anti-drug
program. We're not talking about merely embracing a
philosophical principle in favour of a national anti-drug
program. The latter is not something that is being
implemented and we have no idea of the program specifics. In
the program we have in mind, prevention and education would
be the focus. Naturally, funding would be needed to provide
assistance to our young people and to people with addiction
problems. That would be the cornerstone of the program.

Furthermore, when we talk about maintaining the
discretionary power of our police, our goal is not to give
the police more power. In fact, we are in favour of
alternate measures. When we talk about issuing a fine to
someone who is found to be in possession of one or two
joints, I think that the penalty in this case would be in
keeping with the offence. However, we must take into
consideration the circumstances in which the person is found
to be in possession of a particular quantity of marijuana.

As I said previously, the message that we are sending out is
a simple one and it is coming through to a different kind of
dealer. I know from experience, having spent most of my 31-
year career as a member of drug squads involved in the fight
against organized crime. The first message that the
legislation is clearly sending to drug dealers is that they
can tell young people to keep less than 15 grams, i.e. 14
grams, in their possession, and, if they are caught by a
police officer, to claim it is for their personal use. This
way, the only penalty that they risk is a fine that the
dealers will pay for them. So you couldn't have any better
argument to recruit people.
 
We are talking about less than 15 grams, but wait a minute.
When less than 15 grams are involved, the police do not have
discretionary power. Between 15 and 30 grams, they do have
some discretionary power in that they can either lay charges
or issue a fine.

Given the message that is being conveyed to the courts, do
you think they will only fine persons found in possession of
15 grams or less? No. What you are saying is that fines will
be issued for possession of up to 30 grams.

So to claim that there has been an increase in sentences for
operating hydroponic labs or growing marijuana in a field
makes very little difference. You could very well make
provision for a prison sentence of 25 years, we know quite
well that there is not a single magistrate or judge who will
hand out such a sentence. If it is going to be a deterrent,
then minimum sentences will have to be set and enforced
through the legislation. When we talk about growing.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I know that you could go on talking
about this for quite a while.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: Yes, I can get quite worked up. I can
tell you from experience.

Quote:

Mr. Tony Cannavino: The uniform enforcement throughout
Canada of the measure to abolish discretionary power in
cases where the quantity is under 15 grams does not solve
the problem. The reason is quite simple: we will be strictly
limited to fining those who are in possession of less than
15 grams and who, in certain circumstances, should face
criminal prosecution.

In my opinion, if the aim is to make enforcement uniform
throughout Canada, we have missed the boat. If we do not
have any discretionary power, how can we lay criminal
charges? Remember, as my colleague noted, that the Crown
prosecutor is the one who verifies the reasons given by the
police. It's like a guarantee or insurance policy, in
addition to which we have the judge.

In other words, we cannot claim that this bill allows the
provisions to be applied everywhere and equitably. In my
opinion, we are sidestepping the problem.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Part of the process, I think, based
on your representations as members of the police forces of
this country, is that we need to have the tools to deal with
enforcement.

The other day we had the deputy commander of the RCMP, Gary
Loeppky, state that in small possession charges probably
only 50% ever result in charges. Surely a ticketing regime,
if there is value, would seemingly make it easier for you to
pursue your argument that there ought to be a penalty that
fits the crime and everyone should be penalized.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We agree that in most cases, to all
intents and purposes, a fine is sufficient. The fact remains
that in special circumstances, it will not be possible for
us to lay criminal charges. We're proposing that the police
retain some discretionary power.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: This discretionary power should be
maintained, whatever the quantity of marijuana involved.
Whether we're dealing with 15 grams or 10 grams, the
important thing is the reason why this person is in
possession of the cannabis in the first place.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: If your theory is that everyone
should be penalized and we're hearing in evidence that 50%
are going without penalty, surely the discretion isn't being
exercised in a way, at the moment, that seems to be
appropriate.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: The reason is quite simple. As we
already said, in most cases a fine would be an adequate
measure. Furthermore, if repeat offenders faced larger
fines, that would be an appropriate response to the
situation. However, certain cases would not be dealt with
properly if the police were to lose their discretionary
power.

Mr. Derek Lee: I have one other question.

We heard about special circumstances in dealing with small
amount possession. What are the special circumstances,
certain circumstances, where a policeman would exercise
discretion? What are those circumstances? Can you give us
one or two examples?

Keep in mind there's nothing stopping a police officer now
from walking from a small possession scenario, absolutely
nothing. So let's clear that one out of the way.

Perhaps, Mr. Cannavino, I'll ask you, because you mentioned
it and it came up with other witnesses.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: When we talk about certain
circumstances, this includes repeat offenders. As we already
mentioned, there is absolutely no provision made for dealing
with repeat offenders.

Let's take the example of someone who has in his possession
several grams of cannabis and who is in the company of other
young people. He is not selling the cannabis but is sharing
it with the other youths. That's an example of the kind of
circumstances we had in mind.

I also think that we should have the power to bring before
the courts a person who has already been arrested for
possession for personal use, when it is his second offence
and he is recognized by those he associates with as someone
who is constantly carrying around a given quantity of
marijuana.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Madam Chair. I have only one
quick question.

One of the problems identified by all members of the panel
is the fact that the production of drugs is too often an
activity of organized crime. As things now stand and under
Bill C-38, an individual would not have the right to grow a
plant on his windowsill, for example. This means that people
are being forced to buy on the black market which, in the
opinion of all those present here, is controlled by
organized crime. If the government were to decide to
decriminalize simple possession, would you be open to the
idea of allowing a small producer to produce a small
quantity at home, say, to have a plant on his windowsill,
all as part of our fight against organized crime?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: Your example is a good one but where do
we draw the line?

Mr. Richard Marceau: We could allow one or two plants.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We know the annual output of one
marijuana plant. It's much more than 15 grams.

There are two totally philosophies at play. On the one hand,
there's the position of Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin that at
least has the advantage of being clear. He talks about
legislation, that is clear. You produce a certain amount and
you consume it etc. When we talk about a plant, we seem to
be thinking of a small plant but this small plant can
produce many grams of marijuana over the course of a year.
Two or three times a year, it produces a fairly sizable
amount of marijuana.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I see. According to the RCMP with whom
you have links, I imagine, the average production of a plant
is 50 grams. This information goes back to October 28, that
is last week. Of course, the output can be higher.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: Multiply that amount.

Mr. Richard Marceau: The RCMP says that the average is 50
grams.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: If you multiply this average by the
number of times the plant produces marijuana every year,
what does it add up to? You're talking about one or two
plants.

Mr. Richard Marceau: In the case of one plant, it would
amount to 150 grams a year.

Mr. Tony Cannavino: From the very outset we have been saying
that we should adopt a clear position. Could we start with
setting up a national anti-drug program? Before deciding on
a lax approach and leading everyone to believe that the use
of marijuana is not a problem, we should take a different
tack. Let's start off with a solid national anti-drug
program combining prevention and education and give the
police discretionary power.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Cannavino, sometimes I get the
impression that you and I are talking about apples and
oranges. I am in complete agreement with you, the
consumption of marijuana is not good for oneself and we must
do more in the field of education and prevention. On that we
are in full agreement and I would be happy to tour schools
with you.

As for the rest, let me reformulate my question. If there
was a Canada-wide program, one that included the provinces
because they have primary responsibility for education and
related efforts, a concrete, solid and well-designed program
that you agree with, would you be in favour of the
decriminalization of simple possession?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: Let us imagine the kind of program that
would meet my expectations, one with sufficient funding,
that focuses on education and prevention and also provides
the police with the necessary tools to take action and
provide assistance. You previously spoke to one of my
colleagues about alternate measures. Once all of these have
been put into place, you and I would be able to carry out an
analysis of the impact of this program. At that time, we
might perhaps conclude that decriminalization is not
necessary. I would certainly be very open-minded at the
time. I'd be ready to sit down with you and study the effect
of this program and find out what should be changed or
modified.

This is not what is being proposed at the present time.
There is an attempt to appear more liberal and more open and
an assumption that the only way of dealing with the problem
of marijuana is to treat it as if it were of no consequence,
to dismiss its impact and ultimately, one day down the road,
bring in a national anti-drug program. Where is this
program? Why don't we have one? Let's take the right
approach, step by step, and I'll be with you every step of
the the way. Mr. Marceau, I'd be pleased to sit down with
you. If, once this program was implemented, we concluded
that decriminalization is the right choice, you could count
on me to support your efforts.

Mr. Gilbert Barrette (Timiscamingue, Lib.): Thank you, Madam
Chair.

Mr. Cannavino, I know where you are coming from. I spent a
number of years as a school principal, and if there was one
area to which I devoted an inordinate amount of time and
energy, it was what we might call controlling these
activities. And the deliveries occurred on one day of the
week.

I would be greatly in favour of the implementation of
prevention programs. Quebec did have some in the past, but
seems to have moved on to something else. And of course, as
you are aware, there have been budget cuts. In any case I
believe that prevention is essential.

With respect to discretionary power, I would like you to
tell me in concrete terms how this could routinely apply to
young people who might be arrested for possession of 5, 10,
15 or whatever grams of cannabis. What type of discretion
would the police officer have?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: First, I commend you for having spent so
much time in education. You can no doubt relate to the
difficulties faced by not only the principals but also the
teachers and parents. Many of them have simply given up.

As to maintaining the discretionary power of police
officers, I emphasize that the quantity would not be a
consideration. If it were only one or two grams, the
officers would still want to avail themselves of their
discretionary power to issue a fine for possession of six or
seven grams.

Police officers and I represent 54,000 of them throughout
Canada want to help young people. Their aim is not to lay a
criminal charge on an 18-or 19-year old, which will then
lead to a criminal record that would affect the youth's
future or career; they simply want to have the tools that
they need in order to help them. This is not simply a matter
of a fine, but also a matter have possibly sending them to a
centre. Of course, this would only apply to those who have a
personal drug use problem.

However, you know as well as I do that in some cases it is
difficult to prove that trafficking has taken place, even if
you know the individuals involved and you can identify the
problems in a school, a region, a municipality or a small
town. In cases such as those, we should be able to lay
criminal charges. Of course, the criminal charge would not
be the final step: a Crown prosecutor would analyze the
grounds for the charge.

It is a matter of curbing this serious problem and
eradicating these cancers from schools and municipalities.

Mr. Gilbert Barrette: I have one final question.

If we follow through with this bill, besides the
discretionary power and the implementation of a program,
what major amendment would you like to see us adopt?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: We would like a step-by-step approach,
and that is something on which we hope to have the support
of parliamentarians.

In order to ensure that this works properly, the first stage
would involve the implementation of a national education and
prevention program. Then, we would like to see the
discretionary power maintained. The necessary funding will
then have to be provided along with more than the two
options namely, either a fine or criminal charges. As I
explained earlier, we must be able to direct young people
and adults in difficulty to a centre which would have the
necessary funding to help them.

Finally, with respect to minimal sentences, these are
serious crimes: take hydroponic cannabis operations, for
example. Municipalities are now struggling with a new
phenomenon. Our firefighter colleagues are frequently called
to put out fires that erupt in these operations and they let
us know when they discover marijuana being grown. These
operations are popping up everywhere. And why is that?

I think that Canadians have been hearing the wrong message
for years now, and this has encouraged some people to start
growing cannabis

Mr. Inky Mark: I know this bill has a huge impact, not only
on the country but on your professional careers, and I
always want to know why governments do the things they do.

My question is, did the government take the time to consult
with each of your organizations to let you know what they
were planning and get some feedback from you? Did that take
place?

Mr. Tony Cannavino: It was quite brief. Meetings were held,
but the points and objections that were made were ignored.

===

JCT: So Judas Kid Pressman is going to try to debate the
police on all these issues that I've already handled. The
sad point is that all my arguments were made while the law
was still judged alive. Pressman could use every one of my
rebuttals from my police debates and it doesn't matter, the
issue now is only the resurrection of the law. So this is a
complete waste of our time and serves only the government's
propaganda effort.

Still, it lets us watch Alan Young's Judas Kid in action
tonight knowing having the background the uninformed and
misled sheople do not.

Pressman knows about the POLCOA argument. Can anyone believe
that Alan and his supporters aren't as keen to read every
installment of The Engineer's Medpot Project as you, this
reader, are? No, Jody Pressman has not excuse not to know
that he's helping with the government spin.

We get to watch a real live Judas Goat on TV tonight.
Everything he says will forever come back to haunt him as
the truth finally gets out. And as more and more people
fight back with POLCOA, as more and more people shoot for
the heart, we'll always have the Jody Pressman tapes to
entertain outselves with watching him fighting a dragon we
all know is dead. Our champion. From the Alan Young camp of
Judas Kids. 

--
Abolitionist Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer" Turmel
for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution C6
to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm 
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel 519-753-0645 USENET: can.politics