http://tinyurl.com/yzrtlp9

 

 

 

The Canadian Press ONLINE EDITION
December 3, 2009

Senate amends bill to take out mandatory minimum sentences for growing pot

By: Bruce Cheadle,

OTTAWA - The Senate has altered a Conservative tough-on-crime bill to remove mandatory minimum sentences for people convicted of growing fewer than 200 pot plants.

The amendments to Bill C-15 by the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs were immediately denounced by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson as "very disappointing."

"The whole bill is about people who are trafficking in illegal drugs,"
said Nicholson.

But a news release from the Senate committee stated its amendments are designed to better target "the 'kingpins' or major players in the drug trade" while giving judges and prosecutors more discretion for lesser transgressions.

The changes would also avoid triggering long automatic mandatory prison terms for convicts who have minor drug offences in their past, said the committee.

The amendments must still be voted upon by the Senate as a whole.

Bill C-15 was passed in the elected House of Commons, where the current political dynamic has made opposition parties very cautious about critiquing the Harper government's tough-on-crime mantra.

But the Senate promised to give the legislation a more critical examination. A Senate inquiry headed by Conservative Pierre Claude Nolin recommended in 2002 that marijuana use for adults should be legalized.

The latest Senate committee said it heard testimony from government officials, law enforcement associations, legal groups, public health organizations and academics that convinced it amendments were needed.

Nicholson was among those who testified, and he stated the "proposals represent a tailored approach to mandatory penalties for serious drug offences." The new law, testified the justice minister, targets "those who profit off the vulnerabilities of those addicted to drugs."

However the Senate committee says it heard from witnesses who said the new law would actually induce drug kingpins to recruit more low-level and addicted dealers, who in turn would suffer the consequences of the mandatory minimums.

"There is a large body of research that points to both the lack of a deterrent effect for mandatory minimum sentences and the fact that they can lead to significant increases in the prison population, with little or no impact on public safety," Howard Sapers, the independent ombudsman for federal offenders, told the Senate committee.

Nicholson said Thursday the notion of mandatory minimum sentences is not a Conservative innovation.

"Most of mandatory sentences were not passed by this government, they were by the Liberals," he told reporters.

"But the bills that we have brought forward have all got proportional sentences and I think they're very appropriate."

Debating over the length of sentences for those convicted of growing between five and 200 cannabis plants for the purpose of trafficking is a far cry from the federal political debate of earlier this decade.

At the time of the 2002 Senate report, Nolin, the Conservative committee chairman, stated that: "Scientific evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol and should be treated not as a criminal issue but as a social and public health issue."

--
Drugs & Democracy Info <drugs@tni.org>
Transnational Institute (TNI)
De Wittenstraat 25 1052 AK
P.O.Box 14656 1001 LD
Amsterdam - The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 662 6608 / Fax: +31 20 675 7176 http://www.tni.org/drugs _______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

Senate amends bill to take out mandatory minimum sentences for growing pot
By Bruce Cheadle
Winnipeg Free Press
December 3, 2009

Demand for ecstasy rivalling weed
CBC News
December 3, 2009

Study confirms that cannabis is beneficial for multiple sclerosis
E! Science News
December 3, 2009

Designer Heroin
By Willy Noiles
Echo Weekly
December 3, 2009

The latest video clips about Bill C-15 (Canada) on 12/02/09:

Kirk Tousaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1269_doTXQk

Jeet-Kei Leung
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQgsCeuFu_M

Philippe Lucas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3wKYSlJ3UQ

Lynne Belle-Isle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri_4u-aYoyA

---

Bill C-15 Senate hearing transcripts:

http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/SenateCtteeMtgs_BillC-15.html

(*two new transcripts added)

Herb Couch

http://www.efsdp.org/gallery/herbMar2008.htm

p.s.

Senate LEGA Meeting No. 42

Thursday, December 3, 2009

10:45 AM EST

Watch here: http://drugsense.org/url/UV7puI81

Friends and allies:

Yesterday the Senate Committee studying Bill C-15, an Act that will impose mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences, undertook clause by clause deliberation of the Bill. Certain, minor, amendments were made. Two are worthy of note.

First, because of the efforts of many on this list and elsewhere, the Senate removed the mandatory penalties associated with producing under 200 marijuana plants - in certain circumstances. The mandatory sentences continue to apply if aggravating factors, including production in a rented home and production that creates a public safety hazard. Of course, we all know that the police/prosecutor/ municipalities suggest that any production is hazardous so this amendment may have little impact.

Very disappointing was the Committee's failure to include any protection for medical cannabis producers and distributors. I proposed various amendments that would have achieved this goal but none were even the subject of debate - to the shame of the Committee members.

The second amendment was to mandate a review of the legislation after
two and five years. The House bill included a two-year review only.
While we can be sure what the review will produce, I am always leery of review being synonymous with shelving and forgetting.

The battle is not yet lost. We continue to urge citizens and interested parties to contact Senators and Members of Parliament to
urge that this Bill be killed for the good of all Canadians.
Information on how you can make a difference is available at www.whyprohibition.ca .

The next step is a vote on the Committee's report (viewable at http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/lega-e/rep-e/rep12dec09-e.htm)
and then a vote on the Bill itself. If amendments are made, the Bill returns to the House of Commons at the third-reading (final) stage for a vote. The House can pass the amended version, reject it, or refer it back to a House Committee for study of the amendments. If the House changes even one word, it must return to the Senate for further voting until such time as both chambers pass the identical version.

These are dark days for Canada. We must, now more than ever, continue to pressure our elected officials, organize our forces and prepare to fight for a better future for all Canadians in the face of an oppressive government. The Foundation has already begun researching the possibility of challenging this law in Court when it is implemented.

Below my signature, and available at www.whyprohibition.ca, you will
find my remarks to the Senate as I made them on December 2, 2009.
Please visit the website, join our efforts and consider making a donation to assist our efforts. We are working on online fundraising capability but, for the time being, checks can be sent to the address below.

Onward,

Kirk Tousaw, Executive Director
Beyond Prohibition Foundation
142 - 757 West Hastings, Suite 211
Vancouver BC V6C 1A1
Cell: 604.836.1420
kirktousaw@gmail.com
www.whyprohibition.ca

Working to repeal cannabis prohibition and replace it with a regulated and controlled system of production and access.

--

Honourable Senators, thank you for the invitation to testify. I have read the transcripts of past proceedings and appreciate the hard work this Committee is doing on this vital issue. All Canadians deserve the kind of rigourous analysis that this body has conducted. I urge you to continue to apply that kind of rigour to your deliberations and to fulfill this House's traditional role as the sober second body of our government and reject this radical and dangerous escalation of the war on drugs.

I am here on behalf of the Beyond Prohibition Foundation, a fledgling non-profit organization dedicated to the repeal of cannabis prohibition and its replacement with a system of regulated and taxed production and distribution of cannabis to adult consumers. I am also here as a criminal defence lawyer, with Conroy and Company, that has practiced on both sides of the US/Canada border and has experienced the mandatory minimum regime in the United States at both the federal and state level. You will not be surprised to learn that despite 30 years of experience locking people up for 10, 20 and even 50 year stretches, drugs are readily available, violence is a daily feature of the prohibition markets and for every so-called drug dealer put into prison there are five ready to take over the now vacant marketplace.

I'm also here, most importantly, as a father. My wife Debbie and I are parents to three young children: Kaya, age 9, Caiden, age 5 and Oaklen, age 3. As parents, we share the same hopes and dreams for our children as any others: to keep them safe, to enable them to make good choices and to build a society that maximizes their opportunities and minimizes the dangers they face as they grow into their full potential. I know, with every fiber of my being, that this legislation will not help us achieve these goals and will, instead, do precisely the opposite.

I do not propose to restate in detail what has already been said to you on this issue. There is a laundry list of the social harms that this legislation will undoubtedly cause: the increased violence and death in the drug markets both of participants and innocent bystanders, the massive inflation of our prison populations with attendant increases in violence, death, disease, rape and recruitment into gangs, the massive overburdening of a criminal justice system that is already creaking under the weight of drug prohibition, the disproportionate impacts on youth and visible minorities and persons living in areas not served by drug courts or with prosecutors unwilling to utilize the overarching discretion vested in them by this legislation.

There is also a laundry list of things that will absolutely not be achieved by this legislation: there will be no decline in drug demand, no decline in drug availability, no decline in drug purity, no increase in drug prices, no reduction in the scope and power of organized crime and indeed a likely increase in that power, no deterrent effect, no increase in the length of sentences handed out to high-level drug traffickers and importers - the purported targets of this legislation - and no increase in public safety.

But you have undoubtedly listened carefully to the testimony of the
witnesses who have gone before me and you already know these things.
You've heard the police say that this Bill will not affect how they prioritize limited resources and do their difficult jobs. You've heard senior Crown counsel talk about their retention problems and how this law will cause havoc with their ability to do their jobs. You've heard Americans discuss the failures and harms of their system which we now propose to create a pale imitation of. I can't add to that testimony.

And so I want to tell two stories about two people. Because ultimately this law is going to affect people; sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, Canadians. It is far too easy, when discussing crime, to forget that we are talking about human beings. It is far too easy for politicians pushing fear to justify a so-called "tough on crime" agenda to demonize drug users and sellers, to paint them as some type of Other outside the bounds of society, calling them pushers or junkies, using language to objectify and dehumanize these mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters.

The reality is much more complex. Yes, some of the highest-level
organized criminals are violent, dangerous and wedded to criminality.
But they will not be affected by this legislation in the slightest.
Except perhaps if this legislation, as it very well might, has the effect of clearing out their competition in which case they will be emboldened and empowered.

In Michigan I was involved in a case of cocaine trafficking. The defendants, a brother and sister, lived in California and were alleged to have mailed just over five kilograms of cocaine from there to Michigan. The brother was alleged to be the mastermind and the sister essentially a mule who, on one occasion, dropped off the cocaine at a post office in California. There was significant evidence against the sister but little against the brother. They were extradited to Michigan because in California the crime would carry perhaps a five- year term. The police and prosecutors decided that facing Michigan's 20-year no-parole mandatory minimum might loosen the sister's tounge and implicate the brother or, best case, that both would roll over on their supplier. That didn't happen, primarily because doing so would
have led to retaliation against the family members of the accused.
The sister was convicted, the brother acquitted. She, a mother, was
sentenced to 20 years. It has now been 10. She has 10 more to go.
Her child, deprived of a mother with all the pitfalls that carries.
And for what? The amount of cocaine she was incarcerated for is literally a drop in a proverbial ocean that flows around the US, around Michigan, around Canada and around the world almost wholly unabated.

More recently, here in Canada, I represented Mat Beren. Mr. Beren was found, in 2005, growing 1000 cannabis plants for distribution to the then-400 members of the Vancouver Island Compassion Society and for research ongoing at that Society. The production was occurring in an outbuilding on rural rented property with the full knowledge of the property owner. Mr. Beren was paid a nominal annual salary for his labor - far less than he could have earned working in the non-medical cannabis industry. All of the VICS members have physician support for their medical cannabis use. Very few, then and now, were able to navigate the federal government's tortured and restrictive exemption scheme. Mr. Beren challenged the validity of the MMAR/CDSA scheme as it relates to medical marijuana. After a lengthy trial he was partially successful in having portions of the MMAR ruled invalid but, because his conduct was illegal, he was convicted of production and PPT marijuana. That decision is currently before a panel of the Supreme Court of Canada on cross-applications for leave to appeal.

The trial judge, Madame Justice Koenigsberg, a 16 year veteran of the high court bench, having heard literally weeks of evidence about Mr.
Beren, the VICS and the motivation for his conduct - in other words the circumstances of the offense and the offender - granted Mr. Beren an absolute discharge. She called it one of the clearest cases for that sentence she had ever seen.

Under this legislation Mr. Beren would be in prison today. He would have been sentenced to a mandatory term of three years for providing organic medicine to critically and chronically ill Canadians. That is reprehensible. That is wrong. And so when I hear the Minister of Justice tell this Committee that this law isn't going to affect medical marijuana users or caregivers, I know he is wrong.

When he says that this legislation is crafted to target high level sellers and importers, he is wrong.

This legislation is a massive step in the wrong direction. It will produce tragic consequences. It, like the war on drugs it represents and escalates, is scientifically invalid, empirically ineffective and morally bankrupt. Those that support it, that vote for it, that allow it to become the law of this great land will have blood on their hands and should feel shame in their hearts.

I look forward to your questions.

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

 

Ottawa, December 3, 2009 – The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs presented its report today on Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

 

The bill amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) to provide for mandatory minimum penalties for certain drug offences, such as dealing drugs for the benefit of organized crime or by the use or threat of violence.

The Committee amended Bill C-15 to ensure that it will trap organized crime, and the "kingpins" or major players in the drug trade, those who profit from the vulnerabilities of people addicted to drugs. The amendments minimize the chance of ensnaring the "one-off" person or the vulnerable individuals who are involved as offenders that do not deserve extra harsh penalties.

 

The Senate amendments:

 

·         Restore judicial discretion when it comes to sentencing those committed of producing less than 200 cannabis plants

·         Tighten the bill's language to ensure that minor drug offences committed in the past do not automatically trigger a mandatory minimum for persons convicted of drug offences today

·         Add the Senate to the review clause and provide that a parliamentary review take place after two years AND after five years.

 

 

The Criminal Code currently urges judges to consider penalties other than imprisonment for aboriginal people (s.718.2(e)).  The final amendment ensures that similar consideration would be given when sentencing aboriginal people under the amended Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 

 

The report on Bill C-15 will be presented to the Senate as a whole for the Senators to consider the proposed amendments.

 

The Committee heard testimony from 62 witnesses over a four week period in the course of its rigorous study on Bill C-15.  The witnesses comprised government officials, representatives of law enforcement associations, legal organizations, public health organizations, and academics. Nine written submissions were also received from organizations and individuals who did not or could not appear before the committee.

 

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who appeared before the Committee, stated that "the proposals represent a tailored approach to mandatory penalties for serious drug offences . . . the offences being targeted are trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, production, importing, exporting, and possession for the purpose of exporting drugs." Minister Nicholson also stated "We are targeting those who profit off of the vulnerabilities of those addicted to drugs.  We are targeting organized crime."

 

However, witnesses representing the criminal defence bar who appeared on October 8, 2009 suggested that Bill C-15 will not have this effect, because the bill would make it more attractive for heads of criminal organizations to recruit low-level dealers, who are also addicts, to deal drugs for them, and that these latter individuals are the ones who would receive the mandatory minimum sentences that Bill C-15 would impose.

 

There were no mandatory minimum penalties in the CDSA. Bill C-15 imposes several mandatory minimums. It also increases the maximum penalty for cannabis (marijuana) production and takes certain substances from Schedule III of the Act and places them in Schedule I, thereby increasing the potential punishment for offences committed in relation to those substances.

 

Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator, stated that "there is a large body of research that points to both the lack of a deterrent effect for mandatory minimum sentences and the fact that they can lead to significant increases in the prison population with little or no positive impact on public safety.  Mandatory minimums are contrary to the notion that the punishment should fit the crime, and current conditions inside Canada's penitentiaries do not support easy access to proven correctional interventions."

 

Professor Neil Boyd, Simon Fraser University, stated that "two empirically based Department of Justice Canada studies take issue with mandatory minimum terms for crimes of illegal drug distribution. . . . There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits."

 

Joëlle Roy, Vice-president of the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense, stated as follows: "the imposition of minimum sentences also puts a muzzle on us. It muzzles not only the judges who impose sentences, but also the defence lawyers, the crown prosecutors and the probation officers."

 

For a copy of the report, or to find out more about the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, please visit www.senate-senat.ca/LEG-JUR.asp.

-30-

For more information please contact:

 

Mona Ishack                                                                           Jessica Richardson                             

Media Relations                                                                      Committee Clerk                                

Toll-free: 1-800-267-7362 or 613-944-4082                           Tel.: (613) 990-6087  

E-mail: ishacm@sen.parl.gc.ca                                               E-mail: richaj@sen.parl.gc.ca             

 

 

 

******

 

Le Comité sénatorial permanent des affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles

 

Ottawa, le 3 décembre 2009 – Le Comité sénatorial permanent des affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles a présenté son rapport aujourd'hui concernant le projet de loi C-15, Loi modifiant la loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances et apportant des modifications connexes et corrélatives à d'autres lois.

 

Le projet de loi modifie la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances (LRDS) afin de prévoir des peines minimales obligatoires pour les infractions liées à certaines drogues, tel le trafic de drogues au profit du crime organisé ou en recourant ou en menaçant de recourir à la violence.

Le Comité a modifié le projet de loi C-15 de façon à ce que ce soit les barons de la drogue et les gros trafiquants, ceux qui veulent s'enrichir sur le dos des petits toxicomanes, qui se fassent attraper. Les amendements réduisent le risque que les peines visent les personnes pour qui il s'agit d'un incident isolé ou les personnes plus vulnérables qui ne méritent pas de sanctions extrêmement sévères.

 

Les amendements proposés par le Sénat ont pour but de :

 

·         Rétablir le pouvoir discrétionnaire des juges pour la détermination de la peine des personnes reconnues coupables d'avoir produit moins de 200 plants de cannabis.

·         Resserrer le libellé du projet de loi afin que les infractions mineures en matière de stupéfiants commises dans le passé n'entraînent pas automatiquement une peine minimale obligatoire pour les personnes reconnues coupables d'infractions en matière de stupéfiants aujourd'hui.

·         Ajouter par un comité du Sénat à la disposition sur l'examen et prévoir un examen par le Parlement après deux ans ET après cinq ans

 

Actuellement, le Code criminel demande aux juges d'envisager des peines autres que l'emprisonnement pour les délinquants autochtones (art. 718.2e)). Le dernier amendement fait en sorte qu'il en sera de même au moment de déterminer la peine des délinquants autochtones en vertu de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances, telle que modifiée. 

 

Le rapport sur le projet de loi C‑15 sera présenté à l'ensemble du Sénat afin que les sénateurs puissent examiner les amendements proposés.

 

Le Comité a entendu 62 témoins durant une période de quatre semaines dans le cadre de son étude rigoureuse du projet de loi C-15. Les témoins qui ont comparu étaient des fonctionnaires, ainsi que des représentants d'organismes d'application de la loi, d'organismes juridiques, d'organismes de santé publique et du milieu universitaire. Neuf mémoires ont aussi été présentés par des organismes et des particuliers qui n'ont pas ou n'ont pas pu comparaître devant le Comité.

 

Le ministre de la Justice Rob Nicholson, qui a comparu devant le Comité, a déclaré que « les propositions constituent dans l'ensemble une approche adaptée aux peines obligatoires imposées pour de graves infractions en matière de drogues. Les infractions visées sont le trafic, la possession aux fins de trafic, la production, l'importation, l'exportation et la possession aux fins d'exportation de drogues ». Il a ajouté : « Nous visons les individus qui exploitent la vulnérabilité des toxicomanes. Nous visons le crime organisé ».

 

Toutefois, les représentants des avocats de la défense au criminel qui ont comparu le 8 octobre 2009 ont indiqué que le projet de loi C-15 n'aura pas cet effet, parce que le projet de loi incitera les dirigeants d'organisations criminelles à recruter des petits revendeurs, également toxicomanes, pour vendre de la drogue, et que ce sont ces derniers qui écoperont des peines minimales obligatoires prévues par le projet de loi.

 

La LRDS actuelle ne prévoit pas de peines minimales obligatoires. Le projet de loi C-15 impose plusieurs peines minimales. Le projet de loi a aussi pour objet d'augmenter la peine maximale pour l'infraction de production de marijuana et de transférer certaines substances inscrites à l'annexe III à l'annexe I, augmentant ainsi la peine possible pour les infractions liées à ces substances.

 

Howard Sapers, enquêteur correctionnel, a affirmé que, « selon bien des recherches, les peines minimales obligatoires ont peu d'effet dissuasif et peuvent mener à des augmentations importantes de la population carcérale sans avoir d'effet positive notable sur la sécurité du public. Les peines minimales obligatoires sont inconciliables avec l'idée que la peine devrait être à la mesure du crime commis, et les conditions actuelles dans les prisons canadiennes ne sont pas propices à faciliter l'accès à des interventions correctionnelles éprouvées ».

 

Le professeur Neil Boyd, de l'Université Simon Fraser, a indiqué que « deux études empiriques du ministère fédéral de la Justice remettent en question l'idée des peines minimales obligatoires pour des crimes liés à la distribution de drogues illicites . . . Il semblerait qu'elles ne soient pas un outil efficace en matière de détermination de la peine, c'est-à-dire qu'elles gênent le pouvoir judiciaire discrétionnaire sans offrir de meilleurs résultats quant à la prévention du crime ».

 

Joëlle Roy, vice-présidente de l'Association québécoise des avocats et avocates de la défense, a déclaré : « le fait d'imposer des peines minimales fait aussi que cela nous bâillonne. Cela bâillonne non seulement le magistrat qui impose des peines, mais les avocats de la défense, de la Couronne, ainsi que les agents de probation ».

 

Pour obtenir une copie du rapport ou en savoir davantage sur le Comité sénatorial permanent des affaires juridiques et constitutionnelles, visitez www.senate-senat.ca/LEG-JUR.asp.

-30-

Pour plus d'information, communiquez avec :

 

Mona Ishack                                                                           Jessica Richardson                             

Relations avec les médias                                                       Greffière du Comité                          

Sans frais : 1-800-267-7362 or 613-944-4082                        Tél. : (613) 990-6087 

Courriel : ishacm@sen.parl.gc.ca                                            Courriel : richaj@sen.parl.gc.ca                     

 

 

Govt considers prison needle program
ABC News
December 3, 2009

Is cannabis the answer to Booze Britain's problems?
E! Science News
December 1, 2009

Don't knock findings on dangerous drugs
A drug may be dangerous but that alone is not a reason to make it illegal. But it is a reason for regulation
By Deborah Orr
The Guardian (UK)
December 3, 2009

 

 

 http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenProceed.asp?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=2&comm_id=11. 

 

 

CSSDP handout on Mandatory Mins. Demo on the hill went well and Tara
was on national cbc!! dSee attached literature from the Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy

 

Please circulate . . .

TRANSFORM Drug Policy Foundation launched its new guide to the legal regulation of drugs, After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation, on the 12th of November in the UK House of Commons. Simultaneous launch events took place in the United States at the Drug Policy Alliance conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and in Australia and Mexico. December will see further launch events in Brazil and the EU parliament.

There is a growing recognition around the world that the prohibition of drugs is a counterproductive failure. However, a major barrier to drug law reform has been a widespread fear of the unknown—just what could a post-prohibition regime look like?

After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation answers that question for the first time. It does this by proposing specific models of regulation for each main type and preparation of prohibited drug, coupled with the principles and rationale for doing so.

Further, the book demonstrates that moving to the legal regulation of drugs is not an unthinkable, politically impossible step in the dark, but a sensible, pragmatic approach to control drug production, supply and use.

After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation is available FREE, in PDF format, at the TRANSFORM website - http://tdpf.org.uk/ - in English, Spanish and Portuguese.

TRANSFORM Drug Policy Foundation exists to promote sustainable health and wellbeing by bringing about a just, effective and humane system to regulate and control drugs at local, national and international levels.  Its vision is a world in which the War on Drugs is over, and effective and humane systems of drug regulation have been established.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To unsubscribe from the Canadian Harm Reduction Network's mailing list,

please reply to this message with the subject of your mail reading "unsubscribe" (without the quotes).