Originally posted by Hi i'm God
ahh so theres no real set back then! cool.
well, yes and no.
firstly, martin hasn't actually done anything about it, so a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, etc.
secondly, had the supreme court ruled this law as being unconsitutional, that result would actually have far more significance than if paul martin does create a new law decriminalizing posession.
the reason is because since the laws can be changed at any time, even if martin does go through with this, then the law holds for only as long as it doesn't get changed in any way(the next pm could go for a return to criminalization for example).
but had the supreme court ruled that the entire law was unconstitutional, then not only would there be no waiting period, but other subsequent attempts to re-criminalize weed posession would be very difficult to carry out.
that and other weed oriented crimes would probably result in lower punishment in court, even if police felt inclined to enforce a law already shown to be on shaky ground.
remember in the summer when they were ordered not to enforce weed laws because of the indecision in courts?
