{"title":"Supreme Court upholds criminal prohibitions on possession of marijuana for recreational use.","authors":"Gord Cruess","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In two recent decisions, R v Malmo-Levine and R v Caine (decided together) and R v Clay, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the criminal prohibition on marijuana possession, in the absence of a regulatory exemption for medical purposes, is constitutional.</p>","PeriodicalId":83647,"journal":{"name":"Canadian HIV/AIDS policy & law review","volume":"9 1","pages":"54-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian HIV/AIDS policy & law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In two recent decisions, R v Malmo-Levine and R v Caine (decided together) and R v Clay, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the criminal prohibition on marijuana possession, in the absence of a regulatory exemption for medical purposes, is constitutional.