Police seek man's stolen medicinal weed

A 42-year-old man in Chatham-Kent, Ontario, Canada called police to report that he had been robbed of almost an ounce of pot. From the North Bay Nugget:
The man has a certificate from the federal government to possess and use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

He told officers that he noticed his drugs were missing after a number of friends left his home.
"Man asks cops: Please find my marijuana"



  1. It is pretty mean to steal cannabis from someone with chronic pain or nausea. Some friends.

  2. Gives new meaning to Canada’s War on Drugs!

    Back in the day an ounce cost about 300$ or so (28g in an oz I believe). Typically buddies would buy an ounce from some friend tree planting in BC for about 320$ and resell it where ever for about 20$ a gram, mostly not really for profit, but to make their own pot consumption a bit cheaper.

    What they charge these days I don’t know. What the Canadian government charges is even more of a mystery.

    Probably the best reason for legalization. Gov would tax the bejesus out of it, likely doubling the price. See how many kids smoke it when it is 30-40$ bucks a gram?

    As for illegal selling… why bother to sell to kids and such for 8$ profit when you can do it legally for 16$ profit… Which makes me wonder why Americans haven’t legalized it already and let their flaunted economics and market win their war on drugs?

  3. @Darthvain

    If the government raises the price from the already ridiculous danger-pay prices in place, while at the same time removing the prohibition on the stuff, thus lowering the risk for bootleggers, they will just make it easier for the established illegal network to undercut them on price.

    This is what happened when the Ontario government tried to tax cigarettes very heavily, when just South of the border, US cigarettes were taxed at a much lower rate – they created an immensely profitable cigarette smuggling business. After a vastly expensive, unsuccessful, and

    Add to that – we’re talking about a plant that grows like a weed in poor soil. Complex hydroponic operations are mostly required because of need to hide the plants. A legal market could produce the stuff for much closer to its natural price of nearly-free. Even taxing it at 1000% of the free market price, the cost would fall.

  4. It’s a mystery why “Ah-nuld” hasn’t asked his legislature to legalize it and tax it. If Californians won’t simply vote to legalize, what do you bet they would overwhelmingly vote to legalize and TAX?

    A thousand NO votes from Mendocino.

  5. @Dragonfrog

    Although it does grow pretty much anywhere in any condition, to get the plant into a smokable format does require a suprisingly large amount of work – especially when it is upscaled. You have to remove the male plants from the female ones as soon as the difference is obvious – and that alone would make a lot of extra work for a farmer, than just dropping the seeds and cutting it down later…

    …Although if you are not trying to get it smokable, and just growing for fibre/biofuel – then yes, the cost is tiny.

  6. Given that it’s medicine, it may very well be paid for by the government. It is entirely possible that he receives it for free.

  7. Obviously pot is responsible for this man’s poor judgment of friends. Is the cat missing too?

  8. Budy66@10, one state congressman has in fact proposed taxing marijuana.

    This wouldn’t be the first time that something like this has happened, although the last times — which involved a stamp — it’s ended up being such a legal morass that most people learned better. Of course, since then, the SCOTUS has said that federal law on interstate trade trumps anything related to drugs, even if they never cross state borders.

  9. I am glad to see MDs are finally prescribing medicinal marijuana for the terrible condition of being in Chatham.

  10. a small amount of weed went missing from my apt. (roommates medical stuff.) no one was over and neither me nor the other roomie would take it because if we smoke we just smoke her weed anyways.

    my theory? one of the cats took the baggie.

  11. Stealing your buddys weed is freaking low.

    Who out there need pot soooo bad that they would steal it from a friend?

    Pot is inexpensive enough that if you want to get high on a budget you can – plus any friend i know would have no problem selling a gram or two to a friend thats hurtin.

    Pay for drugs in cash – drugs are only for those who can afford them. If you still need them and you cant afford them then shit your in trouble.

  12. And then the police planted a gram of coke in his sofa and shot him. ha ha ha cough cough s’okay i’m fine…

  13. @Dragonfrog, et al; on legalization, smuggling and the tobacco analogy.

    There’s actually a World Bank study on the economics of smuggling, consumption and taxation with tobacco (link below). The report shows that anti-smuggling regimes can be effective, even when the economic incentives for smuggling are very high.

    Perhaps Canada’s penalties for tobacco smuggling were not thoughtfully scaled with its sudden profitability?

    *World Bank Report, Curbing the epidemic. Economics of tobacco control. Washington DC, June 1999: http://www.globalink.org/en/smuggling.shtml

  14. Wow, this suggests a great premise for a Hollywood movie:

    When the laws of their state change, two tough drug enforcement agents find themselves ordered on the strangest case of their career: locate a truckload of medical grade marijuana– and return it to the cancer hospice it was stolen from. But that means bringing down the two dozen brutal druglords who hijacked it!

  15. Argh, I should finish my sentences.

    After a vastly expensive, unsuccessful, and politicall ruinous anti-smuggling campaign, the taxes were lowered to be more in line with US rates, and the smuggling dwindled.

    @ Brownbat et al. – one of the things that makes smuggling between Canada and the US particularly difficult to reign in, is that the Canada-US border is the largest unguarded land border in the world. There are additional politically sensitive issues such as native reservations that straddle the border, with members of the native band free to travel within the reserve free from border controls, because, after all, they lived there before anyone invented a border…

  16. @#6/DarthVain “…Probably the best reason for legalization….”
    In my humble opinion, 100,000 armed foot soldiers fighting for drug lords in Mexico (who increasingly act with impunity within the US) — compared with the Mexican army of only 130,000 and insufficient resources in the US as well — is as good a case as any for decriminalization or outright legalization of the wacky weed… at least here in the States. But then, we’re the ones most responsible for consuming drugs and creating the huge market for them, as well as for (collectively) allowing our politicians to continue this nonsense.

  17. if America’s government was in danger of overthrow because Mexico was a huge market for illegal drugs made in America, what would America do?

  18. @14,

    Yeah, but AGOTUS says no more prosecutions of CA’s medical Maryjane bidness, regardless of what SCOTUS says or the SCROTES at DEA do

    be do

  19. heh! watch the DEA try to re-brand soon like Blackwater “Xe”. (hehe! “scrotes” heh!)

  20. Re: tobacco: the “smugglers” were in fact the large tobacco companies themselves: they have since paid several hundred million $$ in fines; the taxes are back up; and the smuggling now is much much less (almost non-existent).
    The tobacco companies were involved in a massive criminal conspiracy to defraud the Government of tax revenues. And they got hammered for it.
    Absent criminal behaviour on the part of the tobacco cos., high taxes on tobacco work just fine at reducing consumption.

    And the Conservatives have longed to impose mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana, just like those great policies down stateside, for the same reason: to protect their criminal buddies’ profits.

    But note! In Canada, it is possible to have a legally recognized property right in your marijuana: Federally recognized! Court-enforced!
    The Supreme Court came within a whisker of legalizing marijuana outright: they did not say that increased punitive measures would meet their approval! Quite the opposite! If an accused grower has provided just one sick person with medical weed, the likelihood of a Canadian Appeals Court striking down this mandatory minimum sentence for growing is like 99%.
    In Canada, it is unconstitutional (as in, contrary to the fundamental rights enjoyed by all and guaranteed by Law in a free and democratic society)to be imprisoned for simple possession of marijuana!
    Jailing people is just the Tories’ style: there’s a reason they never poll more than 33% of total votes cast.
    It is not Canada that is backsliding, it is the Reform oops I mean conservative party: and they are not really backsliding, they have always been antediluvian.
    PS I note that the Tories have yet to deport Mr. Emery…I wonder why? Perhaps they would find it impolitic…

    PS I personally know many fine Tories who enjoy a pipe of sweet hemp….

  21. PS Do your editors think that theft is a laughing matter?
    or is it only ill marijuana users who are to be laughed at when they have their property stolen, and turn to the Law for help?

  22. Wackyvorlon: Nope, it ain’t listed…but they can deduct its cost from income as a medical expense, and designate growers who thereby become immune from prosecution: Canada, unlike the vast majority of US jurisdictions, takes the issue of medical marijuana seriously. That is, we take the pain of our ill citizens seriously enough to allow them the medicine they need without getting all huffy or giggly about it.
    In contrast to the un-compassion of SCOTUS.

  23. It’s just that we Yanks are so used to stories of Darwin Award candidates wandering into police stations to report that they have been robbed of their illegal drug of choice, so our first response is “Wha?” before we realize that in Canada it’s a valid crime report.

  24. I’m suggesting that since cash-strapped CA is the state that almost invented the ballot initiative, a signature-gathering petition to legalize and tax marijuana would garner millions of votes and hundreds of politicians.

    A big win, followed by a dozen more hungry states.

  25. Ugly Canuck
    In Canada, it is unconstitutional (as in, contrary to the fundamental rights enjoyed by all and guaranteed by Law in a free and democratic society)to be imprisoned for simple possession of marijuana!

    Do you have anything you can point to on that front. I’m Canadian, but sadly not that up on Canadian constitutional law…

    Also, I don’t know that this is about mocking the guy – it’s more that the very fact this case seems weird (oh my Gawd, the cops are actually acting on a case of a sick man whose medicine is stolen) highlights how dysfunctional our drug laws are.

  26. From the majority decision in the above:

    “A finding that a particular form of penalty violates s. 12 of the Charter may call for a constitutional remedy in relation to the penalty, but leave intact the criminalization of the conduct, which may still be constitutionally punishable by an alternative form of penalty.

    The operative concept here is the use of incarceration, not the availability of incarceration. Possession of marihuana carries no minimum sentence. In most possession cases, offenders (whether vulnerable or not) receive discharges or conditional sentences. This is particularly true where the amounts of marihuana involved are small and for recreational uses, where the usual sentence is a conditional discharge. There is no impediment in the legislation to a trial judge imposing a fit sentence after a conviction for simple possession of marihuana.

    The “availability” of imprisonment in respect of the scheduled drugs under the Narcotic Control Act is part of a statutory framework for dealing with drugs generally and is not specifically directed at marihuana. The case law discloses that it is only in the presence of aggravating circumstances, not likely to be present in the situation of “vulnerable persons”, where a court has been persuaded that imprisonment for simple possession of marihuana was, in the particular case, a fit sentence. There is no need to turn to the Charter for relief against an unfit sentence. If imprisonment is not a fit sentence in a particular case it will not be imposed, and if imposed, it will be reversed on appeal.

  27. And the three separate dissents in Malmo would have struck down the prohibition as to possession entirely: imprisonment for simple possession would trigger the tests which the dissenters applied, but which the majority forbore from applying because this was not such a case: the implication must be that if imprisonment was imposed for simple possession, that the analysis of the dissenters would be applied – such a sentence (imprisonment) would trigger further constitutional analysis, sufficient to strike down the Law, per the dissenters – but which in this case the 4-3 majority ruled need not occur to decide the case. (see the quote above).
    Note also the reference to the lack of mandatory imprisonment in the Law as written: the implication is that if such were in place, that further analysis would be warranted, an analysis which the three dissenters would have undertaken, and which in their opinion would have led to the striking of the Law from the books.
    Rest assured, for simple possession, the Government does not want to risk an Appeals Court having to do such analysis….once a person growing for themselves faces a mandatory prison term, this Law may well fall….and not just the sentencing provisions.

  28. Reading over the decision in Malmo, it is clear that the Court was telegraphing that it was not enamoured of this prohibition: the only grounds adduced for criminalization appears to be that of “protecting the vulnerable”.
    That they came within one vote of striking the law is remarkable: that had the sentencing been harsher, the dissent would have become the majority.
    The Court is sensitive too to some political winds: the decision must be read as a warning to the Government as to the manner of enforcement: this conduct harms no-one but he who engages in it: imprison him “for his own protection”, and the Court will release him.
    It should also be kept in mind that medical marijuana has been a Court-imposed change in the Law: the politicians seemed ready to sacrifice the sick on the altar of the Law to demonstrate…power?…??…, and the Courts stopped them from doing so.
    If a law’s sole justification is to protect vulnerable people from harm, throwing precisely those people in jail, or imposing any sentence, would seem to undercut the reasons for the Law in the first place: and that is a violation of the principles under which our Laws operate.

  29. The bottom line: our judges would rather that our politicians did the right thing: but if the politicians won’t, then the Courts will. And have.

  30. I understand that in the US, the judges have no role in determining sentences anymore: it’s all mandatory minimums imposed by politicians, eh?
    Human sacrifice, huh? their liberty sacrificed to affirm the power of your politicians.

  31. It’s no big surprise that “medicinal” = “wink*wink”

    When I was vacationing in California last year, every paper was filled with ads for storefront clinics screaming “MEDICINAL *wink*wink* MARIJUANA”

  32. This Is Just To Say

    I have smoked
    the kindweed
    that was on
    ur coffeetable

    and which
    you were probably
    for ur medicinal purposez.

    Forgive me
    it was righteous
    so fresh
    and so sweet.

    — William Lolcats Williams

  33. Someday, after he’s alienated all his friends, he’ll find where he hid the weed.

    Silver lining? They’ll get together, finish smoking it, and have a good laugh about forgetting what they were laughing about forgetting.

    It’s all good.

Comments are closed.