Meeting May 31

Wayne talked to contact with the city about holding an outdoor concert. I tested our kit with Ed and found it to be sensitive down to 3 ppm of paraquat. Trish has a list of upcoming concerts where we can recruit members. Garry reported that we have $862.48 and 513 members. Mathilda suggested that we meet at the Camrose campground for breakfast. I found out that NORML Canada said our test kits are unreliable -will write a letter of protest. George says the High School presentation has been moved to June 20. We need to meet soon for a kit-assembly bee. A “smoke in” is planned at the Provincial legislature in Edmonton on July 2.

We discussed what makes an executive member and decided that three consecutive meetings gets voting privileges. New executive members will be voted in.

Advertisements

Letter from the Attorney General of Alberta

Click here to view letter

Mr. A. David Charbonneau,
Executive Member,
Alberta Legalization of Cannabis Committtee
P.O. Box 96, Postal Station “G”,
CALGARY, Alberta.
T3A 2G5

Dear Mr. Charbonneau:

On behalf of the Attorney General I acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 24,1978, concerning uniformity of sentencing. Please be advised that your letter will be brought to the attention of the Attorney General so that he may be aware of your concerns.

Yours truly,
Mary Joan St. Pierre
Executive Assistant,

Meeting May 24

We decided on dates, June 23, 24, 25, for the joint conference of ALCC chapters from Edmonton and Calgary to be held in Camrose at the Alice Hotel. Our contribution to the conference will be the printing of programs. George is working on a Newsletter, should have it ready by next meeting.

Letter from Joe Clark, Leader of the Opposition

Click here to view letter

May 17, 1978

Dear Sheldon:

My legislative assistant, Patrick Howe, tells me that you were phoning recently to obtain my views on the marijuana question; I regret that you were unable to get through to me at that time.

With respect to this issue, I feel strongly that the present law is not serving as a deterrent to the use of marijuana and is resulting in many young people carrying criminal records for what amounts to a social practice among their generation.

Politicians urged to be cautious in decriminalizing marijuana 

Click here to see news clipping

By Andre McNicoll (McNicoll is a Vancouver consultant medical sociologist)
On Sept. 12. 1975. The Herald published my piece: “Let’s think again about soft’drugs.” Since then that article has appeared in several languages in some 40 newspapers, magazines and journals in Canada, the U.S. and Europe. For the past nearly four years, as “one who, has been there,” I have urged that we take a serious and cautious attitude towards the penetration of marijuana and hashish in our societ – a penetration accompanied and greatly facilitated by the squeals of delight heard in some of our most respectable circles.

Meeting May 10

George contacted a High School teacher who needs one hour’s worth of material for talk. Trish placed ALCC donation boxes at Sound Swap and Wizard TV. Ben said the T shirts are not here, yet. We will borrow some from Edmonton to sell at Nazareth concert. A new group is starting in Edmonton -CALM

Meeting May 3

Wayne says we can get a table at UofC for $35, maybe share it with NORML. George heard an anti-pot broadcast on CJAY. I received a call from ALCC Edmonton about a new director. Is Stan gone? Ben said that the Calgary Table Hockey Association may want to join ALCC but they are very paranoid.

Peru negotiating for U.S. aid to put new cocaine law into use

Click to see news clipping

LIMA,Peru (UPI)-
More than half of the cocaine sniffed. snorted, or mainlined in the United States originates in Peru. Small Peruvian farmers, most of them Indian peasants in the Andes mountains, grow between 50 and 70 per cent of the coca plants from which cocaine is produced, Their neighbors over the border in Bolivia grow most of the rest. So American drug enforcement officials were understandably jubilant when the military government of Peru, after years of according the cocaine trade a low priority. passed a sweeping drug-control law in March.

Sentencing compared.
A man and his 14-month-old daughter were killed and the man’s wife injured when an impaired driver drove into their car according to the April 13 Herald. The impaired driver’s licence Was under suspension as a result of driving impaired previously. The prosecutor asked for a sentence that-would deter others. He was sentenced for three years imprisonment. I have to wonder at the justice of laws that will jail a man for only three years who has been involved with the death of two people, and yet would jail another man for up to seven years for merely possessing marijuana. If that man sold some marijuana to someone else, he could be sent away to jail for life under the existing laws, Perhaps the laws might make some sense if the persons who sold the liquor to the impaired driver were imprisoned as well as the driver.
A. D. CHARBONNEAU, Calgary .
(The penalty for marijuana possession ranges irom a maximum of six months on a first offence to a maximum of seven years after repeated convictions ~ Editor, The Herald).

Marijuana use condemned
Re April 26 letter, “Marijuana dangerous drug.” is well and completely eXplained. I hope and pray its use will never be legalized – many of the crimes committed are results from such indulgences. Re April 26 ‘letter section’ by Mrs. Susan Friesen. title “MPs and Abortion” Her few weighty words should be, heeded by all mankind, otherwise we all are encouraging an early destruction of this our “sin sick world.”
MRS. M. SCHEUER.

Alberta Law Foundation rejects our application for survey

Click here to view letter

ALBERTA LAW FOUNDATION
1210.205 – 5TH AVENUE S.W., BOX 9114
CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 2W4
TELEPHONE 264.4701

May 1, 1978

Alberta Legalization of Cannabis Committee
c/o A.D. Charbonneau
1721 24A Street, S.W.
CALGARY, Alberta
T3C IJ5

Dear Sirs:

Re: Survey of Calgary area

As has been indicated to you, the board did not see its way clear to support your application.

In a general way they did not seem to feel that the application brought your project under our objectives too clearly. There was also some consideration of the fact that the survey did not appear to be based on a scientifically objective test and the results might easily be challenged as being in question.
For these and other reasons the board did not agree to support the application.

Yours very truly,

S.B. Laing
Executive Dlrector
SBL/dh