Ok... :wtf: So it basically went like this?:

Judge: You have been charged with possession of marijuana.
Guy: But... there's no law saying that marijuana is legal for medical users, but they get to have it. So why can't I?
Judge: Well... uhh... well, damn, I guess you're right. I guess pot laws are a scam. Your charges are dropped!
Guy: Hoorah!

Don't get me wrong, I agree that all laws against pot are a scam, but this seems kinda silly. Won't the government's response to this be to make the 'policy' for medical use into a 'law'? If that happens, won't recreational use still be illegal, and won't the guy's charges therefore still be valid? I mean it's good that that he educated the Judge on this issue, but... how does the lack of 'law' about allowing medical use make laws against recreational use unconstitutional?

Personally, I think cannabis should be legal for medical and recreational purposes alike, and I feel happy for the guy that his charges got dropped, but at the same time I just don't think this particular case makes very much sense. Am I missing something?
afghooey Reviewed by afghooey on . Judge rules Canada's pot possession laws unconstitutional Judge rules Canada's pot possession laws unconstitutional Last Updated: Friday, July 13, 2007 | 8:46 PM ET CBC News A Toronto judge has ruled that Canada's pot possession laws are unconstitutional after a man argued the country's medicinal marijuana regulations are flawed. See CBC News for the story See video broadcast at http://www.cbc.ca/clips/rm-hi/lancaster-potruling-070713.rm Rating: 5