An e-petition that requests the government to immediately repeal cannabis prohibition has reached 10,000 online signatures.

The petition, e-18, launched in February and calls for the end of punishment for cannabis possession and cultivation, revisions to the Criminal Code, pardons for past offences and other changes to allow for legalization.

Hosted on the government’s new e-petition site, the petition will be read in the House of Commons by sponsor Elizabeth May of the federal Green Party.

Organizer Sam Vekemans said the petition now has a website at with a goal set of 50,000 signatures before June 9.



  • Grow Your Own

    sadly signatures don’t matter . there could be 200k votes to end prohibition and they still wouldn’t look at it . it’ll take 2-3 years to bring it to parliament just like every other petition .

  • Ned Fumpkin

    Here’s the problem with the petition…10k people may have signed it, but did they read it?

    First the statement: “Cannabis prohibition began with no scientific, medical or social
    justification, and was initiated as an effort to harass, punish and
    deport racial minorities.” is a lie. It is nothing more than one person’s opinion based on a bit of fact and some conjecture. It is simply an untrue statement.

    Take out the word prihibition and the statement “The prohibition of cannabis has caused many social and economic harms,
    criminalized millions of Canadians for no benefit, and financed
    organized crime” is little more than propaganda worthy of the HarperCons.

    Then the statment “Cannabis has the potential to provide food, medicine, fibre, fuel and building materials” is true only because it is already happening in Canada. Industrial hemp has been produced since the 80s…so why petition for something that exists.

    The final statement “Cannabis medicines are safe and effective for treating a wide variety of
    ailments, yet are not readily available to all who require them.” is still an opinion, but more importantly, nothing in the petition would change anything since this already exists.

    So the question I have is why would someone waste a petition on this bullshit because the creator got too stoned to think clearly and made a worthless petition?

    This is not only a waste, but it prevents a better petition from being created. This is what is wrong with the entire cannabis movement….idiots getting too stoned to function properly end up screwing things for everyone else.

    • Surveilz

      Tell that to the stoners who won Allard ya frucking keyboard hero.

      • Ned Fumpkin

        Allard was won in the courts before a judge. There was no petition involved. Not that it would have helped in any way.

        Also, it wasn’t stoners who won Allard, it was medical patients. As a medical patient, I could not care less about stoners who probably could not read and comprehend the Allard decision.

        • Surveilz

          “As a medical patient, I could not care less about stoners”

          Is that right? Well tell me ya fucking LP shill, apart from trolling the website of the person who’s done more for medical patients than anyone else and criticizing those currently taking action, what have –>YOU<– done to advance and improve your situation? By the way, helping to setup monopolies is not an answer.

        • Wayne Phillips

          How the MMPR is to be re-defined by the Liberal government has yet to be seen.

    • Wayne Phillips


      On April 23th 1923, during the 2nd Session of 14th Parliament, as indicated in the House of Commons Debates, Vol. 3 on page 2124, it was stated: From the chair: “On the schedule.” Mr. Béland (stated): “There is a new drug in the Schedule .” The chair replied, “Bill Reported, read the third time and passed.”

      On May 3rd, 1923, according to the Senate Debates of the 14th Parliament, 2nd Session: Vol. 1 on page 408) what was read and passed by the Senate did not contain, “There is a new drug in the Schedule” ; instead, it read: “On the schedule: Hon. Mr. Dandurand : There is only one addition to the schedule: Cannabis Indica (Indian Hemp) or Hasheesh, or its preparations or compounds or derivatives, or their preparations and compounds. The schedule was agreed to.”

      In Panic and Indifference (1991), the authors, Giffen, Endicott and Lambert, show how Cannabis indica was added, by some undisclosed hand, after the bill had been passed by the House of Commons. On page 179 under the heading The Schedule and subtitled Marijuana Giffen, et al had this to say:

      “Interestingly enough, a draft of the 1923 Bill found in one file made no mention of marijuana on the Schedule. The file following this contained several carbon copies of the draft. One of these had obviously been put into the typewriter again, and “Cannabis indica (Indian Hemp) or Hasheesh” had been added to the Schedule. Whoever added those words was apparently under the impression that hasheesh was simply a synonym for cannabis indica.”

      What transpired in the Lower Chamber on April 23th 1923 concerning “There is a new drug in the Schedule.” was a) tantamount to tergiversation (falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language) there was no specific mention of cannabis indica, whatsoever; b) the altering of a House document outside the purview of the Lower Chamber constitutes, among other things, a breach of Parliamentary protocol; and c) the submitting of altered documentation to the Upper Chamber constitutes fraud, if not treason.

      Taking not only the aforementioned into consideration, but also the weight of the ramifications of all that which has transpired (since 1923) especially the sheer number of arrest rates since the early 70s on, I would liked to have seen the petition’s author specify the aforementioned as a part of the rationale. But it is, after all, only a petition and as such should be concise.

      On Dec. 15, 2015 I posed questions concerning all this in a letter addressed to both the Attorney General and the Prime Minister; I await a response. The aforementioned, however, as previously stated, are taken verbatim from The House of Common Debates of both Chambers and in accordance with what is required of and by Canada’s Parliamentary system of protocols necessary to legitimize legislation.

      Much of what you refer to as “propaganda worthy of the HarperCons.” has been echoed in numerous publications including Panic and Indifference, The Real Dope, the LeDain Commission, and the 2002 Senate Report on Cannabis and a host of other literature and sources on the subject. From a broader perspective the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy ( shows the science behind that which you’ve deemed propaganda.

  • Sam Vekemans

    We all know that Repealing cannabis prohibition is a process, and won’t happen over night.

    And this e-petition process is new, (different than the paper petitions, because it’s more public, and gets more attention) It requires just 500 digital signatures (vs. 25 paper signatures) for the MP to submit it to Parliament. 50,000 signatures would not only mean it reaches the most popular petition, but will also get more people talking.

    When Elizabeth May speaks on this petition, after the petition expires, the government must respond.

    We are also encouraging everyone to approach their local MP and ask them to support an identical Paper petition. (as mentioned in the website with instructions)

    We are also encouraging all MPs to be making public statements on cannabis policy. Most people are not aware that 134 MPs have not made a public cannabis policy statement (that can be found on the internet). So we are asking everyone to encourage the MPs to speak out and make a statement.

    Having this information is very useful, because it serves as a ‘pre-vote’ so to see when a Bill gets presented, how will they (probably) vote. It also serves as a stepping block to ask the MP to speak further as to why they have the views they do. This will help to get the MPs feedback on which parts of ending prohibition that they do (or don’t) support.

    Further, on the Senate side, i’m asking the same thing from the Senators.
    Unfortunately, the Senate has a conservative majority, however, Justin Trudeau will be appointing a few more (liberals), so the number of Senators that need to be swayed over to supporting the Bill goes down.

    As mentioned on another cannabisincanada post, i am writing the draft text of the Bill, i call it C-987/S-987 and am emailing and snail-mailing a hard copy to every MP and Senator, so they can see exactly what is being called for.
    The Draft text bill, simply translates everything that is being asked for into pre-legislative drafters form, so an MP/Senator could easily accept and adopt it.

    The text is open for public comment, (on a google document), so for those who like to provide feedback on how it can be better, feel free to comment.