Community Advocate

Thanks for the insight!

Wrong. Our school uses mouth swabs - a q-tip looking thing that collects saliva. It is a negative option for the kids - we think you're high so you have to go home - unless you are willing to prove us wrong with this little test stick. On another note, our school district does not send kids home anymore for being high at school so they can go home and smoke more pot. They are mandated to a three day 'treatment' program, where they learn to be more resilient, make better choices, and work out their problems in a drug-free environment. Then, they are followed by the district and monitored until graduation. This is a proactive measure!

Sure, you can begin with this: http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sto...e3-9b4894296902 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/stor...4/pot-meth.html http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/19/...angs060419.html Oh, and where do we sent this strand of hair?

1. There are no effective measures when parents find out, unless they live in Alberta. Their hands are tied, just like the police's hands are tied. There is no law. 2. The behaviour is a problem, I'll agree. But bad behaviour can certainly be seriously exacerbated with drug use. Why do you think they call them 'mind-altering' drugs? They alter your mind, and your behaviour. Just look at someone drunk on alcohol - are they acting the way they normally would act? Drugs and alcohol affect behaviour, there's no doubt about that - and for some, that behaviour involves criminal activity. 3. Many are willing to talk about it, the problem is, no one wants to take the blame or do anything about it. It's much easier for parents to blame the teachers, teachers to blame the parents, and everyone to blame the law enforcement and the government. Nothing gets done this way.

While a good lawyer may get you off (and cost a pile of dough), you are more likely to be held liable in the case of an accident. There are many precedents on the books. So, in our house, the legal limit to drink and then drive is none. Don't care if you've been drinking before you got here, you brought your own booze, whatever. If you try to leave my house after drinking, you will be shortly stopped by the police, after I call them. Now, knowing this, you may choose to have me drive you home, or send you in a taxi, and deliver your vehicle to you the next day if i have been drinking with you. Don't care if you think you're fit to drive - as a responsible home owner, I can't take that chance. And it's not about being sued, it's about what might happen that I could never forgive myself for. But that's just me.

LOL Without parental consent? Parents can not legally mandate a drug test for their own kid - certainly their consent would not be an issue. The child themselves have to consent. The way our school approached this was to offer the student the opportunity to take the drug test to proove they weren't high. If they refused the test, back home they went. Simple as that. Today, parents need their children's signed consent for medical or criminal information from the age of 12 forward. Here's the most world-wide accepted charter of rights and freedoms for the children of the world (up to the age of 18) stating that these kids actually have the right to be protected from these illicit drugs: WORLD-WIDE/INTERNATIONAL: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm Convention on the Rights of the Child: Article 33: States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances.

First quote = Pot smoking can be too powerful today, because some of it is laced with crystal meth, which makes it more potent, and more addictive. But the pot smokers smoking it think it's 'good weed'. Last quote = wrong. Pot can cause psychosis in some people.

Yes, this is what I hear from the kids - the purpose is to get 'ripped'. It's fun. . . if nothing serious happens, and until it's too late and an addiction has set in. Thanks for your great advice on ensuring you are somewhere safe when you load up the brain and body with poison mushrooms! I suppose as long as you are somewhere safe, no overdose can happen, everything will be just fine. My friends' brother was safely in his own living room when his gf had to call an ambulance for an overdose of poison mushrooms. He barely made it out alive. I say most kids are not smart enough to use these illicit drugs safely, if there is such a thing. You're so cool - you did acid! Wow. I can only imagine how much fun that must have been. Going into a fit of giggles over the word 'the' - sounds like great fun to me! PS: There is no 'safe' stuff.

Yep. should be. but there's nothing a parent can do. From the age of 12, and before, our kids in Canada fall under the Federal Privacy Act. Section 8 (2) forbids you from obtaining any information about your own child's medical or criminal status. And, when you know they are using, you'll be laughed at when you reach out for help. And when you know they are addicted, they will tell you there is nothing you can do - you can not mandate treatment for your own child addicted to drugs, unless you live in Alberta. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have laws that can be accessed, but they are much more difficult to get through. So, even if the parents are the last to know, when they find out, there is nothing they can do short of selling the Playstation game they planned to give their kid for Christmas, or sellign the car they bought for their kid after they've found booze in the front seat. If you have a kid using drugs, you don't approve, the advice you will get from all the professionals, including RCMP, Ministry for Children and Families, Mental health workers, counsellors, school staff, and al the rest is: "kick'em out!". Then, they find out there are no resources for them. ETA: Another issue is that if a kid goes to the school counsellor to disclose drug use and the problems its causing them, the child's right to privacy supercedes the parents' right to know. They call it 'confidentiality'.

In BC the maximum increase rate is 4% per year.

> When one of those services are lost to a tenant what recourse does he have? Yes he can file a complaint, but in the meantime he freezes, cant shower or has to light candles. That would warrant a breech of material terms, which would allow the tenant to make two calls to the landlord, and if no action ocurred, the tenant can make the repairs, and submit the receipts as part of their next rental payment. The landlord would then have to apply for arbitration to have the tenant's decision reversed if the arbitrator agreed with the landlord. A breech of material terms is quite unique in that way.

The only 'experts' in this case would be the lawyers and the judge. If there are credible witnesses that observed the person who had been drinking leave the host's home, and they were not fit to drive (being 'fallling-down drunk' is not necessary to be unfit to drive) and they were in an accident that was caused due to their impairment, then yes, there is a good chance that the host would be held liable. The last line in this quote explains why MADD is going for zero tolerance. For some, one drink is too much in order to drive a deadly weapon. What I find odd is that when people are drinking and they 'feel fine' to drive, their only concern is getting stopped by police and fined and losing their vehicle for 24 hours. People often fail to think about all the other things that can happen that would be much much worse than that.

Short answer is YES. But it isn't the law that comes after you, it's your guest. You can pretty much sue anybody for anything if you can afford the lawyer. There have been precedents where people were drinking at a home, got into accidents, were injured in those accidents, and the homeowners were held liable. In one case I recall, the homeowner was liable for 70%. In another, where a youth was seriously injured, the homeowner was held 100% liable, even though she said she was unaware that the youth were drinking in her home. It is not under the criminal code, it is under civil liability. Therefore, the police can not lay the charges, the victim has to sue.

Damage deposits can not be kept by a landlord for normal wear and tear. In order for the landlord to not return the DD, a landlord must prove through arbitration that there were in fact damages that presented the landlord with a cost. I don't see anything in the Act that allows a landlord to refuse a tenant just because they have no contents insurance.

You are absolutely right. It sucks for the landlord. These laws are made to protect renters, not landlords. "More than likely the tenant will move during the first week of the following month, forfeiting his deposit yes, but leaving the unit in non rentable condition which will cost more than the deposit will cover. The landlord has been prevented from re-renting the unit and has lost 2 months rent plus filing fees, plus damages in the meantime. Good luck on finding your former tenant or collecting any monies owing even if you do have an order." And just to further irritate you, the only way tenant forfiets the damage deposit is by not providing the landlord with a forwarding address. In order for a landlord to keep any of the dd for damages or lost rent, he must have that approved by an arbitrator as well, before you can consider the dd yours. And, winning arbitration only gives you the right to then apply for a payment order (more costs to file, more time to commit, more travel) and THEN you can seek the service of (and pay for) a bailiff to enforce the order of payment. PS: There is no affordable housing - especially for youth. Employers are very seldom hiring full time with benefits. They hire part time so they don't have to pay benefits, and young people are finding it is impossible to make enough income to cover their rent, food, travel, and medical expenses. That's why 70% of young people between 20 and 29 are still living at home.

I think that once they get over the initial agony and discomfort comming off their addictions, they will all be very happy that there are no cigarettes around to get their hands on. If you don't have them, and you can't get them, you can't smoke them. But, unfortunately, the ones who make all the money from the sale of cigarettes, and from offering treatments for cessation, even with the cost in the medical system, I don't think my dream will come true any time soon. I was sure that after these serious warnings and gross photos on the cigarette packs would help people to stop, and some have, but some are still stuck in their addictions. Our friends in a two-smoker family did their annual budget and learned that they spent 1/3 their income on cigarettes. They figured out they could afford two trips to Mexico every year with the same amount of money they spent on smoking! No they didn't quit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M88k6Ipp3c Made in Canada, but we can't drive them here yet Each province is on their own. I want one! I like them much more than the new cars in India.

School to start drug testing Participation of Green Valley High athletes required By LISA KIM BACH REVIEW-JOURNAL Jeff Horn High school principal wants to help students make "positive and productive choices" DELETED: http://www.lvrj.com/news/13672452.html

Well, I already did. And you can't MAKE ME do anything I don't want to do! lol

Life is like a box of chocolates, isn't it? lol Life is Like Hot Chocolate: A group of graduates, well established in their careers, were talking at a reunion and decided to go visit their old university professor, now retired. During their visit, the conversation turned to complaints about stress in their work and lives. Offering his guests hot chocolate, the professor went into the kitchen and returned with a large pot of hot chocolate and an assortment of cups - porcelain, glass, crystal, some plain looking, some expensive, some exquisite - telling them to help themselves to the hot chocolate. When they all had a cup of hot chocolate in hand, the professor said: 'Notice that all the nice looking, expensive cups were taken, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress. The cup that you're drinking from adds nothing to the quality of the hot chocolate. In most cases it is just more expensive and in some cases even hides what we drink. What all of you really wanted was hot chocolate, not the cup; but you consciously went for the best cups... And then you began eyeing each other's cups. Now consider this: Life is the hot chocolate; your job, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain life. The cup you have does not define, nor change the quality of life you have. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the hot chocolate God has provided us. God makes the hot chocolate, man chooses the cups. The happiest people don't have the best of everything. They just make the best of everything that they have. Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. And enjoy your hot chocolate.

Well, an employer doesn't make the decision for an employee to become addicted to drugs or alcohol, but my understanding is that one does, the employer can not fire them, but must provide the addicted employee with time off for rehab as well as (partial?) responsiblity to pay for the treatment. I think this is because the addiction is viewed as a medical problem. Don't remember where I heard this, might be different between provinces? Anyone know for sure?