waldo Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I was clearly told that it's not illegal to take/use illicit drugs in Canada. and you still persist... if/when you were told that, it was surely in relation to your continued and unsubstantiated claims that there is a Canadian law concerning drug consumption... except, you have never been able to state what that law is - again, because it doesn't exist. No matter how many people impress the point for you, there is no direct correlation within existing Canadian law between possession and consumption. And yet you persist, citing 3rd party web sites where a single word reference to "use" has you forcefully claiming a law exists... except, you have never been able to state what that law is - again, because it doesn't exist. And yet you persist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Waldo: So explain to me what exactly does a urine test , test for, for use or consumption is it not...and we have laws regarding testing, do we not...why would we test for use or consumption if it was legal to do so...i mean consume illigal drugs.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I'm not sure that's true. If the police bust a party where a lot of minors are drunk but the beer has all been consumed, I'm guessing they could give them breathalyzers and charge them. Same with the one holding the doobie being the one in possession - don't think it would work that way considering the definition of possession in Canada's law. A breathalyzer would not be given since no one is operating machinery.Any charges fall under the Liquor Licence Act and not the Criminal Code. Even with minors.One can legally give a minor a beer wine or booze, but the parent guardian or spouse of the minor has to be the one to do so. It then follows it cannot be against the law to have it in you, (as a minor) if it was legally given to you. [quotye] Again, according to the definition of possession under the law, the one being injected would be in possession. Possession (3) For the purposes of this Act, (a) a person has anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession or knowingly (i) has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or (ii) has it in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person; and ( where one of two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has anything in his custody or possession, it shall be deemed to be in the custody and possession of each and all of them. I have read that more than once in the past few days, I still think it does not mean in you , merely 'on you' It would be more exact than it is, which I do not believe they can do, and for the purposes mentioned above. It is illegal to.... sell give be in a bar or pub work eithe or a nightclub, pour or open if 16+ in the above and so on, but as far as in ones body, nothing I have read or understood over the years says as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 ....my piont was remember that the next time your flying....and you look at the pilot with the glassed over eyes ....it actually takes serveral incidents before they can fire or release him....now thats scary... An airline pilot is subject to testing sice he falls under the requirement in your link "The following types of testing may be included in a workplace drug- and alcoholtesting program, but only if an employer can demonstrate that they are bona fide occupational requirements: • Random alcohol testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions" And yet i've seen many examples of military personal being given a pink slips nd dismissed dishonorably due to drugs on the first case..And i'm not sure why, or even if that portion of the Human rights charter applies...or how it applies I'm assuming this is the same for RCMP officers as well... Seems the military has its own rules, so perhaps you could tell us. I doubt the public safety is any concern...unless of course that plane just falls out of the sky and wipes out Ottawa (guess we could hope huh?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 A breathalyzer would not be given since no one is operating machinery.Any charges fall under the Liquor Licence Act and not the Criminal Code. One does not have to operate machinery to have a breathalyzer used again'st you, as it is the one of the tests that measures consumption if your job requires it, your employer can order a test done to see if or how intoxicated you are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) One does not have to operate machinery to have a breathalyzer used agains't you, as it is the one of the tests that measures consumption, if your job requires it, your employer can order a test done to see if or how intoxicated you are... Geez AG , not sure what you are saying here. It measures the amount of Alcohol in ones bloodstream, relevant to operational limits as spelled out in the CCC. If no CCC charge can come about, then no breathalyzer will be given. LLAct charges are mere and generally not worth sweating about, at least for the individual. Say, driving to the cottage and a case of beer is behind the seat...busted, but no breathalyzer, no CCC charge There is no level of impairment for a job that is acceptable, at least as far as pilots, bus drivers, etc are concerned. the employment contracts specify no alcohol in the system prior to report to shift. ETA_ I speel lik shite today Edited October 4, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Waldo: So explain to me what exactly does a urine test , test for, for use or consumption is it not...and we have laws regarding testing, do we not...why would we test for use or consumption if it was legal to do so...i mean consume illigal drugs.... a urine test in what context? You've made previous reference to workplace urine testing... again, in that context, it is in regards to conditions of employment and has nothing to do with Canadian law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 An airline pilot is subject to testing sice he falls under the requirement in your link"The following types of testing may be included in a workplace drug- and alcoholtesting program, but only if an employer can demonstrate that they are bona fide occupational requirements: • Random alcohol testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions" Ya i get that part but if you read further down it will explain what the employer can do if a user fails the tests...my piont is not much as it takes multiply times before the employer can legally fire them...thats the scary part... Seems the military has its own rules, so perhaps you could tell us. I wasn't in the know until i was doing some research on this topic...So right now i'm not sure, but what i do know is according to the link i provided we are not following it's guide lines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) Ya i get that part but if you read further down it will explain what the employer can do if a user fails the tests...my piont is not much as it takes multiply times before the employer can legally fire them...thats the scary part... Yes and no The employer must accomodate the employee and this is quite common. The guidelines are specific and rigid on this. For good reason. I do not find it scary, frustrating for sure but it has always been this way. (always in our lifetime) I wasn't in the know until i was doing some research on this topic...So right now i'm not sure, but what i do know is according to the link i provided we are not following it's guide lines... The operations of the Armed Forces are an entity unto themselves and not subject ** to the normal laws of this country. They do have their own code of mililtary justice that in all liklihood is more severe than the CCC. **while in uniform or having to do with Amred Forces personnel or equipment or property. ( is being drunk and vandalising means any cop can bust you...and you hope it aint an MP Cop , but the local yokel) Edited October 4, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 a urine test in what context? You've made previous reference to workplace urine testing... again, in that context, it is in regards to conditions of employment and has nothing to do with Canadian law. Any urine testing that is conditions of employment,or other wise ordered all of which gets tied into basic human rights, and laws which state or cover the use of tests and testing, when and whom or what can be tested...Back to the question "So explain to me what exactly does a urine test , test for, for use or consumption is it not." and why the tests if not to seek if that person has consumed... So i ask because i can not find a source for it...How could a employer fire you for use, if it is legal to consume illigal drugs. that would be unlawful dismisal would it not...so there must be a law on the books some where that states employers can put legal caveats on our jobs, ones that would stand up in law...because to take your employer to court you are infact seeing a lawyer and judge are you not...which means the law has to be involved somewhere...I'm just assuming it would be criminal law, maybe i'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 If a person is caught in possession of marijuana their charge would be the same, whether it was found in their pocket, held in their hand or burning a joint on their very lips. It does not matter if they are caught in the very act of using it, vs. simply holding it. it is simply, "possession". Consumption is not an aggravating factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 So i ask because i can not find a source for it...How could a employer fire you for use, if it is legal to consume illigal drugs. that would be unlawful dismisal would it not...so there must be a law on the books some where that states employers can put legal caveats on our jobs, ones that would stand up in law...because to take your employer to court you are infact seeing a lawyer and judge are you not...which means the law has to be involved somewhere...I'm just assuming it would be criminal law, maybe i'm wrong. for any job I've ever had, I've had to agree to abide by conditions of employment. In my experience, the employers most certainly have had domain over what those conditions are... should one disagree with those conditions of employment and not agree to abide with those conditions (re: by refusing to formally sign agreement to that end), one does not get the job. A quick search didn't return me a Canadian reference I like... here's an applicable U.S. reference: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Waldo: So explain to me what exactly does a urine test , test for, for use or consumption is it not...and we have laws regarding testing, do we not...why would we test for use or consumption if it was legal to do so...i mean consume illigal drugs.... There are certainly laws against doing certain activities while under the influence of certain substances. Of course, a lot of drug testing comes under the auspices of contract and/or employment law, more to the point of various jurisdictions allowing such testing. But this isn't an outright and complete prohibition on having such substances in your system, and generally applies not just to controlled substances, but also to perfectly legal ones; in particular alcohol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 **while in uniform or having to do with Amred Forces personnel or equipment or property. ( is being drunk and vandalising means any cop can bust you...and you hope it aint an MP Cop , but the local yokel) Every member is first and foremost held accountable to the law of the land,and any that are charged to uphold it canadian and local laws are applied first and while we can not be charged twice for the same charge, the military justice system can and will also charge you for smaller things conduct unbecoming is the catch all...normally resulting in a cash fine or extra duties/ training..... I don't know which is worse the MP's or local police...i know while we were in Arkansa " sorry spelling" there was a lot of local cops we did not want to get stopped by...in fact a bunch of us got this warning" If you Canadians think your going to come into my town and cause trouble like the last assholes ...see this here ring "as he shows us the botom of his night stick...thats how far i'm going to stick it up your ass...this guy was more than 6'6 I'm 6'3 and had to look up he was huge needless to say we got drunk but we were on our best behavior...mind you MP can get pretty big as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) Adults in Canada believe the consumption of cannabis should be allowed in their country, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 53 per cent of respondents support the legalization of marijuana. Why would there be polls asking if "consumption ... should be allowed" if there were no laws making consumption illegal? Edited October 4, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 The issue was raised more in the light of the question, what if someone was already "high"I raised the issue because American Woman was suggesting that the clinic is complicit in someone's behaviour if while high after leaving the clinic they commit a crime. The clinic, however, has not done anything illegal, but she suggested that the clinic is helping them "use" drugs, which she thought was illegal. It's not.Army Guy is right that we don't need a use law, since possession, sale, import/export and production are illegal. You can't use drugs without first possessing them, but that's not the point. The point is that someone committing a crime while high does not face any different charges than someone that is sober committing that crime. A condition of their sentence would likely be that they have to stay on drugs, but the charges themselves do not change. There are serious implications to making use illegal, as it would suggest that authorities are at liberty to conduct biological testing on you. Moreover, it opens up the possibility of someone being high on prescribed medications because of a bad reaction or being judged as having to give a "biological sample" because they have some sort of disability that makes them appear high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Army Guy is right that we don't need a use law, since possession, sale, import/export and production are illegal. You can't use drugs without first possessing them, Which, ironically, is exactly what I said. It is illegal to use them because possessing them is illegal. You're talking in circles here - first saying that you can't use drugs without first possessing them - and then saying using drugs isn't illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Adults in Canada believe the consumption of cannabis should be allowed in their country, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 53 per cent of respondents support the legalization of marijuana. Why would there be polls asking if "consumption ... should be allowed" if there were no laws making consumption illegal? Your proof is the wording of a poll? Thanks, you just gave me a new way to spell "desperate". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) Your proof is the wording of a poll? Thanks, you just gave me a new way to spell "desperate". Can't answer the question, eh? I asked a question, and rather than answer you insult. Speaks for you, not for me. Now about the answer ............... still waiting. Edited October 4, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Can't answer the question, eh? I asked a question, and rather than respond, you insult. Speaks for you, not for me. Now about the answer ............... still waiting. Can't answer what question? You're trying to make the wording of a phone poll into the equal of Federal legislation. Your point, in this context, is patently absurd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Can't answer what question? You're trying to make the wording of a phone poll into the equal of Federal legislation. Your point, in this context, is patently absurd. I'm simply asking a question. Why, since the use of marijuana is legal, would there be a poll asking if it should be legal? You think Angus Reid Strategies is ignorant of the laws in Canada? And why, if the use is legal, must one apply for legality of use for medical reasons? If you can't answer the questions, fine. If you're just going to insult me again, I'm done with you re: this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Adults in Canada believe the consumption of cannabis should be allowed in their country, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 53 per cent of respondents support the legalization of marijuana. Why would there be polls asking if "consumption ... should be allowed" if there were no laws making consumption illegal? I hear ya but then the l;ast part is the salient part..."53 per cent of respondents support the legalization of marijuana" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 for any job I've ever had, I've had to agree to abide by conditions of employment. In my experience, the employers most certainly have had domain over what those conditions are... should one disagree with those conditions of employment and not agree to abide with those conditions (re: by refusing to formally sign agreement to that end), one does not get the job. A quick search didn't return me a Canadian reference I like... I agree that some employment has conditions, and in the hiring process why would we not agree with any reasonable conditions all those conditions are set or approved by law...or one could set all women must come into work on thursdays naked, or in micro mini's ....so conditions are laid out in law, telling employers and employees what is legal what is not...in this case the law/ And HRC states that there are some jobs which have safety concerns can test employees for illigal drug useage or consumption...if that is the case then there is a law out there that does confirm that some not all persons can be tested for consumption...which would mean there is a law...it just does not apply to everyone... but why i ask..if consumption is legal...how could a employer dismiss me for something that is legal...wrongful dismal claims are heard where ? in court, with lawyers and judges ...and maybe this is just me, but what law is this charged under... which is confusing really ...i can't be charged for consumption but i can get fired for it...OK if thats the case one would assume there is a law some where... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 It is my understanding, and I had a quick check to see if anything has changed, but no I do not believe there is any law that governs the use. The possession, sale,intent , growing of , use of while operating machinery is controlled but that actual drugs in ones body is not a criminal act.(apart from obvious-driving something, but so far we cant check that ) The Controlled Drug and Substances Act Much the same as using a prostitute is not against the law until you go to pay, or one can prove the intent to pay. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/ This is literally about the 30th time that link has been posted in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 By the late 1960s recreational marijuana use had grown to the point that hundreds, and eventually thousands, of young Canadians a year were being introduced to the criminal justice system thanks to their use of pot. link Again, how "use" of an illegal drug could be legal defies logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.