SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[cybercoma]

You're out of your element, bc. Go back to calling for people to post Canadian studies.

[cybercoma]

so confusing... is the foreign interloper presupposing on the mandate and applied scope of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act... is he stating there are overriding acts/laws that usurp the expressed lawful authority within the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act? Beyond his standard artful dance and blowing smoke routine, just what is the foreign interloper actually saying in terms of the applicability of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, particularly as it applies to this thread and the pointed discussion concerning Insite?

He's saying because it's illegal to operate a train while high that it's illegal for Canadians to consume drugs. By that reasoning, it's also illegal for Canadians to drink alcohol, since you can't drink and drive. Bars and the provincial governments (LCBO, NB Liquor, etc) are aiding and abetting Canadians in breaking the law.

Edited October 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[Oleg Bach]

From the Parliament of Canada:

ILLEGAL DRUG USE AND CRIME: A COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP

If it wasn't illegal to use drugs, there would be no such thing as "illegal drug use."

The people who enforce the laws and create the laws...have laws that maintain their status quo - any actions that generate wealth and power - eg. cause flow of cash into our banking system..are condoned...The powers that be do not mind the use of stimulants - because you can get a days work out of some stoned peasant until they burn out...They don't like opiates because they are a very sleepy thing and not productive - unless the opiate or synthetic opiate such as oxycodone is used to rid society of undesirables - or "useless feeders" - This just might be the reasoning behind this ruling.

If they are to do this "harm reduction" thing 100% they would legalize heroine --supply the needles - the beds to nod out in - then that would be true harm reduction - it would reduce the harm to productive society...and in time the junkies would fade away and be gone...kind of giving someone the rope they need to hang themselves.

[Oleg Bach]

A court system that is policy driven and only dabbles in the twisting turns and convolutions of legality is useless - When are we going to have a judicial system that deals in RIGHT -----and WRONG? Policy is not about the health of Canadians at large - it is about the continued health of a power system that only serves a few elite. The SCC rulings are ALWAYS based on this question..."How will our rulings effect the present status quo ...how will our rulings continue to maintain power for a few at the expense of the many?"

Their rulings are all based in the idea of keeping the super rich and privledged rich. If their ruling debases society and makes it weaker - then they are for it..

NOW in the alternative...IF the family members of all the judges - all the lawyers were all hooked on drugs...The SCC - would rule to get rid of the dope and preserve their own personal existance - This ruling is proof that the SCC is a destructive body of self serving henchmen and woman.

[Guest Derek L]

Just to help clarify, the police can pick you up for being “high” or “drunk” if in a public place……i.e. Public Intoxication……You’ll never find any laws pertaining to it at the federal justice site……it falls under provincial jurisdiction……….The police have the right (in British Columbia) to lock you up (Drunk tank) until deemed “sober” or if a minor, released into the care of a parent/guardian……The laws are very similar across Canada and in most States

[bush_cheney2004]

You're out of your element, bc. Go back to calling for people to post Canadian studies.

No, I think I will hang around and wait for another logical fallacy from either you or member waldo. At this juncture, we have firmly established that drug use is most certainly prohibited in many Canadian jurisdictions regardless of the CDSA. It is unlawful to inject, ingest, snort, or smoke scheduled substances even if procured and possessed by another individual before or during many common activities. The authorities will gather data samples in the case of motor vehicle operation, any number of Transport Canada regulated activities, and many other activities to support a fine and/or conviction of this unlawful act.

[Guest Derek L]

No, I think I will hang around and wait for another logical fallacy from either you or member waldo. At this juncture, we have firmly established that drug use is most certainly prohibited in many Canadian jurisdictions regardless of the CDSA. It is unlawful to inject, ingest, snort, or smoke scheduled substances even if procured and possessed by another individual before or during many common activities. The authorities will gather data samples in the case of motor vehicle operation, any number of Transport Canada regulated activities, and many other activities to support a fine and/or conviction of this unlawful act.

Here, it's deemed a summary offence………like getting a speeding ticket………It won’t go on your criminal record, but it will go into the CPIC system and can be used against you if being tried and/or sentenced for another crime

[bush_cheney2004]

Here, it's deemed a summary offence………like getting a speeding ticket………It won’t go on your criminal record, but it will go into the CPIC system and can be used against you if being tried and/or sentenced for another crime

Thanks for the correction...and I'll bet the insurance companies get their pound of flesh too.

I would think that a Transport Canada violation (e.g. airline pilot) would be more than a speeding ticket.

Isn't using illegal drugs fun!!

Edited October 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

Thanks for the correction...and I'll bet the insurance companies get their pound of flesh too. Isn't using illegal drugs fun!!

I stand to be corrected, but any fines such as this, usually fall under the municipal/city ordnance jurisdiction……….Be that as it may, the City of Vancouver either doesn’t have any on the books or doesn’t bother collecting them……….

[bush_cheney2004]

I stand to be corrected, but any fines such as this, usually fall under the municipal/city ordnance jurisdiction……….Be that as it may, the City of Vancouver either doesn’t have any on the books or doesn’t bother collecting them……….

Fair enough, but what would happen to a TTC rail operator who crashed a train while impaired from illegal drug use. Is he/she protected by the union !?

[Guest Derek L]

Fair enough, but what would happen to a TTC rail operator who crashed a train while impaired from illegal drug use. Is he/she protected by the union !?

In BC not a chance in Hell…union or not, any workplace accidents, if there‘s merit, the person(s) involved can be giving a court ordered pee test…..depends what the Crown is charging the person with, but maybe in some cases, the union (or labour laws) might protect their job, after they’ve been convicted and punished, and voluntarily go into a treatment program……….It depends what exactly they did…..put a bus into a ditch and no one was hurt….probably……wiped out a school bus…..not so much

[Moonlight Graham]

Not according to the data you provided. Mongolia has a very higher murder rate yet it has a lower 'income inequality' than Japan. Chili has a low murder rate yet an among the highest income inequality. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide-world.png

No, really, Japan has the most equal distribution of wealth in the world, here's another link.

Crime is a complex problem and culture is an important factor that tends to be ignored. For example, mono-culture countries generally have lower crime rates than countries with multiple cultures.

I agree crime is complex. Poverty and income inequality or major factors, and I agree culture plays a role as well, I just don't know if it is more important than economic factors. And I should make the point that homicides are only one (while important) criminal aspect, they can't be used to measure overall crime-rates. There can be societies that may have less of a gun culture but have significant fraud, theft, counterfeiting, smuggling etc.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[charter.rights]

It is unlawful to inject, ingest, snort, or smoke scheduled substances even if procured and possessed by another individual before or during many common activities.

You are wrong.

It is only illegal to "possess" controlled substances and there is no law about injecting, ingesting, snorting or smoking any of them. If the injecting, ingesting, snorting or smoking consumes the controlled substances before the police arrive, they cannot issue any charges.

[bush_cheney2004]

….It depends what exactly they did…..put a bus into a ditch and no one was hurt….probably……wiped out a school bus…..not so much

Right...and that makes sense. But any notion of drug use with impunity just ain't so in many provinces. Government does regulate such behaviour for public safety.

Edited October 2, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[charter.rights]

Fair enough, but what would happen to a TTC rail operator who crashed a train while impaired from illegal drug use. Is he/she protected by the union !?

Yes they are protected by the union. And if the drug use stems from an addiction then it is likely that going to treatment will allow the operator to keep his or her job (depending on the circumstances of the accident). As I said "use" of illegal substances is not a crime. Only possession is.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes they are protected by the union. And if the drug use stems from an addiction then it is likely that going to treatment will allow the operator to keep his or her job (depending on the circumstances of the accident). As I said "use" of illegal substances is not a crime. Only possession is.

Not the case at all....if the train or bus operator kills a dozen people, they will not keep their job, addiction or not.

[Guest Derek L]

Right...and that makes sense. But any notion of drug use with impunity just ain't so in many provinces. Government does regulate such behaviour for public safety.

Like the old saying, if there’s smoke there’s fire………..Would the police pick-up some drunk 20 year olds on the street corner waiting for a taxi, or a couple of Hippies in the park playing Frisbee or a junkie having a snooze in the ally…….probably not……….Now if said 20 years olds are fighting, the Hippies are smashing store fronts during a protest and the junkie is riding a $1000 dollar mountain bike it’s a different story……..In most cases, if an intoxicated person is being questioned by police, it’s likely for another more chargeable offence, and again, in most cases, there will be some form of evidence found on their person that’s worth bringing to the Crown.

[charter.rights]

Not the case at all....if the train or bus operator kills a dozen people, they will not keep their job, addiction or not.

Incorrect.

The union is obligated to defend any member terminated who wishes to file a grievance.

But then you are cherry-picking a scenario, which is a far cry from your original premise:

Fair enough, but what would happen to a TTC rail operator who crashed a train while impaired from illegal drug use. Is he/she protected by the union !?

I answered the question factually.

Edited October 2, 2011 by charter.rights

[Guest Derek L]

Yes they are protected by the union. And if the drug use stems from an addiction then it is likely that going to treatment will allow the operator to keep his or her job (depending on the circumstances of the accident). As I said "use" of illegal substances is not a crime. Only possession is.

Depends on the Province, and what they’ve allegedly done well intoxicated……….If they committed a crime well working, no Union supersedes the Crown.....

[charter.rights]

Depends on the Province, and what they’ve allegedly done well intoxicated……….If they committed a crime well working, no Union supersedes the Crown.....

That wasn't the question. The question was:

Is he/she protected by the union !?

And the answer is YES! And in many cases the Union may have a program that pays for the members legal services.

Edited October 2, 2011 by charter.rights

[Guest Derek L]

That wasn't the question. The question was:

Define protected.

[charter.rights]

Define protected.

Sementics, a non-sequitur.

[Guest Derek L]

Sementics, a non-sequitur.

Perhaps to those that are ignorant to the laws………

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/CIR/901-e.htm#c. Employment Standards Legislation(txt)

Kinda ironic that you go by charter.rights

First, there is some acceptance that an employer can have a valid reason for asking an employee, following a particular incident, to submit to a drug test. This should happen, however, only where impairment is suspected.

Recently, some conditional reinstatements have provided the employer with the right to require urine and/or blood samples in the future as proof that the employee remains free from alcohol or drugs. While it is accepted that random testing of the employee will not ensure that he or she remains drug free, the practice is viewed as a very strong inducement.

[Guest Derek L]

Some further reading:

http://ww2.enform.ca/media/pdf/resourcesandtools/enform_ad_case_law_jan_18_08.pdf

[charter.rights]

Some further reading:

http://ww2.enform.ca/media/pdf/resourcesandtools/enform_ad_case_law_jan_18_08.pdf

None of that detracts from the fact the the unions are obligated to protect a member that files a grievance. As well the requirements for drug testing can only be justified where there is a chronic and persistent demonstration of impairment through alcohol or drug use. Anything else is an invasion of the employee's privacy.