SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[TimG]

Has no one ever explained to you that those "few experts" are usually in competition with each other and love to tear apart each other's work?

Don't be so naive. In all cases all of these "experts" have a vested interest in ensuring their field remains one where governments spend money. This need to preserve their funding sources trumps any desire to "debunk" their collegues work.

[TimG]

Aside from your comment being completely false, since any reputable academic peer-review journal uses a double-blind system where the reviewers don't know who the author is and vice versa

Not true. Double blind review may occurs in some cases but different fields have different procedures. It cannot be assumed. Nor is double blind review particularily effective where the reveiwers and authors are collegues:

Critics of the double-blind process point out that, despite the extra editorial effort to ensure anonymity, the process often fails to do so, since certain approaches, methods, writing styles, notations, etc., may point to a certain group of people in a research stream, and even to a particular person.[20][21] Proponents of double-blind review argue that it performs at least as well as single-blind, and that it generates a better perception of fairness and equality in global scientific funding and publishing.[22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

In any case, I am not the only one acknowledging that peer review has fundemental limitations:

http://ignoranceanduncertainty.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/the-stapel-case-and-data-fabrication/

Let me speak to means and opportunity first. Attempts to more strictly regulate the conduct of scientific research are very unlikely to prevent data fakery, for the simple reason that it’s extremely easy to do in a manner that is extraordinarily difficult to detect. Many of us “fake data” on a regular basis when we run simulations. Indeed, simulating from the posterior distribution is part and parcel of Bayesian statistical inference. It would be (and probably has been) child’s play to add fake cases to one’s data by simulating from the posterior and then jittering them randomly to ensure that the false cases look like real data. Or, if you want to fake data from scratch, there is plenty of freely available code for randomly generating multivariate data with user-chosen probability distributions, means, standard deviations, and correlational structure. So, the means and opportunities are on hand for virtually all of us. They are the very same means that underpin a great deal of (honest) research. It is impossible to prevent data fraud by these means through conventional regulatory mechanisms.

The argument 'peer review has flaws but it is the best we got' does not mean these problems can be ignored. These problems have to be acknowledged whenever someone claims their political objectives are supported by 'peer reviewed science'.

Edited October 4, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

The argument 'peer review has flaws but it is the best we got' does not mean these problems can be ignored. These problems have to be acknowledged whenever someone claims their political objectives are supported by 'peer reviewed science'.

hee-haw! Of course, to you, consensus (climate) science is... politicized science! Any consensus (climate) science that you can't arbitrarily dismiss is... politicized science! Any consensus (climate) science that can't be challenged on a scientific basis is... politicized science! To you, any consensus (climate) science that doesn't fit your predisposed ideological leaning and fake one-way only "skeptical" view is... politicized science!

(how ironic that with all your incessant bleating over failures of peer-review within climate science, you opted to provide an example from 'social psychology' )

[Army Guy]

If you continue to say the consumption of drugs is illegal, then I will continue to call you a liar, unless you show me the law that says drug use is illegal.

Why do we need a law on that covers consumption, when we have laws that clearly state it is unlawful to possess, production, traffic, import and export of drugs. So how does one consume a drug without first breaking one of the already mentioned laws...you can't...so why do we need a another law that specifically states NO consuption, via oral or anal do we need to cover ever circumstance ....

SO someone yells COPS, you swallow your stash of Coke or what ever, you have covered your self from being arrested...because you are no longer in pocession....So are you saying there is a glich in the law....because a urine test would confirm the presence of any drug, as you body has not broken it down yet, so and this is a question would you not be techically still in pocession, which is illegal is it not....

So far you've linked to reports on drugs from international committees, linked to a website run by a medicinal drug operation and linked to the application form for the Canadian Forces (who are defending their drug-testing policies).

If consumption is legal, then under what criminal code can one be dismissed from employment for failing a urine test upon request ...Urine testing is more common in the work place than we think (not just Government employees DND, RCMP,ATOMIC ENERGY ETC) but there is also testing done at major companies such as Irving,not just for there employees but also sub contractors as well...and it is done to prove consumption over a specific period of time...

SO if there is consumption is 100 % legal then under what law or grounds are they able to dismiss employees, or charged them under QR&O for military, and the RCMP code of conduct, which can range any where from fines to Jail time.

[waldo]

Why do we need a law on that covers consumption, when we have laws that clearly state it is unlawful to possess, production, traffic, import and export of drugs. So how does one consume a drug without first breaking one of the already mentioned laws...you can't...so why do we need a another law that specifically states NO consuption, via oral or anal do we need to cover ever circumstance ....

SO someone yells COPS, you swallow your stash of Coke or what ever, you have covered your self from being arrested...because you are no longer in pocession....So are you saying there is a glich in the law....because a urine test would confirm the presence of any drug, as you body has not broken it down yet, so and this is a question would you not be techically still in pocession, which is illegal is it not....

who/what states that a law covering consumption is required... UN drug control conventions only require signatory countries to penalize possession. In any case, as posted previously: for a country that has specifically chosen to penalize consumption by law, "it may provide new powers to investigating police, such as the ability to take biological samples in the search for "evidence of commission of a criminal offence", or the power to arrest someone in possession of a clean syringe as "preparing to commit a criminal offence"

If consumption is legal, then under what criminal code can one be dismissed from employment for failing a urine test upon request ...Urine testing is more common in the work place than we think (not just Government employees DND, RCMP,ATOMIC ENERGY ETC) but there is also testing done at major companies such as Irving,not just for there employees but also sub contractors as well...and it is done to prove consumption over a specific period of time...

SO if there is consumption is 100 % legal then under what law or grounds are they able to dismiss employees, or charged them under QR&O for military, and the RCMP code of conduct, which can range any where from fines to Jail time.

workplace conditions of employment... nothing to do with criminal code

[Oleg Bach]

If you have not figured this out by now you may as well understand this important life lesson - ALL of those who have put themselvse in a position of authority over Canadians - have one agenda - to gleefully harm society - they get a kick out of it. People that are privledged and mostly rich - are so sick that they think power - is the right to harm...The SCC and others do not empower the population - they disempower it...as we see with this ruling - that's how they stay in power - by systemically taking ours away..............well it's not going to work - rule number one - do not respect them - pretend to but hold those that harm you in contempt - don't believe in them - don't support them - just nod your head in compliance and know that these authoritarians are your abusers..In eccense your enemy.

[Army Guy]

who/what states that a law covering consumption is required... UN drug control conventions only require signatory countries to penalize possession. In any case, as posted previously: for a country that has specifically chosen to penalize consumption by law, "it may provide new powers to investigating police, such as the ability to take biological samples in the search for "evidence of commission of a criminal offence", or the power to arrest someone in possession of a clean syringe as "preparing to commit a criminal offence"

My piont was WHY do we need a law covering consumption if the other laws cover almost everything....which would mean you would have to break one of those laws in order to consume...Another reason would be to cover most of this topic...and end it with a clear and concise explanation...or in other words close the legal loop holes for those that think it is legal to consume illigal drugs of course it would have to be detailed and explain all the methods to consume drugs into the body...

workplace conditions of employment... nothing to do with criminal code

It has to with something inside the Criminal code or a dismisal or charges would be illigal and could be redressed in a court of Law.

[Sir Bandelot]

The issue was raised more in the light of the question, what if someone was already "high", but no longer in possession of drugs because they've already consumed them. Example if it could be determined someone had drugs in their system, by blood test or what have you, is there a law against it.

The correct answer is NO, there is no law on the books. Not in Canada. But in the US, I don't know. Probably, considering how it's the land of the most un-free in terms of prisoners/ ex-cons per capita, state executions per capita, total dollars invested in the judicial/penal system, and amount of violence in the war on drugs, war on terror, war on this and that.

[ToadBrother]

The issue was raised more in the light of the question, what if someone was already "high", but no longer in possession of drugs because they've already consumed them. Example if it could be determined someone had drugs in their system, by blood test or what have you, is there a law against it.

The correct answer is NO, there is no law on the books. Not in Canada. But in the US, I don't know. Probably, considering how it's the land of the most un-free in terms of prisoners/ ex-cons per capita, state executions per capita, total dollars invested in the judicial/penal system, and amount of violence in the war on drugs, war on terror, war on this and that.

I've never heard of any law in the US banning the actual act of intoxication; by alcohol or any other drug. Certainly, as in Canada, there are laws banning certain activities while intoxicated (ie. driving, flying airplanes). Still, if a toxicology test finds the presence of banned substances, it would likely be more than enough evidence in either country for an investigator to go to a judge seeking a warrant to search an individual's premises.

[guyser]

I've never heard of any law in the US banning the actual act of intoxication;

Public iontoxication?

Still, if a toxicology test finds the presence of banned substances, it would likely be more than enough evidence in either country for an investigator to go to a judge seeking a warrant to search an individual's premises.

I think it has to work the other way around. If they have a toxicology report , then you are already arrested and in the system.

[Oleg Bach]

Does anyone ever wonder if our judical system intentionally bring us harm......seems that is what happens - for instance you ask the simple question - Is this ruling good for people or bad for the people................helping someone commit incrimental slow motion suicide is not harm reduction - it is assistance......BAD....just plain destructive - and imagine they use your hard earned money to harm you...kind of weird ....

[Sir Bandelot]

I've never heard of any law in the US banning the actual act of intoxication; by alcohol or any other drug. Certainly, as in Canada, there are laws banning certain activities while intoxicated (ie. driving, flying airplanes). Still, if a toxicology test finds the presence of banned substances, it would likely be more than enough evidence in either country for an investigator to go to a judge seeking a warrant to search an individual's premises.

Sure. I have no qualms with any of this. maybe the last sentence, "enough evidence", might not hold up in court under some charter rights.

But despite that, or whether one is operating machinery or not, those are separate issues. With law as you know everything has to be worded very precisely.

[ToadBrother]

Sure. I have no qualms with any of this. maybe the last sentence, "enough evidence", might not hold up in court under some charter rights.

I can't see how it wouldn't, providing the samples for toxicology tests were retrieved in a lawful manner.

[Guest American Woman]

Public iontoxication?

I think it has to work the other way around. If they have a toxicology report , then you are already arrested and in the system.

So what do you think, guyser? As someone whose opinion I respect, do you believe there is no law against using drugs in Canada - that using illicit drugs is legal?

[guyser]

.... do you believe there is no law against using drugs in Canada - that using illicit drugs is legal?

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/

[Guest American Woman]

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/

What I don't see is how one can "use" drugs, ie: take them, inject them, or otherwise partake of them, without being in possession. That in and of itself speaks of the illegality of using them, because one cannot use them without breaking the law. I realize that in both of our countries there are laws protecting people who aren't breaking the law from random drug tests, but that doesn't conclude that it's not illegal to use them.

[ToadBrother]

What I don't see is how one can "use" drugs, ie: take them, inject them, or otherwise partake of them, without being in possession. That in and of itself speaks of the illegality of using them, because one cannot use them without breaking the law. I realize that in both of our countries there are laws protecting people who aren't breaking the law from random drug tests, but that doesn't conclude that it's not illegal to use them.

You're trying to blend two concepts together where in law they remain entirely separate. Someone cannot be charged for being high, period. A cop who finds someone showing all the signs, for instance, of smoking marijuana may have probable cause to search that person for drugs or paraphernalia, and most certainly if those are found, then a charge of possession can be made, but if none of that is found, then, unless there is some disorderly conduct involved, the most a police officer could likely do is to take the individual to the hospital if there is a fear for the individual's safety.

The law is a very precise and particular beast.

[guyser]

What I don't see is how one can "use" drugs, ie: take them, inject them, or otherwise partake of them, without being in possession. That in and of itself speaks of the illegality of using them, because one cannot use them without breaking the law. I realize that in both of our countries there are laws protecting people who aren't breaking the law from random drug tests, but that doesn't conclude that it's not illegal to use them.

The old musical chairs game now featuring a doobie !

Technically, the one holding the doobie when the cop walks in is the one in possession. Once consumed, one is no longer in possession in the eyes of the law. Same thing if your 15 yr old son is caught with a beer in his hand, he is charged (or can be) with 'Minor in Possession of Alchol' but cannot be chagred with Minor w Alchol in his system. (unless driving )

I believe it to be a grey area, and perhaps the best example (assuming I am correct) is the California Medical MaryJane laws . It is a federal law that bans the drug, but the state says it can be had with a prescription. What trumps what?

The idea that one can be injected by a third party means one could have it in his body, but was never in possession of the drug. Assuming the exact moment the needle goes into an arm from a third party, it would be the third party in possession.

Just for fun....lets explain this one....Suicide is against the law, attempted Suicide is not. Funny that!

[Guest American Woman]

You're trying to blend two concepts together where in law they remain entirely separate. Someone cannot be charged for being high, period. A cop who finds someone showing all the signs, for instance, of smoking marijuana may have probable cause to search that person for drugs or paraphernalia, and most certainly if those are found, then a charge of possession can be made, but if none of that is found, then, unless there is some disorderly conduct involved, the most a police officer could likely do is to take the individual to the hospital if there is a fear for the individual's safety.

The law is a very precise and particular beast.

I'm not trying to blend two concepts. I was clearly told that it's not illegal to take/use illicit drugs in Canada. I'm not talking about being charged for being high - I'm saying that it's illegal to take the drugs/to use the drugs. AS I said, I realize that unless one is breaking the law, one cannot be indiscriminately given a drug test. "Showing the signs of" in and of itself is not grounds to administer such a test. It still doesn't mean that it's legal to take/use the drugs.

[Army Guy]

I've never heard of any law in the US banning the actual act of intoxication; by alcohol or any other drug. Certainly, as in Canada, there are laws banning certain activities while intoxicated (ie. driving, flying airplanes). Still, if a toxicology test finds the presence of banned substances, it would likely be more than enough evidence in either country for an investigator to go to a judge seeking a warrant to search an individual's premises.

In doing some research i did find out why we can not test anyone for consumption of drugs. It's actually very scary to think that drug users have more rights afforded to them than employers..After you read this one should think of a commericial airline pilot here to put some spin on "is" it right....This was taken from the Canadian Human Rights Commission Policy on Alcohol and Drug Testing...

It also may be why there is no laws on consumption, as there are no reliable test to see if a person is under the influence like there is for booze....they do however have tests that can tell if a individual has taken drugs in the past...or recently, as the drugs are still in their system and yet they can not register how much is in the system, according to the HRC and Courts of Canada...

My link

[ToadBrother]

I'm not trying to blend two concepts. I was clearly told that it's not illegal to take/use illicit drugs in Canada. I'm not talking about being charged for being high - I'm saying that it's illegal to take the drugs/to use the drugs. AS I said, I realize that unless one is breaking the law, one cannot be indiscriminately given a drug test. "Showing the signs of" in and of itself is not grounds to administer such a test. It still doesn't mean that it's legal to take/use the drugs.

It isn't illegal to take/use illicit drugs. There is no charge in the Criminal Code for taking illicit drugs. The charges relate to possession or intent to possess. Surely you must understand the most basic concept of Common Law, that where something is not explicitly prohibited, it is permitted.

[guyser]

. It's actually very scary to think that drug users have more rights afforded to them than employers..

People have rights , employers have "employers right " surprised you said that .

[Guest American Woman]

The old musical chairs game now featuring a doobie !

Technically, the one holding the doobie when the cop walks in is the one in possession. Once consumed, one is no longer in possession in the eyes of the law. Same thing if your 15 yr old son is caught with a beer in his hand, he is charged (or can be) with 'Minor in Possession of Alchol' but cannot be chagred with Minor w Alchol in his system. (unless driving )

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.

I believe it to be a grey area, and perhaps the best example (assuming I am correct) is the California Medical MaryJane laws . It is a federal law that bans the drug, but the state says it can be had with a prescription. What trumps what?

That would fall under illegal for non-medical use. A lot of our states have legalized it for medical purposes - for everything from pain, depression, to menstrual cramps. But it's still illegal to take it for non-medical purposes.

The idea that one can be injected by a third party means one could have it in his body, but was never in possession of the drug.

Assuming the exact moment the needle goes into an arm from a third party, it would be the third party in possession.

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.

Just for fun....lets explain this one....Suicide is against the law, attempted Suicide is not. Funny that!

When all is said and done, can't arrest a dead person ........ making a law against suicide moot.

[Army Guy]

Technically, the one holding the doobie when the cop walks in is the one in possession. Once consumed, one is no longer in possession in the eyes of the law. Same thing if your 15 yr old son is caught with a beer in his hand, he is charged (or can be) with 'Minor in Possession of Alchol' but cannot be chagred with Minor w Alchol in his system. (unless driving )

1) If I’m under 18 and caught in possession of alcohol, what are the consequences?

Naturally, your liquor will be confiscated. You could also be issued a $115 ticket (sometimes commonly called a “liquor ticket”) under section 87(1) of the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Act:

Minors

87(1) Subject to subsection (3) and section 88, no minor may

(a) purchase or attempt to purchase liquor;

( obtain or attempt to obtain liquor;

(c) possess or consume liquor.

[Army Guy]

People have rights , employers have "employers right " surprised you said that .

I was putting that in context, if you had read my link from the HRC on drug testing. the example i used was an airline pilot who is one of the few oocupations that are tested for drugs... it also lists the possiable results for teesting postive for any drugs...and it's scary to think that said pilot or anyone really in an occupation that safety is the prime concern, that it is the employer that is responsable to provide treatment, to find a postion that does not require such high safety standards, to infact bend over backwards to ensure they do not cause undue stress or hardship on the user....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...

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...