charter.rights Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Ummmm. No. You haven't presented me with any "facts" to prove your claims. You keep repeating your interpretation of the law, even though the law clearly states that possession for USE is illegal and that even if possession is not on your property, if it's for your use, it's possession - which is against the law - which makes USING it without breaking the law impossible. I've cited numerous sources supporting my "ignorant" claim, supporting my interpretation that 'using illicit drugs is illegal,' and those sites include reports prepared for the Canadian Senate and Canadian government sites. Yet you keep "trotting out" your claim 12 pages later, insulting me, because I don't accept your claim, even though you have cited no source that supports your claim that USING illicit drugs in Canada isn't illegal. That's your claim; your interpretation. It is NOT fact - the fact is, it's impossible to use without possessing. Ummm Yes. Your assertion that "use" is illegal was dismissed pages ago. There is no law in Canada that prohibits "use" of controlled substances. Your citing a senate committee report and employment policy is not law in Canada. Get that through your dumb American head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Ummm Yes. Your assertion that "use" is illegal was dismissed pages ago. "Dismissed" doesn't mean a thing; that you have declared otherwise does not make it fact. There is no law in Canada that prohibits "use" of controlled substances. There is a law in Canada that prohibits "possession ... for use" making legal "use" impossible. Again. Since it's impossible to "use" without "possessing," "use," by the very nature of the law, would be illegal. Your citing a senate committee report and employment policy is not law in Canada. Get that through your dumb American head. I've cited a lot more than a Senate committee report and "employment policy." I've cited several government sources referring to the use of illicit drugs being illegal. Apparently they all have "dumb Canadian heads." Eh? Edited October 10, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 -link Nice to see science and reason win the day. I wanted to revisit this statement from Black Dog, as I think it is a perfect illustration of exactly what capricorn and I were discussing regarding judicial activism. Consider what Black Dog and his ilk are telling us when they justify the recent decision from the SCoC regarding Insite with "science and reason" being the justification. In other words, accurate application of the law to resolve disputes is irrelevant. Black Dog and his fellow leftists want a results based application of the law. What matters is the outcome of the judgement, and not the legitimacy of the judgement in accordance with the law as determined by our democratically-elected governments. Even if we accept the "harm-reduction" claims from the supporters of Insite's endeavours, is that a justification for radical application of and expansion of Section 7 rights of the CCRF? To summarize, Black Dog and the other salivating leftists want judges to make decisions based on the social outcomes they desire, rather than for judges to accurately apply the law as it was created. Of course the hypocrisy is thick, as these very same leftists would be up in a rage if, say, a judge admitted illegally obtained evidence against a defendant in a trial - even though the outcome, which would be conviction of a guilty person of a crime, would be desirable. Here's an interesting quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, he stated that in order to be a good judge, all that is required is to "read English intelligently". Articles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 "Dismissed" doesn't mean a thing; that you have declared otherwise does not make it fact. There is a law in Canada that prohibits "possession ... for use" making legal "use" impossible. Again. Since it's impossible to "use" without "possessing," "use," by the very nature of the law, would be illegal. I've cited a lot more than a Senate committee report and "employment policy." I've cited several government sources referring to the use of illicit drugs being illegal. Apparently they all have "dumb Canadian heads." Eh? There is no law. Period. Try citing the Criminal Code of Canada like I and others have. You are dismissed. Now trying being a good American and shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 After reading some of the comments I am reminded of another thread I started,possibly on another forum. And that is the "purpose of our judicial system" Perhaps if we have a clearer definition of the purpose and intent of our justice and related institutes in Canada we can agree and move on. Is the purpose to prevent chaos in our society?Or is it to seek punishment as a deterent and closure for the victims of crime?What about protecting us from ourselves?Or improving society? To me it appears obvious that there are several elements I have mentioned that are integral to our system(and others I have not mentioned).But I believe the question is what elements are stressed more or less or even completely ignored and/or forgotten. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) After reading some of the comments I am reminded of another thread I started,possibly on another forum. And that is the "purpose of our judicial system" Perhaps if we have a clearer definition of the purpose and intent of our justice and related institutes in Canada we can agree and move on. Is the purpose to prevent chaos in our society?Or is it to seek punishment as a deterent and closure for the victims of crime?What about protecting us from ourselves?Or improving society? To me it appears obvious that there are several elements I have mentioned that are integral to our system(and others I have not mentioned).But I believe the question is what elements are stressed more or less or even completely ignored and/or forgotten. WWWTT The answer is obvious, the courts are there to "improve society" in the way that you see fit. Why limit the scope of the courts' responsibilities to something as banal as simply applying the law that's been passed by democratically-elected government to disputes brought before them? Give the courts free reign to affect social change in-line with the views of WWWTT and other leftists. In all seriousness, to the sensible-minded folks in here, WWWTT's comments above are very revealing of the typical leftist mindset. They view the courts as political instruments through which social change can and should be affected. Decision from the courts can and should be result-based, and not based on legalities, precedents, or accurate application of the law as it's been written. There you have it folks, leftists like Black Dog and WWWTT openly advocate for judicial activism. What matters is the outcome, not the legality. Edited October 10, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 There is no law. Period. Try citing the Criminal Code of Canada like I and others have. You are dismissed. Now trying being a good American and shut up. I am citing the criminal code of Canada, which says "possession...for use" is illegal (and again, possession even not on one's property, if intended for their use, is illegal possession according to the law). So, one...more...time... explain how someone can "use" without being in "possession." One cannot. Therefore one cannot "use" without breaking the law; therefore, using is illegal. It's why one must apply for "legal medical use" of marijuana. If it were already legal to use, one would not have to apply for legal use status. I'll give you another source/quote backing up my claim (again, emphasis mine) - as you have nothing but your interpretation: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: CAMH is Canada's largest mental health and addiction teaching hospital. CAMH combines clinical care, research, education, policy development and health promotion to help transform the lives of people affected by mental health and addiction issues. Canada became one of the first countries in the world to develop regulations for the legal use of marijuana for medical reasons in July 2001. If it were already legal to "use," Canada would hardly have had to have DEVELOPED REGULATIONS FOR LEGAL USE, eh? Furthermore: Regulations for the medical use of cannabis are very strictly enforced. A number of individuals who claim to be using cannabis for medicinal purposes may not qualify for legal possession and use under this system. Seems odd that some would not qualify for "legal use" if it were indeed legal to use........... eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 The answer is obvious, the courts are there to "improve society" in the way that you see fit. Are you implying that I somehow can controll the courts/judges/crown/defence,the decissions,direction or the outcome of trails or judicial practise and activity? Let me ask you something Bob,do you somehow think that I am threat to your well being? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Are you implying that I somehow can controll the courts/judges/crown/defence,the decissions,direction or the outcome of trails or judicial practise and activity? Let me ask you something Bob,do you somehow think that I am threat to your well being? WWWTT Well seeing that you are NOT a Fasci....er...Far Right Wing Ultra Nationalist,you are not only a threat,but you are probably the epicentre of the downfall of modern society... (As Bobarino sees things,anyway..lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Well seeing that you are NOT a Fasci....er...Far Right Wing Ultra Nationalist,you are not only a threat,but you are probably the epicentre of the downfall of modern society... (As Bobarino sees things,anyway..lol) Ya no offence Jack but I want Bob to answer this question. By the way that phrase you like "Stay thirsty my friends" is a synonym for "Its OK to be an alcoholic my friends" WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) Are you implying that I somehow can controll the courts/judges/crown/defence,the decissions,direction or the outcome of trails or judicial practise and activity? Let me ask you something Bob,do you somehow think that I am threat to your well being? WWWTT It's quite clear that I was implying that according to your perverted leftist worldview which is shared by many, the obligation of the courts is to affect social change as you see fit. You want results-based jurisprudence. To hell with the laws of land as determined via our democratic institutions, you want the judges to legislate from the bench. Rather than simply requiring that they implement the law as has been written, you want them to base their decisions on outcomes, not legalities. That is the textbook definition of judicial activism. Are you a threat to my well-being? Although as an individual you're not that important, you are a part of a broader machine that is what I view as the enemy within. You believe in self-destructive politics, which in its own micro manner contribute to manifestations of this disgusting ideology through our politics. A good example would be the NDP, that is one of the foremost champions of destructive politics. Edited October 10, 2011 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 Ya no offence Jack but I want Bob to answer this question. By the way that phrase you like "Stay thirsty my friends" is a synonym for "Its OK to be an alcoholic my friends" WWWTT What if your drinking Kool -Aid? Kool-Aid IS definately thirst quenching... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 After reading some of the comments I am reminded of another thread I started,possibly on another forum. And that is the "purpose of our judicial system" Perhaps if we have a clearer definition of the purpose and intent of our justice and related institutes in Canada we can agree and move on. Is the purpose to prevent chaos in our society?Or is it to seek punishment as a deterent and closure for the victims of crime?What about protecting us from ourselves?Or improving society? To me it appears obvious that there are several elements I have mentioned that are integral to our system(and others I have not mentioned).But I believe the question is what elements are stressed more or less or even completely ignored and/or forgotten. WWWTT The purpose of the Judicial system is to maintain Peace, Order and Good Government through the enforcement of laws and rules of order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) I am citing the criminal code of Canada, which says "possession...for use" is illegal (and again, possession even not on one's property, if intended for their use, is illegal possession according to the law). So, one...more...time... explain how someone can "use" without being in "possession." One cannot. Therefore one cannot "use" without breaking the law; therefore, using is illegal. It's why one must apply for "legal medical use" of marijuana. If it were already legal to use, one would not have to apply for legal use status. I'll give you another source/quote backing up my claim (again, emphasis mine) - as you have nothing but your interpretation: Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: CAMH is Canada's largest mental health and addiction teaching hospital. CAMH combines clinical care, research, education, policy development and health promotion to help transform the lives of people affected by mental health and addiction issues. Canada became one of the first countries in the world to develop regulations for the legal use of marijuana for medical reasons in July 2001. If it were already legal to "use," Canada would hardly have had to have DEVELOPED REGULATIONS FOR LEGAL USE, eh? Furthermore: Regulations for the medical use of cannabis are very strictly enforced. A number of individuals who claim to be using cannabis for medicinal purposes may not qualify for legal possession and use under this system. Seems odd that some would not qualify for "legal use" if it were indeed legal to use........... eh? The CCC says nothing of the sort. You are just trolling. Either that or....you're blond, right? Is that your problem? Edited October 10, 2011 by charter.rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 (edited) The CCC says nothing of the sort. You are just trolling. I cited everything I posted. Now how about answering the question? How can one "use" without being in "possession?" Edited October 10, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 I am citing the criminal code of Canada, which says "possession...for use" is illegal to use........... eh? I'm not sure how many times the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has to be posted before you actually read the thing, but... 4. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III. Full stop. Nowhere does it say "for use". If you're here to learn, then you obviously have a learning disability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 I'm not sure how many times the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has to be posted before you actually read the thing, but... Full stop. Nowhere does it say "for use". If you're here to learn, then you obviously have a learning disability. Uh..Well...Prostitution is'nt technically illegal in this country...The solicitation for funds is... I'm thinkin' if a cop catches you using you are,in fact,possessing at the same time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 I cited everything I posted. Now how about answering the question? How can one "use" without being in "possession?" For the umpteenth time, if use was illegal, there are implications for enforcement, which thankfully we don't have to worry about. Just keep ignoring that. It's ok. Everyone else on the forum with the exception of the other troll bush_cheney2004 understands, even if you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Uh..Well...Prostitution is'nt technically illegal in this country...The solicitation for funds is... I'm thinkin' if a cop catches you using you are,in fact,possessing at the same time... The cop doesn't catch you using, he/she catches you in possession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Uh..Well...Prostitution is'nt technically illegal in this country...The solicitation for funds is... I'm thinkin' if a cop catches you using you are,in fact,possessing at the same time... Technically this was about "post-use", ie. you just finished off your roach, so weeds all gone, but your eyes are red and you're laughing at everything the cop is saying. Indictable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Technically this was about "post-use", ie. you just finished off your roach, so weeds all gone, but your eyes are red and you're laughing at everything the cop is saying. Indictable? Public Intoxication... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Technically this was about "post-use", ie. you just finished off your roach, so weeds all gone, but your eyes are red and you're laughing at everything the cop is saying. Indictable? Technically, this is about this claim: Drug use is not illegal in Canada or the United States. As was pointed out, one cannot use without being in possession - therefore drug use is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 The cop doesn't catch you using, he/she catches you in possession. Maybe I'm not understanding but if a cop catches you using you are possessing,are'nt you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 I'm not sure how many times the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has to be posted before you actually read the thing, but... Full stop. Nowhere does it say "for use". As I've already pointed out, the definition of "possession" for the purpose of the law DOES say "for use." 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. If you're here to learn, then you obviously have a learning disability. Do keep those insults coming ..... and try answering the question. How can someone USE drugs without POSSESSING them? And why is it necessary to get legal status for medical use? Repeating: Canada became one of the first countries in the world to develop regulations for the legal use of marijuana for medical reasons in July 2001. Regulations for the medical use of cannabis are very strictly enforced. A number of individuals who claim to be using cannabis for medicinal purposes may not qualify for legal possession and use under this system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Maybe I'm not understanding but if a cop catches you using you are possessing,are'nt you? Yes, but the law is specifically for possession. There's a difference between having a law for possession and a law for use. For instance, if the law was just for use and not possession, one could walk around with drugs but need to be caught in the act or while intoxicated. Being caught in the act or intoxicated does not carry a charge at all. The charge is for being in possession of drugs, which is but one area of the act; the others are trafficking, import, export and production. All of the rules surrounding drugs in Canada have less to do with their use and more to do with their manufacture and sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.