SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[Guest American Woman]

So as long as I can get a prescription for it, then everything is ok? That is a double standard that needs some explaining.

Omg. If you need that explained to you, you're going to have to find help beyond this board. I'm not going to spend my time educating you on something that even a fifth grader generally understands.

[olp1fan]

Medical use is not illegal. Surely you recognize the difference between medical use and recreational use. I didn't think I had to specify "recreational use vs. medical use" in every single post.

no? Isn't Obama trying to close all of the legal medical marijuana dispensaries in the U,S?

he just gave notice to them all in California..IF they don't close them theyll be arrested

Edited October 13, 2011 by olp1fan

[GostHacked]

Omg. If you need that explained to you, you're going to have to find help beyond this board. I'm not going to spend my time educating you on something that even a fifth grader generally understands.

Wars have been started to make sure the drugs like opiates and cocaine are available to western pharmaceutical companies. Remember, the Taliban eradicated opium production in Afghanistan. But there were reports of shortages in Europe and North America. Part of the reason Afghanistan was invaded. Doctors need drugs.

[Guest American Woman]

no? Isn't Obama trying to close all of the legal medical marijuana dispensaries in the U,S?

he just gave notice to them all in California

Is this thread about the United States??

[Guest American Woman]

Wars have been started to make sure the drugs like opiates and cocaine are available to western pharmaceutical companies. Remember, the Taliban eradicated opium production in Afghanistan. But there were reports of shortages in Europe and North America. Part of the reason Afghanistan was invaded. Doctors need drugs.

Thank you for that totally irrelevant break in the discussion.

[olp1fan]

Is this thread about the United States??

Legal Medical Marijuana dispensaries have also been invaded by the RCMP in a few provinces

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Health/2011/07/29/potbustRCMPBurnaby/

Edited October 13, 2011 by olp1fan

[guyser]

That is a conundrum, as I've already said. But someone could buy one and give it to someone else - who hasn't broken any law - since possession isn't against the law. Again, there's a way around it, whereas one cannot use illicit drugs without possessing them. Therein lies the difference.

Somebody could hold a joint while another toked off it. But even if observed by a Cop and on his walk up to said people the rest was consumed, the Cop would have nothing to go on, no law applicable to charge since they possess nothing.

If the above scenario is valid ,and use(being in body) was illegal, then the police could demand blood tests much the same as vehicle drivers would be demanded of. But they cannot since no charge is applicable.

That's your interpretation. Theirs' is different. They are saying use is illegal. Your interpretation makes no sense since it's impossible to use without possessing. Bottom line, all you are giving me is your interpretation of the law.

It is not my interpretation as I see it.

It is my understanding from reading the CCC time and again and concentrating on any and all use(being in body) reference.

There is none in the CCC.

The interpretation (and lazy writing) is theirs.

Once again, if there is any reference to use (being in ones body, absent of vehicle operation et al)in the CCC I would dearly love to see it.

It is the the only authority on this subject.

Edited October 13, 2011 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

Legal Medical Marijuana dispensaries have also been invaded by the RCMP in a few provinces

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Health/2011/07/29/potbustRCMPBurnaby/

Without looking into it too much, I have to wonder if it's because they are dispensaries that haven't been given government approval for growing for medical use. We have such an approved 'grow house' where I live - it's legal for them to grow marijuana for medical purposes.

At any rate, such a crack down wouldn't do anything to prove the legality of recreational use if medical use dispensaries are even under fire.

[olp1fan]

Without looking into it too much, I have to wonder if it's because they are dispensaries that haven't been given government approval for growing for medical use. We have such an approved 'grow house' where I live - it's legal for them to grow marijuana for medical purposes.

At any rate, such a crack down wouldn't do anything to prove the legality of recreational use if medical use dispensaries are even under fire.

They were legal dispensaries, its just our PM is an ahole and he wants to control what our provinces do even though he campaigned on letting provinces do what they want

Edited October 13, 2011 by olp1fan

[GostHacked]

Thank you for that totally irrelevant break in the discussion.

Pff you are talking to me about irrelevant breaks? Your whole distraction of use/possession a few pages back, did that already.

Here is the relevance and this requires a little more than a 5th grade level of understanding.

Countries are invaded or occupied to make sure the drugs are flowing in, then we incarcerate people in our country who get arrested for possessing the narcotic which came to be because of an invasion of another country by some other guise. Hence the double standard. Is it ok to invade countries and kill people for the drugs our citizens then get arrested for possessing?

Our governments facilitate the drug use but end up arresting us for when we do posses the drugs?

[Guest American Woman]

Somebody could hold a joint while another toked off it. But even if observed by a Cop and on his walk up to said people the rest was consumed, the Cop would have nothing to go on, no law applicable to charge since they possess nothing.

That's not true. As I've already posted, the definition of "possession" in the law you refer to says the drug doesn't have to be on the person's property - if it's intended for their personal use, they are guilty of possession. If someone is toking off of a joint, it's pretty clear it's for their personal use and they both would be guilty of possession.

If the above scenario is valid ,and use(being in body) was illegal, then the police could demand blood tests much the same as vehicle drivers would be demanded of. But they cannot since no charge is applicable.

Possession would be all that's necessary to make a charge.

It is not my interpretation as I see it.

It is my understanding from reading the CCC time and again and concentrating on any and all use(being in body) reference.

What you've described is how you've reached your interpretation - but it is your interpretation. As I said, all of the sources I've cited have a different interpretation.

There is none in the CCC.

The interpretation (and lazy writing) is theirs.

The law is theirs; the interpretation is often left to the courts. As to whether it's "lazy writing" - why? It would be obvious that illegal possession would prevent legal use. As I've stated, drug testing is not an exact science, so it could be that since illegal possession prevents legal use, illegal possession in and of itself is enough.

Once again, if there is any reference to use (being in ones body, absent of vehicle operation et al)in the CCC I would dearly love to see it.

It is the the only authority on this subject.

Wrong. A "law" in and of itself has no "authority." I've read several laws that people have interpreted differently from the intent. It happens. It's why courts are often called upon. It's why different courts also rule differently based on different interpretations. Ultimately the Supreme Court is the only authority.

Again. If possession is illegal and use without possession is impossible, it follows that use - by virtue of the illegality of possession - is illegal.

Edited October 13, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Pff you are talking to me about irrelevant breaks? Your whole distraction of use/possession a few pages back, did that already.

This is what I find really totally mind boggling. Repeating. *I'M* not the one who brought up the "diversion," and AGAIN, IN FACT, ignored it the first time it was directed at me. I responded the second time, and countless posters joined in.

Here is the relevance and this requires a little more than a 5th grade level of understanding.

Countries are invaded or occupied to make sure the drugs are flowing in, then we incarcerate people in our country who get arrested for possessing the narcotic which came to be because of an invasion of another country by some other guise. Hence the double standard. Is it ok to invade countries and kill people for the drugs our citizens then get arrested for possessing?

Our governments facilitate the drug use but end up arresting us for when we do posses the drugs?

Again, a totally different topic ...........and having nothing to do with the difference between legal medical use vs recreational use.

Edited October 13, 2011 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

This is what I find really totally mind boggling. Repeating. *I'M* not the one who brought up the "diversion," and AGAIN, IN FACT, ignored it the first time it was directed at me. I responded the second time, and countless posters joined in.

So instead of simply ignoring it, you contributed to it. I understand.

Again, a totally different topic ...........and having nothing to do with the difference between legal medical use vs recreational use.

So how the government acquires the drugs and how we treat people for possession of it really has no bearing at all?

[Guest American Woman]

So instead of simply ignoring it, you contributed to it. I understand.

I'm thinking you don't understand at all.

So how the government acquires the drugs and how we treat people for possession of it really has no bearing at all?

It has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether or not recreational use of illicit drugs is legal in Canada.

[GostHacked]

I'm thinking you don't understand at all.

There is a bigger picture I am getting at, and you might be the only one not able to see or understand. Maybe it's the way I am trying to present my argument. I'll work on that for you.

It has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether or not recreational use of illicit drugs is legal in Canada.

Care to explain why it would not have a bearing?

Edited October 13, 2011 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

Care to explain why it would not have a bearing?

No; I don't care to get into it at all.

[waldo]

Again. If possession is illegal and use without possession is impossible, it follows that use - by virtue of the illegality of possession - is illegal.

again, nonsense! The illegality would be possession... there is no law within the CDSA that pertains to using drugs. You can't cite one, you never could and in the CDSA's current form, you never will be able to. You keep mad-barking about not being able to use drugs without possessing drugs - perhaps you should actually explore case law in that regard, hey? Defense lawyers ply their best to attempt to challenge possession charges (actual vs. constructive vs. joint). When defense lawyers are successful in getting possession charges dropped, their clients who have been using drugs, are not subject to any other charges related to simply using the drugs - an example of using without being in possession - duh! Now, of course, if there was an actual law against using drugs in Canada, if possession couldn't be proved, the Crown could still apply a charge for actually using the drugs... if one existed, which it doesn't, as you've been repeatedly told, over and over and over again.

I cited you, now several times, the European Union situation where a minority of countries actually do have distinct laws for using drugs, over and above those for possession - of course, just another thing you ignore, as it's most inconvenient to your ongoing clown act. For some strange reason those European countries just won't accept your mad barking that, as you claim, "use is illegal by virtue of the illegality of possession"... by virtue!

[Guest American Woman]

From Health Canada:

It is important to note that the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations deal exclusively with the

medical use

of marihuana. They do not address

the issue of legalizing marihuana for general consumption

.

Seems odd that there would be an issue to legalize marijuana for general consumption when consumption is already legal. I suppose Health Canada doesn't know what it's talking about, though. I'm sure you know more about it than Health Canada does, Waldo.

Or not.

Edited to add:

From the Parliament of Canada:

Canada’s drug laws do not prohibit all possession or

use

of illicit drugs

. Thus, the Narcotic Control Regulations allow for the distribution of controlled drugs and substances by pharmacists, medical practitioners and hospitals and outline the records that must be kept to account for the distribution of these drugs.

So again, not all possession or use is prohibited - medical use is allowed.

Edited October 14, 2011 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Google > Search

"illegal drug use" +canada

= About 304,000 results (0.23 seconds)

[Oleg Bach]

Even the Netherlands the bastion of chronic cannabis use has determined that Marajuana ---- is to be soon classed as a hard drug - the folks in Amsterdam have finally figure out through trial and tribulation that dope is simply not good for the population of the health of a nation....Yet we in Canada are so back wards and behind the times that we are about to unloose herione on our nation - are we fucking nuts?

[bush_cheney2004]

Hi Oleg...welcome back!

Now back to the fun.....

Jail sentence for public intoxication

Vancouver Island North

By Staff Writer - North Island Gazette

Published: April 21, 2011 6:00 AM

One too many episodes of public intoxication resulted in George Clair of Port Hardy being separated from the public by a 30-day jail sentence issued Mar. 29.

Already on probation as the result of a November, 2010, conviction for intoxication in a public place, Clair was found in breach in separate incidents on Feb. 19, Mar. 5 and Mar. 25 of this year.

In each case, RCMP officers were called and in one case Clair was unresponsive and had to be taken to hospital. In the final incident, in which Clair twice returned to Thunderbird Mall after being asked by security to leave the premises, a disturbance charge was added.

After Crown counsel Leslie Fillingham enumerated the charges and Clair's criminal record, she said Crown was seeking a 21-day jail term less five days already served.

[Oleg Bach]

Hello BC - was not planning to come back - but I guess you and your humour might make it worth it. Did have a conversation with Mr. Big Dog the other day...all he said was "people seem to be getting more stupid as the years pass....and this guy used to appoint judges at one time - I don't know if he still does - but it seems that this new group of legalists are what he might be talking about....Must be a bit of a let down for Mr. Big Dog who ran Bay Street and the courts for years - to see in his old age - his empire turn to shit...Yes even the devil is ashamed of his spawns these days...Kind of like wondering why you gave birth to a family of idiots.

[cybercoma]

Hi Oleg...welcome back!

Now back to the fun.....

Jail sentence for public intoxication

Vancouver Island North

By Staff Writer - North Island Gazette

Published: April 21, 2011 6:00 AM

One too many episodes of public intoxication resulted in George Clair of Port Hardy being separated from the public by a 30-day jail sentence issued Mar. 29.

Already on probation as the result of a November, 2010, conviction for intoxication in a public place,

Clair was found in breach

in separate incidents on Feb. 19, Mar. 5 and Mar. 25 of this year.

In each case, RCMP officers were called and in one case Clair was unresponsive and had to be taken to hospital. In the final incident, in which Clair twice returned to Thunderbird Mall after being asked by security to leave the premises, a disturbance charge was added.

After Crown counsel Leslie Fillingham enumerated the charges and Clair's criminal record, she said Crown was seeking a 21-day jail term less five days already served.

Different charge. You ought to study the CCC before you make any more stupid claims.

[waldo]

From the Parliament of Canada:

Canada’s drug laws do not prohibit all possession or

use

of illicit drugs

. Thus, the Narcotic Control Regulations allow for the distribution of controlled drugs and substances by pharmacists, medical practitioners and hospitals and outline the records that must be kept to account for the distribution of these drugs.

just cite the Canadian law that pertains specifically to the use/consumption of illicit drugs... simple request... just cite the Canadian law you've never been able to!

what a moran! You've already been provided the pertinent definition within the Criminal Code of Canada... as it pertains directly to the law governing aspects within the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, specifically with regards to the, "importation, exportation, production, sale or possession of a controlled substance or precursor"... here, have another!

... from the

Canadian Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)

, the definition of "

illicit drug use

":

PART XII.1

INSTRUMENTS AND LITERATURE FOR ILLICIT DRUG USE

Interpretation

Definitions

462.1 In this Part,

“consume” - “consume” includes inhale, inject into the human body, masticate and smoke;

“

illicit drug use

” - “illicit drug use”

means the importation, exportation, production, sale or possession of a controlled substance or precursor

contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or a regulation made under that Act

as you've been repeatedly advised,

"illicit drug use" does not mean, does not imply, "use" or "consume"

; rather, it means those acts contrary to the CDSA; specifically, the:

- importation,

- exportation,

- production,

- sale or

- possession

of a controlled substance or precursor.

just cite the Canadian law that pertains specifically to the use/consumption of illicit drugs... simple request... just cite the Canadian law you've never been able to!

[cybercoma]

She's being intentionally obtuse. Just stop replying to her idiocy. There is no law against consumption. Possession, traffck, import, export and production are what's controlled. End of story.