SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[bush_cheney2004]

Sementics, a non-sequitur.

No...I'm thinking you can't kill people through employment misconduct and be protected by the union...not even in Canada.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Yes, I know........my post last page:

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

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Not true.

What is the legal definition of "possession" as used in the criminal code? I cannot imagine anyone believing that "using" wouldn't involve "possession," thereby making "using" illegal. If a drug is illegal, it can't be legal to use it.

At any rate, Canadians who are allowed to take medicinal marijuana must apply to have permission to "legally smoke" it.

582

The number of Canadians who have Ottawa's permission to smoke marijuana for medical reasons, as of July 9, 2003.

Health Canada said it had received a total of 1,145 applications from people wishing to legally smoke

since the medical marijuana access regulations came into effect in 2001. Thirty-five to 50 new applications are received each month.

link

[charter.rights]

No...I'm thinking you can't kill people through employment misconduct and be protected by the union...not even in Canada.

You would be wrong again.

The union is OBLIGATED to provide the resources to defend a member if the member files a grievance against an employer. Someone who is mentally ill as an example and who had previously requested help from a supervisor and was refused might well file a grievance. And if that inaction caused a mental episode, the employer could be found liable for the actions of the employee, even if death resulted.

But the point is restated: The Union is obligated under their own standard constitutions. That is the nature of unions and collective membership.

[Guest Derek L]

You would be wrong again.

The union is OBLIGATED to provide the resources to defend a member if the member files a grievance against an employer. Someone who is mentally ill as an example and who had previously requested help from a supervisor and was refused might well file a grievance. And if that inaction caused a mental episode, the employer could be found liable for the actions of the employee, even if death resulted.

But the point is restated: The Union is obligated under their own standard constitutions. That is the nature of unions and collective membership.

There’s a difference between defend and protect

[charter.rights]

Not true.

What is the legal definition of "possession" as used in the criminal code? I cannot imagine anyone believing that "using" wouldn't involve "possession," thereby making "using" illegal. If a drug is illegal, it can't be legal to use it.

At any rate, Canadians who are allowed to take medicinal marijuana must apply to have permission to "legally smoke" it.

582

The number of Canadians who have Ottawa's permission to smoke marijuana for medical reasons, as of July 9, 2003.

Health Canada said it had received a total of 1,145 applications from people wishing to legally smoke

since the medical marijuana access regulations came into effect in 2001. Thirty-five to 50 new applications are received each month.

link

You might want to look at the law. Not even in the US can someone be charged and convicted for suspicion of possession. The actual possession must have been witnessed by the police or an informant. However, once the substance has been consumed you can no longer be charged for either possession or being suspected of using.

[Guest Derek L]

You might want to look at the law. Not even in the US can someone be charged and convicted for suspicion of possession. The actual possession must have been witnessed by the police or an informant. However, once the substance has been consumed you can no longer be charged for either possession or being suspected of using.

You might want to look at it

Depending on which State, you can be held for public intoxication

Edited October 2, 2011 by Derek L

[Guest American Woman]

You might want to look at the law. Not even in the US can someone be charged and convicted for suspicion of possession. The actual possession must have been witnessed by the police or an informant. However, once the substance has been consumed you can no longer be charged for either possession or being suspected of using.

You might want to find out the definition of "possession." It's not a simple definition, from what I've read. "Using" involves "possession." It is not legal to use illegal drugs in Canada. How could using something that's illegal - be legal? How can one inject/consume/use drugs without being in possession of them?

[charter.rights]

You might want to look at it

Depending on which State, you can be held for public intoxication

That isn't possession or suspicion of possession. They have to have some evidence of intoxication...which is difficult to prove in substances other than alcohol without a blood test.

But in any case it is a whole different issue.

The union's obligation is to protect the workers collective rights and defense is part of that protection.

Edited October 2, 2011 by charter.rights

[bush_cheney2004]

...But the point is restated: The Union is obligated under their own standard constitutions. That is the nature of unions and collective membership.

Your point is moot: employment misconduct resulting in death or injury to others does not have as a defense simple union membership or a collective bargaining contract. Criminal liability and civil lawsuits would apply.

[Guest Derek L]

That isn't possession or suspicion of possession. They have to have some evidence of intoxication...which is difficult to prove in substances other than alcohol without a blood test.

Slurred speech……pupil dilation…erratic behaviour……..Are you denying that people, across North America get thrown in the proverbial drunk tank?

[Guest Derek L]

The union's obligation is to protect the workers collective rights and defense is part of that protection.

Nope.....not under English law

Defense and protection are apples and oranges

A defence is: a response to a complaint, called an affirmative defense, to counter, defeat, or remove all or a part of the contentions of the plaintiff

Protection is: A privilege granted by the king to a party to an action, by which he is protected from a judgment which would otherwise be rendered against him. Of these protections there are several kinds

[capricorn]

The union is OBLIGATED to provide the resources to defend a member if the member files a grievance against an employer.

Wrong. A union can reject a member's grievance if it is found baseless or frivolous. You really think a union would defend a grievance they know they would lose? Come on.

[charter.rights]

You might want to find out the definition of "possession." It's not a simple definition, from what I've read. "Using" involves "possession." It is not legal to use illegal drugs in Canada. How could using something that's illegal - be legal? How can one inject/consume/use drugs without being in possession of them?

Actually is IS legal to use drugs in Canada. In many provinces possession of small amounts of pot is not illegal at all. Those with a medical marijuana license issued by health Canada can smoke freely and openly and are allowed to possess as much weed as can be reasonably consumed in a week. They are also permitted to grow the stuff for their own use.

Methadone is a controlled substance as well and is distributed in store front centres to those that need it. In injection sites and health centres (as you can see from the Supreme Court ruling) it is also not illegal to possess intravenous substances brought into the centre. Insite is not the only safe use site in Canada, ya know...

[charter.rights]

Wrong. A union can reject a member's grievance if it is found baseless or frivolous. You really think a union would defend a grievance they know they would lose? Come on.

Wrong again.

The Union is obligated under their own constitution. Unions must pursue grievances. They do not get to vet them.

Now that is not to say that the Union steward or the rep will advise the member not to pursue it, but it is the member that has a right to file a grievance and it must be given all due attention.

[charter.rights]

Nope.....not under English law

Defense and protection are apples and oranges

A defence is: a response to a complaint, called an affirmative defense, to counter, defeat, or remove all or a part of the contentions of the plaintiff

Protection is: A privilege granted by the king to a party to an action, by which he is protected from a judgment which would otherwise be rendered against him. Of these protections there are several kinds

Semantics: a non sequitur.....and your persistence is now a red herring fallacy argument. Surely you are capable of making a real argument.

Edited October 2, 2011 by charter.rights

[capricorn]

Wrong again.

The Union is obligated under their own constitution. Unions must pursue grievances. They do not get to vet them.

Wrong again.

Unions do not have to submit a grievance just because a member asks them to. But by law unions must submit any grievance that has as reasonable chance of being successful.

http://www.cupe1281.ca/index.php?section_id=23

A baseless or frivolous grievance would not go forward if the union believes it will not succeed.

Would you like more examples or will CUPE do?

[Guest Derek L]

Semantics: a non sequitur.....and your persistence is now a red herring fallacy argument. Surely you are capable of making a real argument.

I’m not the one interpreting the law here………hell not even the law, but legal definitions………

And yes, I’m capable of making an argument……..I do it for a living and make lots of money……..My continuing argument is that you don’t know what you’re talking about, which is made evident by your incorrect use of legal definitions and implying that a union supersedes the Crown.

It doesn’t mater if a person’s defence is paid for by a union or money his granny had stuffed under a mattress…….All Canadians are entitled to a fair shake.

[charter.rights]

Slurred speech……pupil dilation…erratic behaviour……..Are you denying that people, across North America get thrown in the proverbial drunk tank?

Unless they have committed another crime, they are released in the morning without charges. The purpose of arresting them is for their own protection, not for criminal activity.

[Guest Derek L]

Unless they have committed another crime, they are released in the morning without charges. The purpose of arresting them is for their own protection, not for criminal activity.

Yes, I know......I posted as much several pages back

[charter.rights]

And yes, I’m capable of making an argument……..I do it for a living and make lots of money.

Obviously you are not making arguments to reasonable-thinking people. Your use of fallacy argument is disappointing and sophomoric at best. But if you are making lots of money at it then you might want to put some money away because with your poor attempts evidenced here the gravy train will eventually run dry.

[Guest Derek L]

Obviously you are not making arguments to reasonable-thinking people. Your use of fallacy argument is disappointing and sophomoric at best. But if you are making lots of money at it then you might want to put some money away because with your poor attempts evidenced here the gravy train will eventually run dry.

Oooo zing………..What’s your argument again?

In real life, the law isn’t like what you see on TV……it’s chalked full of “unreasonable semantics”.....

[bud]

'possession' is different than "under influence".

this is not the first time american woman has made a mistake and when confronted is not willing to accept that she's made a mistake. everyone can see what the act says. my suggestion is not to bother with her. she's hopeless.

Edited October 2, 2011 by bud

[olp1fan]

wikileaks said america wanted insite shut down that it was violating international treaties LOL

how many intnl treaties do they break a year? fck em

[Guest American Woman]

'possession' is different than "under influence".

this is not the first time american woman has made a mistake and when confronted is not willing to accept that she's made a mistake. everyone can see what the act says. my suggestion is not to bother with her. she's hopeless.

My suggestion is that instead of insulting me, you provide us all with the extensive definition of "possession" under the Criminal Code of Canada - along with a link confirming it.

Thank you.