SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[TimG]

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.

The legal term for driving drunk is not 'driving while in possession of alcohol'. It is 'driving under the influence'. I think that example makes it pretty clear that possession means what a naive reader would assume it means: you have some unconsumed quantity of the drug in your possession. Edited October 2, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

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.

my suggestion is that instead of insulting others within this thread, you provide the Canadian law that specifically draws distinction between possession versus consumption; more pointedly, the Canadian law that categorically identifies the illegality of consumption... you know, the thing you've been repeatedly asked for but can't provide.

[Guest American Woman]

my suggestion is that instead of insulting others within this thread, you provide the Canadian law that specifically draws distinction between possession versus consumption; more pointedly, the Canadian law that categorically identifies the illegality of consumption... you know, the thing you've been repeatedly asked for but can't provide.

I already provided a quote from the National Defence and Canadian Forces saying: "since most (e.g., alcohol, nicotine, caffeine excepted) non-medical drug use is illegal in Canada," emphasis mine, so again, their word is good enough for me.

So. That leaves their word against your interpretation. The ball is in your court - provide the extensive definition that proves that it's legal to use illegal drugs, or keep repeating your interpretation - in which case I'll keep taking the word of the National Defence and Canadian Forces over yours.

As for my "insulting others" - just another unsubstantiated accusation which means about as much as your interpretation of the law over that of the National Defence and Canadian Forces.

Forgot to add what the CFDP - Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy - had to say in a report prepared for the Canadian Senate: "Canada’s drug law does not prohibit all possession or use of illicit drugs. The regulations to the CDSA allow the prescribing of some otherwise illicit substances for treatment or therapeutic purposes." link

If it weren't illegal to USE drugs in Canada, such a qualification would be unnecessary.

Edited October 2, 2011 by American Woman

[jacee]

Pretty much a non-issue isn't it?

Nobody's going to be charged - or even tested - for having drugs (or alcokol) in their system unless they are committing a crime (disorderly conduct, driving impaired, for example, which could be drugs or alcohol). And then they're going to be charged for the offense, not for 'possession' of the drugs in their system, for pete's sake.

And a statement from "National Defence and Canadian Forces" is not a statement of the law.

[Guest American Woman]

And a statement from "National Defence and Canadian Forces" is not a statement of the law.

It's better than a statement from you: I'll take their interpretation over yours - as well as the report prepared for the Senate by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. For Pete's sake.

[jacee]

It's better than a statement from you: I'll take their interpretation over yours - as well as the report prepared for the Senate by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. For Pete's sake.

OK, now go find a cop who's going to arrest and blood test someone on a suspicion that he might 'possess' illegal drugs in his system, though he's not causing any trouble.

It's a ridiculous argument-for-the-sake-of-argument, and it is not written in law so it is not the law, and any cop who detained and (invasively) blood-tested someone on such a suspicion would get laughed out of court, out of the squad room, the police club, and likely get slapped with a lawsuit.

It couldn't be law because the police could not enforce it. But go ahead ... try to find the law.

Edited October 2, 2011 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

OK, now go find a cop who's going to arrest and blood test someone on a suspicion that he might 'possess' illegal drugs in his system, though he's not causing any trouble.

Wow! Good rebuttal. That sure proves your interpretation, eh?

What it does is confirm that other than your interpretation, against the sources I cited, you got nothin'.

It's a ridiculous argument-for-the-sake-of-argument,

Ummm. Yeah. Which is why I didn't respond the first time Schwa made the ridiculous claim that it's not illegal to use illegal drugs in Canada and/or the U.S. - but then he brought it up again, and I knew he would keep bringing it up until I responded - so go after him about it, not me, mmmmkay?

and it is not written in law so it is not the law, and any cop who detained and (invasively) blood-tested someone on such a suspicion would get laughed out of court and likely slapped with a lawsuit.

Who's said anything about invasive blood tests being legal?? But yeah, your interpretation is what Canaidan law is based on.

Apparently you can't come up with the definition I asked for either ........ so again, I'll take the interpretation of the National Defence and CFDP over yous. No matter how many times you repeat your interpretation. For Pete's sake.

Edited October 2, 2011 by American Woman

[jacee]

Wow! Good rebuttal. That sure proves your interpretation, eh?

What it does is confirm that other than your interpretation, against the sources I cited, you got nothin'.

Ummm. Yeah. Which is why I didn't respond the first time Schwa made the ridiculous claim that it's not illegal to use illegal drugs in Canada and/or the U.S. - but then he brought it up again, and I knew he would keep bringing it up until I responded - so go after him about it, not me, mmmmkay?

Who's said anything about invasive blood tests being legal?? But yeah, your interpretation is what Canaidan law is based on.

Apparently you can't come up with the definition I asked for either ........ so again, I'll take the interpretation of the National Defence and CFDP over yous. No matter how many times you repeat your interpretation. For Pete's sake.

There is no law.

Thus, it is not illegal to have consumed illegal drugs.

National Defense and CF have nothing to do with law enforcement in Canada.

What about in your countey ... is there a law against having consumed illegal drugs?

[charter.rights]

It's better than a statement from you: I'll take their interpretation over yours - as well as the report prepared for the Senate by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. For Pete's sake.

What an ultra maroon.

Possession is illegal, not use. Get over it and quit being a cry-baby about being wrong.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy

When you are ready to apologize for your mistake you might gain some respect back.

Edited October 2, 2011 by charter.rights

[Guest American Woman]

What an ultra maroon.

Possession is illegal, not use. Get over it and quit being a cry-baby about being wrong.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy

When you are ready to apologize for your mistake you might gain some respect back.

:lol:

Good God. How many times can y'all repost the law? I want the extensive definition of "possession," not your interpretations and insults. Evidently, though, the National Defence and Canadian Forces AND the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (which apparently is a good enough source for you when you think it's serving your purpose) are "ultra maroons." (Why do I suddenly feel as if I'm in jr high? ) And they're mistaken about their interpretation. Because y'all said so.

But yeah, I'm the one being a cry-baby - because I'm taking their word over yours. It doesn't get any funnier than that.

[Topaz]

First of all, its the federal and provincial governments fault for NOT doing enough to STOP the flow of drugs and guns into this country. lets just see how these new drug crime Bills do to stop the drugs and the guns coming into the country. Secondly, these addicts NEED a place to get off the drugs and it doesn't happen over night and it will take time. It's so easy for the non-users to bash programs as these.

[Oleg Bach]

did not realize Insite sourced via criminal organizations - cite please.

What's there to source? YOU buy a joint and you are supporting some orginized crimmial group some where - that would kill you just as well as look at you if need be. This idea of assisting drug addicts makes it just a little more easier for gangsters to make more money at the expense of the eventual and incrimental murder of addicts.

I will mention it again - If each judge sitting at the SCC had one daugher or son that was a junkie - they would have not ruled as they did..that is a fact - They would have recommended something else - like take the dope from the kid and lock him up till he is clean - and then if he is found using again - lock them up again till they get the message.

[charter.rights]

But yeah, I'm the one being a cry-baby - because I'm taking their word over yours. It doesn't get any funnier than that.

From the Criminal Code of Canada:

Possession

4(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.

But your request is nothing more than a red herring in avoidance of admitting your error. Next time before you open your mouth I suggest that you do the research yourself rather than ending up looking like an embarrassed fool.

....still waiting for your apology.....

[Oleg Bach]

The drug war on the west started a long time ago - China is still pissed off at westerners destroying their best and brightest with opium...so it is tit for tat as far as importation ------Those liberal do gooder who welcome more and more Asians into the Vancouver area are so stupid..with in this massive migration from the pacific rim to here - are many many high end opiate importers - driving Porches along Marine Drive - who look at the junkes as white and native trash...to be consume for profit - the SCC - might take a look at the suppliers and recommend deportaion of first offenders who bring this shit into Canada - cos' it's not white people who import herione - BUT it is white people who are victims of it .

[Guest American Woman]

From the Criminal Code of Canada:

But your request is nothing more than a red herring in avoidance of admitting your error. Next time before you open your mouth I suggest that you do the research yourself rather than ending up looking like an embarrassed fool.

....still waiting for your apology.....

Sorry, no apology coming - the definition includes "use" - "for the use or benefit of himself..." If it's illegal to possess it for "use," it's obviously illegal to "use" it.

So really, you tell me - how does it feel to end up looking like an embarrassed fool?

[TimG]

If it's illegal to possess it for "use," it's obviously illegal to "use" it.

One does not follow from the other. We are talking the law here. Words have precise meanings. Possession does not mean use. If use was intended to be covered then it would have to be stated explicitly. As I stated before: DUIs are 'driving under the influence' - not 'driving while in possession'. Different words to indicate different concepts.

I suspect the Canadian forces website you linked to is simply wrong (errors on websites do occur).

Edited October 2, 2011 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

I suspect the Canadian forces website you linked to is simply wrong (errors on websites do occur).

Nevertheless, QR&O Chapter/paragraph 20.04 explicitly prohibits the use of any drug by officers and NCMs unless the drug is authorized by medical staff, is an non-prescription drug used as prescribed, or is required in the course of executing duties.

[Guest American Woman]

One does not follow from the other. We are talking the law here. Words have precise meanings. Possession does not mean use. If use was intended to be covered then it would have to be stated explicitly. As I stated before: DUIs are 'driving under the influence' - not 'driving while in possession'. Different words to indicate different concepts.

It's not illegal to drink, so it stands to reason that there would be no "driving while in possession" charge as it's not against the law to be in possession.

Sometimes laws read weird, which is why we need lawyers to sort them out, but The CFDP report prepared for the Canadian Senate that I linked to refers to "use" being illegal, too.

I think, since it's impossible to "use" drugs without possessing them, the wording is such that it covers all the bases. If a drug is "illegal," it stands to reason that it would not be "legal" to use it. But bottom line: one cannot "use" drugs without being in "possession." So really, it seems to me as if the law is explicit in that area.

I suspect the Canadian forces website you linked to is simply wrong (errors on websites do occur).

I think it would be a pretty major error on the National Defence website to go unnoticed, and along with the report I linked to, and the wording of the law, it really does boil down to use being illegal as it would be impossible to use it legally bearing the definition of "possession" and the wording of the law itself. If it were legal to "use" the drug, it wouldn't be illegal to possess it for "use." It would just be illegal to possess it for selling/trafficking purposes.

I've read sites from Canada that deal with drug abuse, drug rehabilitation, etc., and they refer to it being illegal to use drugs. I've read on the U.S. travel site for Canada that using drugs is illegal. If there is any ambiguity, I would say it's in the wording of the law itself not being explicit enough for some people, which does happen - but at the same time I don't see how anyone could read the law and the definition of possession and figure there would be a legal way to use illegal drugs. The fact that they are illegal speaks for itself.

Edited October 2, 2011 by American Woman

[bud]

if a police officer encounters someone who he assumes to have used drugs and is under the influence, they will not and cannot charge the user with 'possession' of controlled substances.

why does this need to be continued any further? like i mentioned before, american woman will not be able to admit to have made a mistake.

[cybercoma]

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.

It's an important distinction because if consumption were illegal, police would be able to require biological tests for use such as urinanalysis or blood testing. Consumption of alcohol prior to operating a motor vehicle is illegal, which is why people can be subjected to a breathalyzer test; however, it's not the consumption of alcohol that's illegal, it's the act of operating a motor vehicle after consuming that's illegal.

As far as drugs go, there is no law pertaining strictly to their consumption. Only their possession, traffic, import, export and production are regulated, but American Woman and bush_cheney2004 don't want to admit that they can't find a law that says consumption is illegal. American Woman has changed her argument to say, "you need to possess something to consume it, so consumption is illegal." Wrong. The possession is illegal and the consumption is still not criminalized.

[cybercoma]

You might want to look at it

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

It's not a criminal charge. It's a citation.

[cybercoma]

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.

The link has been posted several times! Go back and read it.

[cybercoma]

From the Criminal Code of Canada:

But your request is nothing more than a red herring in avoidance of admitting your error. Next time before you open your mouth I suggest that you do the research yourself rather than ending up looking like an embarrassed fool.

....still waiting for your apology.....

Her mistake is not embarassing at all. It's the fact that she won't let it go and just say, "thanks for letting me know that consumption is not illegal." The problem is that her argument about Insite's culpability in a criminal offense hinges on it, so she refuses to let it go.

I find it a bit strange that people who supposed want to get needles off the street, stop the spread of HIV/Hepatitis, and get people clean would be adamantly opposed to a program that has proven to be highly successful.

[TimG]

I think, since it's impossible to "use" drugs without possessing them, the wording is such that it covers all the bases.

You can't be charged with possession if the drugs are not in your possession. Once consumed the drugs are not in your possession. You can't invent new meanings for english words just because you want to argue the law says something it does not. Edited October 2, 2011 by TimG

[Shwa]

Nevertheless, QR&O Chapter/paragraph 20.04 explicitly prohibits the use of any drug by officers and NCMs unless the drug is authorized by medical staff, is an non-prescription drug used as prescribed, or is required in the course of executing duties.

Nevertheless you are quoting workplace policy and not law.