SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[Guest American Woman]

but why i ask..if consumption is legal...how could a employer dismiss me for something that is legal...

Exactly.

[Guest American Woman]

I hear ya but then the l;ast part is the salient part..."53 per cent of respondents support the legalization of marijuana"

Why would that be more salient than the consumption of cannabis?

[guyser]

...in this case the law/ And HRC states that there are some jobs which have safety concerns can test employees for illigal drug useage or consumption...if that is the case then there is a law out there that does confirm that some not all persons can be tested for consumption...which would mean there is a law...it just does not apply to everyone...

Employment Law is far removed form the CCC.

but why i ask..if consumption is legal...how could a employer dismiss me for something that is legal...wrongful dismal claims are heard where ? in court, with lawyers and judges ...and maybe this is just me, but what law is this charged under... which is confusing really ...i can't be charged for consumption but i can get fired for it...OK if thats the case one would assume there is a law some where...

A court can be ....

Family Court dealing in the Family Law Act

Criminal Court dealing weith the CCC

Employment Court for employee stuff

HRC dealing with Human Rights,

....of which 3 of 4 have nothing to do with the CCC.

[Army Guy]

Of course, a lot of drug testing comes under the auspices of contract and/or employment law, more to the point of various jurisdictions allowing such testing. But this isn't an outright and complete prohibition on having such substances in your system, and generally applies not just to controlled substances, but also to perfectly legal ones; in particular alcohol.

So are you saying there is laws in ref consumption be it that they only pertain to a few and not the masses.....

[cybercoma]

I'm guessing they could give them breathalyzers and charge them.

For the umpteenth time. You're wrong. The law has been posted a bunch of times in this thread. They can't give the kids a breathalyzer. The ONLY time you are required to submit to a breathalyzer test is if you are operating a motor vehicle. 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.

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.

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

Yes. The one being injected would be in possession, just as a group of kids standing around smoking pot are all in possession of the pot. That's according to the final sentence above. However, you still refuse to say explicitly what they are being charged with. It's not drug use. They are charged with possession.

[cybercoma]

So are you saying there is laws in ref consumption be it that they only pertain to a few and not the masses.....

Criminal law is different from contract law. Yes.

[Guest American Woman]

Canadian public opinion on decriminalization of the use of marijuana has shifted quite

dramatically over the past decade. Fraser Institute

[Guest American Woman]

you still refuse to say explicitly what they are being charged with. It's not drug use. They are charged with possession.

The issue isn't what they are charged with - the issue is whether it's legal or not to use illicit drugs in Canada. Whether or not consumption is legal. And you yourself admit that it's impossible to use without possession, therefore, it's not legal to use. Which is what I said.

[guyser]

Why would that be more salient than the consumption of cannabis?

Because the way it is written, and no link, suggests that the poll was for the latter, the former being the pollsters conclusion.

Here it is again...

Adults in Canada believe the consumption of cannabis should be allowed in their country, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 53 per cent of respondents support the legalization of marijuana.

The italicized part appears to me to be an assumption arrived at from the results of the bold part which was the poll question. Again, I have to assume.

Edited October 4, 2011 by guyser

[Army Guy]

Geez AG , not sure what you are saying here.

It measures the amount of Alcohol in ones bloodstream, relevant to operational limits as spelled out in the CCC. If no CCC charge can come about, then no breathalyzer will be given.

LLAct charges are mere and generally not worth sweating about, at least for the individual.

Say, driving to the cottage and a case of beer is behind the seat...busted, but no breathalyzer, no CCC charge

There is no level of impairment for a job that is acceptable, at least as far as pilots, bus drivers, etc are concerned. the employment contracts specify no alcohol in the system prior to report to shift.

ETA_ I speel lik shite today

What i'm saying is your employer can send you to the hospital to be tested if that is a condition of your job....you come in hung over and reaking of booze,you have given doubt to your employer your going to get tested. I'm not sure about Civilian hospitals but military hospitals do have breathilzers to measure alcohol content.... No need to involve the CCC when it is your job at stake...

[cybercoma]

The issue isn't what they are charged with - the issue is whether it's legal or not to use illicit drugs in Canada. Whether or not consumption is legal. And you yourself admit that it's impossible to use without possession, therefore, it's not legal to use. Which is what I said.

It is not illegal to use drugs. It's illegal to possess them. That's what I have been saying to you all along, but you are being absolutely stubborn. There is not a single other poster that has agreed with you in this thread other than that troll bush_cheney2004. Why can't you just admit that the act of using drugs is not illegal? It's the act of possession that is illegal, regardless of whether or not you can use without first possessing a drug.

[Guest American Woman]

Because the way it is written, and no link, suggests that the poll was for the latter, the former being the pollsters conclusion.

Here it is again...

The italicized part appears to me to be an assumption arrived at from the results of the bold part which was the poll question. Again, I have to assume.

I linked to a Frasier Institute article about making consumption of marijuana legal in Canada too. I've also read that pregnant women in Canada who use illicit drugs are subject to arrest because possession is illegal. There's a direct link between "use" and "possession," and as long as possession is illegal, use is illegal.

Edited October 4, 2011 by American Woman

[guyser]

Exactly.

You are drunk driving a train... or had a beer at lunch and as the shuttle worker (doesnt even get in the train)then rolls his train, he is going to be , either fired if more than once this happened or counseled to seek treatment ( likely ordered to or be fired)

[guyser]

What i'm saying is your employer can send you to the hospital to be tested if that is a condition of your job....you come in hung over and reaking of booze,you have given doubt to your employer your going to get tested. I'm not sure about Civilian hospitals but military hospitals do have breathilzers to measure alcohol content.... No need to involve the CCC when it is your job at stake...

Your employer will not send to a hospital. They would tell you to bugger off. Anyhow, if you show up reeeking of booze for any other job than a few(very few that is)you will be getting a free day off, free to the employer that is.

I have no doubts the Army has their own rules.

[segnosaur]

Hey, I'm willing to admit that the incidence of needle sharing does go down through both Insite and other needle exchange programs. I never claimed otherwise. The problem is what happens when they do share needles.

the "problem"?... which has what relevance and immediacy to the facility, proper?

Ummmm... I already explained that. Multiple times.

The argument that people are making regarding this facility is that it "saves lives". At this point, we don't have any evidence that it does or does not (at least nothing that would convince anyone who's capable of actual rational thinking.)

Once again... the problem with programs like Insite or Needle exchange programs is that they give an opportunity for people who might not have otherwise met to become familiar with each other, to the point where they may engage in risky behavior with each other and thus spread HIV. Studies have shown that it can and does happen.

fyi: Insite Statistics

- 312,214 visits to the site by 12,236 unique individuals

...

In 2010 alone, Insite counsellors made more than 5,000 referrals to other social and health service agencies, the vast majority of which were for detox and addiction treatment. The calendar year 2010 also saw 458 admissions from Insite into Onsite, the adjoining detox treatment facility which recorded a program completion rate of 43 per cent in 2010.

Uhhh... so? Is this a lot?

So, approximately of Insite users 4% were admitted into their related detox site. Is that a lot? A little? How many non-Insite users seek out rehab facilities on a yearly basis? Are there other methods that have similar (or better) results of getting people into Detox?

Waving all sorts of numbers around without any sort of context may impress some people, but anyone who is able to actually apply a bit of critical thinking will not be convinced.

The difference between you and I is that I know I don't have the answers. On the other hand, you think you know, but you really don't.

[TimG]

Once again... the problem with programs like Insite or Needle exchange programs is that they give an opportunity for people who might not have otherwise met to become familiar with each other, to the point where they may engage in risky behavior with each other and thus spread HIV.

Detoxes, treatment centers and prisons do this too.

[Army Guy]

If a person is caught in possession of marijuana their charge would be the same, whether it was found in their pocket, held in their hand or burning a joint on their very lips. It does not matter if they are caught in the very act of using it, vs. simply holding it. it is simply, "possession". Consumption is not an aggravating factor.

Could it be that there is no real need for a consumption law, because everything is covered under all the other laws...but hey perhaps that is what is needed here a consumption law....so there is absolutly no doubt that Illigal drugs are illigal...period....you can't touch them , you can't buy/ sell them,can't grow them or make them....whats next we have specific laws that say you can't jam them up your arse either because someone said well it must be legal it's not in the CCC....

i can't for the life of me figure out why it is a big deal...to a normal indiviual it is covered under the CCC....Do we need a consumption law looks like we do...perhaps it will drive a new breatherziler for drugs....and everything will go back to normal

[guyser]

I linked to a Frasier Institute article about making consumption of marijuana legal in Canada too. I've also read that pregnant women in Canada who use illicit drugs are subject to arrest because possession is illegal. There's a direct link between "use" and "possession," and as long as possession is illegal, use is illegal.

In your first link, the CBC one, the first sentence is the key part. "For over 70 years,possession of marijuana has been a crime in Canada. "

I see the Fraser link, had a quick look and was struck by the way they interchange the two, use and possession.

For instance...

Overall, younger and middle-aged Canadians—those under 55 years of age—hold more

liberal views on decriminalization of the use of marijuana than do those over the age of

55 years. Similarly, while a solid majority of Canadian men think marijuana use should

be legal, fewer women in the population share this view

So one can see they say" younger middle aged...views on decriminilaization", then below they say "use should be legal'

The report is interpolating where they shouldnt and leads to normal confusion. I see where your argument lies since so much of what is reported or talked about interchanges use and possession, however I found nothing to indicate the use and or having in ones body is the same as possessing it.

[segnosaur]

still nutz how people are against this

when it has been proven to work

That's the problem... it hasn't been proven to work.

And despite the mountain of "studies" provided by supporters of Insite, I have yet to see one that's actually, you know, relevant.

[cybercoma]

we don't have any evidence that it does or does not (at least nothing that would convince anyone who's capable of actual rational thinking.)

Anyone capable of rational thinking? How about, you know... 9 Supreme Court Justices voting unanimously that the work being done at Insite relates to a person's section 7 rights and that shutting it down would cause undue harm? I'm sure all 9 of them were totally irrational though, right?

[guyser]

...but hey perhaps that is what is needed here a consumption law....

Noooo!!!!

Something we should have touched upon, and may be the reason for the use not being in the law.

We were all young once. We were all at parties where we could smell the ganja, and we breathed it all in too, whether we wanted to or not.

But are we, or should we all be guilty of use? After all, if we gave blood Sunday morning, it would test positive for cannibus.

Its called the Ross Rebagliati defence ....and it worked(s)

Edited October 4, 2011 by guyser

[Guest American Woman]

I see the Fraser link, had a quick look and was struck by the way they interchange the two, use and possession.

The report is interpolating where they shouldnt and leads to normal confusion. I see where your argument lies since so much of what is reported or talked about interchanges use and possession, however I found nothing to indicate the use and or having in ones body is the same as possessing it.

That's my point, though ... the two are interchangeable. It follows that use, by the very fact that possession is illegal, is illegal.

The fact that pregnant women can be charged with use sort of clinches the "illegal to have it in your body" argument. But again, "use" and "having it your body" are two different things. The very idea that the tests for "having it in one's body" aren't conclusive in all areas makes that a gray area. But I don't think whether or not "using them" is legal or not is debatable. It always comes down to use is impossible without possession, which is illegal.

Edited October 4, 2011 by American Woman

[segnosaur]

Sorry about joining this thread rather late. The thread seems to have rapidly grown; I skimmed through it, but didn't see anyone address a few issues that were brought up way on the first page...

Hey look! Science! http://aje.oxfordjou...12/994.abstract

Risk elevations for HIV infection associated with Needle Exchange programs attendance were substantial and consistent in all three risk assessment scenarios in our cohort of injection drug users.

So, what that says that there is some evidence that, even though Needle Exchange programs are supposed to reduce HIV, they can have the opposite effect. (Basically what happens is that, while clean needles are provided, drug users don't always use the clean needles. However, the presence of the needle exchange is that it causes drug users who might never have met otherwise to interact, thus enabling the spread of HIV and HepC.)

Except BC is the only province where the prevalence of HIV has actually dropped. This study actually is about BC and finds the exact opposite.

Jesus christ on a cracker...

Considering that insite supporters think they have science on their side, there has been a surprising lack of critical thinking from their side.

So lets see what's wrong with your little link, shall we?

First of all, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when you say "BC is the only province where HIV dropped" (You didn't provide a reference for that claim, but I'll let it slide for now...) You do know that BC is a very big province, right? Not everyone in BC has access to Insite. Its quite possible that the drop in HIV rates is due to some other factor (for example, here's an article that points to people switching to Crack, which has less HIV risk. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Health/20110325/hiv-druginjection-bc-110325/)

Secondly, if your claim is that "Lower HIV rates mean the program is working", does that mean that the needle exchange programs in Toronto/Montreal/etc. DON'T work?

Lastly, that article you quoted is worthless. Spends a lot of time talking about how "Insite users share needles less", but makes no effort to compare HIV rates between the Insite and the non-Insite using population.

[guyser]

That's my point, though ... the two are interchangeable. It follows that use, by the very fact that possession is illegal, is illegal.

The law has to be specific , so no, the two cannot be interchangeable.

You have a drill in your possession, but you never use it.

The fact that pregnant women can be charged with use sort of clinches the "illegal to have it in your body" argument

I will assume that the pregnant woman would be endangering her child (oh brother)and that may incur charges but again, without context or where it came I am , once again, in assume mode .

. But again, "use" and "having it your body" are two different things. The very idea that the tests for "having it in one's body" aren't conclusive in all areas makes that a gray area. But I don't think whether or not "using them" is legal or not is debatable. It always comes down to use is impossible without possession, which is illegal.

It is a gray area, and as I opined just a minute ago , one can have it in them without ever possessing it.

I can think of a few areas this would or could happen.

One glaring one is at a wine company. The workers are never to go into a vat w/o supervision since the fumes can make them so drunk so fast they pass out and die.

That worker does not own, possess nor use wine.

The law predicates on you being a willful party to the crime.

One can spike a drink with meth, ergo no use, no possession.

I think we would make our laws almost unmanageable if the use or in the body became part of law

[waldo]

For the umpteenth time. You're wrong.

yes... and yet AW persists. She certainly favours any 3rd-party website where she finds the word "use" in order to presume upon the lack of any actual Canadian law covering consumption. Of course, she completely dismissed my several times linked/reference to the European Union situation where defined distinction between possession and consumption most certainly does exist... either because certain EU countries categorically state consumption is not illegal or because certain EU countries have brought forward particular restrictions/law against types of consumption. Clearly that website wasn't one that fit her purview. Nor I expect, will this one: LLEGAL DRUG USE AND CRIME: A COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP - Prepared For The Senate Special Committee On Illegal Drugs

In Canada, it is an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to possess, produce, traffic in, or import or export certain drugs. Persons who engage in these activities face legal consequences linked directly or indirectly to their drug use. Consequences directly linked to drug use are simple possession offences, while those indirectly linked are all offences related to the production of or trafficking in illegal drugs.

- direct or indirect legal consequences related to drug use:

- direct consequences: simple possession offences

- indirect consequences: offences related to the production of or trafficking in illegal drugs

-

no consequences, direct or indirect, for actual drug use

Although the figures confirm the existence of crime directly and indirectly related to the use of illegal drugs (possession versus trafficking, importing and production), there are nevertheless certain significant limits as a result of which the number of offences associated with illegal drug use is underestimated

hey now! "Use" is qualified to imply possession versus trafficking, importing and production... i.e., qualified, implicitly, to not imply consumption.

uhhhh... in the absence of actual Canadian law covering consumption, see what one can do with a lil' googly! So, yes... "use" actually means "possession versus trafficking, importing and production". A web-site, a Canadian parliamentary website, no less, tells me so!

Edited October 4, 2011 by waldo