SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[segnosaur]

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.

The difference is, at least in prison and detox centers, there is at least some control over a drug user's activities.

Insite or Needle Exchange programs have absolutely no ability to track or control the activities of users once they leave the building.

[Guest American Woman]

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

I would say that by making possession illegal, the law specifically makes use illegal. No one can give an example where use could occur without possession, so it stands to reason that use is illegal.

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 .

If taking the drug weren't illegal, then consuming it wouldn't be illegal.

The law

Women who use illicit drugs are subject to arrest, because the possession of narcotics is a criminal offence in Canada.

link

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

I must have missed that. How? How can one have it in them without ever possessing it? According to the law, it can't happen.

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.

I don't understand how that applies to "use," as it's neither use nor possession.

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

Exactly, and it's in that sense that "use" is illegal.

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

How does one spike it without being in possession?

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

Again. The claim was made that it's not illegal to use illicit drugs in Canada. I claimed that it is. That's the issue that I have been responding to.

[segnosaur]

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?

I see... so instead of actually, you know, providing evidence here you're going to assume "Those justices know best" and leave it at that.

You do realize that becoming a Supreme Court justice does not make them omnipotent, do you not? I looked through the list of current members, and I didn't find any evidence that any one of them had a background in science. Their job is to interpret laws (including the constitution); science competency is not in the job description.

Of course, I think the bigger problem was with the federal government. It is not the job of the supreme court to generate its own evidence; instead, it largely bases its decisions on the arguments presented to it. Its quite possible that the federal government did little or nothing to challenge the "scientific evidence" provided by those favoring Insite, even though challenging such evidence could be done.

[ToadBrother]

Detoxes, treatment centers and prisons do this too.

As do methadone clinics. The very fact that something like a methadone clinic exists should tell you that the Feds already know that finding a safe alternative to shooting up using dirty needles on the street is necessary. A safe injection site is just simply another step on that same road.

[guyser]

I would say that by making possession illegal, the law specifically makes use illegal. No one can give an example where use could occur without possession, so it stands to reason that use is illegal.

You can have your drink spiked without knowing it, ergo no use no possession.

The law

Women who use illicit drugs are subject to arrest, because the possession of narcotics is a criminal offence in Canada.

link

Maybe I didnt go far enough in reading the link but this sentence kind of sums it up (unless as said further in it amends it)..."Women who use illicit drugs are subject to arrest, because the possession of narcotics is a criminal offence in Canada

I must have missed that. How? How can one have it in them without ever possessing it? According to the law, it can't happen.

Here is where the rubber hits the road. I can have exhaust fumes in me, and not own a car. We could go to a Rasta band concert with our shirts buttoned up and tape on our specs , sit there quietly sipping our Pepsi (shoudve bought Coke silly) yet test positive for pot in the morning .

Again. The claim was made that it's not illegal to use illicit drugs in Canada. I claimed that it is. That's the issue that I have been responding to.

I know you are and I am wondering if somehwere we missed something.

I , in all my reading, find nowhere that is suggest that use is illegal. It would be almost impossible to convict on it being in our system (criminally convict that is) because there are other ways it may have got there.

In keeping it safe, the lawmakers must have realized this , thus possession is criminal, sellling cultivating and so on. But not the use of same

If what you feel is correct, then I would bet we could double the charges anytime someone is in possession and is smoking pot (for example) On charge for having it (possess) and another charge for it being in the body.

I have never seen nor heard that to be valid. And I read a crapload on this today

[waldo]

The claim was made that it's not illegal to use illicit drugs in Canada. I claimed that it is. That's the issue that I have been responding to.

"use" does not imply consumption... a Canadian parliamentary website tells me so! I declare that in your failure to provide an actual Canadian law that pertains to consumption, you are hereby superseded by the powers of my googly!

ILLEGAL 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!

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Conservatives don't use facts or science to base their decisions on, only ideology.

Because of this, they will run Canada into the ground over time.

[TimG]

Conservatives don't use facts or science to base their decisions on, only ideology.

This is nonsense. People on the left are idiological and anti-science when it comes to nuclear power or GMOs or "green" energy (lefties types don't care that green energy is expensive and useless - all they care about is it being used because it suits their ideology). Lefties completely reject the scientific consensus when it comes to economics and instead prefer to make up whatever crap will they think will give them an advantage.

What amazes me is how many lefties actually project their own flaws on others and are incapable of realizing they are doing that.

Edited October 4, 2011 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

You can have your drink spiked without knowing it, ergo no use no possession.

I agree. Certainly the law protects those who were framed. Same with possession. If drugs were planted on someone and they can prove it, then it's not "illegal possession" and the charges will be dropped.

Maybe I didnt go far enough in reading the link but this sentence kind of sums it up (unless as said further in it amends it)..."Women who use illicit drugs are subject to arrest, because the possession of narcotics is a criminal offence in Canada

Right. The "use" makes them subject to arrest because possession is illegal. It's what I've been saying all along; use is illegal by possession being illegal.

Here is where the rubber hits the road. I can have exhaust fumes in me, and not own a car. We could go to a Rasta band concert with our shirts buttoned up and tape on our specs , sit there quietly sipping our Pepsi (shoudve bought Coke silly) yet test positive for pot in the morning .

Again, that's not grounds for "use" not being illegal.

I know you are and I am wondering if somehwere we missed something.

I , in all my reading, find nowhere that is suggest that use is illegal. It would be almost impossible to convict on it being in our system (criminally convict that is) because there are other ways it may have got there.

Again. How, by the fact that one cannot "use" (not be set up, framed, inhale without "possessing" by the legal definition) drugs without possessing them in the legal sense, can "using" drugs not be illegal? How can one say that it's not illegal to "use" them? And again, being set up, being framed, is not "using" them any more than being set up, being framed is "possession" by law. It has to be "knowingly."

In keeping it safe, the lawmakers must have realized this , thus possession is criminal, sellling cultivating and so on. But not the use of same

And I say, keeping in mind that "using" is impossible without "possessing," the lawmakers covered their bases by making possession illegal.

If what you feel is correct, then I would bet we could double the charges anytime someone is in possession and is smoking pot (for example) On charge for having it (possess) and another charge for it being in the body.

What would be the point? Possession covers use in the law.

I have never seen nor heard that to be valid. And I read a crapload on this today

And I've read a crap load on it too, and Senate reports even refer to "legal use of marijuana for health reasons" vs. illegal for non-medical use (ie:: not all use of illicit drugs is illegal), I've read on sites for drug rehab that use is illegal, and in reading the law and the definition of "possession" including "use," I would disagree.

[ToadBrother]

This is nonsense. People on the left are idiological and anti-science when it comes to nuclear power or GMOs or "green" energy (lefties types don't care that green energy is expensive and useless - all they care about is it being used because it suits their ideology). Lefties completely reject the scientific consensus when it comes to economics and instead prefer to make up whatever crap will they think will give them an advantage.

What amazes me is how many lefties actually project their own flaws on others and are incapable of realizing they are doing that.

You're complaining about rejections of consensus positions in science? Hear that sound? That's my irony meter overloading.

[TimG]

You're complaining about rejections of consensus positions in science?

No. I am objecting to the sniveling self righteousness that comes from some people on the left who claim they are rational and not ideologically motivated. Edited October 5, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

Courts rule in order to harm - they are perverts. My friend who is a single father - takes care of his infant kids...was contacted by the Family Resonsiblity Office about a debt that his wife had encured - so they pulled his drivers licence under the guise that he is some sort of dead beat dad..where is the logic and sense in that - The guy plays the role of mother and father...supports his children in full - yet some court rules that he is to be harmed -------------for what?

[Oleg Bach]

Welcome to the machine! Time that the courts started ruling in favour of the sustaining and betterment of society - not the reverse! The job of our judicary is to keep society running smoothly and comfortably - secure and peaceful - not to bring about mayhem...what is with these robots? The SCC is useless - This ruling is akin to handing out guns to suicidal people - that is NOT very protective of the public - it is an attack - but the worse and most frightening part of this matter is the judges don't know they are committing an evil act - they are so far gone and delluded that it is hopeless to expect true social benevolence and protection from these weirdos.

[fellowtraveller]

Welcome to the machine! Time that the courts started ruling in favour of the sustaining and betterment of society - not the reverse! The job of our judicary is to keep society running smoothly and comfortably - secure and peaceful - not to bring about mayhem...what is with these robots? The SCC is useless - This ruling is akin to handing out guns to suicidal people - that is NOT very protective of the public - it is an attack - but the worse and most frightening part of this matter is the judges don't know they are committing an evil act - they are so far gone and delluded that it is hopeless to expect true social benevolence and protection from these weirdos.

Incorrect. The main role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply legislation.

Who is threatened by this ruling? Junkies will still be shooting heroin no matter which way the Supremes went.

[guyser]

I agree. Certainly the law protects those who were framed. Same with possession. If drugs were planted on someone and they can prove it, then it's not "illegal possession" and the charges will be dropped.

Sure as hell hope so!

Right. The "use" makes them subject to arrest because possession is illegal. It's what I've been saying all along; use is illegal by possession being illegal.

No,sorry I do no agree.

'Use' is not a charge. The sentence quoted spells it out. The person was arrested for possession, whether using or not. If no joint existed as it has been smoked and is gone, but the air was rank with the smell, there is no charge applicable.

Again, that's not grounds for "use" not being illegal.

maybe a poor analogy, but the sentiment is right. The use is not illegal as they cannot prove how it got there.

Again. How, by the fact that one cannot "use" (not be set up, framed, inhale without "possessing" by the legal definition) drugs without possessing them in the legal sense, can "using" drugs not be illegal? How can one say that it's not illegal to "use" them? And again, being set up, being framed, is not "using" them any more than being set up, being framed is "possession" by law. It has to be "knowingly."

By being cheap and not buying your own

If I dont have any, and Fred does, and smokes it in front of me, say giving me a super toke, then I do not possess it, but Fred does, a cop walks in and I am free to go.

what would be the point? Possession covers use in the law.

Lawmakers arent covering for anything. They must have known that use is not possession.

I read the whole COntrolled Drugs and Substances Act, and nothing at all with respect to being charged for use, only possession.

And I've read a crap load on it too, and Senate reports even refer to "legal use of marijuana for health reasons" vs. illegal for non-medical use (ie:: not all use of illicit drugs is illegal), I've read on sites for drug rehab that use is illegal, and in reading the law and the definition of "possession" including "use," I would disagree.

I hear ya, but I just dont agree.

[Guest American Woman]

I suggest you be careful if a cop walks in and old Fred is holding the doobie while you are there enjoying it with him. The law makes it clear that "possession" doesn't have to be on your person, but if it's for your "use," it's possession.

Seems to me just because the charge doesn't read "use" doesn't make "use" legal. No one has been able to show how "use" is possible without "possession," so by the very impossibility of using without breaking the law, use is illegal - I don't see how it could be legal if it's impossible to do without breaking the law.

Edited October 5, 2011 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

What a thread drift.

From a facility that wants to provide a safe place for addicts to do their thing and get help at the same time without feeling ashamed and such, to semantics over the legality of use compared to possesion.

So how does that help the addicts?

[Sir Bandelot]

Suggest, if a person does not see something no matter how often the attempt is made to explain it, we leave that person with their illusions.

[Guest American Woman]

Since 1969, the BCCLA's consistent position has been that

the criminalization of the possession and use

of drugs is unjustifiable and should be eliminated.

Thus,

to impose criminal sanctions on drug use

is to interfere, in the most profound and invasive way which the State can, with a personal decision which is, most simply stated, none of the State's business.

link

Edited October 5, 2011 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

Since 1969, the BCCLA's consistent position has been that

the criminalization of the possession and use

of drugs is unjustifiable and should be eliminated.

Thus,

to impose criminal sanctions on drug use

is to interfere, in the most profound and invasive way which the State can, with a personal decision which is, most simply stated, none of the State's business.

link

Thanks for the insight.

Something I've been advocating for a long time. Legalize it all, treat addiction as a health issue and not a criminal issue. Aaaaaaand we're done here.

[Guest American Woman]

...while permitting marijuana's medical use, the Regulations do not legalize the drug for general use. link

[GostHacked]

And around and around we go!!!

[waldo]

Seems to me just because the charge doesn't read "use" doesn't make "use" legal. No one has been able to show how "use" is possible without "possession," so by the very impossibility of using without breaking the law, use is illegal - I don't see how it could be legal if it's impossible to do without breaking the law.

Since 1969, the BCCLA's consistent position has been that the criminalization of the possession and use of drugs is unjustifiable and should be eliminated.

Thus, to impose criminal sanctions on drug use is to interfere, in the most profound and invasive way which the State can, with a personal decision which is, most simply stated, none of the State's business.

link

...while permitting marijuana's medical use, the Regulations do not legalize the drug for general use. link

no! Most definitely, in the context you continue to present, "use" does not imply consumption... again, in your ongoing failure to provide an actual Canadian law that pertains to consumption, from a Canadian Parliamentary website:

ILLEGAL 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.

Edited October 5, 2011 by waldo

[Guest American Woman]

The responsibility of the general public (that is, of citizens and their government representatives) to become adequately informed about drug use and the effects of such use derives from their central role and power in the formulation, passage, and implementation of public policy regarding

all aspects of drug use

, including:

the criminalization of drug use

; prevention and education programs; harm-reduction programs; and care, treatment, and support of drug users.

Brief to the House of Commons Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

[waldo]

Seems to me just because the charge doesn't read "use" doesn't make "use" legal. No one has been able to show how "use" is possible without "possession," so by the very impossibility of using without breaking the law, use is illegal - I don't see how it could be legal if it's impossible to do without breaking the law.

Since 1969, the BCCLA's consistent position has been that the criminalization of the possession and use of drugs is unjustifiable and should be eliminated.

Thus, to impose criminal sanctions on drug use is to interfere, in the most profound and invasive way which the State can, with a personal decision which is, most simply stated, none of the State's business.

link

...while permitting marijuana's medical use, the Regulations do not legalize the drug for general use. link

The responsibility of the general public (that is, of citizens and their government representatives) to become adequately informed about drug use and the effects of such use derives from their central role and power in the formulation, passage, and implementation of public policy regarding

all aspects of drug use

, including:

the criminalization of drug use

; prevention and education programs; harm-reduction programs; and care, treatment, and support of drug users.

Brief to the House of Commons Special Committee on Non-Medical Use of Drugs

no! Most definitely, in the context you continue to present, "use" does not imply consumption... again, in your ongoing failure to provide an actual Canadian law that pertains to consumption, from a Canadian Parliamentary website:

ILLEGAL 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.