Sir Bandelot Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Public Intoxication... Right, perhaps but intoxication by cannabis is not as easy to prove as alcohol. Breathalyzer will not work. Blood tests can be argued in court by a lawyer. But point is, charges are not possession, not trafficking, not production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Technically, this is about this claim: As was pointed out, one cannot use without being in possession - therefore drug use is illegal. If caught in the act of using, they are in possession and would be charged with possession. Even if not using, but simply possessing the charge is the same. There is no aggravated charge added due to using. The charge is possession whether the weed is lit or not. But we've been through this enough now, it's really become more than tiresome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Right, perhaps but intoxication by cannabis is not as easy to prove as alcohol. Breathalyzer will not work. Blood tests can be argued in court by a lawyer. But point is, charges are not possession, not trafficking, not production. No,but they could throw you in the drunk tank because of erratic behaviour... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 As I've already pointed out, the definition of "possession" for the purpose of the law DOES say "for use." 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. You do understand that this clarification on possession that you've so kindly bolded only serves to show that having the drug in any place is the illegal part. It's re-iterating that possessing the drug includes hiding it somewhere, rather than being in actual physical possession of the goods. If it belongs to a person, whether it is on them or not it is possession. The use part, even according to this definition, has nothing to do with the illegal action, which is possessing the drugs. Do keep those insults coming ..... and try answering the question. How can someone USE drugs without POSSESSING them? You can't. I've already said that. However, once again, that's not the point. The point is that if use itself were illegal, it would have implications for enforcement. As I've said since the very beginning of this thread, possession is illegal, while use itself is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 If caught in the act of using, they are in possession and would be charged with possession. Even if not using, but simply possessing the charge is the same. There is no aggravated charge added due to using. The charge is possession whether the weed is lit or not. But we've been through this enough now, it's really become more than tiresome. Indeed it has become more than tiresome. Since one cannot use without possessing, using, by the nature of the law, is illegal. One cannot use without the illegal act of possessing, therefore one cannot legally use. If one cannot legally use, then using is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 You do understand that this clarification on possession that you've so kindly bolded only serves to show that having the drug in any place is the illegal part. No, it's having the drug for USE - that's clearly stated. It's not just having it for trafficking, but for USE. It's re-iterating that possessing the drug includes hiding it somewhere, rather than being in actual physical possession of the goods. It's also stating that it's illegal to have it for USE. If it belongs to a person, whether it is on them or not it is possession. The use part, even according to this definition, has nothing to do with the illegal action, which is possessing the drugs. The "use part" most definitely is part of the illegal action. You can't. I've already said that. However, once again, that's not the point. The point is that if use itself were illegal, it would have implications for enforcement. As I've said since the very beginning of this thread, possession is illegal, while use itself is not. Yes, that most definitely is the point. If one cannot "use" without the illegal act of "possessing," then one cannot legally use - making use illegal. And that's by your admission that one cannot use without illegally possessing. So yes, "use," by the very fact that "possession" is illegal, is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 If one cannot legally use, then using is illegal.One cannot legally possess drugs; therefore, one cannot legally use drugs. However, that still doesn't mean that using the drugs is illegal, possessing them is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 One cannot legally possess drugs; therefore, one cannot legally use drugs. However, that still doesn't mean that using the drugs is illegal, possessing them is. Oh. My. God. Let's recap what you said. one cannot legally use drugs. Followed by -- that ... doesn't mean that using the drugs is illegal. If you can't legally use them, of course it means using them is illegal!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 No, it's having the drugExactly. It's also stating that it's illegal to have it... Yup.The "use part" most definitely is part of the illegal action.I'm not sure you understand subject-verb-predicate. The illegal action is "having" the drug as you said a few times....Yes, that most definitely is the point. If one cannot "use" without the illegal act of "possessing," then one cannot legally useRight.making use illegal.No! It does not make use illegal because you can't possess them. Use is still not legislated. And that's by your admission that one cannot use without illegally possessing. So yes, "use," by the very fact that "possession" is illegal, is illegal. No it's not. It's still the possession part that's illegal and not the use part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 It's still the possession part that's illegal and not the use part. You yourself correctly stated that "one cannot legally use drugs." link And again. If one cannot legally use drugs, using drugs is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 This freekin debate going on in this thread over the legalty of "using" is a perfect example explaining the outrageous expences incured by our judicial system! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 You yourself correctly stated that "one cannot legally use drugs." link And again. If one cannot legally use drugs, using drugs is illegal. People most certainly can legally use drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) People most certainly can legally use drugs. Sure. For medical use! Otherwise, regarding illicit drugs, as YOU YOURSELF SAID: "one cannot legally use drugs." And YOU have insulted ME throughout this entire thread??? Unbelievable. Edited October 11, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) Sure. For medical use! Otherwise, regarding illicit drugs, as YOU YOURSELF SAID: "one cannot legally use drugs." And YOU have insulted ME throughout this entire thread??? Unbelievable. Just because I can't htink of a way you can legally use drugs that doesn't mean that the use itself is illegal. You're not allowed to possess drugs. What I have said from the beginning is that the law is silent on the actual use of drugs. The prohibition is on possession. So, like I said, you cannot possess drugs. You could still use drugs if someone had an exemption from the possession rule and administered a drug to you. Edited October 11, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Insite is the example of this thread. They receive exemption from the Minister of Health on the possession law. If use were illegal, they could still bust people who have used drugs after they leave Insite for using and being under the influence of a narcotic. They don't and they can't because use is not illegal and who are using the clinic cannot be charged with possession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 People most certainly can legally use drugs. Using illegal drugs if necessary, but not necessarily using illegal drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) Sure. For medical use! Otherwise, regarding illicit drugs, as YOU YOURSELF SAID: "one cannot legally use drugs." And YOU have insulted ME throughout this entire thread??? Unbelievable. Nope - dumb wrong again. One can legally use controlled substances for recreational use. In fact at most concerts in Canada, the police do not interfere with the open consumption of weed and hash. Needle exchange programs assist in the use of controlled and illegal drugs. Use is fine. And even possession of small amount is usually never challenged. The biggies are for possession over minimum amounts, or for possession with the intent to distribute. Use is NOT illegal. Edited October 11, 2011 by charter.rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Maybe I'm not understanding but if a cop catches you using you are possessing,are'nt you? If there are no more drugs and all have been consumed then there is no possession and contrary to AW's cerebral epidural one cannot be charged for the use of drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 I cited everything I posted. Now how about answering the question? How can one "use" without being in "possession?" It was answer 20 pages ago. Toking off another's joint is use without possession. Also shooting up from another's might be stupid but it is not illegal unless the drugs are seized at the time of use. USE is not illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 It was answer 20 pages ago. Toking off another's joint is use without possession. Also shooting up from another's might be stupid but it is not illegal unless the drugs are seized at the time of use. USE is not illegal. If you're passing around a joint, everyone is in possession of the joint, according to the CDSA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 No,but they could throw you in the drunk tank because of erratic behaviour... Wow, this thread is still going? As I posted a week ago (For new comers) getting picked up by the police for being hopped up on goof balls is only a summary offence…..like a speeding ticket…And like a speeding ticket, it won’t go on your criminal record, but it will be a check mark on your “file” in the records of the Canadian Police Information Center……….Any number of incidents can be used by the Crown as an addition to other criminal charges…….i.e. You get charged with vehicular manslaughter, the Crown can (and will) use all those speeding tickets you have logged in the CPIC against you when building their case. In all likelihood, if you’re high and being questioned by a police officer for a complaint etc lodged against you, prior to being rung in, they’ll find something of merit to bring to the Crown to lay charges……..In Canada (and most of the States) one is not going to be “charged” for smelling like a skunk , having blood shot eyes and Dorito cheese stains on their fingers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Add this to the long list of leftard activist decisions by Canada's judicial system. The government has a responsibility to provide benefits for criminals? What's next? Hotel rooms for rapists? What's missing here is any role for a voting majority of the people. Maybe some people don't want the creeping legalization of hard drugs. Maybe some people don't want their neighborhoods infested with a clinic. On the other hand maybe some people believe in the legalization of hard drugs. Let them win that battle on Parliament Hill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 If you can't legally use them, of course it means using them is illegal!! Not under SCC logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 ...use is not illegal .... Nope - dumb wrong again.One can legally use controlled substances for recreational use. Not according to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse* -- It is difficult to obtain accurate data on the prevalence and profile of injection drug use in Canada and internationally because it is an illegal activity. I suppose they're "dumb wrong" too, eh Charter.rights? *About CCSA The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse has a legislated mandate to provide national leadership and evidence-informed analysis and advice to mobilize collaborative efforts to reduce alcohol- and other drug-related harms. CCSA is committed to advancing knowledge and understanding in the field, and is a leading partner in major national and international initiatives. CCSA provides access to a range of information and analysis relating to substance abuse issues, and connects Canadians to a broad spectrum of networks and activities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 11, 2011 Report Share Posted October 11, 2011 Not under SCC logic. Isn’t it also the same in the States? How many people are charged with usage as opposed to possession (amongst other things) in your neck of the woods? If (common) law made sense to the layman, there would be little need of lawyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.