SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[charter.rights]

It's a matter of interpretation whether or not the CCC shows nothing - or something - that says it is. I've cited numerous sources, including the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, that says it is illegal. I would think they would be aware of what the law means.

Furthermore, I see no reason why one would need to be granted the right to "legal medical use" if "use" weren't illegal. It's not referred to as "legal possession" or "medical possession," but legal medical use. It's always stressed that the legality of medical use does not extend to legalizing recreational use.

I would think if using were legal, there would be a source saying so; emphasizing that "use" is legal, but possession, trafficking, producing is not.

According to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: "in Canada, cannabis use or possession is controlled by criminal law under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)." link

I've cited the Criminal Code of Canada, and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and there is no law for illegal use, only for possession. That trumps your advisory group that has a semantics problem in making a recommendation. Both act are law in Canada and nothing else matters....except of course being blond which gives us all a laugh from time to time.....

[olp1fan]

In the US people who see cops and swallow the drugs are taken to a poty and given laxatives to make them crap it out

that most certainly does not happen here

[GostHacked]

really? Here I thought that made pointed distinction between the inhale versus smoking methods of administering that drug. Hey now... can you inhale without smoking... anyone, anyone, anyone

Yes, vaporizers.

[guyser]

In the US people who see cops and swallow the drugs are taken to a poty and given laxatives to make them crap it out

that most certainly does not happen here

wanna bet?

[Guest American Woman]

wanna bet?

He was so proud, I didn't want to rain on his parade.

[olp1fan]

wanna bet?

sure, I will take that bet, now go find a video of a canadian cop asking a canadian in canada to crap out drugs

Edited October 11, 2011 by olp1fan

[guyser]

sure, I will take that bet, now go find a video of a canadian cop asking a canadian in canada to crap out drugs

How much? How about $10M Internet bucks? Or you can mail me a $20 spot?

[guyser]

sure, I will take that bet, now go find a video of a canadian cop asking a canadian in canada to crap out drugs

Why a video?

[olp1fan]

Why a video?

Because laws can be interpreted and skewed any way you want it to

[guyser]

He was so proud, I didn't want to rain on his parade.

I know, wait till he sees this....

http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspapers/2011-04/apr15_11drg.html

or this....

http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=50&languageId=1&contentId=13686

or this....

http://www.vancouverite.com/2010/03/04/rcmp-will-wait-until-suspect-excretes-drugs/

Im tired, do you need more? or will a video be the only saving grace?

[guyser]

Because laws can be interpreted and skewed any way you want it to

Im guessing you are quite young.

[olp1fan]

I know, wait till he sees this....

http://www.nnsl.com/frames/newspapers/2011-04/apr15_11drg.html

or this....

http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=50&languageId=1&contentId=13686

or this....

http://www.vancouverite.com/2010/03/04/rcmp-will-wait-until-suspect-excretes-drugs/

Im tired, do you need more? or will a video be the only saving grace?

okay, I conceed defeat, where do I send you your winnings?

is a dollar in Canadian Tire money good enough for you?

[Guest American Woman]

Im guessing you are quite young.

I'm guessing he's been doing a lot of "interpreting" and "skewing" himself.

[cybercoma]

olp, they wait here just the same as they do in most states.

[olp1fan]

I'm guessing he's been doing a lot of "interpreting" and "skewing" himself.

at least I admit when I'm wrong, which is probably a lot

you on the other hand go for 50 pages

just sayin'

[Guest American Woman]

at least I admit when I'm wrong, which is probably a lot

you on the other hand go for 50 pages

just sayin'

Fact is, when/if I'm wrong, I admit it. What I don't do is admit I'm wrong because you said so.

As for going on for 50 pages - I had a little help from my friends. Or should y'all be able to respond to my posts as much as you desire - while I'm required to remain silent?

Edited October 11, 2011 by American Woman

[guyser]

okay, I conceed defeat, where do I send you your winnings?

is a dollar in Canadian Tire money good enough for you?

I like CDN Tire money, its great for my cottage.

Naw, donate it next time they have that featured.

[olp1fan]

Fact is, when/if I'm wrong, I admit it. What I don't do is admit I'm wrong because you said so.

As for going on for 50 pages - I had a little help from my friends. Or should y'all be able to respond to my posts as much as you desire - while I'm required to remain silent?

counted 104 posts, but you are right, it definitely wasn't just you

this seems to be a much discussed subject

which i have no clue why, the court has spoken

the evidence is there

[waldo]

It's a matter of interpretation whether or not the CCC shows nothing - or something - that says it is. I've cited numerous sources, including the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, that says it is illegal. I would think they would be aware of what the law means.

interpretation of what the law means? What law are you referring to?

of course, when I first posted a link and reference to the EU's Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), I naively thought it might provide you a point of distinction... of course you ignored it. However, once more with vinegar... this time an expanded add on just might, just might, finally clue you in, hey?

Your difficulty, your inability, is to provide a like specific application of the law within Canada, one that clearly makes the same possession versus consumption distinction. You can't... so you bluster away!

American Woman won't find it... because it doesn't exist. Perhaps the following

European link reference

may provide American Woman a framework distinction between possession versus consumption and legalities therein. The linked reference provides a summary accounting of European countries that have chosen to 'penalize' consumption use by law, (whether that law is criminal, non-criminal or regulatory in nature), and whether additional qualifications apply. A respective countries decision to pursue laws against consumption is, as described, an action that is significant for at least the two stated reasons; specifically:

- Firstly it is a legislative step not required by the UN drug control conventions, which only require countries to penalize possession;

- Secondly it may provide new powers to investigating police, such as the ability to take biological samples in the search for “evidence of commission of a criminal offence”, or the power to arrest someone in possession of a clean syringe as “preparing to commit a criminal offence”.

National drug use legislation across the European Union - Laws on illicit use and possession of drugs:

Laws may prohibit the

use of drugs as such (simple use)

, and/or

just the possession of drugs

. In the following paragraph we describe the legal provision for both cases.

Simple use

At present (November 2004), there are 7 countries (out of 26 (39)) – Cyprus, France, Finland, Greece, Luxembourg (the latter except for cannabis) Sweden and Norway – in which the simple use of drugs is deemed a criminal offence (40).

Simple use is deemed an administrative offence in Estonia, Spain, Latvia and Portugal.

The other Member States

do not directly prohibit the simple use of drugs

, but

indirectly do so by prohibiting acts preparatory to use, in particular, possession.

The legal provisions on use in these countries therefore actually relate to the possession of small quantities for the purposes of personal use, a concept that includes not only the idea of single use but also its preparatory acts.

this EU condition is entirely consistent with what everyone has been stating to you; i.e., that Canada does not directly prohibit the simple use of drugs... there is no related law prohibiting the simple use of drugs - you have never been able to provide/cite such a law. However, also as everyone has been stating, Canada indirectly does so by prohibiting acts preparatory to use; e.g., possession.

[Guest American Woman]

counted 104 posts, but you are right, it definitely wasn't just you

It absolutely wasn't just me; quite the opposite - I didn't even respond to all of the posts directed to me/posts about me. It seems I've attracted a rather large fan base - even spilling over into other threads.

this seems to be a much discussed subject

which i have no clue why, the court has spoken

the evidence is there

The court hasn't spoken about drug use being legal ......... only about allowing Insite to remain open despite Canada's drug laws.

Furthermore, just because "the court has spoken" doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the decision; ie: there's no reason to discuss it. As for the "evidence is there," not everyone sees it that way. I've found that sometimes when one sets out to look for this or that in a study, one is likely to find this or that - even if this and that are at odds with each other. So people don't blindly accept - they discuss, and state their views. Gotta love it, eh?

[Guest American Woman]

this EU condition is entirely consistent with what everyone has been stating to you; i.e., that Canada does not directly prohibit the simple use of drugs... there is no related law prohibiting the simple use of drugs - you have never been able to provide/cite such a law. However, also as everyone has been stating, Canada indirectly does so by prohibiting acts preparatory to use; e.g., possession.

do not directly prohibit the simple use of drugs, but indirectly do so by prohibiting acts preparatory to use, in particular, possession.

It's actually consistent with what *I've* been saying - that drug use is illegal by virtue of the illegality of possession. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

[waldo]

this EU condition is entirely consistent with what everyone has been stating to you; i.e., that Canada does not directly prohibit the simple use of drugs... there is no related law prohibiting the simple use of drugs - you have never been able to provide/cite such a law. However, also as everyone has been stating, Canada indirectly does so by prohibiting acts preparatory to use; e.g., possession.

It's actually consistent with what *I've* been saying - that drug use is illegal by virtue of the illegality of possession. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

freaking unbelievable! Most certainly, most emphatically that has not been your point... and I absolutely have not helped you prove anything. Again, (simple) use versus possession... only one, possession, is (directly) illegal per existing Canadian law.

riddle me this: in that aforementioned comparison to EU countries, why does a certain minority of EU countries have laws (either criminal or administrative), specifically for (simple) drug use... over and above their specific laws for possession? Why would they need to enact distinct separate laws for (simple) drug use? Huh? Why? I mean, really, c'mon... here I thought your inanely crafted tie between use and possession was impenetrable!!!

[Guest American Woman]

freaking unbelievable! Most certainly, most emphatically that has not been your point...

It most certainly has. I've said that use is illegal by virtue of possession being illegal.

Edited to add: Here are my exact words........

"Since one cannot use without possessing, using, by the nature of the law, is illegal."

and I absolutely have not helped you prove anything. Again, (simple) use versus possession... only one, possession, is (directly) illegal per existing Canadian law.

They are both illegal. Directly or indirectly, they are BOTH ILLEGAL. It is NOT legal to use drugs in Canada. By virtue of the possession laws, it is illegal to USE. And yes, you have helped me prove it.

riddle me this: in that aforementioned comparison to EU countries, why does a certain minority of EU countries have laws (either criminal or administrative), specifically for (simple) drug use... over and above their specific laws for possession? Why would they need to enact distinct separate laws for (simple) drug use? Huh? Why? I mean, really, c'mon... here I thought your inanely crafted tie between use and possession was impenetrable!!!

Ummmm. Because they wanted to, obviously. But the very words you posted say "indirectly do so" - the "do so" being making use illegal - by virtue of possession. So again, yes, you've helped me prove that drug use is illegal in Canada.

Edited October 12, 2011 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

...there is no related law prohibiting the simple use of drugs - you have never been able to provide/cite such a law....

This is false...Canada prohibits the use of illegal drugs and even legal drugs not as prescribed by Canadian Forces with the force of law (National Defense Act and Queen's Regulations and Orders).

[WWWTT]

The purpose of the Judicial system is to maintain Peace, Order and Good Government through the enforcement of laws and rules of order.

What about improving society?

After all if the crime rate were to plumet wouldn't our society greatly improve?

Or is this task somehow left up to an elected government,and at different levels municipal,provincial and federal?

I find it very hard to believe that the body responsible for applying the law would completely deny any responsibility for making observation(and then conveying its findings) for the purpose of suggesting areas/circamstance or parts thereof where improvements can be made.

Actually it would be very disturbing if this in fact was true!

Would this process actually leed to a self fullfilling demise?

After all if we lived in a eutopia or actually achieved a nirvana within our society would their be any need for our justice system and all the related bodies(or at least a much smaller version)?

WWWTT