SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

cybercoma · October 12, 2011

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

The court didn't say Insite has to remain open.

[P]rohibiting possession at Insite engages their rights to life and to security of the person. However, because s. 56 gives the Minister a broad discretion to grant exemptions from the application of the CDSA if, “in the opinion of the Minister, the exemption is necessary for a medical or scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public interest”, s. 4(1) does not violate s. 7. The exemption acts as a safety valve that prevents the CDSA from applying where it would be arbitrary, overbroad or grossly disproportionate in its effects.

The court simply said that applying s. 4(1) to a medical facility is against drug-users' right to life because it would be "arbitrary, overbroad or greatly disproportionate in its effects." The court isn't saying Insite has to remain open. Rather, the court is saying that the federal Minister of Health has an exemption at his/her discretion and is required to use it for medical facilities in a way that is not arbitrary (read: ideological) and disproportionate in its effects (the court discusses the effects of denying the application for exemption). What the court did not mandate is that Insite must have an operating budget (this is a provincial issue anyway). The court did not say the facility must remain open. The federal government only has a say in the application of the CDSA, not the actual operation of the facility.

waldo · October 12, 2011

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.

:lol: obviously... "because they wanted to"! But, but... why the need? Surely, your impenetrable force field linking an implied illegality of using drugs with the actual illegality of possession, surely... that couldn't be breached! Surely! With laws for illegal possession, why would those EU countries ever, ever, need to initiate actual laws specifically for the illegality of using drugs? Just why, uhhh... other than for your most failed, weak and lacking suggestion that they just... "wanted to"!

by the by, because I just... wanted to... from the Canadian Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), the definition of "illicit drug use":

PART XII.1

INSTRUMENTS AND LITERATURE FOR ILLICIT DRUG USE

Interpretation

Definitions

462.1 In this Part,

“consume” - “consume” includes inhale, inject into the human body, masticate and smoke;

“
illicit drug use
” - “illicit drug use”
means the importation, exportation, production, sale or possession of a controlled substance or precursor
contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or a regulation made under that Act

as you've been repeatedly advised, "illicit drug use" does not mean, does not imply, "use" or "consume"; rather, it means those acts contrary to the CDSA; specifically, the:

- importation,

- exportation,

- production,

- sale or

- possession

of a controlled substance or precursor.

Shwa · October 12, 2011

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).

False. Canada prevents the possession of certain drugs, not the use thereof. Citing workplace policy having the 'force of law' is incorrect since the law cannot provide any charge for one having solely used drugs.

bush_cheney2004 · October 12, 2011

False. Canada prevents the possession of certain drugs, not the use thereof. Citing workplace policy having the 'force of law' is incorrect since the law cannot provide any charge for one having solely used drugs.

False²...The National Defense Act is by definition the force of law, not just workplace policy. Use of illicit drugs and legal drugs not as prescribed in Canadian Forces is prohibited by law.

Shwa · October 12, 2011

False²...The National Defense Act is by definition the force of law, not just workplace policy. Use of illicit drugs and legal drugs not as prescribed in Canadian Forces is prohibited by law.

Then it should be no problem for you to provide case examples where someone, who was dismissed as a member of the Canadian Forces for soley using drugs, was charged with drug "use" when they reverted to civilian status.

Take your time. I'll wait for you to gather your case examples.

bush_cheney2004 · October 12, 2011

Then it should be no problem for you to provide case examples where someone, who was dismissed as a member of the Canadian Forces for soley using drugs, was charged with drug "use" when they reverted to civilian status.

Non sequitur...illegal drug use is prohibited in the Canadian Forces regardless of subsequent "civilian" drug use.

Take your time. I'll wait for you to gather your case examples.

None were needed to refute your misdirection.

Edited October 12, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

Shwa · October 12, 2011

Non sequitur...illegal drug use is prohibited in the Canadian Forces regardless of subsequent "civilian" drug use.

Nope. Because "use" is not against the law, even though it is specified in workplace policy, some of which have the effect of law in that workplace.

None were needed to refute your misdirection.

The only thing being refuted as you and quite easily I might add.

You either provide cases where CF members were dismissed for drug "use" and their subsequent charge under the Criminal Code of Canada for that "use" while they were members of the CF and you might have a point.

You can't? Didn't think so.

bush_cheney2004 · October 12, 2011

...You can't? Didn't think so.

I don't have to...your childish game does not refute the existence and enforcement of Canada's National Defense Act and related QR&O's prohibiting the use of illegal drugs by Canadians. This fact directly conflicts with any claim herein that Canada does not in any way prohibit illegal drug use, because it does.

Mine is a technical argument that cannot be logically dismissed, despite your best efforts to do so. Don't be upset that some smart ass American proved some to be mistaken on this matter, if only in a narrow context.

guyser · October 12, 2011

I know people honestly believe otherwise to 'use' being illegal ,however I am convinced this ends it.......

In Canada, it is an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act([9]) 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.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/collin-e.htm

If using and having in your system was illegal, I truly doubt that Parliament would gloss over or 'forget' to include it.

Not to mention, not a soul has been able to show 'use' is illegal.

bush_cheney2004 · October 12, 2011

Not to mention, not a soul has been able to show 'use' is illegal.

I don't have a soul...but use is illegal in the Canadian Forces.

cybercoma · October 12, 2011

I don't have a soul...but use is illegal in the Canadian Forces.

And not wearing a collared shirt at some jobs is illegal too. That still doesn't mean employees are charged criminally for it.

guyser · October 12, 2011

I don't have a soul...but use is illegal in the Canadian Forces.

sp?...ugh.

Great!

Lots of things are, but the CF has nothing to do with the CCC.

Shwa · October 12, 2011

I don't have to...your childish game does not refute the existence and enforcement of Canada's National Defense Act and related QR&O's prohibiting the use of illegal drugs by Canadians.

It doesn't. It only prohibits drug use for members of the Canadian Forces. So you are wrong on that count. Secondly, the penalties for contravention of those regulations are agreed upon by the member, when he or she accepts membership in that sector of employment, in effect, a workplace policy. So you are wrong on that count too. See what I mean? Easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

This fact directly conflicts with any claim herein that Canada does not in any way prohibit illegal drug use, because it does.

It doesn't and you cannot cite a single case in Canadian law which shows someone charged with "illegal drug use" because there is no such law. If you can, I am sure you would have by now. Instead you keep on reaching.

Mine is a technical argument that cannot be logically dismissed, despite your best efforts to do so.

And reaching...

Don't be upset that some smart ass American proved some to be mistaken on this matter, if only in a narrow context.

And reaching further still.

Don't have proof of your assertion BC?

Didn't think so. :lol:

cybercoma · October 12, 2011

Obviously American Woman and bush_cheney2004 are just trolling. I'm not really sure why we've spent this much time going on about an issue that I only brought up as a matter of clarification. The entire reason we got off on this tangent was to show that Insite could not be implicated in crimes committed by people that were on drugs, or could be implicated in any way with anything associated with their actions while they were high. Her argument was that Insite allowed the drug users to do something illegal in their presence: use drugs. However, using the drugs is not illegal. Insite is allowed people to possess drugs on their premises, but they have an exemption from the Minister of Health from the possession portion of the CDSA. So, to make a long story short, drug use (consumption) is not illegal, so Insite cannot be implicated in the way American Woman was originally suggesting.

charter.rights · October 12, 2011

Americans! Too arrogant to admit they are wrong. Too stupid to know when they are wrong.....

guyser · October 12, 2011

Americans! Too arrogant to admit they are wrong. Too stupid to know when they are wrong.....

No, that would not be an apt description to our two Yank posters and both you and cyber are mistaken.

bush_cheney2004 · October 12, 2011

It doesn't. It only prohibits drug use for members of the Canadian Forces. So you are wrong on that count.

Egads man...now you are asserting that Canadian Forces members are not Canadians...for shame!

Secondly, the penalties for contravention of those regulations are agreed upon by the member, when he or she accepts membership in that sector of employment, in effect, a workplace policy. So you are wrong on that count too.

No, such prohibitions find their source in Canadian Law via the National Defense Act.

See what I mean? Easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

I most certainly agree...as it was very easy to demonstrate that Canadian law does in fact prohibit illegal drug use, not just possession, by some Canadians.

It doesn't and you cannot cite a single case in Canadian law which shows someone charged with "illegal drug use" because there is no such law. If you can, I am sure you would have by now. Instead you keep on reaching.

Non-sequitur....it is a matter of Canadian law that illegal drug use is prohibited in the Canadian Forces, regardless of resulting charges and/or convictions as reported by the JAG under the NDA.

Bob · October 12, 2011

Bush_cheney2004 wins this argument. He provided an example, which he conceded was narrow in context, about legal prohibitions of drug use in the Canadian military. Of course there seems to be some insult here because bush_cheney2004 is and American correcting a (leftist) Canadian.

I still hold that American Woman is wrong in asserting that use is illegal. Let's be precisely clear - if a drug user is at a certain stage in use, let's say he or she is in the middle of smoking crack or injecting heroin, he or she is guilty of possession. After that's finished, though, and all the drug is now in his or her system, there is no longer guilt of possession. Possession doesn't mean in the drug is in your blood, it means it's in your hands or in your pocket. This is a very important distinction to be made.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Bob

bush_cheney2004 · October 12, 2011

Obviously American Woman and bush_cheney2004 are just trolling. I'm not really sure why we've spent this much time going on about an issue that I only brought up as a matter of clarification. The entire reason we got off on this tangent was to show that Insite could not be implicated in crimes committed by people that were on drugs, or could be implicated in any way with anything associated with their actions while they were high.

Correct, but some other idiot made the broader claim that drug use was NEVER in and of itself a crime, so I wanted to assail that notion for all...you're welcome.

... So, to make a long story short, drug use (consumption) is not illegal, so Insite cannot be implicated in the way American Woman was originally suggesting.

Drug use (consumption) is illegal for Canadian Forces as provided for in the National Defense Act/QR&O's, even if injected at Insite.

Bob · October 12, 2011

Americans! Too arrogant to admit they are wrong. Too stupid to know when they are wrong.....

Americans should take heed that this type of rhetoric and sentiment is very prevalent among hardcore Canadian leftists. Anti-Americanism is in their ideological DNA, it is a big part of what defines them and their worldview. It's sad, but it is what it is.

wyly · October 12, 2011

Americans should take heed that this type of rhetoric and sentiment is very prevalent among hardcore Canadian leftists. Anti-Americanism is in their ideological DNA, it is a big part of what defines them and their worldview. It's sad, but it is what it is.

and this from the champion of ethnic cleansing! :lol: ew the irony! :lol:

bush_cheney2004 · October 12, 2011

Americans should take heed that this type of rhetoric and sentiment is very prevalent among hardcore Canadian leftists. Anti-Americanism is in their ideological DNA, it is a big part of what defines them and their worldview. It's sad, but it is what it is.

I agree...and that's what makes this web site (hosted in the USA) more fun than a bathtub full of otters. Sometimes they get sooooooooooo pissed off at those "Damn Americans....hate those bastards!"

Bob · October 12, 2011

I agree...and that's what makes this web site (hosted in the USA) more fun than a bathtub full of otters. Sometimes they get sooooooooooo pissed off at those "Damn Americans....hate those bastards!"

You may laugh at is, but it really pisses me off and depresses me. That dumb ugly Liberal bitch who made those comments was actually revered by certain Canadian leftists as she echoed their sentiments of "bastard" Americans. She have have been pretending to be kidding as she made that comment with a smile on her face, but it certainly grounded in a sincere animosity to her perception of what America represents - success, self-sufficiency, freedom, and with limited government. Fancying herself one of the anointed ones whose calling in life is to guide society towards a better place, like a modern day female Moses, the very concept of free people associating freely and doing well by themselves is antithetical to her worldview and self-concept.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Bob

bush_cheney2004 · October 12, 2011

....She have have been pretending to be kidding as she made that comment with a smile on her face, but it certainly grounded in a sincere animosity to her perception of what America represents - success, self-sufficiency, freedom, and with limited government....

Was that before or after Ms. Parrish stomped on the Dubya Doll? See what I mean.....too funny!