SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[guyser]

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.

A tad unsure who you are referencing, however, they are correct.

There simply is no mention of use in the CCC .

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

What does this have to do with the CCC ?

[Guest American Woman]

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!"

More fun than a bathtub full of otters? That cracked me up!

But yeah, obviously "they" do get veeeeeery pissed off at the "damn," "dumb," etc. Americans - who apparently should just shut up.

*I* wasn't the one who brought up whether or not drug use was legal/illegal in Canada (and the U.S.) and in fact ignored it the first time the claim was directed at me. I did respond the second time - and have since had a slew of responses directed at me, and about me - everything from telling me I'm stupid (funny how many respected Canadian organizations say the same thing I did) to telling me to shut up to countless accusations of trolling to criticism for not admitting I'm wrong - and of course I'm "wrong" for not agreeing with them even though I've cited numerous sources agreeing with me - to being insulted for being blonde - and for being American - but the most mind boggling thing of all is *I'm* blamed for bringing it up - and for carrying on about it. Never mind that I'm responding to umpteen responses directed to me and about me - I'M the one who is going on and on about it. Because I refuse to "shut up," apparently. But then, I am just a dumb blonde America. So that explains it, eh?

[bush_cheney2004]

A tad unsure who you are referencing, however, they are correct.

There simply is no mention of use in the CCC .

Irrelevant...the CCC is not the only such legislation governing illicit drug use by Canadian Forces. The National Defense Act was passed by Parliament...you know...that governing body that you like to trumpet so much?

What does this have to do with the CCC ?

Nothing...yet there is still Canuck legislation that prohibits illicit drug use by some Canadians.

Remember...Canadian Forces are permitted to kill people to, contrary to many provisions of the "CCC". This is fun!

Edited October 12, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

Irrelevant...the CCC is not the only such legislation governing illicit drug use by Canadian Forces.

It's not the only such legislation governing illicit drug use in Canada. But even at that, by the very fact that possession is illegal, and use without possession is impossible, "use" is therefore illegal.

[guyser]

Irrelevant...the CCC is not the only such legislation governing illicit drug use by Canadian Forces.

I have never based any post here on the CF.

It involves only those who work there and m,akes it irrelevant.

Nothing...yet there is still Canuck legislation that prohibits illicit drug use by some Canadians.

Again. Irrelevant

Remember...Canadian Forces are permitted to kill people to, contrary to many provisions of the "CCC". This is fun!

Thats silly.

You may think its prodding, but it isnt,just silly and again, is irrelevant to the discussion re Canadians, not CF personnel.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 11 October 2011 - 07:33 PM, said: 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.

Did I SAY the court said Insite "has" to remain open?? No, I did not. Clearly I said the court ruling "allowed" Insite to stay open.

The court did not say the facility must remain open.

And again, I didn't say it did - leaving me wondering where you are coming from ..........

[guyser]

It's not the only such legislation governing illicit drug use in Canada. But even at that, by the very fact that possession is illegal, and use without possession is impossible, "use" is therefore illegal.

AW, I am sorry to say, but absent of any law cite that says what you say it means, there is no law against someone having drugs in their body. (not while driving a car obviously)

I understand full well that it is hard to use without possessing, however one can only be charged with possession as an offence (unless selling, mfg'ing etc)because there is no such law as using.

[bush_cheney2004]

*I* wasn't the one who brought up whether or not drug use was legal/illegal in Canada (and the U.S.) and in fact ignored it the first time the claim was directed at me....

This is a hot button issue for civil libertarians and dopers, especially those who try to rationalize and distance themselves from grow ops, smuggling, trafficking, possession, money laundering, guns, murder, etc. The illegal drugs just show up magically for "use" by the innocent citizen. Usage is not typically a lesser included offense, but impaired behaviour in public or on the job most certainly is.

I just wanted to engage the sacred drug use ivory tower guys with a dose of legal reality....Canada does prohibit illegal drug use in certain cases.

It's been grand fun, and I hope I haven't baited them too much at your expense.

[bush_cheney2004]

....You may think its prodding, but it isnt,just silly and again, is irrelevant to the discussion re Canadians, not CF personnel.

Let's do this the hard way:

1. Is there or is there not governing legislation from Parliament that prohibits drug USE by Canadian Forces?

Answer = Yes, there is (National Defense Act)

2. Are Canadian Forces personnel Canadian citizens?

Answer = Yes (with a few exceptions)

Ergo, there exists in Canada legislation barring the use of illicit drugs by some Canadians...tens of thousands of them.

Edited October 12, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

AW, I am sorry to say, but absent of any law cite that says what you say it means, there is no law against someone having drugs in their body. (not while driving a car obviously)

Are you saying it's not illegal to use illegal drugs - even though possession is illegal - and one must possess to "use?" Please explain to me how it's possible to "use" without breaking "possession" laws.

I understand full well that it is hard to use without possessing, however one can only be charged with possession as an offence (unless selling, mfg'ing etc)because there is no such law as using.

Again, the illegality of "use" is covered by the illegality of "possessing." If it's illegal to possess, it's impossible to legally use, making a law against 'use' rather redundant.

Fact is, it's not legal to go up to someone and arbitrarily make them take a drug test, so "possession" is easier to prove and easier to convict on. Furthermore, tests for drugs are lacking in accuracy regarding some issues, so it makes for a lot of legal loopholes to make that the sole charge. So why muddy the waters with "use" charges? That doesn't mean "use" - which is impossible without breaking the law - is legal. As Waldo (I believe it was) posted regarding drug laws in Europe - use is illegal as an indirect result of possession being illegal.

Drug use cannot be "legal" because it cannot occur without breaking the possession law - and anything that breaks the law, is not legal.

[guyser]

Let's do this the hard way:

Why do it the hard way? The easy way is preferred. Frankly, you are stretching to find a way out.

The question was and remains, there is or isnt a 'NO USE ' provision in the CCC?

If so, cite it please.

The CF is subject plenty of rules that no one else is.

[Bob]

It's not the only such legislation governing illicit drug use in Canada. But even at that, by the very fact that possession is illegal, and use without possession is impossible, "use" is therefore illegal.

You'd think so, but there's a nuance to be seen here that differentiates possession from use. To be very specific, there are moments during use where possession is still occurring. Once the joint is finished or heroin is all shot in, however, and there are no more drugs left in possession, the drugs in the person's bloodstream don't amount to possession.

I think, on further reflection, that there is a disconnect between you and your detractors in this thread. They think, perhaps accurately, that "use" is still occurring even after the joint has been completely consumed and the heroin has been completely injected. So seconds, minutes, or hours after the drug user has finished his consumption, and is no longer in possession of drugs on his person, he is still "using". Maybe your thinking, which is also perhaps accurate, is that when a drug user is in the midst of his or her consumption, with some drugs still in his or her joint or some drugs still in his or her needle, that he or she is guilty of possession - and you'd be right about that.

In other words, it seems like maybe you think "use" is no longer occurring once the joint or needle is finished, while your detractor think "use" occurs until the drug user is no longer intoxicated. Am I right?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why do it the hard way? The easy way is preferred. Frankly, you are stretching to find a way out.

No, the "CCC" proviso was added after I closed in for the logical kill.

The question was and remains, there is or isnt a 'NO USE ' provision in the CCC?

Yes, depending on the circumstances (e.g. piloting large commercial aircraft).

The CF is subject plenty of rules that no one else is.

Non sequitur....Canada has passed legislation prohibiting drug USE, no matter how narrow the focus. The original, global, unqualified assertion was false.

[Michael Hardner]

In other words, it seems like maybe you think "use" is no longer occurring once the joint or needle is finished, while your detractor think "use" occurs until the drug user is no longer intoxicated. Am I right?

You may have hit on the point of diversion between the two views. I hope so anyway.

[Guest American Woman]

The question was and remains, there is or isnt a 'NO USE ' provision in the CCC?

Actually, the statement was "Drug use is not illegal in Canada or the United States."

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually, the statement was "Drug use is not illegal in Canada or the United States."

Bingo!

[guyser]

Are you saying it's not illegal to use illegal drugs - even though possession is illegal - and one must possess to "use?" Please explain to me how it's possible to "use" without breaking "possession" laws.

The lack of any 'use law' means it is not illegal. For any and all charges, there must be either possession, mfg'ing distribution and so on.

If their were a 'use ' law, we would have the info from the 'net as regards charges and or convictions, and we most certainly do not have that here. No one here has been able to find any case whatsoever including a use charge.

Again, the illegality of "use" is covered by the illegality of "possessing." If it's illegal to possess, it's impossible to legally use, making a law against 'use' rather redundant.

Both our countries laws are not documents of suggestion. They spell out rather succintcly what is a charge and what isnt.

Your Constitution spells out what powers the people gave them.

Fact is, it's not legal to go up to someone and arbitrarily make them take a drug test, so "possession" is easier to prove and easier to convict on. Furthermore, tests for drugs are lacking in accuracy regarding some issues, so it makes for a lot of legal loopholes to make that the sole charge. So why muddy the waters with "use" charges? That doesn't mean "use" - which is impossible without breaking the law - is legal. As Waldo (I believe it was) posted regarding drug laws in Europe - use is illegal as an indirect result of possession being illegal.

Drug use cannot be "legal" because it cannot occur without breaking the possession law - and anything that breaks the law, is not legal.

There is no legal insofar as many many other things. From walking and talking to scratching and whatever (not being facetious either) It is nowhere to be found in any law

.

Our CCC does not spell out one single item as legal, only that which is illegal .

Same way as a court almost never says one is innocent, only not guilty. (I recall one recent case where the judge said he was innocent)

Only one lawyer friend has replied to my query (Environment Lawyer tho) and he said he knew of no law that covered use, only possession etc.

I welcome anyone to go thru the CCC , again, and show where it is included.

[guyser]

No, the "CCC" proviso was added after I closed in for the logical kill.

No, not on your best day.That was presented long before you showed up with some CF junk

Yes, depending on the circumstances (e.g. piloting large commercial aircraft).

No, the charge would be "Operation while impaired" under Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)Section 253 -1(A).

No use charge would occur.

Non sequitur....Canada has passed legislation prohibiting drug USE, no matter how narrow the focus. The original, global, unqualified assertion was false.

Canada does not have a use law.

You want to say it, fine, but back up with a cite .

Edited October 12, 2011 by guyser

[bush_cheney2004]

...You want to say it, fine, but back up with a cite.

I already have several times: National Defense Act > QR&O's....explicitly prohibits illegal drug use by CF.

[guyser]

Actually, the statement was "Drug use is not illegal in Canada or the United States."

I will speak only for canada. (I suspect same for US but have not checked)

If that was the original statement then I still leave my response the same. The use is not illegal, the product is when in physical possession.

[guyser]

I already have several times: National Defense Act > QR&O's....explicitly prohibits illegal drug use by CF.

I really dont see the merit of the CF in this discussion. We are talking about the CCC.

I am not bound by NDA , I am bound by the CCC. That some people are bound by the NDA is irrelevant.

We are talking about citizens of Canada, private citizens, not CF personnel

[bush_cheney2004]

...We are talking about citizens of Canada, private citizens, not CF personnel

You are now...that wasn't the original context...sorry. CF personnel are Canadians too.

[guyser]

You are now...that wasn't the original context...sorry. CF personnel are Canadians too.

I , and others , were always discussing the CCC . That some brought in a deflection point using the CF is not my doing.

CF personnel cannot be charged with use under the CCC.

Dont muddy the waters with NDA junk. IT is not relevant to the discussion .

[Shwa]

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

Egads man, now you are intentionally being idiotic. I merely qualified your generalization to illustrate the limited application of your assertion.

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

Wrong again son. The National Defence Act refers to the Canadian Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as the authority. In fact, "illegal drugs" isn't even mentioned in the National Defence Act. You would have known this had you even taken a simple glance at the Act.

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.

Nope. Workplace policy, such as the Queens Regulations and Orders ultimately submits to Canadian law because it isn't law.

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.

Nope. Because you failed to read the National Defence Act and thus have no clue as to what you are talking about. Thus a CF member, dismissed for the use of drugs, is not charged under any Canadian law. So tell me, exactly what order makes illegal drug use illegal in the QROs?

[bush_cheney2004]

Egads man, now you are intentionally being idiotic. I merely qualified your generalization to illustrate the limited application of your assertion.

I've already done that for you....segregating fellow Canadians in such a way is scandalous.

Wrong again son. The National Defence Act refers to the Canadian Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as the authority. In fact, "illegal drugs" isn't even mentioned in the National Defence Act. You would have known this had you even taken a simple glance at the Act.

Wrong moose breath...see Queen's Regulations and Orders. You know, that old broad in London!

Nope. Workplace policy, such as the Queens Regulations and Orders ultimately submits to Canadian law because it isn't law.

It is for Canadian Forces...sorry, you lose again.

Nope. Because you failed to read the National Defence Act and thus have no clue as to what you are talking about. Thus a CF member, dismissed for the use of drugs, is not charged under any Canadian law. So tell me, exactly what order makes illegal drug use illegal in the QROs?

QR&O Chapter 20. Go read it instead of continuing to look stupid. Why are you even asking if so certain...hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

QR&O 20 prohibits the use of any drug unless it is authorized by a medical professional, is a non-prescription medication used in accordance with accompanying instructions or is required in the course of military duties. These factors are further constrained by the limitation imposed in the notes: a drug may not be used if its use is contrary to another law of Canada.

Whether these constraints imposed by QR&O 20.04 are complete and span the spectrum of drug use is difficult to discern. It is certain that the prohibition implace precludes the use of drugs whose use is not an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (e.g. Schedule IV drugs).

Edited October 13, 2011 by bush_cheney2004