bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 ...Dont muddy the waters with NDA junk. IT is not relevant to the discussion . Sorry, you're not the boss of me. "NDA junk" was written and passed by your Parliament, remember? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 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? Even if the drug is not gone and it is in the process of being used. A cop does not lay a charge of "drug use" on an offender. The cops charge you with possession. There is no "use" charge. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 American Woman, on 12 October 2011 - 05:51 PM, said: 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. If the product is illegal, how can using it not be illegal? Why would it be necessary to specify that use is illegal when one cannot use without possession and possession is illegal? Because possession is illegal, it follows that using is illegal. Again. The Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse states that injection drug use is illegal. 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. Wouldn't you think they'd understand the law? I certainly do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Why would it be necessary to specify that use is illegal when one cannot use without possession and possession is illegal? Because possession is illegal, it follows that using is illegal. no... it only follows in your deluded American Woman bizarro world. Over and over, you've made repeated references to "illicit drug use" (or variants like, "use illicit drugs")... so, of course, when the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) definition for "illicit drug use" is provided to you, you simply ignore it - of course you do! Of course you ignore the fact that CCC definition supports and directly aligns with the actual illegalities associated with the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (importation, exportation, production, sale or possession)... of course you ignore it! That's right... all those links you beavered away with your feverish googlies... where you mindlessly linked to any site that included an "illegal use" reference... all those sites were, effectively, aligning with the CCC definition of "illicit drug use", with the CDSA laws associated with, "importation, exportation, production, sale or possession". again, "illicit drug use" does not mean, does not imply, "use" or "consume" troll on American Woman, troll on. 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) I've already done that for you....segregating fellow Canadians in such a way is scandalous. Wrong. Now you are choosing to be idiotic. Wrong moose breath...see Queen's Regulations and Orders. You know, that old broad in London! Wrong again. The National Defence Act only gives permission for the Canadian Forces workplace policy known as Queens Regulations and Orders. There is NO mention of illegal drugs in the Act anywhere. It is for Canadian Forces...sorry, you lose again. And only for those employed by, or associated through employment by, the Canadian Forces. Like any other workplace policy. QR&O Chapter 20. Go read it instead of continuing to look stupid. Why are you even asking if so certain...hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? QRO 20 only refers to the prohibition of unauthorised drugs. Nothing about illegal or illicit drugs at all. In fact, the only legalities referred to in the QRO defer to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which is the ultimate authority. In fact, 20.04c actually permits the use of "any drug" if it is "in the course of military duties." And this includes marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. So the QRO has provisions to allow illegal drugs to be consumed. So not only are you wrong about the QRO being Canadian "law," you are wrong about the QRO specifying illegal drugs and you are also wrong about the entire scope of the passage you, yourself, refer to. In other words, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Not a single clue. Edited October 13, 2011 by Shwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 New game show coming this week... American Itrolls and two contestants are in line for the big prize....LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) In fact, 20.04c actually permits the use of "any drug" if it is "in the course of military duties." And this includes marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. So the QRO has provisions to allow illegal drugs to be consumed. Nonsense...you purposely skipped subparagraphs a) and b_) in your usual weasely way. Any reasonable person would not interpret the provisions of QR&O Chapter 20 in such a way, and certainly the CF have not either. Nice try...read it for yourself folks and decide if drug use in legal for CF at all times: http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qro-orf/vol-01/chapter-chapitre-020-eng.asp#cha-020-04 So not only are you wrong about the QRO being Canadian "law," you are wrong about the QRO specifying illegal drugs and you are also wrong about the entire scope of the passage you, yourself, refer to. Nope...I am most certainly not wrong according to the National Defense Act, QR&O's, and military law convictions over the past years as documented by the JAG. In other words, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Canada's Parlaiment says I do...go argue your point with them. Thank you for finally acknowledging that the NDA/QR&O's is applicable law in Canada. You lose...again. Edited October 13, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Nonsense...you purposely skipped subparagraphs a) and b_) in your usual weasely way. Any reasonable person would not interpret the provisions of QR&O Chapter 20 in such a way, and certainly the CF have not either. Nice try...read it for yourself folks and decide if drug use in legal for CF at all times: Oh so now you are using the appeal to authority fallacy, among others. Sure sign you have lost the argument. The QRO is written as is and permits drug use under certain conditions, regardless of a or b, which c is an exemption from. Duh. Nope...I am most certainly not wrong according to the National Defense Act, QR&O's, and military law convictions over the past years as documented by the JAG. Yep, you are totally wrong and somewhat clueless since the National Defence Act doesn't mention illegal drugs and defers to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; the QRO's only "prohibit" unauthorised use of drugs and finally, you got nuthin' from the JAG. Canada's Parlaiment says I do...go argue your point with them. Thank you for finally acknowledging that the NDA/QR&O's is applicable law in Canada. You lose...again. Canada's "Parliament" says nothing of the sort as I have repeatedly - and very easily - proven. So pat yourself on the back for the marvelous faceplant you have done on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) In law there are all sorts of conundrums re rules and laws. For instance, radar detectors are illegal to sell, promote and distribute, but one can own them legally.(Ontario) One can transport sealed and packaged radar detectors for a consignee however consignee cant sell or promote them for sale. So, to bring this around, one cannot sell nor advertise a detector but he can have them in possession. Edited October 13, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Canada's "Parliament" says nothing of the sort as I have repeatedly - and very easily - proven. You have only proven that the NDA/QR&O's is standing law for Canadian Forces that prohibits illicit drug USE, something that most of us already knew. So pat yourself on the back for the marvelous faceplant you have done on this issue. Thank you...I am happy to have helped educate you on your own country's military law! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Applause? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Applause? Thank you...Bugs Bunny is an American! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Thank you...Bugs Bunny is an American! Yes and he has you pegged! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Yes and he has you pegged! Agreed...even Bugs knows that Canadian (and American) armed forces went through great pains to address rampant drug abuse many years ago, including random urinalysis to detect illegal DRUG USE, not possession. It is all spelled out in the NDA/QR&O's. Your're welcome.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Agreed...even Bugs knows that Canadian (and American) armed forces went through great pains to address rampant drug abuse many years ago, including random urinalysis to detect illegal DRUG USE, not possession. It is all spelled out in the NDA/QR&O's. Your're welcome.... My dog makes a better argument and he eats his own crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 My dog makes a better argument and he eats his own crap. Well, we all know where he gets that from! Woof woof! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) In law there are all sorts of conundrums re rules and laws. For instance, radar detectors are illegal to sell, promote and distribute, but one can own them legally.(Ontario) My immediate reaction is one can own them without selling, promoting, or distributing them. It doesn't say possessing one is against the law. If it were against the law to possess one, I would conclude that it's against the law to use one. One can transport sealed and packaged radar detectors for a consignee however consignee cant sell or promote them for sale. Again, there's no overlap between the two laws, since there's nothing in the law about possession. So, to bring this around, one cannot sell nor advertise a detector but he can have them in possession. Because possession isn't illegal. That is a conundrum, unlike the conclusion that using something that's illegal to possess is breaking the law; ie: illegal. One follows the other. There is no such 'order' to the laws that you are citing. There is a legal way around them. Not so using drugs - since possession is illegal and one cannot use without possessing. Again, I've cited more than one source that says it's illegal to use illicit drugs in Canada. Very in-the-know reputable sources. I doubt they're all wrong. Edited October 13, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Some prescription drugs have opiates and cocaine. So, not illegal to use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) My immediate reaction is one can own them without selling, promoting, or distributing them. It doesn't say possessing one is against the law. If it were against the law to possess one, I would conclude that it's against the law to use one. Again, there's no overlap between the two laws, since there's nothing in the law about possession. If one cannot sell, how can one buy them? Illegal to buy, illegal to sell, but not illegal to own. (assuming they didnt grandfather them) Again, I've cited more than one source that says it's illegal to use illicit drugs in Canada. Very in-the-know reputable sources. I doubt they're all wrong. I have read those cites, however, if none of them are the CCC, the ultimate and only authority, then use or having in ones body is not illegal ** **not to include the QRO and NDA which in the first part is merely a treatment programme offence and in the second refers to the CCC for guidance . Edited October 13, 2011 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Some prescription drugs have opiates and cocaine. So, not illegal to use. That would be "medical use" by prescription, which is legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 That would be "medical use" by prescription, which is legal. Do underagers get arrested if they are caught seeing smoking cigarettes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Some prescription drugs have opiates and cocaine. So, not illegal to use. This may very well be a very wise thought. If use were illegal , then any opiate/cocaine and/or derivative found in the body would be illegal as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 If one cannot sell, how can one buy them? Illegal to buy, illegal to sell, but not illegal to own. That is a conundrum, as I've already said. But someone could buy one and give it to someone else - who hasn't broken any law - since possession isn't against the law. Again, there's a way around it, whereas one cannot use illicit drugs without possessing them. Therein lies the difference. I have read those cites, however, if none of them are the CCC, the ultimate and only authority, then use or having in ones body is not illegal That's your interpretation. Theirs' is different. They are saying use is illegal. Your interpretation makes no sense since it's impossible to use without possessing. Bottom line, all you are giving me is your interpretation of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 That would be "medical use" by prescription, which is legal. So as long as I can get a prescription for it, then everything is ok? That is a double standard that needs some explaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 This may very well be a very wise thought. If use were illegal , then any opiate/cocaine and/or derivative found in the body would be illegal as well. Medical use is not illegal. Surely you recognize the difference between medical use and recreational use. I didn't think I had to specify "recreational use vs. medical use" in every single post. 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.