SCC ruling: Insite to stay open

[ToadBrother]

No, he would rather them OD and die in the streets, like most of his con buddies.

I was more under the impression that the Tories thought throwing them all in jail would somehow get at the root of the problem.

[jacee]

I'm all for helping them. I'd arrest every one of them and confine them to an institution until their addiction can be cured.

In jail on methadone?

What's your cure rate?

It appears the police down there don't agree with you.

Edited October 1, 2011 by jacee

[TimG]

Japan has the lowest income inequality in the world.

Not according to the data you provided. Mongolia has a very higher murder rate yet it has a lower 'income inequality' than Japan. Chili has a low murder rate yet an among the highest income inequality. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide-world.png

Crime is a complex problem and culture is an important factor that tends to be ignored. For example, mono-culture countries generally have lower crime rates than countries with multiple cultures.

Edited October 1, 2011 by TimG

[WWWTT]

Errr...that would be the Constitution Act and Charter of Rights. Next question please.....

Wrong Answer!

Posting comments on Mapleleafweb is a privelage,not a right!

Ask MDancer how his constitutional rights protected him to continue posting comments on this site.

WWWTT

[scribblet]

The Court ordered the feds to continue granting the special exemption (from criminal prosecution) for the site, ordering this even though, under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act it's supposed to be a matter for the Minister’s discretion. Thus, it is 'graciously' allowing the gov't to 'regulate' these sites, which is a fundamental change to national drug policy as it widens the use of illegal drugs.

Not only that, Canada has been criticized more than once by the UN’s International Narcotic Drugs Control Board, for establishing this site (because it contravenes UN drug treaties ratified by Canada) the S.C. seems to think UN drug treaties ratified by Canada are not binding on us - hmmmm

This is an example of an [unelected] SC decision flouting the democratic process using their influence for social change. I would rather the money and resources were spent on rehab centres.

[Oleg Bach]

-link

Nice to see science and reason win the day.

The science is that the addicts will have increased risk of eventual death due to the toxins they ingest. The reason is that the SCC is staffed by rich old lawyers who are so disconnected from the marginalized that there is a simple reason for indirectly killing them. In the mind of the members of this high court - drug addicts are dirt. Why bother to save them when you can be rid of them indirectly with their own hand?

Just as the racist lower courts allow gun carrying blacks to go free on bail - so as they can go and be killed while they are killing more blacks. This is a very sinister ruling...and a useless one at that. What good would it do to set up a bar where fall down drunks can guzzle in comfort? The SCC are to stupid to understand that making dope easier to injest...does not solve any problem - If.....you were to put this in the context of is this ruling good or is it a contribution to evil...one with good judgement would say that it was BAD - but our courts do not deal with good and evil - it's all the same to them...There is no justice.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm curious. Do the drug addicts stay at the site til the drug wears off? Or do they shoot up and leave? And if they commit a crime under the influence, is the government accountable as 'aiding and abetting' for having helped them take an illegal drug?

[cybercoma]

The Court ordered the feds to continue granting the special exemption (from criminal prosecution) for the site, ordering this even though, under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act it's supposed to be a matter for the Minister’s discretion. Thus, it is 'graciously' allowing the gov't to 'regulate' these sites, which is a fundamental change to national drug policy as it widens the use of illegal drugs.

Not only that, Canada has been criticized more than once by the UN’s International Narcotic Drugs Control Board, for establishing this site (because it contravenes UN drug treaties ratified by Canada) the S.C. seems to think UN drug treaties ratified by Canada are not binding on us - hmmmm

This is an example of an [unelected] SC decision flouting the democratic process using their influence for social change. I would rather the money and resources were spent on rehab centres.

Funny how in one paragraph you say we should follow the decisions of an unelected body external to the sovereignty of Canada, but in the next your criticism is that the SCC is unelected, although they were appointed on the suggestion of elected Prime Ministers. If we're going to follow the decisions of an unelected body, would you not much rather have it be the greatest legal minds in our own country, rather than the United Nations? Moreover, does the United Nations even have the slightest idea of how successful Insite has been? Vancouver Police, RCMP, British Columbis be damned... a bunch of politicians from other countries say you should close the site. Respectfully, they can go F themselves.

[by the bye, the UN has also criticized Stephen Harper for his treatment of aboriginal communities, but I don't see you bringing it up in those discussions]

Edited October 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I'm curious. Do the drug addicts stay at the site til the drug wears off? Or do they shoot up and leave? And if they commit a crime under the influence, is the government accountable as 'aiding and abetting' for having helped them take an illegal drug?

For the second time, taking drugs is not illegal in Canada or the United States.

[Guest American Woman]

For the second time, taking drugs is not illegal in Canada or the United States.

Ummmm. Yeah, it is. Why else would the site have to have been granted exemption from Canada's drug laws?

Buying, selling and using heroin is illegal in Canada.

[cybercoma]

Buying and selling heroin is illegal. Contrary to what that website says, there is no law prohibiting the use of heroin.

[Guest American Woman]

Buying and selling heroin is illegal. Contrary to what that website says, there is no law prohibiting the use of heroin.

Riiight.

[Oleg Bach]

Opiate users can barely stand after shooting up - they "nod out" - junkies do a lot of sleeping - they do not commit crimes while under the influence - it is a dream like sleepy state they enter - they commit the crimes when they are sober - and desperate for the relief that herion provides. I suppose they do their best to get out of the government sponsored shooting gallery and run to an alley to pass out in the dirt ...

Opium dens of old were more civilised - instead of shooting the drug - they smoked it -and bed were provide where they could "dream" - maybe if the government and the SCC were really on the ball they would go the full 9 yards and provide beds for the junkies to nod out in? Now that would be a containable situation - and when they awoke - give them a meal and provide more herione - The junkies would never leave the place - it would be like a very nice jail...If they are drugged - take advantage of the sleepy state - KEEP THEM ASLEEP - If this is to work - the drug must be provided - as must be the bed. Call it a junky hospital if you wish.

[cybercoma]

http://www.defencelaw.com/penalties-drugs.html

Possession, production, importing, exporting and trafficking. I don't see anything about using. Feel free to show me the section of the CCC that deals with use.

Here's the controlled substances act:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/page-2.html#h-3

Again... no person shall "possess" or "obtain" controlled substances. Nothing about using.

Edited October 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

delete.

Edited October 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

http://www.defencelaw.com/penalties-drugs.html

Possession, production, importing and trafficking. I don't see anything about using.

From the Parliament of Canada:

ILLEGAL DRUG USE AND CRIME: A COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP

If it wasn't illegal to use drugs, there would be no such thing as "illegal drug use."

[cybercoma]

From the Parliament of Canada:

ILLEGAL DRUG USE AND CRIME: A COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP

If it wasn't illegal to use drugs, there would be no such thing as "illegal drug use."

Show me in the controlled substance act where it's illegal to use drugs.

When they refer to "illegal drug use" in that article they are referring to the use (the act of which is legal) of drugs which themselves are controlled and therefore illegal. Can also be called "use of illegal drugs".

Edited October 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

Show me in the controlled substance act where it's illegal to use drugs.

When they refer to "illegal drug use" in that article they are referring to the use (the act of which is legal) of drugs which themselves are controlled and therefore illegal. Can also be called "use of illegal drugs".

But it's not called that, and people can be, and have been, arrested for being under the influence, even when they didn't have drugs in their possession. Having the drug in their system is "being in possession."

Edited October 1, 2011 by American Woman

[Michael Hardner]

I think people can be charged for operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs, but I have never heard of anyone be charged just for being high on drugs. The law tends to focus on possession but it's an interesting question as to whether anyone has been charged for having consumed drugs and not being in a situation where public safety was endangered.

[cybercoma]

But it's not called that, and people can be, and have been, arrested for being under the influence, even when they didn't have drugs in their possession.

Drunk and disorderly offenses are provincial offenses related to liquor control and have nothing to do with narcotics. If you have any evidence of someone being charged with being under the influence of a narcotic, as an offense on its own, I would like to see it because it's not an offense under the Controlled Substances Act. In other words, it would be a summary offense, along the lines of jaywalking or parking on the wrong side of the street.

[cybercoma]

I think people can be charged for operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs, but I have never heard of anyone be charged just for being high on drugs. The law tends to focus on possession but it's an interesting question as to whether anyone has been charged for having consumed drugs and not being in a situation where public safety was endangered.

Let me save some time here. They haven't. There is no law against it. It's a subtle nuance in the law, but it removes any culpability from pharmacists and, in the case of Insite, the government. American Woman was trying to say that the government is aiding people in becoming intoxicated and that they are liable if that person then leaves their premises while intoxicated. They would only be liable if they allowed them to leave and operate a motor vehicle, in much the same way that a bar or person hosting a party is responsible for someone that drinks and drives. It is not illegal for someone to consume drugs; however, it is impossible to do so without first committing illegal acts, such as purchase and possession. If it were illegal for someone to consume controlled substances, i.e. opiates, anyone that received a morphine prescription would be breaking the law. In this way, consumption is not illegal; however, the procurement and possession of said substances is what is being controlled.

Edited October 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

Let me save some time here. They haven't. There is no law against it.

Narcotics production, distribution, and use are illegal in Canada.

That's from The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (CFDP)

I think I'll take their word for it over yours.

So I'll repeat my question: Do the drug addicts stay at the site til the drug wears off? Or do they shoot up and leave? And if they commit a crime under the influence, is the government accountable as 'aiding and abetting' for having helped them take an illegal drug?

Edited October 1, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Narcotics production, distribution, and use are illegal in Canada.

That's from The Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy (CFDP)

I think I'll take their word for it over yours.

It's not my word, it's the Controlled Substances Act's word. Your link is to a report by a US State Department... rather than anything related to Canadian legal code. So, once again... show me where, in the Controlled Substances Act, drug USE is illegal. Edited October 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I'm willing to admit that drug use is illegal if you can show me the law that says that. I went through the entire Controlled Substances Act and found nothing related to the actual consumption of drugs. Barring a specific law against consumption, I'm sorry, but the report drafted by your government is wrong.

[Guest American Woman]

It's not my word, it's the Controlled Substances Act's word. So, once again... show me where, in the Controlled Substances Act, drug USE is illegal.

I've already shown you that drug use is illegal. You want to persist in your word games, go ahead. I just wish I could be there when someone used that defense in court .......

But like I said, carry on with your delusions.... in the meantime, I'll continue to take the word of the CFDP over yours.

Edited October 1, 2011 by American Woman