bud Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 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." i tried finding this law, but couldn't find it. can you point to this law you speak of in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act? this is what i found in regards to offences - it doesn't look like being under the influence or high is considered being in possession: OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENT Particular Offences Possession of substance 4. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III. Obtaining substance (2) No person shall seek or obtain (a) a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV, or ( an authorization to obtain a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV from a practitioner, unless the person discloses to the practitioner particulars relating to the acquisition by the person of every substance in those Schedules, and of every authorization to obtain such substances, from any other practitioner within the preceding thirty days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Add this to the long list of leftard activist decisions by Canada's judicial system. The government has a responsibility to provide benefits for criminals? What's next? Hotel rooms for rapists? Why do you care if people do drugs. Why are you against freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 I've already shown you that drug use is illegal. You have not. Something has to break a law to be illegal. You haven't shown me that law. You've posted a link to an NGO and a report by the United States government, neither of which refers to a specific law. I've posted the Controlled Substances Act, which is the law regarding drugs in Canada. I've asked you repeatedly to show me the law that makes drug use illegal. Until you do that, you have not shown anything other than the fact that you're now a liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Allow me to summarize the offences section of the Controlled Substances Act for you: 4. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.[snip] (2) No person shall seek or obtain (a) a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV, or ( an authorization to obtain a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV from a practitioner, unless the person discloses to the practitioner particulars relating to the acquisition by the person of every substance in those Schedules, and of every authorization to obtain such substances, from any other practitioner within the preceding thirty days. [snip] 5. (1) No person shall traffic in a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV or in any substance represented or held out by that person to be such a substance. (2) No person shall, for the purpose of trafficking, possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV. [snip] 6. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall import into Canada or export from Canada a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V or VI. (2) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V or VI for the purpose of exporting it from Canada. [snip] 7. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall produce a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV. Nope. No "use" or "consume" in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 i tried finding this law, but couldn't find it. can you point to this law you speak of in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act? this is what i found in regards to offences - it doesn't look like being under the influence or high is considered being in possession: Thanks for posting that bud. My interpretation is that being under the influence of drugs will not cause a person to be arrested unless they're a public menace. What's the first thing drug users who have on their person or in their dwelling do when they suspect the authorities are around? Their first act is to get rid of it. In dwellings, flushing the drugs in the toilet. On the street, dumping the drugs wherever they can. Possession and protection of the public are what will get the drug user arrested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 No, there is no law in the books that they can charge you for being "high". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 It is not legal in Canada to use cannabis for recreational purposes, or for any purposes other than medical use. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) It is not legal in Canada to use cannabis for recreational purposes, or for any purposes other than medical use. link Again, this website, run by owners of a medical marijuana operation, is inaccurate until you cite the actual law that says use is illegal. It makes the statement that use is illegal, but it doesn't have any references to the actual laws. Try again. The Controlled Substances Act has been posted twice in this thread. Feel free to go through it. Edited October 1, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Again, this website, run by owners of a medical marijuana operation, is inaccurate.... Are the National Defence and Canadians Forces "inaccurate" too? Canadian Forces Applicant Pre-Enrolment Drug Use Policy: ... since most (e.g., alcohol, nicotine, caffeine excepted) non-medical drug use is illegal in Canada,.... The problem appears to be with your interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 What's even funnier is that the navigation section of that link, on the left-hand side of the screen, has sub-headings for charges. Those headings include: possession, trafficking, and production. Guess what they don't include... Consumption Charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) What's even funnier is that the navigation section of that link, on the left-hand side of the screen, has sub-headings for charges. Those headings include: possession, trafficking, and production. Guess what they don't include... Consumption Charges. I repeat: Are the National Defence and Canadians Forces "inaccurate" too? Edited October 1, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Are the National Defence and Canadians Forces "inaccurate" too? Canadian Forces Applicant Pre-Enrolment Drug Use Policy: ... since most (e.g., alcohol, nicotine, caffeine excepted) non-medical drug use is illegal in Canada,.... The problem appears to be with your interpretation. The procurement and possession of most "non-medicinal" drugs is an illegal activity. Yes they are wrong in saying that drug use itself is illegal. Unless, of course, you show me the law that says it's illegal. Maybe it is, but you're doing a lousy job of proving it. It's quite simple. Show me the law that says use is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 The procurement and possession of most "non-medicinal" drugs is an illegal activity. Yes they are wrong in saying that drug use itself is illegal. Unless, of course, you show me the law that says it's illegal. Maybe it is, but you're doing a lousy job of proving it. It's quite simple. Show me the law that says use is illegal. Yeah, they are wrong. It's not YOUR interpretation of the law that is wrong, it's the National Defence and Canadians Forces who are wrong. (This is where you resort to calling me a liar again ......... . Have a great day.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 If you continue to say the consumption of drugs is illegal, then I will continue to call you a liar, unless you show me the law that says drug use is illegal. So far you've linked to reports on drugs from international committees, linked to a website run by a medicinal drug operation and linked to the application form for the Canadian Forces (who are defending their drug-testing policies). What you have not done is actually linked to the an actual law showing that the use of drugs is illegal. That's because it doesn't exist. What is illegal is the possession, production, traffic, import and export of drugs. Everything surrounding the use of drugs is illegal, except the actual consumption of drugs. Prove me wrong. Post a link to the law that says using drugs is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 The procurement and possession of most "non-medicinal" drugs is an illegal activity. Yes they are wrong in saying that drug use itself is illegal. Unless, of course, you show me the law that says it's illegal. Maybe it is, but you're doing a lousy job of proving it. It's quite simple. Show me the law that says use is illegal. It comes down to the meaning of the word "use", because in the act of use you are in possession. Note that in order to be charged with possession it does not require that you are using. After "use", if there is no drug found, or remnants of drug residue on paraphernalia in your possession, you cannot be charged. There is no law on the books. Of course that doesn't mean employers or the military won't hire you, if for example you fail a drug test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 "Except as authorized under the regulations..." allows for exemptions through regulations that will cover Insite. I see no valid argument in saying Insite is wrong because it is illegal, when the Supreme Court just made it legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 It comes down to the meaning of the word "use", because in the act of use you are in possession. Note that in order to be charged with possession it does not require that you are using. After "use", if there is no drug found, or remnants of drug residue on paraphernalia in your possession, you cannot be charged. There is no law on the books. Of course that doesn't mean employers or the military won't hire you, if for example you fail a drug test. I don't disagree with any of that. However, it's important to note that Insite does not assistant in the possession or procurement of illegal drugs. So, they are not in effect assisting people in committing a crime. They already bought the drugs and they are already in possession of them. People are not required to report crimes in Canada. You have no legal obligation to get involved if a crime is happening. Nevertheless, as jacee rightfully points out after your post here, there are exceptions that can be written into the regulations. Unfortunately, the federal governmenet would have to write those exceptions in and they refuse to out of ideology. The SCC, rightfully, stepped in and made it clear that the government was wrong in trying to shut down Insite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) "Except as authorized under the regulations..." allows for exemptions through regulations that will cover Insite. I see no valid argument in saying Insite is wrong because it is illegal, when the Supreme Court just made it legal. So is the government complicit if someone, granted exemption by this ruling, injects a drug under the supervision of Insite and commits a crime? Ontario Provincial Police have taken the highly unusual step of laying charges against a Muskoka resort and 16 of its employees in connection with three traffic fatalities. The OPP said at the time that its investigators had determined that alcohol and speed were "definite factors" in the crash that killed the three young men from Toronto. If bartenders can be charged for contributing to patrons' intoxication, why wouldn't the government be held to the same accountability if someone under the influence of drugs being injected at Insite were to be involved in a crime/accident? Edited to include link. Edited October 1, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 So is the government complicit if someone, granted exemption by this ruling, injects a drug under the supervision of Insite and commits a crime? Ontario Provincial Police have taken the highly unusual step of laying charges against a Muskoka resort and 16 of its employees in connection with three traffic fatalities. The OPP said at the time that its investigators had determined that alcohol and speed were "definite factors" in the crash that killed the three young men from Toronto. If bartenders can be charged for contributing to patrons' intoxication, why wouldn't the government be held to the same accountability if someone under the influence of drugs being injected at Insite were to be involved in a crime/accident? Insite doesn't provide drugs. The Muskoka Resort provided the drug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Insite doesn't provide drugs. The Muskoka Resort provided the drug. It's not illegal to sell alcohol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 We could also extend your absurd thinking to doctors and pharmacists. Why not lay charges on them when someone that has a legal prescription for medication, disregards the warnings and gets behind the wheel of a vehicle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 It's not illegal to sell alcohol. It's not illegal to provide clean needles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 We could also extend your absurd thinking to doctors and pharmacists. Why not lay charges on them when someone that has a legal prescription for medication, disregards the warnings and gets behind the wheel of a vehicle? Because it's legal to write prescriptions. If the person abuses the medicine, no one else had a hand in that. It's illegal to take illicit drugs, so helping one do so would make one complicit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) It's not illegal to provide clean needles. They're doing more than providing clean needles. They could have done that without a court ruling. Edited October 1, 2011 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Because it's legal to write prescriptions. If the person abuses the medicine, no one else had a hand in that. It's illegal to take illicit drugs, so helping one do so would make one complicit. If someone absuses medicine, the doctor that writes the prescription and the pharmacist that fills it is not helping them? 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.