Bath Salts Drug Crisis

[Barrister]

[Obviously, people smoking a bit of pot to enhance listening to an album, or having an after-dinner glass of wine, are not in the same category as people huffing glue or doing meth because their reality is unbearable, but that's a different argument - about the silliness of treating 'em legally as similar].

Come on Malthus - you know they aren't treated the same.  You're probably the only other person on this forum who knows the difference between a Schedule I drug (meth) and a Schedule VII drug (marijuana).

[viper37]

There is no rational reason to treat pot legally like "bath salts" and not like tobacco and booze.

there are plenty of rational, medical and scientific reasons.
Increase in mental health disorder risks is one among many, health care concerns for the users and mostly secondhand users is another.
Driving under the influence is the most important.  Pot users can use the addict defense to successfuly avoid harsh punishment, something tobacco or alcool users can't.

[Barrister]

Driving under the influence is the most important.  Pot users can use the addict defense to successfuly avoid harsh punishment, something tobacco or alcool users can't.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Malthus]

[Obviously, people smoking a bit of pot to enhance listening to an album, or having an after-dinner glass of wine, are not in the same category as people huffing glue or doing meth because their reality is unbearable, but that's a different argument - about the silliness of treating 'em legally as similar].

Come on Malthus - you know they aren't treated the same.  You're probably the only other person on this forum who knows the difference between a Schedule I drug (meth) and a Schedule VII drug (marijuana).

I know they aren't the *same* - point is that they are treated *similarly*, that is, their use is an offence. The punishment varies, depending on the amount of drug you have.

Pot is listed on Schedules II, VII and VIII. For simple possession, the *only* differences between pot and a Schedule I drug is (1) that possession of truly small amounts of pot is punished as a summary offence only; and (2) that, if the Crown elects to proceed by way of indictment, the maximum punishment is two years less (5 years as opposed to 7).

From the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:

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

(b) 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.

Punishment

(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable

(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, and

(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both.

Punishment

(4) Subject to subsection (5), every person who contravenes subsection (1) where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years less a day; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable

(i) for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both, and

(ii) for a subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both.

Punishment

(5) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) where the subject-matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II in an amount that does not exceed the amount set out for that substance in Schedule VIII is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

SCHEDULE II

(Sections 2, 3, 4 to 7, 10, 29, 55 and 60)

1. Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations, including

(1) Cannabis resin

(2) Cannabis (marihuana)

(3) Cannabidiol (2–[3–methyl–6–(1–methylethenyl)–2–cyclohexen–1–yl]–5–pentyl–1,3–benzenediol)

(4) Cannabinol (3–n–amyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–6–dibenzopyran–1–ol)

(5) Nabilone ((±)–trans–3–(1,1–dimethylheptyl)–6,6a, 7,8,10,10a–hexahydro–1–hydroxy–6,6–dimethyl–9H–dibenzo[b,d]pyran–9–one)

(6) Pyrahexyl (3–n–hexyl–6,6,9–trimethyl–7,8,9, 10–tetrahydro–6–dibenzopyran–1–ol)

(7) Tetrahydrocannabinol (tetrahydro–6,6,9–trimethyl–3–pentyl–6H–dibenzo[b,d]pyran–1–ol)

(7.1) 3-(1,2-dimethylheptyl)-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-6,6,9-trimethyl-6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol (DMHP)

but not including

(8) Non–viable Cannabis seed, with the exception of its derivatives

(9) Mature Cannabis stalks that do not include leaves, flowers, seeds or branches; and fiber derived from such stalks

...

SCHEDULE VIII

(Sections 4 and 60)

Substance
Amount

1. Cannabis resin
1 g

2. Cannabis (marihuana)
30 g

Have 2 grams of resin, and you might as well be carrying a pound of meth, as far as the Act is considered - with the exception that meth *could* get you two years more. Small comfort if you are serving 5 years! 

[Malthus]

There is no rational reason to treat pot legally like "bath salts" and not like tobacco and booze.

there are plenty of rational, medical and scientific reasons.
Increase in mental health disorder risks is one among many, health care concerns for the users and mostly secondhand users is another.

Never heard of "secondhand smoke"?   Or any bad health impacts to users from tobacco or booze?

Driving under the influence is the most important.  Pot users can use the addict defense to successfuly avoid harsh punishment, something tobacco or alcool users can't.

That's a new one.

[Barrister]

Malthus - that's exactly my point.  The punishment one receives varies enormously depending on the type and amount of drug.

By your analysis you might say that murder and shoplifting are treated similarily, since both are criminal offences.

[viper37]

Driving under the influence is the most important.  Pot users can use the addict defense to successfuly avoid harsh punishment, something tobacco or alcool users can't.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

there was a case in Quebec where a pot user was accused of driving under the influence and killing someone in a accident.  He got off with a few hours of community work because he "proved" he was addicted to pot and couldn't help but smoke it constantly.

And I've found another one, where a murdered got 5 years of jail time, instead of 25, for successfully pleading addiction to cannabis.  The guy claimed he was seeing the Devil, so he killed the man he was with.
Case of Martin Veilleux, judged in Longueil by judge Gilles Hébert in 2004.

There's too many cases like this.

[viper37]

Never heard of "secondhand smoke"?   Or any bad health impacts to users from tobacco or booze?

I have my lungs on fire and still have red eyes from the show on Saturday night.
Tobacco is bad enough, don't add anymore.

That's a new one.

not really.  All you need to have is a psychiatrist testifying you are addicted to the stuff and it causes you to hallucinate.

Have 2 grams of resin, and you might as well be carrying a pound of meth, as far as the Act is considered - with the exception that meth *could* get you two years more. Small comfort if you are serving 5 years! 

How many times does that happen?  For fuck sake, people were smoking in the streets with cops everywhere and nobody was arrested.

[Malthus]

Malthus - that's exactly my point.  The punishment one receives varies enormously depending on the type and amount of drug.

By your analysis you might say that murder and shoplifting are treated similarily, since both are criminal offences.

Not really.

Person A has some pot. Person B has some Meth.

If the crown proceeds by way of summary conviction, both face a maximum of $1000 fine and/or 6 months in prision.

The *only* difference is if the crown chooses to proceed by way of indictment. Where the amounts of drug are small, that seems unlikely - but by statute, the crown CAN'T proceed by indictment if the poor mook has 1 gram or less of pot resin.

The difference if the crown DOES proceed by indictment is minor (5 years vs. 7 maximum).

That hardly appears to be an "enormous difference". Going to jail for 5 years for having a relatively tiny amount of resin (more than 1 gram - which is nothing) would be pretty similar to going to jail for 7 years.

[Malthus]

How many times does that happen?  For fuck sake, people were smoking in the streets with cops everywhere and nobody was arrested.

It is true, most cops - like most people generally - don't bother with this silly law, because they recognize its absurdity.

However, I'm talking about what is in the actual legislation, not how that legislation is viewed by society ads a whole. The legislation has not caught up to the popular view.

[Barrister]

Malthus - that's exactly my point.  The punishment one receives varies enormously depending on the type and amount of drug.

By your analysis you might say that murder and shoplifting are treated similarily, since both are criminal offences.

Not really.

Person A has some pot. Person B has some Meth.

If the crown proceeds by way of summary conviction, both face a maximum of $1000 fine and/or 6 months in prision.

The *only* difference is if the crown chooses to proceed by way of indictment. Where the amounts of drug are small, that seems unlikely - but by statute, the crown CAN'T proceed by indictment if the poor mook has 1 gram or less of pot resin.

The difference if the crown DOES proceed by indictment is minor (5 years vs. 7 maximum).

That hardly appears to be an "enormous difference". Going to jail for 5 years for having a relatively tiny amount of resin (more than 1 gram - which is nothing) would be pretty similar to going to jail for 7 years.

Again, the majority of crimes in the criminal code are "hybrid" offences - one where the Crown can proceed either on summary conviction or by indictment.  Only very few offences are straight summary conviction.  So posession of marijuana in an amount listed in Schedule VIII is in the same category as causing a disturbance by being drunk and public indecency.

And you're making the typical non-lawyer mistake of looking at the theoretical maximum.  Nobody ever gets the maximum.  When you look at the sentencing precedents you'll very rapidly learn that Schedule I drugs are treated very differently from other drugs (like marijuana).

[HVC]

Have 2 grams of resin, and you might as well be carrying a pound of meth, as far as the Act is considered - with the exception that meth *could* get you two years more. Small comfort if you are serving 5 years! 

Where prison rape is concerned, those two years are a god send

[Valmy]

When you look at the sentencing precedents you'll very rapidly learn that Schedule I drugs are treated very differently from other drugs (like marijuana).

In the US Marijuana is a schedule one drug.

Do you think it is right that it is a Schedule one drug here?

[Barrister]

When you look at the sentencing precedents you'll very rapidly learn that Schedule I drugs are treated very differently from other drugs (like marijuana).

In the US Marijuana is a schedule one drug.

Do you think it is right that it is a Schedule one drug here?

I don't know one thing about your drug schedules or how they work.  In this country Schedule I is the most serious drugs.  It might be different down there though.

Cannabis is any quantity is listed in Schedule II.

And my mistake - methamphetamine is a Schedule III drug.  Although that gets tricky as there are dozens of chemically very similar drugs listed.

[Valmy]

I don't know one thing about your drug schedules or how they work.  In this country Schedule I is the most serious drugs.  It might be different down there though.

No it is exactly the same.  Schedule one is the most dangerous drugs like heroin and crack and the like.