Drug Policy Discussion, Research Papers, New Laws, Misc.

It seems that if we are going to continue stigmatizing drug users via controlled drug scheduling, the system needs to be seriously revamped. According to a pain medication expert I've spoke with, the addiction liablity with 6-keto opioids (hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone) is substantially higher than with other opiates (morphine most notably). So, schedule III morphine maybe?
 
nsauce said:
In a sense, i suppose your statement is correct. But aren't those who have information broadcast upon the otherwise uninvolved majority of people more at fault for opiates "bad name"?
Now, however, the establishment is making every hydrocodone user fall into the same category as users of cocaine and methamphetamine. This "demonizes" the legal, justified consumer of the (arguably) weakest opiod, hydrocodone, and places further stigma upon the legal, justified user of hydrocodone. What are dentists going to give you now when you get a root canal? Ibuprofen? Awesome.
Click to expand...

It probably has something to do with the "heroin epidemic" and some kind of gateway theory.

And can't dentists prescribe schedule II drugs? I'm quite sure I've heard people say they got prescribed codeine by a dentist. Of course they might not prescribe it because of the scheduling even if they can. For example I got prescribed diclofenac, I guess because I looked like a junkie or something. Didn't take any just smoked some weed, the pain was still there or maybe even worse but I didn't care about it anymore. And I would have done that anyway no matter what I was prescribed. So no biggie for me, but hey I could have traded the codeine/hydrocodone for some weed. :D
 
^Tylenol #3 is CIII, only codeine phosphate is CII. I suppose prescriptive authority may vary by state, but CII's can be prescribed if the malady warrants it.
 
... said:
I can't believe you guys are comfortable linking to the DEA website.
Click to expand...

The DEA is supplied with signals intelligence from the NSA that it uses to illegally convict defendants using parallel construction. I don't think that Bluelight linking to this website is giving or showing the DEA anything that it isn't already aware of.
 
Canada - The Protection Of Communities From The Evolving Dangerous Drug Trade Act

Key Features Of The Protection Of Communities From The Evolving Dangerous Drug Trade Act
Government of Canada
June 11th, 2015

As part of the Government of Canada's comprehensive approach to addressing illicit drug production, distribution and use, a series of amendments have been proposed to update the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), which originally came into force in 1997 as Canada?€™s federal drug control statute. Key features include:

New Temporary Scheduling Authority

The Minister of Health would be able to quickly address potentially dangerous new drugs, including new psychoactive substances that are increasingly being seen on the illicit market. Substances would be added to a new Schedule to the CDSA, which would prohibit their import, export, production and distribution for up to one year, with a possible extension for a second year. This process would be faster than the normal regulatory process and allow for a quick response to emerging drugs.

For example, new designer drugs such as synthetic cannabinoids, cathinones such as methylone and analogues of fentanyl are being found frequently on Canadian streets.

New Criminal Offences

The existing offence for the illegal possession, production or sale of anything (e.g. chemicals or equipment) intended to be used in the production of methamphetamine would be expanded to apply to things intended for use in the production of any controlled substance. The broader offence would provide law enforcement with a wider choice of charges to lay in situations when individuals are found with large volumes of drug production material and yet have no legitimate purpose for possessing those materials.

Streamlined Disposition Schemes

The current rules related to the handling and disposition of controlled substances, precursors and other property related to the commission of drug-related offences when they are seized by law enforcement officials are cumbersome and complex. Among other changes, the proposed amendments would introduce a new expedited process for the disposal of seized controlled substances, precursors and chemical offence-related property whose storage or handling pose a risk to health and safety. This new process would reduce the burden on courts, government agencies and law enforcement agencies.

For example, law enforcement could dispose of hazardous chemicals, contaminated lab equipment and drugs whose storage or handling poses a risk to health and safety without seeking a court order and would not be required to seek Health Canada authorization prior to disposal.

Improved Inspection Authorities

Currently, Health Canada inspectors are only able to inspect sites where authorized activities with controlled substances and precursors are taking place; they cannot inspect places that are not licensed such as ports of entry or where activities related to controlled substances or precursors are only suspected to be taking place. The proposed amendments would broaden the range of places Health Canada inspectors could go, thus ensuring that inspectors can more effectively carry out compliance promotion and verification.

For example, Health Canada would be able to inspect vehicles used to transport controlled substances and carry pre-license inspections.

New Administrative Monetary Penalties Scheme

The proposed amendments would provide the Minister with the authority to impose fines in instances of non-compliance without resorting to a criminal prosecution. This would improve Health Canada?€™s ability to encourage compliance and address non-compliance more quickly; since current measures such as warning letters are not always effective and harsher sanctions such as licence suspension are not always necessary. The maximum penalty for a violation would be $30,000 per day.

For example, regulated parties could be liable to pay fines in instances of non-compliance with security or record-keeping requirements.

Tamper Resistance

The authority to put in place a regulation that would require certain drugs at high risk of abuse to have tamper-resistant properties currently exists. However, the proposed amendments will provide broader authority to regulate in this area. As previously announced by the Minister of Health, Health Canada is also moving forward with regulations.
Click to expand...

Read the press release here.

Let's hope they can't get this passed by October. :X
 
Last edited:
I shudder thinking what Rona Ambrose would do if she's still Health Minister after this year's October elections (and Steven Harper remains our Prime Minister). This woman is hellbent on using her distorted, twisted moral compass to punish non-violent, otherwise law-abiding Canadians for being in possession of parts of a plant, powder, etc.

And if this Bill passes and is implemented... all I can say is fuck Harper, Ambrose, and their two-faced conservatard ideoloigy.
 
I have been saying for the last five years they would go the health canada route rather than try and keep up with the criminal ban hammer. I knew they would do this. It takes like 3 plus years to get stuff banned, and that only happens when there is some media hysteria. Chinese labs have long since stopped making stuff before it even gets banned here.
It was funny to see the bath salts hysteria of to or three summers ago. America banned shit right away, Canada was like well our politicians are on va-cay so it's just going to have to wait 3 months.
Scary how our country is going.

"This process would be faster than the normal regulatory process and allow for a quick response to emerging drugs"

Doublespeak: Allowing debate amongst elected officials about your freedoms is taking too long so now an unelected body will just force laws on you as they see fit, isn't this better?
The writing is on the wall for RC vendors in this country. All the etizolam addicted people are going to be fucked.
 
I still almost lived in Canada, well, in Vancouver I mean... Now, well, shit's starting to scare me away from wanting to live up there now. Seems like they've been moving in this more draconian direction in all aspects of Canadian law for a long time, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me, but still. It's just sickening.
 
If the drug trade is "evolving", shouldn't we too "evolve" how we approach drugs and drug trade? Instead of using the same recycled plan of dissolving citizens' rights and freedoms, should we not develop a new approach, one that is actually effective, perhaps?
 
Last edited:
typical bureaucratic overreach, courts will dismiss it and cops will disgregard it and we'll just go back to being Canadian as always.
 
S.J.P. said:
The Supreme Court can't strike down a bill before it's even been passed into law.
Click to expand...
Damned legal jargon, I just tried to read the differences between an act and a bill and I still don't get it. So can the bill be thrown out by the Supreme Court even if the Senate has passed it? Who needs to pass a proposed act before it becomes a law, and can the Supreme Court strike down an act once it is passed?
 
[éS]Infinite said:
Damned legal jargon, I just tried to read the differences between an act and a bill and I still don't get it. So can the bill be thrown out by the Supreme Court even if the Senate has passed it? Who needs to pass a proposed act before it becomes a law, and can the Supreme Court strike down an act once it is passed?
Click to expand...

A bill and an act are interchangeable terms. The Supreme Court can't throw out acts/bills per se, but it can strike down laws, and bills are made up of multiple laws. The laws within a bill become Canadian law once they are passed by the House and the Senate (and technically, the Governor General, although this is simply a formality). Once these laws are in place, the Supreme Court cannot immediately strike any of them down. A challenge to the law must first make its way through a series of lower courts. This generally takes a few years.
 
Thanks for the info SJP! That's sort of what I thought was the case from what I've seen in the past, but then I tried to read the technicalities behind it all and got horribly lost.
I'm also not quite understanding the "Improved Inspection Authorities" section. How would Health Canada determine that a vehicle has been used to transport controlled substances? HC would also be able to search any place determined to be "suspicious" but what are the criteria that deem an area/property suspicious? Seems pretty vague.
 
^ that would be the overreach part. it's not clear why on earth Health Canada would need such authority and guaranteed that if it's granted they will overstep and be challenged in court.

this is just another example of the current gov't pushing vaguely-worded legislation that the courts will look at and go "how the fuck do you expect us to interpret this?" then they will naturally fall back on the charter of rights which doesn't have such idiotic ambiguities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top