Pot posession charges 88% increase in BC

[keith1612]

The mayors of all the municipalities in BC can recommend anythng they want in terms of marihuana or any other substance listed under the CDSA and it doesn't make any difference aside from their sentiments being known to the Provincial and Federal Government. Neither the Mayors, the Provincial Attorney General or the Premier for that matter can declare marihuana a legal substance or a substance for which people will not be prosecuted. The CDSA is a Federal Statute..... that regulates the drugs and offences that were previously controlled under the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act. As a Federal Statute, the prosecution of offences under the CDSA is the responsibility of the Department of Justice Canada (PPSC) and it is the policies set by the Federal government that decides all matters relating to prosecution of any and all drug offences. The bottom line is it doesn't matter how "*bleep* off" an officer is when dealing with someone in possession of a small amount of drugs. If the quantity doesn't meet the minimum set by the policy, the individual won't be prosecuted...period.

im not sure about that, under Harpers new crime bill trafficking is a automatic 6 months in jail.
anything over 5 plants is considered trafficking
but if a police officer catches you with say 10 grams of weed and wants to call it trafficking its jail time.
its a discretionary call for them.
they dont like you and boom, your a dealer.

[Treblehook]

"im not sure about that, under Harpers new crime bill trafficking is a automatic 6 months in jail.
anything over 5 plants is considered trafficking
but if a police officer catches you with say 10 grams of weed and wants to call it trafficking its jail time.
its a discretionary call for them.
they dont like you and boom, your a dealer.

It seems you don't understand much about the judicial system very well... at least as pertains to the prosecution of drug cases. If you think that the police only need to state that you are a dealer in order to have you charged with trafficking, you are poorly informed. The police need some very specific evidence to support a charge of trafficking or possession of a substance for the purpose of trafficking. Quantity is an obvious one, and once possession is established in evidence, a very large quantity is usually sufficient to convince any court that the accused had more than could reasonably be had for personal use. Where the quantity is less, there needs to be other evidence to support the charge; ie: packaging, scales, cash, customer lists, and or a host of other evidence that is consistent with trafficking activity. My point is, in the absence of evidence to support the contention that the smaller amount of pot was possessed for the purpose of trafficking, the cop's discretion [as you put it] has nothing to do with it. Also, if you think it is an easy thing for a cop to just "make up the evidence against someone he or she doesn't like", you don't understand the system very well. It doesn't happen that way!!! I would venture to say that the down side doing things that make one very unpopular with a local police officer is the likelihood that they are going to look twice everytime they see you on the chance that you are up to no good.

[NAB]

The official policy is called The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act which, as NAB has pointed out, states that anything under a gram of hash or 30g (an ounce) of pot will not result in criminal charges. Possessing it is still illegal, and your stash will probably be confiscated if it's noticed by the police. IF it's packaged up in individual units, you are going to be in trouble.



Here in Vancouver police tend to leave pot smokers alone, for the most part.

Schedule 7 of the act stipulates at what levels things REALLY get serious with respect to "possession" charges and penalties, then add "for the purpose of", such as trafficking or, worse yet, export. Get caught with 3Kg or more of resin or Cannabis and things are going to get very serious for you very quickly. Then there's the thing about growing the stuff. Up to 5 plants for personal use will probably result in very little fuss, but more than that and there can be serious repercussions. And anyone distributing or selling on or near school property no matter the amount will encounter more trouble with the law than they might wish for.

Nab

[Ken7]

The mayors of all the municipalities in BC can recommend anythng they want in terms of marihuana or any other substance listed under the CDSA and it doesn't make any difference aside from their sentiments being known to the Provincial and Federal Government. Neither the Mayors, the Provincial Attorney General or the Premier for that matter can declare marihuana a legal substance or a substance for which people will not be prosecuted. The CDSA is a Federal Statute..... that regulates the drugs and offences that were previously controlled under the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act. As a Federal Statute, the prosecution of offences under the CDSA is the responsibility of the Department of Justice Canada (PPSC) and it is the policies set by the Federal government that decides all matters relating to prosecution of any and all drug offences. The bottom line is it doesn't matter how "*bleep* off" an officer is when dealing with someone in possession of a small amount of drugs. If the quantity doesn't meet the minimum set by the policy, the individual won't be prosecuted...period.

I'm with you!! Where will this Province be when the CRACK HEAD generation grows up?? I'd further suggest if you questioned the knowledge of those same people who feel it should be legalized, they are in most case lacking on many aspects of today's drugs. In saying that the quality and potency of it.

Many would be for it because the neighbouring mayor spoke to them over a coffee at a meeting and thought it would be OK because his some who is now a lawyer used to do it and he is fine!

[zzontar]

I'm with you!! Where will this Province be when the CRACK HEAD generation grows up?? I'd further suggest if you questioned the knowledge of those same people who feel it should be legalized, they are in most case lacking on many aspects of today's drugs. In saying that the quality and potency of it.

Perhaps you're knowledge of drugs is lacking as you're comparing crack to pot. Crack is crack-COCAINE, considered to be the second-most dangerous drug whereas pot didn't even make the top 10. Alcohol is the fifth most dangerous and cigarettes came it at #9, but I'm guessing you'd give someone a harder time about smoking pot, why is that?

[keith1612]

"im not sure about that, under Harpers new crime bill trafficking is a automatic 6 months in jail.
anything over 5 plants is considered trafficking
but if a police officer catches you with say 10 grams of weed and wants to call it trafficking its jail time.
its a discretionary call for them.
they dont like you and boom, your a dealer.

It seems you don't understand much about the judicial system very well... at least as pertains to the prosecution of drug cases. If you think that the police only need to state that you are a dealer in order to have you charged with trafficking, you are poorly informed. The police need some very specific evidence to support a charge of trafficking or possession of a substance for the purpose of trafficking. Quantity is an obvious one, and once possession is established in evidence, a very large quantity is usually sufficient to convince any court that the accused had more than could reasonably be had for personal use. Where the quantity is less, there needs to be other evidence to support the charge; ie: packaging, scales, cash, customer lists, and or a host of other evidence that is consistent with trafficking activity. My point is, in the absence of evidence to support the contention that the smaller amount of pot was possessed for the purpose of trafficking, the cop's discretion [as you put it] has nothing to do with it. Also, if you think it is an easy thing for a cop to just "make up the evidence against someone he or she doesn't like", you don't understand the system very well. It doesn't happen that way!!! I would venture to say that the down side doing things that make one very unpopular with a local police officer is the likelihood that they are going to look twice everytime they see you on the chance that you are up to no good.

actually i can assure you i know the system far better than you obviously.
they do not need any any of the things you are suggesting to charge you with trafficking.
you can be charged for trafficking for 1 gram of weed if they decide thats what you have it for.
its 100% the officers discretion as to how he feels you were going to procede as to personal use or sale.
you can try and read all the information on the net you want but some of us have been through it in real life and know how it really works.

[Smurf]

Nothing against you keith1612 but I am willing to bet that there was a lot more involved thanj one little run in with the police and 1 gram of pot. At the very least some poor attitude. I know a number of people who are constantly in trouble with the police and it is as much their attitude and past as what they were actually doing at the time. Sorry if I am wrong but that is the way I feel.

[goatboy]

actually i can assure you i know the system far better than you obviously.
they do not need any any of the things you are suggesting to charge you with trafficking.
you can be charged for trafficking for 1 gram of weed if they decide thats what you have it for.
its 100% the officers discretion as to how he feels you were going to procede as to personal use or sale.
you can try and read all the information on the net you want but some of us have been through it in real life and know how it really works.

It may be the officers discretion on what charge to recommend, but its crown that decides if the evidence it is presented with has a likelihood of conviction to proceed with the charge. Easy way to avoid the officers discretion is to not be in possession of something illegal, even if you don't think it should be. Zero sympathy here.

[keith1612]

Nothing against you keith1612 but I am willing to bet that there was a lot more involved thanj one little run in with the police and 1 gram of pot. At the very least some poor attitude. I know a number of people who are constantly in trouble with the police and it is as much their attitude and past as what they were actually doing at the time. Sorry if I am wrong but that is the way I feel.

thats my point, its the officers discretion to lay charges depending on how he feels, then the crown procedes or doesnt.
there is no specified amount that makes it trafficking.

[keith1612]

actually i can assure you i know the system far better than you obviously.
they do not need any any of the things you are suggesting to charge you with trafficking.
you can be charged for trafficking for 1 gram of weed if they decide thats what you have it for.
its 100% the officers discretion as to how he feels you were going to procede as to personal use or sale.
you can try and read all the information on the net you want but some of us have been through it in real life and know how it really works.

It may be the officers discretion on what charge to recommend, but its crown that decides if the evidence it is presented with has a likelihood of conviction to proceed with the charge. Easy way to avoid the officers discretion is to not be in possession of something illegal, even if you don't think it should be. Zero sympathy here.

nobody asked for sympathy as far as i saw.
its just a shame there will always be the holier than thou folks who want to worry about how others live and make life choices for them.
as i posted i dont smoke weed i gave that up as a kid almost 30 years ago.
i just find it a joke when groups try and tell you what to smoke, eat, watch on tv and read.
i personally think weed is a better alternative to alcohol but it just made me hungry and sleepy.

[goatboy]

Nothing against you keith1612 but I am willing to bet that there was a lot more involved thanj one little run in with the police and 1 gram of pot. At the very least some poor attitude. I know a number of people who are constantly in trouble with the police and it is as much their attitude and past as what they were actually doing at the time. Sorry if I am wrong but that is the way I feel.

thats my point, its the officers discretion to lay charges depending on how he feels, then the crown procedes or doesnt.
there is no specified amount that makes it trafficking.

The officer doesn't at the charge, they recommend. Crown is the one who lays the charge.

[goatboy]

nobody asked for sympathy as far as i saw.
its just a shame there will always be the holier than thou folks who want to worry about how others live and make life choices for them.
as i posted i dont smoke weed i gave that up as a kid almost 30 years ago.
i just find it a joke when groups try and tell you what to smoke, eat, watch on tv and read.
i personally think weed is a better alternative to alcohol but it just made me hungry and sleepy.

But when the life choice is to do something illegal, then I have an obligation to speak up and make my objection to their illegal behaviour be known. If they aren't doing something illegal, then it's none of my business.

[NAB]

Nothing against you keith1612 but I am willing to bet that there was a lot more involved thanj one little run in with the police and 1 gram of pot. At the very least some poor attitude. I know a number of people who are constantly in trouble with the police and it is as much their attitude and past as what they were actually doing at the time. Sorry if I am wrong but that is the way I feel.

thats my point, its the officers discretion to lay charges depending on how he feels, then the crown procedes or doesnt.
there is no specified amount that makes it trafficking.

No one says there is. The discussion regarding specific amounts relates to POSSESSION, related charges, and related penalties. Add trafficking and it's extra charges and penalties as a bonus.

Nab

[Treblehook]

In response to keith1216's post of 9:10 today. Wrong! It is obvious to me that you don't know the square root of zero about the law or about what is needed to successfully prosecute a possess for the purpose of trafficking or trafficking case. On the other hand I do. In fact, it is so obvious that you don't know what you are talking about that I won't bother debating it with you any further unless you are prepared to do some "legitimate" research and become informed. I would guess that you have a seriuos dislike for police and you prefer to believe or express the notion that the mean old police officer can [and does] choose to hammer some people with trafficking or possess for trafficking charges, regardless of the quantity of drugs seized just because the bad old cop doesn't like them. That is so far from reality it is laughable. Anyone who is charged with trafficking, where only a small amount of drugs has been seized has either provided drugs to an undercover cop; been observed providing drugs to someone else, or the police have gathered other significant evidence to support the more serious charge. That is the way it works. The decision to recommend PPT or Trafficking charges is not made on the basis of whether the cop likes or dislikes the suspect. Anyone who believes what you suggest ought to be dressing in a tinfoil suit!!!

[Ken7]

["zzontar"]

I'm with you!! Where will this Province be when the CRACK HEAD generation grows up?? I'd further suggest if you questioned the knowledge of those same people who feel it should be legalized, they are in most case lacking on many aspects of today's drugs. In saying that the quality and potency of it.



Perhaps you're knowledge of drugs is lacking as you're comparing crack to pot. Crack is crack-COCAINE, considered to be the second-most dangerous drug whereas pot didn't even make the top 10. Alcohol is the fifth most dangerous and cigarettes came it at #9, but I'm guessing you'd give someone a harder time about smoking pot, why is that?

You crack me up. Have another toke.

The point I was making and you missed it was today’s politicians may have used dope when in high school. What I was suggesting is, when the CRACK HEADS of today become politically inclined they will think Crack should be legalized too.


You are not educating me on drugs thanks for trying though!

If you think I do not know, I'll tell you that you just do not know me!! I used to bust crack heads and dope dealers!!