Pot posession charges 88% increase in BC

[Smurf]

Yes Granny the whole works of them are out there. It's scary when you think about it.

[Smurf]

And no matter where you draw the line "they " will argue black is white that they are safe to drive. They can tell they are fine. I'll bet the police get sick of hearing those lines.

[FreeRights]

The police in this case were commenting on "changing the laws" or rather the need not to change the laws because according to the chief, nobody in Kelowna gets charged with possession. Oops.

Working your way up the ladder only goes as far as murder. Meaning - you can only arrest so many lowlifes until you reach the point where "ratting" out superiors means death for them or their family. Small fish go to jail while the guys running the show continue on. Get lucky and busty a big guy - someone will take his place in less than a hour.

There has been a rash of major drug busts across the country in the recent months, and I guarantee you those investigations started with the "lowlife".

[Treblehook]

Aren't charges for "simple possession of marijuana" and "possession of marijuana" two different things? I can understand not much emphasis and resources being allocated to "simple possession", but possession beyond that small personal degree can warrant a lot of attention being paid to it IMO.

And I agree that something significant must be done to be able to identify those who use and drive.

There is no difference between "possession" and the commonly used term "simple possession". Possession under the CDSA is as defined in the Criminal Code of Canada. I believe there are two critical components to proving possession... knowledge and control. I also think it worthwhile considering the statistic itself that is being quoted in respect to the numbers of people being charged with possession of marihuana. If the statistic comes from the [i]number of people convicted for possession of marihauna[i] that does not necessarily mean the case was your run of the mill interdiction of someone in possession of a joint or a part of an ounce of pot. The quantity of the drug seized may have been more than is normally found in possession for personal use! Some of the possession cases might have involved cases where there was sufficient quantity of pot seized, but where something was missing in the evidence needed to prove possession for the purpose of trafficking... so the prosecutor directs a charge of possession only.... and finally, there are those cases that are dealt down in order to get a guilty plea and avoid using up valuable court time. As we all know, statistics can often be made to say whatever the presenter wants them to say. I do know, without a doubt, that the RCMP don't waste their stretched resources targeting pot smokers so they can arrest and charge them with possession of marihuana. That having been said, there are lots of behaviors that attract the attention of the police, that end up with the officers discovering illegal possession of drugs. How about the case where someone is known to the police as being involved in selling pot [perhaps to the youth in the community], but when stopped by the officers, only sufficent quantity is found on the suspect to support a possession [only] charge. Should they just let the scumbag go or should they charge him/her and get a drug conviction on the record and maybe dissuade future offences? Me thinks there is more to the statistic quoted than meets the eye.

[theyeti]

i dont think ppl sell pot to youth per se the youth when i was young sold it to other youth . for the most part it was weed taken from a parents stash . like father like sons i guess .

[Ken7]

Aren't charges for "simple possession of marijuana" and "possession of marijuana" two different things? I can understand not much emphasis and resources being allocated to "simple possession", but possession beyond that small personal degree can warrant a lot of attention being paid to it IMO.

And I agree that something significant must be done to be able to identify those who use and drive.

4. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.

Marginal note: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



Possession is knowledge, control and consent. These must be proven in order to have possession.


I'm not certain what Kelowna Detachment or the RCMP policy is, although if you have a joint or two, I'd bet you will not be going to court for possession.

[keith1612]

strange as all the mayors around BC are lobbying to legalize personal use of pot and the usa is lowering the punishment canada and BC and the police are all gung ho to prosecute all these low life's sitting at home smoking weed watching tv.
how dare they put others in danger eating nacho's in their basement playing xbox.
damn criminals.
oh and i honestly dont smoke weed, i like beer.
it still amazes me the attitude some still have worrying about what others want to do to themselves.
if the government was smart enough to allow every homeowner the right to 1 single grow light in their house they would kill the weed industry overnight.
but no Harper increased the laws to mandatory jail and at the same time Vancouver makes heroin injection sites so all the junkies can get together and party in a nice warm legal room.
go figure.

[keith1612]

Aren't charges for "simple possession of marijuana" and "possession of marijuana" two different things? I can understand not much emphasis and resources being allocated to "simple possession", but possession beyond that small personal degree can warrant a lot of attention being paid to it IMO.

And I agree that something significant must be done to be able to identify those who use and drive.

4. (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II or III.

Marginal note: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



Possession is knowledge, control and consent. These must be proven in order to have possession.


I'm not certain what Kelowna Detachment or the RCMP policy is, although if you have a joint or two, I'd bet you will not be going to court for possession.

as its illegal in canada being charged would be at the discretion of the officer.
*bleep* him off and you can be assured he will charge you for 1 joint.

[NAB]

MJ is a shedule 2 controlled substance. Schedule 8 defines the amount cutoffs before a charge of "possession" gets serious and can result in up to 5 years imprisonment (or more depending on what the person possessing it is doing with it or intends to do with it). I consider anything below that threshold "simple possession" and not worth the bother of charges. The cutoffs from Schedule 8 are - cannabis resin - 1 gram. MJ - 30 grams.

[Ken7]

as its illegal in canada being charged would be at the discretion of the officer.
*bleep* him off and you can be assured he will charge you for 1 joint.

Several years ago the Attorney Generals Office, sent out a fax to all agencies. There were no charges to be laid if under a certain weight. I do not recall the number, and I do not know what the RCMP policy is. Your comment is not accurate, as policy would over-ride a *bleep* off member.

[Libelle]

as its illegal in canada being charged would be at the discretion of the officer.
*bleep* him off and you can be assured he will charge you for 1 joint.

Several years ago the Attorney Generals Office, sent out a fax to all agencies. There were no charges to be laid if under a certain weight. I do not recall the number, and I do not know what the RCMP policy is. Your comment is not accurate, as policy would over-ride a *bleep* off member.

If you do not know what the policy is, then how can you state that the policy would be over ridden by a *bleep* off member?

[Liquidnails]

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.

[Ken7]

Several years ago the Attorney Generals Office, sent out a fax to all agencies. There were no charges to be laid if under a certain weight. I do not recall the number, and I do not know what the RCMP policy is. Your comment is not accurate, as policy would over-ride a *bleep* off member.

If you do not know what the policy is, then how can you state that the policy would be over ridden by a *bleep* off member?

Did you not read what I stated. Several years ago AG's office sent to all agencies,

I do not know RCMP policy.

I forget what the limit was...

You might put 2+2 together and come to the conclusion I was not RCMP but another police agency.

[Ken7]

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.

OK if you think so!! HUH!

Slightly off topic, does the Criminal Code also tell officers at what level they can charge a drinking driving subject or is it local policy?

[Treblehook]

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.