Podcasts about controlled drugs

Section 4.1(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, provides that no person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency is to be charged or convicted of the offence of simple possession of a controlled substance if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assistance or having remained at the scene of the medical emergency. Mr. Wilson was with three other people when one overdosed on fentanyl and one of them called 911. Police responding to the 911 call arrested Mr. Wilson for simple possession of a controlled substance at the scene of the overdose. Police conducted a search of the group's truck and, in a green backpack, discovered modified handguns, parts for firearms, ammunition and identification papers. Later at a police station, Mr. Wilson admitted he was the owner of the green backpack, the guns and the ammunition. He admitted that the identification papers did not belong to him. Mr. Wilson was charged with possession of identity documents, fraudulent impersonation and a number of firearms offences. He was not charged with possession of a controlled substance. The trial judge dismissed an application for a declaration that the evidence should excluded for breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and admitted the evidence. Mr. Wilson was convicted of firearms offences. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and entered acquittals on all counts. Argued Date 2025-01-14 Keywords Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Search and seizure — Arbitrary detention — Good Samaritan law — Police responding to 911 call reporting an overdose and arresting accused for simple possession of a controlled substance at the scene of the overdose — Police conducting search incident to arrest and discovering evidence of firearms offences and false identity offences — Whether police had authority to arrest accused for simple possession of a controlled substance — Whether arrest and search were unlawful and in violation of Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Notes (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Mr. Campbell was convicted of trafficking, and heroine and Fentanyl, and possessing those drugs for the purpose of trafficking them, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. At trial, Mr. Campbell argued that his rights under Section 8 of The Charter had been violated because he had privacy interests in text messages that he was sending a local dealer. When police arrested that local dealer, incoming text messages were visible on the lock screen that suggested the sender was selling a quantity of drugs to the local dealer. Police impersonated the local dealer and responded to the messages, directing the sender where to attend. Mr. Campbell arrived in accordance with the police instructions for the fictious transaction. He was arrested and 14.33 grams of heroine mixed with fentanyl was found after a search incident to arrest. The trial judge dismissed the Charter application, citing that Mr. Campbell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages, and that there were exigent circumstances present for police to act because the texts clearly indicated Fentanyl was to be trafficked. The Court of Appeal agreed that the trafficking of Fentanyl is of such grave public concern that it constituted exigent circumstances, but found that Mr. Campbell did in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the lock screen texts. However, given the police had exigent circumstances, there was no finding that his Section 8 rights were breached and accordingly, his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Discover the true impact of British Columbia's drug policy changes and the possible re-criminalization of hard drugs in public spaces as we navigate the labyrinthine details of Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. With the guidance of Michael Mulligan from Mulligan Defence Lawyers, our latest conversation illuminates the gaps between government announcements and the actual legal language, leaving us questioning the intent behind recent amendments. Mulligan also sheds light on the paradoxical enforcement of marijuana possession laws, exploring the nuances of federal versus provincial prosecution and the transportation of legally obtained drugs.The most recent changes to the BC exemption from drug possession laws exempts adults if:a. they are within a designated health care clinic;b. they are unhoused and sheltering in accordance with all applicable laws; orc. they are within a private residence.Because option "b" doesn't require a person who is unhoused and sheltering in accordance with all applicable laws to be "within" anything, it may not be possible to convict an unhoused person who is using otherwise illegal drugs anywhere. This is inconsistent with government pronouncements concerning the use of drugs in public places such as schools and parks.This episode isn't just about policy—it's about the people and principles caught in the crossfire of drug legislation. We scrutinize the province's history with these laws and the ongoing battle against arbitrary enforcement, diving into how current guidelines still fall short of providing clear and consistent application. As we thank Michael Mulligan for his in-depth insights, we set the stage for further exploration of legal intricacies with an eye toward dissecting the complexities that shape our justice system and affect the lives of citizens. Join us for a compelling examination of law, order, and the societal implications in between.Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the regulations discussed. 

British Columbia is going forward with the reversal of drugs and substances. Growing crime and drug use has taken over BC, with the highest overdose rates. Will Toronto follow through? Host Alex Pierson speaks with Adam Zivo, Director of the Canadian Centre for Responsible Drug Use. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Global News: "B.C. to ban drug use in all public places in major overhaul of decriminalization." Premier David Eby on Friday made a formal request to Health Canada for changes to its exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as the 3 year experiment with decriminalization falters. Guest: Dr. Brian Conway. Medical director and infectious diseases specialist at the Vancouver Infectious Diseaes Centre. East-side of Vancouver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's podcast: Just released Dalhousie Agri-foods laboratory study shows almost 60% of Canadians regularly eat food beyond its 'best before' date, with 23% doing so regularly. Among Millenials 41% believe they have become ill after eating potentially unsafe food products in the past year. And Canada's food sector falling behind that of the U.S. in wholesale and industrial prices. Might Canadian companies pull the plug and exit Canada for the United States?  Guest: Professor Sylvain Charlebois. Director Dalhousie University Agri-Foods laboratory.   Jew-hatred continues to roil across Canada.  Guests: Melissa Lantsman. CPC Deputy leader and Jewish Toronto MP who had a bitter exchange with PM Trudeau during Question Period when Trudeau responded to a challenge by Lantsman by accusing Conservative MPs of "standing with people who wave swastikas."  And:  David Sachs. Jewish Federation of Ottawa. After leaving a Muslim-Jewish interfaith event on parliament hill, Sachs was identified as Jewish by pro-Palestinian demonstrators and was swarmed, requiring a police escort to leave the area. Sachs is engaged in combatting antisemitism by the Jewish Federation of Ottawa.   Global News: "B.C. to ban drug use in all public places in major overhaul of decriminalization." Premier David Eby on Friday made a formal request to Health Canada for changes to its exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as the 3 year experiment with decriminalization falters. Guest: Dr. Brian Conway. Medical director and infectious diseases specialist at the Vancouver Infectious Diseaes Centre. East-side of Vancouver.   A report released on Friday by Statscan shows 8.7 million Canadians, or 22.9 per cent of the national population reported some level of food insecurity in 2022. An increase of almost 1.8 million people from the previous year.  Guest: Professor Valerie Tarasuk. Lead investigator of the University of Toronto's household food insecurity research program PROOF. --------------------------------------------- Host/Content Producer – Roy Green Technical/Podcast Producer – Tom Craig If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Roy Green Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://globalnews.ca/roygreen/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Police seized a cellphone during a search incident to the arrest of a known drug dealer. The phone was displaying incoming text messages on its screen. The police believed the messages revealed a transaction for heroin, which would likely be laced with fentanyl, was in progress. The police impersonated the drug dealer by responding to the text messages, and arranged to have the drugs delivered to the dealer's residence. Applicant Dwayne Alexander Campbell arrived at the residence and was arrested. Mr. Campbell was charged under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). At trial, Mr. Campbell brought a motion to exclude evidence, claiming that his rights under s. 8 of the Charter had been infringed by the police action in using the dealer's phone to communicate with him. The trial judge rejected Mr. Campbell's claim that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages, and concluded that the likelihood that the drugs were laced with fentanyl created exigent circumstances that justified the warrantless use of the drug dealer's cellphone. Mr. Campbell was convicted and sentenced. The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Campbell did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his electronic communications, but that the police action was justified by the exigent circumstances doctrine. Consequently, there was no breach of Mr. Campbell's s. 8 rights. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Campbell's appeal. Argued Date 2024-03-21 Keywords Charter of Rights — Search and seizure (s. 8) — Enforcement (s. 24) — Exigent circumstances — Police seizing cellphone in search incident to the arrest of a known drug dealer — Incoming text messages from appellant visible on its screen — Police believing messages concerned impending drug deal involving fentanyl — Police impersonating drug dealer, facilitating drug transaction with the appellant via text message — Whether police breached appellant's s. 8 rights by warrantless use of drug dealer's cellphone to impersonate drug dealer and engage in electronic conversation with accused — Whether police action justified by exigent circumstances because the police reasonably believed the drug transaction may have involved fentanyl — Whether police breached the appellant's s. 8 rights by intercepting private communications without authorization — Whether evidence obtained by s. 8 breaches should have been excluded — Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 11; Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, Part VI Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

B.C. becomes first province to remove criminal penalties for possession of some hard drugs British Columbia has become the first province to be granted an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to remove criminal penalties for possession of some hard drugs. The three-year exemption is for people who possess a small amount of certain illicit substances for personal use. The exemption will be in effect from Jan. 31, 2023, to Jan. 31, 2026, throughout B.C. https://globalnews.ca/news/8882290/bc-overdose-crisis-decriminalize-possession/ B.C. announces details of single-use plastics ban Plastic shopping bags, polystyrene foam, biodegradable plastics to be phased out by December The B.C.... View Article

Lophos Holdings Inc. (CSE: MESC) is about to be the first company to make regular sales of psychedelic products in Canada and has been granted a Controlled Drugs and Substances Dealer's License, shares President and CEO Claire Stawnyczy.Discover the amazing journey of Lophos, a bioscience company that focuses on the research of mescaline, a compound of the peyote cactus or Lophophora williamsii.For more information, visit: https://lophos.com/Watch the full YouTube interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQyrI5yCWHEAnd follow us to stay updated: https://www.youtube.com/@GlobalOneMedia?sub_confirmation=1

**In this Episode of the Becoming a Badass Pharmacy Owner Podcast; Dr. Lisa Faast with guest Jeff Hedges will talk about controlled drugs for pharmacy compliance** **Show Notes:** 1. **Jeff Hedges Introduction** [1:40] 2. **When the patient hits 90 mme** [4:53] 3. **Hot-button issues with prescribing** [8:04] 4. **Doctors who don't want to give the diagnosis** [9:52] 5. **Background checks for pharmacy staff** [12:32] 6. **How to get a dea license** [14:18] 7. **Importance of having a registered coordinator** [16:10] 8. **How can pharmacies get in touch with dea?** [20:05] 9. **RJ Hedges Contact Info** [21:38] Websites Mentioned: RJ Hedges: https://www.rjhedges.com/ Contact Info Email: sales@rjhedges.com Phone Number: 724-357-8380 ----- #### **Becoming a Badass Pharmacy Owner Podcast is a Proud to be Apart of the Pharmacy Podcast Network**

Muncie man found guilty of dealing a controlled substance resulting in death Woman charged with forging prescriptions to buy controlled drugs These are just two headlines regarding controlled drugs that have surfaced recently.  But there is hope!  And it comes in the form of AI analytics and facial recognition technology. Meet Christopher Durre Chris's Role as a Technology Leader at StrongRoom AI Christopher Durre serves as the Chief Technology Officer at StrongRoom AI, a leading provider of AI-driven controlled drugs management solutions. StrongRoom specialises in leveraging AI analytics and Facial Recognition technology to enhance medication safety and reduce adverse drug events in Pharmacy, Hospital, and Aged Care Facility settings. Chris's Other Work in Technology and AI Before assuming the role of CTO at StrongRoom AI, Chris held the position of Chief Innovation Officer for six years. During this time, he actively contributed to the growth and development of the company. Additionally, Chris was a participant in the Melbourne Accelerator Program (MAP), a renowned university business accelerator ranked 8th globally. MAP aims to foster entrepreneurship in Australia and launch high-growth ventures on an international scale. Chris graduated from Swinburne University of Technology in 2019 as a Bachelor of Computer Science, Data Science. Throughout his academic journey, he was recognized with a Dean's Outstanding Achievement Scholarship. Chris also worked on the development of an AI-driven timetabling system. Concurrently, he gained valuable industry experience as an Undergraduate Engineer at the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group. Facial Recognition, Controlled Drugs, and AI In this exclusive analytics podcast episode, Christopher shares: Developing an AI driven timetabling system while taking his bachelor's degree How the experience with capstone projects stuck with him His advice to students doing projects of a similar nature Where the name StrongRoom comes from Convincing a privacy-heavy sector like healthcare to use facial recognition in the early years StrongRoom AI's role in managing controlled drugs Other ways StrongRoom's controlled drug management platform contributes to improving medication safety  AI's role in remote patient monitoring and the increasing use of telehealth Camera technology vs wearable devices in aged care The best way to convince patients that their privacy is protected A case study where the implementation of AI has made a significant impact in improving medication safety The main barriers that healthcare organisations might face when adopting AI and advanced technologies  His advice for healthcare organisations or professionals looking to incorporate AI and technology If you are a healthcare professional looking to incorporate AI and technology into your organisation, this is the episode you do not want to miss. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/analyticsshow/message

Alison Myrden began her career as a Corrections Officer in 1988 after working with the Children's Aid Society. In addition to her website, you can find Alison at the following social media:  Twitter  -- LinkedIn -- Facebook -- During her career, Alison worked at troubled youth facilities around Southern Ontario and eventually solidified her niche with Young Offender cases in early 1989 at Community Resource Services. During her career, Alison was responsible for various duties including attending court, facility shifts and as court liaison for Cassatta Youth Custodial Facilities. One of her most challenging assignments included working with Psychiatric Young Offenders at a Secure Custody Facility. While working in the Youth Court Justice system, Alison noticed many Young Offenders were in trouble with the law for simple experimentation with illicit drugs. This seemed very wrong to her. Alison felt it would be better to educate these young people about drugs instead of punishing them. It seemed to her that our youth were being criminalized for no good reason. Around the same time, Alison was diagnosed with chronic progressive Multiple Sclerosis. She began experiencing Tic Doloureux (bilateral trigeminal neuralgia), an excruciating facial pain associated with MS. Soon after retiring in 1992, she was introduced to medicinal cannabis. She found immediate relief with cannabis without the harmful side effects of the other, more addictive medications. It was then that Alison became an activist for drug law reform. In 1995, Alison was prescribed cannabis for pain relief after her legal, doctor-supervised cocaine and heroin therapy, along with other prescription medications that proved to be insufficient. In 2000, Alison received a s.56 exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to possess and grow cannabis for medical purposes, but was frustrated at not having her own high-quality, cost-effective supply. In 2004, Alison began working with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), which was renamed Law Enforcement Action Partnership, where she was the first female speaker in Canada to represent LEAP U.S. until 2016, when she branched out on her own. For over 35 years, in over 1,000 interviews, Alison described the "War on Drugs" as a "War on People", calling for its end.  While cannabis was legalized in Canada in 2018, Alison believes the government has not supported those people who need high quality doses of cannabis products at reasonable prices for medical purposes. In 2017, Alison became the first Authorized Pain Patient in the World for Medical Psilocybin for pain relief.  She applied to Health Canada in 2019 for an exemption from the CDSA to grow her own mushrooms with a daily dose of 50 g. Last month, Health Canada denied her request. Alison is now considering her next Thanks to Jeremy Benning, co-producer and sound editor.For more insightful conversations related to cannabis law, listen to our other episodes at https://cannabislaw.ca/pages/russell-bennett-podcast If you're looking for a good text book on Canada's federal cannabis law and regulations with helpful related case law, read Canada's Cannabis Act.And if you need a cannabis lawyer, ask Russell for more information at https://cannabislaw.ca

The appellant, George Zacharias, was convicted under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, for possession of 101.5 pounds of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking. The main issue at trial was whether Cst. MacPhail, who conducted a traffic stop of Mr. Zacharias' truck, had reasonable suspicion to enter into an investigative detention and deploy a sniffer dog. The trial judge found that the initial investigative detention and the sniffer dog search were unlawful and breached the ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights of Mr. Zacharias to be free from unreasonable search and arbitrary detention. Applying the test in R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, the trial judge then found that the first two factors did not strongly favour exclusion of the evidence and that the third one favoured inclusion. The evidence was therefore admitted. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Zacharias' appeal, declining to consider his arguments regarding the additional breaches that were neither included in his Charter notice nor argued at trial, as it would have been unfair for an appellate court to make findings of fact of new breach arguments. Further, the majority concluded that while the trial judge did not expressly include the s. 9 Charter breach in her consideration of the second stage of the Grant analysis, her failure to do so did not affect the result. In dissent, Khullar J.A. would have allowed Mr. Zacharias' appeal, excluded the drug evidence and other evidence seized, set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal. In her view, while there was no reviewable error at the first and third stage of the Grant test, the second Grant factor strongly favoured exclusion of the evidence. The trial judge only considered the exterior search of the vehicle by the sniffer dog, but there were several more Charter breaches. Balancing the three factors together, Khullar J.A. found that admitting the evidence would undermine the reputation of the criminal justice system in the eyes of a reasonable person informed of all the relevant circumstances. Argued Date 2023-05-15 Keywords Constitutional law - Canadian charter (Criminal), Arbitrary detention (s. 9), Search and seizure (s. 8), Enforcement (s. 24) - Constitutional Law — Charter of Rights — Arbitrary detention — Search and seizure — Enforcement — Exclusion of evidence — Whether the trial judge properly considered all the relevant Charter-infringing state conduct. Notes (Alberta) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Tania de Jong AM from Mind Medicine Australia joins the team this week for a further chat about psychedelic-assisted therapies following on from their episode on this topic last season. Tania was one of the key people who worked to change the TGA's (Therapeutic Goods Administration) mind, with the recent historic rescheduling process part led by Mind Medicine, the not for profit company Tania co-founded with her husband and business partner Peter Hunt AM. During this chat Tania explains how she first came across these therapies and how they in fact helped her overcome generational trauma she suffered as the daughter and granddaughter of Holocaust survivors.. and why she is so passionate in this space. The ruling to reschedule these compounds from Schedule 9 Prohibited Substances to Schedule 8 Controlled Drugs is incredibly important for the future of psychedelic-assisted therapies - MDMA for treatment resistant PTSD and psilocybin for treatment resistant depression. This rescheduling is seen as a huge win for Australia as front runners in the legalisation of this movement. For more information you can contact Mind Medicine https://mindmedicineaustralia.org.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tania De Jong from Mind Medicine Australia joins Mason for another inspiring and informative conversation on the topic of psychedelic assisted therapies. In the time since Tania was last on the show, the TGA, Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration, made the monumental decision to reduce the scheduling of MDMA and psilocybin, two key allies in the successful treatment of drug resistant mental health conditions. The ruling to reschedule these compounds from Schedule 9 Prohibited Substances to Schedule 8 Controlled Drugs is incredibly important for the future of psychedelic assisted therapies, and although their immediate legal application is only indicated for a narrow index of specialised cases; MDMA for drug resistant PTSD and psilocybin for drug resistant depression, it's a huge win for Australia as the front runners in the legalisation of this movement.  Tania relays what these scheduling changes mean for the future of psychedelic assisted therapies, and introduces us to The Healthy Person's Trial, an exciting new research experiment for therapists operating out of The Australian National University in Canberra. Tania shares her personal story with psychedelic assisted therapies, and the experiential journey that lead to the creation of Mind Medicine, the not for profit company she founded with her husband and business partner Peter. Tania speaks with grace and humility, eloquently educating on what's happening on the ground with this movement. A penetrating and illuminating listen for all.  Tania & Mason Discuss: - Why the TGA's decision to schedule the therapeutic application of Psilocybin and MDMA is a big deal. - The future of psychedelic assisted therapy in Australia. - CPAT, Mind Medicine's Certificate in Psychedelic Assisted Therapies course. - The Australian National University's Healthy Person's Trial. - Connection as a key factor in healing from mental health conditions. - Tania's personal experience with psychedelic assisted therapies. - The Mind Medicine's origin story.   Resource guide Tania's WebsiteTania's TED TalkTania's MusicMind Medicine WebsiteMind Medicine Instagram Mind Medicine Facebook Mind Medicine YoutubeCreativity Australia   Mentioned in this episode  Driftwood The Musical Mind Medicine CPAT CourseTania's Heaven On Earth Album   Relevant Podcasts: Psychedelic Assisted Therapies & Mental Health with Tania de Jong (EP#124)   SuperFeast Online Education   Check Out The Transcript Below: https://www.superfeast.com.au/blogs/articles/the-future-of-psychedelic-assisted-therapies-with-tania-de-jong-ep-189  

Last Saturday RCMP in Port aux Basques conducted what they call a "planned traffic stop" and searched a vehicle just coming off the ferry. Inside they found 2.7 million - yes that's million - “unstamped cigarettes.” A couple from Colliers were arrested under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, as well as the Excise Act. RCMP Sergeant David Emberley is team leader with Federal Serious and Organized Crime.

Overcoming medication safety and operational efficiencies associated with controlled drugs in healthcare settings   At Modeus, James Gold handles C-level connections with clients, vendor partners, and jurisdictional health agencies in addition to leading the business development and account management teams. Modeus is one of Australia's largest healthcare software providers, servicing over 5,500 customers across multiple industries including pharmacy, veterinary, aged care, hospital, paramedic services, and medication warehousing & distribution. This episode is about the myriad of issues associated with traditional controlled drug administration and how they impact healthcare settings.    Check out the episode and full show notes here. To see the latest information, news, events and jobs on offer at Modeus, visit their Talking HealthTech Directory here.  Loving the show?  Leave us a review, and share it with someone who might get some value from it. Keen to take your healthtech to the next level? Become a THT+ Member for access to our online community forum, quarterly summits and more exclusive content.  For more information visit here.

Possessing small amounts of illicit drugs — including opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA — will be legal in B.C. beginning next year. Under an exemption to the federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, people will be able to hold up to 2.5 grams. Drug users and advocates say the exemption doesn't go far enough to curb an overdose epidemic in the country. Others have been critical of the plan, including Alberta Premier Jason Kenney who said in a statement on Tuesday that his government would be "monitoring the situation very closely." Our question this week: Should small amounts of drugs such as opioids or cocaine be decriminalized? How does the overdose problem in Canada affect you? Adrienne Rosen, whose daughter died of a drug overdose in 2018, on why she welcomes decriminalization of hard drugs; Gillian Kolla, a post-doctoral research fellow at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria, discusses what more needs to be done; Fiona Wilson, deputy chief of the Vancouver Police Department, on how police are preparing for the policy shift; and Carolyn Bennett, minister of mental health and addictions, discusses the government's decision to decriminalize hard drugs in B.C.

British Columbia is taking a critical step toward reducing the shame and fear associated with substance use as the federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health announced the granting of a three-year exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) to remove criminal penalties for people who possess a small amount of certain illicit substances for personal use.This exemption will be in effect from Jan. 31, 2023, to Jan. 31, 2026, throughout British Columbia. The Province will work with a broad range of partners to implement this policy change, including the federal government, health authorities, law enforcement, people with lived and living experience, Indigenous partners and community organizations to establish the public health and public safety indicators in order to monitor and evaluate the outcomes of this exemption in real time.“The shocking number of lives lost to the overdose crisis requires bold actions and significant policy change. I have thoroughly reviewed and carefully considered both the public health and public safety impacts of this request,” said Carolyn Bennett, federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health. “Eliminating criminal penalties for those carrying small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use will reduce stigma and harm and provide another tool for British Columbia to end the overdose crisis.”This exemption is not legalization. These substances remain illegal, but adults who have 2.5 grams or less of the certain illicit substances for personal use will no longer be arrested, charged or have their drugs seized. Instead, police will offer information on available health and social supports and will help with referrals when requested.“Substance use is a public health issue, not a criminal one,” said Sheila Malcolmson, B.C.'s Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. “By decriminalizing people who use drugs, we will break down the stigma that stops people from accessing life-saving support and services.”Over the past five years, British Columbia and the federal government have been building a continuum of care for mental health and substance use for people throughout the province and Canada. Increasing access to harm-reduction programs, such as safe consumption sites, safer supply and naloxone have been essential in saving lives. Implementing this exemption and reducing stigma around drug use is a vital part of the work toward decreasing barriers to this critical system of care."This exemption is a vital step to keeping people alive and help connect them with the health and social support they need,” said Dr. Bonnie Henry, B.C.'s provincial health officer. “By removing the fear and shame of drug use, we will be able to remove barriers that prevent people from accessing harm reduction services and treatment programs.”Together, the federal and provincial governments will work closely to evaluate and monitor the implementation of this exemption, to address any unintended consequences and to ensure that this exemption continues to be the right decision for the people of B.C.

Eris Nyx, co-founder of the Drug User Liberation Front(DULF) speaks about Health Canada’s recent rejection of the DULF’s application for a section 56 exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The exemption would have allowed DULF to legally operate a compassion club model in which they would test methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin for the […]

In 2016, the respondent Ms. Sharma, an Indigenous woman, pled guilty to importing two kilograms of cocaine, contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”). Ms. Sharma sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment, and challenged the constitutional validity of the two year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 6(3)(a.1) of the CDSA and of ss. 742.1(b) and 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code, which make conditional sentences unavailable in certain situations. The sentencing judge found that the two year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 6(3)(a.1) of the CDSA violated s. 12 of the Charter and could not be saved under s. 1. The judge therefore declined to address the constitutional challenge to s. 742.1(b), and he dismissed the s. 15 challenge to s. 742.1(c). Ms. Sharma was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, less one month for pre sentence custody and other factors. Ms. Sharma appealed and, with the Crown's consent, also brought a constitutional challenge to s. 742.1(e)(ii) of the Criminal Code. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Sections 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii) were found to infringe both ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter, and the infringement could not be justified under s. 1. The majority held that the appropriate sentence would have been a conditional sentence of 24 months less one day, but as the custodial sentence had already been completed, a sentence of time served was substituted. Miller J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence of imprisonment. Argued Date 2022-03-23 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Right to life, liberty and security of person, Right to equality, Discrimination based on race, Criminal law, Sentencing - Charter of rights — Right to life, liberty and security of the person — Right to equality — Discrimination based on race — Criminal law — Sentencing — Whether ss. 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii) of the Criminal Code infringe the right to equality of Indigenous offenders under s. 15 of the Charter — Whether the introduction of conditional sentences in the 1996 amendments to the Criminal Code created a “benefit” for Indigenous offenders from which Parliament cannot derogate without violating s. 15 of the Charter — Whether limiting the availability of conditional sentences for serious offences as defined by their maximum penalty is overbroad in violation of s. 7 of the Charter — Whether any breach of ss. 7 or 15 can be justified under s. 1 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, ss. 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii). Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Our host, Shannon Reid, sits down (digitally) with Russell Bennett, expert cannabis lawyer, author, and fellow podcast host, to discuss the implications of legalization, the racist history of prohibition, and what it means to be a cannabis lawyer.  Russell's petition can be found for those interested in supporting expungements to Canadian citizens convicted of offences involving cannabis, pursuant to Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-3752.   Russell's podcast, Cannabis Law in Canada, can be found wherever you listen to your podcasts.

The respondent, Marc-André Boulanger, faced four charges laid under, among other things, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Court of Québec granted the respondent's motion for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and entered a stay of proceedings on the four charges. The trial judge found a net delay of 32 months and 10 days, which was therefore above the presumptive ceiling of 30 months. The majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecution's appeal from the Court of Québec's decision. Although the majority's analysis differed from that of the trial judge with regard to the delay related to the unavailability of the respondent's lawyer, the majority was of the view that the trial judge had correctly stayed the proceedings and agreed with the judge's overall assessment of the main cause of the delay in the progress of this case: the absence of a carefully crafted prosecution plan. Chamberland J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Québec's decision, dismissed the respondent's motion for a stay of proceedings, and referred the case back to the same judge for a decision on the outcome of the trial. In his view, 84 days had to be added to the defence delay, resulting in a net delay below the applicable 30 month ceiling. Argued Date 2022-02-09 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Right to be tried within a reasonable time (s. 11(b)), Criminal law - Charter of Rights - Right to be tried within a reasonable time - Criminal law - Whether majority erred in law in refusing to subtract 84 day delay for which respondent admitted being responsible and which was attributable to his conduct - Whether majority erred in law in interfering with trial judge's decision to attribute to respondent 112-day delay caused by fact that his lawyer was unavailable, even though that finding was within judge's discretion. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Toronto's medical officer of health Dr. Eileen de Villa joins Nam Kiwanuka to discuss the Toronto Board of Health's decision to ask the federal government for an exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and why this might help efforts to combat the opioid overdose crisis. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:The previous Conservative federal government added numerous mandatory minimum jail sentences to the Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. While they have failed to deter crime, they have contributed to the disproportionate number of indigenous and Black Canadians in jail.Indigenous Canadians represent approximately 5 percent of the population but are 30 percent of federal prisoners. This is double the percentage from twenty years ago. Black Canadians represent 3 percent of the population but are 7.2 percent of federal prisoners. Recently introduced Bill C-22 will eliminate 14 of 64 mandatory minimum sentences for everything from possessing tobacco without excise tax stamps, to various firearms and drug offences. Since the mandatory minimum sentences were introduced, many of them have been struck down as being unconstitutional because they resulted in sentences that were found to be “grossly disproportionate”.Almost nobody knows what the patchwork of mandatory minimum sentences are, or when they would apply, making them completely ineffective at deterring crime. Criminal Codes have had to add charts that run on for hundreds of pages to clarify what sentences apply to various offences. Not many people are consulting the charts before deciding if they will attempt to get away without the required stamp on their tobacco products. Also on the show, a Notice of Civil Claim commencing a lawsuit against four former Esquimalt Police Officers is discussed.The claim is being brought by a woman who, in 1988, was recruited to be a police informant while she was in Grade 9 at Esquimalt High School. She alleges that she was subjected to a range of abuse by the police officers including numerous sexual assaults. She further alleges that the police officers directed her to engage in activity including making false reports to Crime Stoppers. The Notice of Civil claim indicates that a 1995 investigation by the Victoria Police Department concluded that the woman was an honest and reliable individual and that many of her allegations were corroborated by other witnesses and or supporting records. It indicates that the woman suffered overwhelming emotional and psychological terror and was unable to complete her testimony at a resulting inquiry. While the allegations in the Notice of Civil claim have not been proven in court, they raise significant public policy questions including the appropriateness of permitting minors to be paid police informants given their vulnerability to abuse. If police officers were utilizing a paid informant to make false reports to Crime Stoppers, this is also of serious concern. Anonymous Crime Stoppers reports can serve as the basis for search warrants being issued, and police investigations to be undertaken. People making anonymous reports can also be paid. The system is clearly susceptible to abuse of the kind alleged. As discussed on the show, one of the former police officers accused of wrongdoing has been the subject of judicial criticism for the reliability of his evidence in court. Finally, differences between the Canadian and US jury systems are discussed in the context of a recently overturned murder conviction in Washington state. In the US, unlike in Canada, jurors are both permitted to discuss what occurred during deliberations and are subject to routine questioning before being allowed to serve on a jury. Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

The appellant was charged with offences related to the possession of a handgun, possession of fentanyl, and breach of an undertaking. He had been involved in a single-vehicle collision, and an intervening police officer observed a small bag containing a single yellow pill in his car. The officer identified the pill as gabapentin, a substance which he erroneously believed to be a controlled substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, and placed the appellant under arrest for possession of a controlled substance. Further searches of the appellant and his vehicle yielded fentanyl and a loaded firearm. At trial, the appellant sought exclusion of the evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter on the basis that he had been arrested for a non-existent offence, resulting in a violation of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights. The trial judge concluded that the arrest and subsequent searches were lawful, and dismissed the application. A majority of the Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that while the officer had been mistaken in his belief that gabapentin is a controlled substance, he had not been enforcing a non-existing law, and his belief that the appellant had been committing an offence was both subjectively and objectively reasonable. In dissent, Veldhuis J.A. would have allowed the appeal, excluded the evidence, and entered acquittals on all counts. Keywords Criminal law - Constitutional law, Canadian charter (Criminal) - Criminal law - Constitutional law - Charter of Rights - Right to not be arbitrarily detained - Right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure - Reasonable and probable grounds for arrest - Non-existent offence - Whether the police officer's mistake of law rendered the appellant's arrest unlawful and therefore arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter - If so, whether the subsequent searches of the appellant were authorized by law under s. 8 of the Charter - If the searches were not authorized by law, whether the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter - Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 9, 24(2). Notes (Alberta) (Criminal) (As of Right) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The appellant was charged with offences related to the possession of a handgun, possession of fentanyl, and breach of an undertaking. He had been involved in a single-vehicle collision. An intervening police officer observed a small Ziploc bag containing a single yellow pill in his car. The officer believed the pill to be Gabapentin. The officer erroneously believed Gabapentin to be a controlled substance under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and placed the appellant under arrest for possession of a controlled substance. Further searches of the appellant and his vehicle yielded fentanyl and a loaded firearm. At trial, the appellant sought exclusion of the evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter on the basis that he had been arrested for a non-existent offence, resulting in a violation of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.The trial judge concluded that the arrest and subsequent searches were lawful, and dismissed the application.A majority of the Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissed the appellant's appeal. The officer had been mistaken in his belief that Gabapentin is a controlled substance, however that mistaken belief was reasonable and it did not invalidate the appellant's arrest. As the appellant's arrest was lawful, the searches incidental to arrest were also lawful. In dissent, Veldhuis J.A. would have allowed the appeal, excluded the evidence, and entered acquittals on all counts.

Vancouver's Mayor Kennedy Stewart joins Nate to discuss the city's proposal to decriminalize all drugs for personal use, and solutions to deliver affordable housing. Canada faces an opioid crisis that continues to kill thousands, and a housing affordability crisis that is leaving a younger generation of Canadians worse off than their parents. Both of these issues are particularly acute in Vancouver. In response to the opioid crisis, the city has applied for a federal exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize all drugs, and has increased funding for safer supply and peer support. In response to the housing crisis, it has moved towards more inclusive zoning, and it is working with the federal government to deliver rapid housing and to build affordable rental units. Before his mayoral run in 2018, Stewart served as an NDP MP in our House of Commons starting in 2011. He and Nate were colleagues from 2015 to 2018.

Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and MLA in Nanaimo

This week we catch you up on the Royal Family and Prince Philip, full MLB stadiums, Volcano eruptions, and quality control drug tests... Ep. 27 -- Watch live at https://www.twitch.tv/polarmedia

Controlled drugs have their own prescription requirements, their own private prescriptions, their own requisition requirements and so much more. It can be a bit confusing to try and remember all of this, so in this week's episode,  we go through the salient bits of the controlled drugs section in the MEP, with a few stories from my personal experiences. Remember to follow us on Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and join our Telegram group!

The Green Organic Dutchman (TSX: TGOD) (OTC: TGODF) is a research & development company licensed under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (“ACMPR”) to cultivate medical cannabis. The Company carries out its principal activities producing cannabis from its facilities in Ancaster, Ont., pursuant to the provisions of the ACMPR and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) and its regulations. The Company grows high quality, organic cannabis with sustainable, all-natural principles. TGOD's products are laboratory tested to ensure patients have access to a standardized, safe and consistent product. TGOD has a funded capacity of 170,000 kg and is building 1,382,000 sq. ft. of cultivation facilities in Ontario, Quebec and Jamaica. The Company has developed a strategic partnership with Aurora Cannabis Inc. (TSX: ACB) whereby Aurora has invested approximately C$78.1 million for an approximate 17.5% stake in TGOD. In addition, the Company has raised approximately C$350 million and has over 20,000 shareholders. TGOD's Common Shares and warrants issued under the indenture dated November 1, 2017 trade on the TSX under the symbol “TGOD” and “TGOD.WT”, respectively.