Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
48 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
History of Drug Legislation Chinese Immigration Act - what did it do - why was it put in place |
Chinese Immigration Act 1885
|
|
|
How did Mackenzie king discover the opium industry in BC? |
Was investigating the destruction done by the 1907 riots |
|
|
What was Mackenzie King's focus when in regards to opium? - what did he view opium as? ... exposed what? |
Focused on opium's social and MORAL impact (did not focus on physiological impact) - viewed opium as a POISON that destroyed the inhibitions of good CHRISTIAN upbringing - Exposed man's TENDENCY FOR DEPRAVITY |
|
|
When was the Opium Act passed? historians view it based on concerns of _______ & _______ factors NOT based on ______________ Criminalizing opiate usage see as a form of ______ control targeting West Coast Chinese community |
1908 historians view it based on concerns of RACIAL & ECONOMIC factors NOT based on HEALTH CONCERN |
|
|
Criminalizing opiate usage see as a form of ______ control targeting West Coast Chinese community - why did people support the anti-opium movement |
FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL - people supported anti-opium movement as it targeted Chinese, didn't target Caucasian users dependant on opium products from Caucasian pharmaceutical industry |
|
|
What was the decision top criminally prohibit non-medical opiate based on? not based on? |
REDEFINITION of its MORAL IMPACT by a view of a small number of MORAL REFORMERS - was NOT DUE TO ADDICTIVE PROPERTIES |
|
|
The Black Candle 1922 Emily Murphy - what did she claim - led readers to believe that ... |
Claimed: Rampant drug use in sectors of Canada, linked to crime, moral turpitude and spiritual depravity Led Readers to Believe: ASIAN & BLACK were vile and corrupt addicts that spread addiction among innocent white people |
|
|
What was passed in 1923? - what did it add to the prohibited substances list - what was the provision added? |
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act
|
|
|
Between 1930 and 1950 what did the Canadian government do about drugs ?
|
Expanded
|
|
|
What was imposed in 1961? FDA |
Food & Drug Act Narcotics Control Act
|
|
|
Why was there little opposition to more punitive laws for drug offences? |
Drug users were seen as:
|
|
|
In the 1960s opposition the drug penalties increased, why? - % of drug offences were... - criticisms |
Because of increased use of cannabis and hallucinogens in the middle class
|
|
|
What was the Dain Commission |
Royal Commission of Inquiry into non-medical use drugs |
|
|
What did the Dain Commission reports recommend? based on what action to be taken? - did gov use recos |
Recommended a HARM REDUCTION STRATEGY based on the gradual WITHDRAWAL OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS for drug usage Gov ignored the recos Saw importance in: Education, Treatment & Rehabilitation in combatting drug usage Did not agree with need for Law Reform and Role of Legal Sanctions to combat drug usage |
|
|
In 1969, CAN gov gave prosecutors the option of proceeding with a __________ ___________ in ______ cases. called a "____- only" sentencing option. |
prosecutors the option of proceeding with a SUMMARY CONVICTION in POSSESSION cases. "FINE-only" sentencing |
|
|
In 1972, amendment allowed judges to impose ____ or _____ discharge. - what did this mean? |
ABSOLUTE or CONDITIONAL discharges - New to Criminal Code, a finding of guilt WITHOUT A CONVICTION being REGISTERED |
|
|
What is the History of Drug Legislation in Canada described as |
History of
--> used as mechanism for social control |
|
|
In 1997, Narcotics Control Act and Food & Drug Act was replaced by |
Controlled Drug & Substances Act |
|
|
Controlled Drug & Substances Act (CDSA) - outlines ... |
Prohibited drugs and penalties for possession, manufacturing, import/export and trafficking |
|
|
Criminal Code provisions related to drugs |
Conspiracy Organized Crime "anti-gang" Provisions Proceeds of crime/ money laundering laws |
|
|
What are the diff drug schedules? |
Schedule I : Heroine & Cocaine Schedule II: Cannabis & derivatives Schedule III: Amphetamines and LSD Schedule IV: Barbiturates and Anabolic Steroids |
|
|
Possession of a controlled substances is an indictable offence, what are the max sentences for each schedule? |
Sentencing for Possession: Indictable Offence (MAX sentence) Schedule I : 7 years Schedule II: 5 years Schedule III: 3 years Schedule IV: 18 months |
|
|
Sentencing for Trafficking, Manufacturing, Exporting/Importing: |
Sentencing for Trafficking, Manufacturing, Exporting/Importing: Schedule I : Life Schedule II: Life Schedule III: 10 years Schedule IV: 3 years |
|
|
CDSA Section 10 - what is purpose of any sentence |
to add to RESPECT OF LAW & MAINTENANCE of JUST, PEACEFUL, SAFE SOCIETY while encouraging REHAB & TREATMENT of offenders and having them acknowledge harm done to community |
|
|
Offences under the CDSA |
|
|
|
Possession - where is it defined - defined as |
Possession - Criminal Code Section 4 (3) Defined: Person has anything in possession either personal, constructive or knowingly
--> 1 + persons all have knowledge & consent to possession, all deemed to be in custody of item |
|
|
To establish POSSESSION what must Crown prove? |
Must prove accused had GUILTY STATE OF MIND (mens rea), thus had KNOWLEDGE of SUBSTANCE & its NATURE - accused DO NOT need to know exact nature of drug, just that it is or is believed to be prohibited - or that they were willfully blind (keeping unaware of facts) to it being such a drug |
|
|
How is mens rea proved for Possession? - need to prove GUILTY STATE OF MIND |
Usually through:
|
|
|
Double -Doctoring CDSA Section 4.2 - what is it - sentencing |
To seek to obtain controlled substances from a doctor without disclosing acquisition/ circumstances of obtaining controlled substances from another doctor within preceeding 30 days --> PRESCRIPTION SHOPPING (I= 7Y, II= 5Y, III= 3Y, IV= 18 months) |
|
|
Possession for Purpose of Trafficking/ Trafficking CDSA Section 5 - what does it state |
1) No person shall traffic a Schedule I,II,III,IV controlled substance (or a sub believed to be a controlled substance) 2) No person shall posses a Schedule I,II,III,IV substance for the purpose of trafficking |
|
|
Charge of Possession for Purpose of Trafficking consists of what two offences? |
1) Possession 2) Intention to Traffic |
|
|
Does trafficking need to occur or be proven that it occurred by the Crown? |
No, Crown needs only to prove intent to traffic Use circumstantial evidence - amount and value of drug seized - baggies and scales - debt lists - associating with known traffickers/users |
|
|
Charge of Importing/ Exporting CDSA Section 6.1 - sentencing |
Punishable by: Schedule I & II = Life Schedule III & IV = 10 Years Schedule V & VI = 3 years |
|
|
Debate on regulating Psychoactive and Habit-forming substances falls into to POLAR EXTREMES, what are they |
Conservative = PROHIBITIONIST Liberal = SWEEPING LEGISLATION |
|
|
Prohibitions support what in terms of regulating controlled substances? |
Many want greater resources given to police and HARSHER PENALTIES for drug related offences |
|
|
Liberal View - argue what about prohibitionist policies - what do they want |
That prohibitionist policies DO MORE HARM than good - largely to blame for disease and violent crime surrounding drug usage Want drug laws reformed and replaced with similar system used in society for alcohol, tobacco and Rx drugs |
|
|
PROHIBITIONIST MODEL - Argument against Legalization Moral & Practical Reasons? |
Moral Reasons:
Practical Reason: Argue liberalization of drug laws leads to increase in drug users and addicts --> leads to increase in drug-related crime, family conflict, Social & Health problems |
|
|
Prohibitionist Prospective - prohibitionism symbolic for - views on enforcement to help the problem |
Prohibitionism - symbolically condemns drug usage as immoral and harmful and therefore makes drugs less accessible and deters many from using Admit Law Enforcement CANNOT ELIMINATE illicit drugs but they can SUPPRESS problem
|
|
|
Prohibitionist argue that if drugs were legalized NUMBER OF DRUG USERS WOULD INCREASE, why is this? |
|
|
|
Liberal Approach - how do they view drug use |
Drug use and addiction is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE & PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE rather than a crime! |
|
|
LIBERALIZATION MODEL - Arguments for Legalization acknowledge what in their argument? |
Acknowledge that it is paradoxical to argue we can decrease drug use relate problems by legalizing drug use |
|
|
LIBERALIZATION MODEL overview |
LES MORALISTIC
Ex. Education, Treatment |
|
|
LIBERALIZATION MODEL what do advocate argue about the prohibitionist model? |
Argue there are complex and unintended costs of prohibition policies:
WHICH GROSSLY OUTWEIGH SOCIETAL BENEFITS of PROHIBITING DRUG USE |
|
|
LM Advocates argue what in respect to prohibition dealing with trafficking? - vicious cycle? - what is the real issue with drug use |
Law enforcement efforts are doomed as they pursue traffickers, drugs are too profitable therefore one dealer will replace another that is imprisoned - law enforcement can only keep lid on the drug but real issue is DEMAND (drugs = pleasure, high demand, high profits, ppl willing to traffic despite vigilant law enforcement and harsh penalties) |
|
|
LM Argue what in respect to the criminal justice system? |
Jails full of drug users whose behaviour no more threatening than alcohol drinkers - People leaving jail more harmed and dangerous than when they went in Engenders disrespect for law and justice system |
|
|
LM Advocates argue what in respect to prohibitionist policies? |
THEY ARE RACIAL AND DIVISIVE - suspicion that drug enforcement is a white oppression instrument Damage of policies occurs mainly to poor people of minority status in rich countries Ex. Blacks = 12% population = 2/3 prison admissions for drug offences Ex Hispanics = 10% population = 25% prison admissions for drug offences |
|
|
LM Advocates argue what in respect to economic factors of drug control? - cost - potential revenue |
Drug control costs the US $30-35 Billion a year - argued it could be better spent on Education, Employment and Treatment programs Huge loss in potential government revenue as it's not taxed like gambling, alcohol or tobacco |
|
|
HARM REDUCTION MODEL |
--> HUMANITARIAN & THERAPEUTIC APPROACH Focus on reducing: - health problems - violence - harsh legal penalties used to punish drug users - want t o shift resources away from enforcement to prevention, education and treatment (support methadone clinics, needle exchanges, RX heroine) |
