|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
They're doing what? | by Jaz | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
okay.. some problems with this artical | by pseudonym | 2005-03-15 13:42:56 |
|
It's completely true | by farfalla | 2005-03-15 14:05:34 |
| None of that matters |
by pseudonym |
2005-03-15 14:17:07 |
The problem is this isn't just providing a safe site for people to do an illegal act. This would make the centre and the program directly involved in the distrubution of banned narcotics. This goes against the Narcotics control act. BC as a provice doesn't have the power to contravine that act. ONLY the Canadian parliment can change Canadian law, period. What has been missing from all of this is comments from those who would acctually be responcible for changing the laws. And as our justice minister is against even the decrimilization of pot (dispite her party's stance) I doubt she would approve such a change in law.
Four Pillars or no.. it doesn't mater when it comes to law. The safe sites are different because noone there is at any time in posession of narcotics. None of the staff ever commit a crime, and because of freedom of association the centres can funtion as designed.
What I am saying here is this is FAR more complex of an issue that Fox has made it seem. IF this is EVER implemented it is a LONG way away and there just isn't the polictical will in the places needed for the laws that need to change to change.
Lastly, you may be thinking of the non-withstanding clause as a way for BC to contrivine the NCA. The not-withstanding clause only refers to constutional laws and changes, and can't be invoked for criminal laws. That, for instance, is why Alberta is still subject to the Gun Registry. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
