Uncategorized

PDF Loi sur la Copie privée : inconstitutionnelle ou gestion illégale ? (Opinions) (French Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Loi sur la Copie privée : inconstitutionnelle ou gestion illégale ? (Opinions) (French Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Loi sur la Copie privée : inconstitutionnelle ou gestion illégale ? (Opinions) (French Edition) book. Happy reading Loi sur la Copie privée : inconstitutionnelle ou gestion illégale ? (Opinions) (French Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Loi sur la Copie privée : inconstitutionnelle ou gestion illégale ? (Opinions) (French Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Loi sur la Copie privée : inconstitutionnelle ou gestion illégale ? (Opinions) (French Edition) Pocket Guide.

Les vedettes de la prohibition du cannabis – Drogues, santé et société – Érudit

The present article aims, on the first part, to identify the stated justifications that make the imposition of pain acceptable to criminal law and, on the second part, to examine the protests that generate the penal standards relative to cannabis. The examination of the justifications and of the protests concerning the prohibition of cannabis reveal two prominent stars: the deviant and the victim. These stars show up under different aspects. The typical aspects of the victim that give life to the protests as well as to the justifications are: the body, liberty and society.

Rapport de l’examen indépendant des contrôles de routine 2018

The analysis of how these two stars are built and of the roles for which the red carpet is laid before them gives some insight into the cultural products of the prohibitionist regime, in particular how it may be justified by some of its effects that are seen as causes. Mais est-ce que son application engendre un objet, un illicite identique dans tous les cas? Quelles sont les contestations? Mais pourquoi punir?

Jones, Malmo-Levine et al. Parker, , s. Clay , , s. In conclusion, the deprivation of the appellants' liberty caused by the presence of penal provisions in the NCA [Narcotic Control Act] is in accordance with the harm principle.


  1. Time Management;
  2. abepivurev.tk: prive white.
  3. Cultural Heritage and International Law.

I agree that the evidence shows that the risk posed by marihuana is not large. Yet, it need not be large in order for Parliament to act. It is for Parliament to determine what level of risk is acceptable and what level of risk requires action. The Charter only demands that a "reasoned apprehension of harm" that is not significant or trivial. The appellants have not convinced me that such harm is absent in this case. In the end, I have decided that such matters are best left to Parliament.

The LeDain Commission recommended the decriminalization of marihuana possession nearly thirty years ago based on similar arguments raised by the appellants in this case. Parliament has chosen not to act since then, although there are moves afoot to make exceptions for the medical use of marihuana in wake of recent decisions.

English-French Dictionary

Nevertheless, I do not feel it is the role of this Court to strike down the prohibition on the non-medical use of marihuana possession at this time. La prohibition est inefficace.

La copie privée en images

La mise en force du droit est discriminatoire. La souffrance induite par la mise en force du droit est disproportionnelle par rapport aux infractions. La contestation prend ici deux formes principales, que je ne ferai que nommer. Le dangereux. In conclusion, the deprivation of the appellants' liberty caused by the presence of penal provisions in the NCA [Narcotic Control Act] is in accordance with the harm principle.

I agree that the evidence shows that the risk posed by marihuana is not large. Yet, it need not be large in order for Parliament to act. It is for Parliament to determine what level of risk is acceptable and what level of risk requires action. The Charter only demands that a "reasoned apprehension of harm" that is not significant or trivial. The appellants have not convinced me that such harm is absent in this case.

Recherche avancée dans la section Travaux parlementaires

In the end, I have decided that such matters are best left to Parliament. The LeDain Commission recommended the decriminalization of marihuana possession nearly thirty years ago based on similar arguments raised by the appellants in this case. Parliament has chosen not to act since then, although there are moves afoot to make exceptions for the medical use of marihuana in wake of recent decisions.

Nevertheless, I do not feel it is the role of this Court to strike down the prohibition on the non-medical use of marihuana possession at this time.

Menu principal

La prohibition est inefficace. La mise en force du droit est discriminatoire. La souffrance induite par la mise en force du droit est disproportionnelle par rapport aux infractions. La contestation prend ici deux formes principales, que je ne ferai que nommer. Le dangereux. Le fou.

Documents :

Le junkie en devenir. Le fumeur. Le corps comme victime. La prohibition est une injustice. Autres substances.

The file following this contained several carbon copies of the draft. Toutefois, en Saskatchewan R. Hadwen et en Colombie-Britannique R. When I asked what for, she replied that she wanted to buy some pot. I politely declined and continued home. On driving home I thought: by legalizing pot, our government is encouraging our young people to smoke pot unaware of the consequences.