Originally Posted by
ManInTheBox
Been a while since I've been here, life's tough n' everything.
Anyways, as to the question of how much constitutes as posession for purposes of trafficking, the answer is that it is a question of law. What that means in legal termonology, is that such a question would have to be brought to court and answered on a case-by-case basis. Thus, there is no set definition either in codified statute law, case law or common law. Theoretically possession of a 1mg pill could be considered enough for trafficking, though I assure you no court would convict based on this.
Though, the focus of a trafficking charge is to show before the court that there was reasonable grounds to believe the individual intended to traffick the substance or that there was prima facie evidence of trafficking (caught them in the act.)
As far as the link provided by MP is concerned, the article deals not with a violation of law per se, but employment standards set out in the Police Services Act. He will not see criminal charges (well, the stalking would apply) though he would in all probability be fired, or if the PRP is nice enough, offer him the opportunity to resign.
And to add my affirmation(as I've done so before) use of Anabolic Steroids is not an offence. Any officer that states otherwise would be suggested to brush up on his knowledge of the Controlled Drugs and Substances act. However, an interesting thing to note that previously (to my knowledge) Anabolic Steroids were once classified as Schedule III substances prior to the current iteration of the CDSA.
Ironically, it would seem that politicians actually somewhat acknowledge that AS are not as dangerous as certain backward-politicians of our southern neighbours would lead people to believe.
