[tracesoflight]

I am currently studying law and I have a specific question about a specific case I am working on. I googled my key words and couldn't find it anywhere so I might ask here.
(no technical words from hereon)
ISomeone knowingly has had co-codamol shipped into Canada (variants such as Tylenol 1,2,3,4, or Panadol or Panadeine), which implies (in my opinion) trafficking. However, if the receiver claims to be using it for personal use only. What does the government do in relation to the criminal code? Can he be charged for possessing co-codamol (hereon known as co-)? I've also read up on cases where a defendant can plead with a defence of innocent use. However my understanding on those cases are that the defendant had a prescription. In this certain scenerio, the receiver has no prescription thus from my understanding breaking this "innocent use". However, the defendant in this case claims that the defendant is only importing very little (as in 30 or 60 tablets) and that the defendant claims it is for personal use (as it to relieve his pain). According to the defendant, regular OTC medication (with the inclusion of Tylenol 1) does not help the defendant. I took this case knowingly because I have taken Tylenol 2 before so I understand what the defendant "logic" is behind. However I don't agree with his "logic" in that he should not have to utilise importing thses specific goods.

For those who don't like to read, here is the question:
Is it legal to have co-codamol (such as Tylenol, Panadol, or Panadeine) shipped to Canada FOR PERSONAL USE only?
Please explain your answers and if possible or possibly cite references (please try to keep them relevant [as in don't cite wikipedia or an encyclopedia])

I'd greatly appreciate this. I'd take any help whether expert or not however I will only use the cited answers for the case. Thank you once again

Edit: I'm new here so Hi everyone!

Edit: I'm not sure why the defendant chose to import co-codamol please do not ask me since the defendant has not said anything to help why he chose to do so.

[JudyKayTee]

[QUOTE] Please explain your answers and if possible or possibly cite references (please try to keep them relevant [as in don't cite wikipedia or an encyclopedia])... I will only use the cited answers for the case. Thank you once again[QUOTE]




If you read the stickies you will see "we" don't do homework - and, no, I don't think anyone is actually going to walk on over to the Law Library and look up specific cases and cites for you.

If you would like to post YOUR conclusions and your basis for those conclusions someone will come along and agree or disagree with you -

Are you in Law School (I would guess) and having trouble with legal research? Do you subscribe to any of the on-line case law sites?

[tracesoflight]

[QUOTE=JudyKayTee][QUOTE] Please explain your answers and if possible or possibly cite references (please try to keep them relevant [as in don't cite wikipedia or an encyclopedia])... I will only use the cited answers for the case. Thank you once again

If you read the stickies you will see "we" don't do homework - and, no, I don't think anyone is actually going to walk on over to the Law Library and look up specific cases and cites for you.

If you would like to post YOUR conclusions and your basis for those conclusions someone will come along and agree or disagree with you -

Are you in Law School (I would guess) and having trouble with legal research? Do you subscribe to any of the on-line case law sites?

I understand where you're coming from but all I'm asking is that if you can cite sources then yes do so but if you can't no problem at all