If your little one chooses drugs in 15 years be ready for the fall of your life.
I stopped myself when my first reaction to that was, “Of course she'll never choose drugs....I'd never let her.” I'm sure that's what every mother thinks until they are faced with a brutally different reality.
I've already lost one daughter and I don't think I could make it through a second time—especially under those circumstances.
I'm pretty set on my opinions on most of the big debatable topics—abortion, capital punishment, marijuana, euthanasia etc, etc. But I have to say I'm really up in the air on this one. I read one person's comment and think “oh yes, then we should make them legal, it will help.” Then the next comment by you makes me think, “are we crazy, why would we legalize something that destructive?”
Interesting, although heartbreaking, thread...
I am sorry, my heart goes out to you ... to lose a child the greatest injustice
Thanks... it was a number of years ago, but just like any parent who's lost a baby or child, I'm aware of where she would be in this point in her life—my daughter would have been starting kindergarten in the fall. You know, so I think those kinds of thoughts make anyone who's lost a child to addiction even more passionate about their stance. I can understand that, perhaps only to a certain degree, but I know a mother's heartache and how you would want to fight what took your child.
As with any topic on AMT, I think it's important to consider where people are coming from and what has brought them to their conclusions, sometimes beyond the hard facts and stats.
if the government thinks it should be able to take away the right of a person to choose how they treat their bodies, maybe they should:
-make fast food illegal
-put into law how many portions of veggies and fruit you eat per day, punishible by steamed liver
-have supervised police visits where they watch you on the treadmill for 30 minutes per day
-um, how about MAKE CIGARETTES ILLEGAL.
alcohol destroys. cigarettes kill. yet those are still legal, and promoted with loose girls in bikinis.
the only gateway is a person's personality/mental state.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
if the government thinks it should be able to take away the right of a person to choose how they treat their bodies, maybe they should:
-make fast food illegal
-put into law how many portions of veggies and fruit you eat per day, punishible by steamed liver
-have supervised police visits where they watch you on the treadmill for 30 minutes per day
-um, how about MAKE CIGARETTES ILLEGAL.
alcohol destroys. cigarettes kill. yet those are still legal, and promoted with loose girls in bikinis.
the only gateway is a person's personality/mental state.
if it was only what all they do to their own bodies that might different but drug addiction and the drug world they live in also steal hurt and kill so many people that have no addiction or any affiliation with the addict or the world the users and dealers live in, you can look in the news and find robberys and murders all the time by addicts trying to feed a habbit,I have been smoking for 20 years and never killed anybody for a pack of smokes and can't think of any non drug addict smoker who has, bottom line is that drugs affect whole communitys and towns killing innocent people every day.
if the government thinks it should be able to take away the right of a person to choose how they treat their bodies, maybe they should:
-make fast food illegal
-put into law how many portions of veggies and fruit you eat per day, punishible by steamed liver
-have supervised police visits where they watch you on the treadmill for 30 minutes per day
-um, how about MAKE CIGARETTES ILLEGAL.
alcohol destroys. cigarettes kill. yet those are still legal, and promoted with loose girls in bikinis.
the only gateway is a person's personality/mental state.
if it was only what all they do to their own bodies that might different but drug addiction and the drug world they live in also steal hurt and kill so many people that have no addiction or any affiliation with the addict or the world the users and dealers live in, you can look in the news and find robberys and murders all the time by addicts trying to feed a habbit,I have been smoking for 20 years and never killed anybody for a pack of smokes and can't think of any non drug addict smoker who has, bottom line is that drugs affect whole communitys and towns killing innocent people every day.
Godfather.
like a few have already said; making drugs legal will take away the black market with the violent cartels, gangs and killing ppl over drug turf. did prohibition of alcohol work in 1920? of course not. it produced gansters, bootlegers & turf wars to provide the alcohol the public wanted. since they made booze legal again in 1933 how many ppl have been robbed or murdered over the manufacture, sale & distrubution of alchohol? or cigarettes? when all ppl have to do is going to the store to purchase it
do alcoholics still exist...of course. still they're responsible for their actions ...toss em in jail if they drive drunk commit or a violent offense. it's up to them to get treatment, sure their needs to be more treatment centers for all substance abuse. why not build more instead of jails? then drug addicts at least have a chance of getting & staying clean.
because the war on drugs has proven a dismal failure perhaps it's time to end the prohibition of drugs and take away the criminal element...focus the billions in resources on providing treatment for addicts
if the government thinks it should be able to take away the right of a person to choose how they treat their bodies, maybe they should:
-make fast food illegal
-put into law how many portions of veggies and fruit you eat per day, punishible by steamed liver
-have supervised police visits where they watch you on the treadmill for 30 minutes per day
-um, how about MAKE CIGARETTES ILLEGAL.
alcohol destroys. cigarettes kill. yet those are still legal, and promoted with loose girls in bikinis.
the only gateway is a person's personality/mental state.
you speak of vices that affects one's health ... vices that are often enjoyed in a reasonable
even sensible way... vices that take decades near to a lifetime to cause death
we are talking killer drugs extremely addictive ...
drugs that take months to kill and are killing our CHILDREN! Destroying our FAMILIES!
can we use some common sense please and not compare vices to addiction
if the government thinks it should be able to take away the right of a person to choose how they treat their bodies, maybe they should:
-make fast food illegal
-put into law how many portions of veggies and fruit you eat per day, punishible by steamed liver
-have supervised police visits where they watch you on the treadmill for 30 minutes per day
-um, how about MAKE CIGARETTES ILLEGAL.
alcohol destroys. cigarettes kill. yet those are still legal, and promoted with loose girls in bikinis.
the only gateway is a person's personality/mental state.
you speak of vices that affects one's health ... vices that are often enjoyed in a reasonable
even sensible way... vices that take decades near to a lifetime to cause death
we are talking killer drugs extremely addictive ...
drugs that take months to kill and are killing our CHILDREN! Destroying our FAMILIES!
can we use some common sense please and not compare vices to addiction
:roll:
i've never known anyone that OD'd on illegal drugs. (sure it happens) however ive known a few that died from prescription drugs. 1 that got shot buying painkillers. 2 people that died from alcohol poisoning. a kid that played baseball with my son died as a teen from drinking COUGH SYRUP (robotripping) do you expect the government to ban robotussin?
yet there are plenty of ppl that use hard drugs (i don't touch them) recreationally and don't become addicted... still hold down jobs etc. then there are junkies that don't OD and go on using for many years cause their familes enable then to keep using.
how about using common sense when it comes to educating kids & adults with the facts on drugs? leave behind the ridiculous rheotic and overblown dramatic lies that the govenment has drilled into sheeple and open up to reality that will actually HELP ppl to avoid or treat an addicton? wether it's alcohol, tobacco, heroin, meth, presciption opiates or fucking over the counter cough syrup....ANY substance that can be abused to cause addiction or possible death....why do you think all those things fall under "substance abuse?"
next time you get a cold you better watch out....there are KILLER drugs in your medicine cabinet
if the government thinks it should be able to take away the right of a person to choose how they treat their bodies, maybe they should:
-make fast food illegal
-put into law how many portions of veggies and fruit you eat per day, punishible by steamed liver
-have supervised police visits where they watch you on the treadmill for 30 minutes per day
-um, how about MAKE CIGARETTES ILLEGAL.
alcohol destroys. cigarettes kill. yet those are still legal, and promoted with loose girls in bikinis.
the only gateway is a person's personality/mental state.
you speak of vices that affects one's health ... vices that are often enjoyed in a reasonable
even sensible way... vices that take decades near to a lifetime to cause death
we are talking killer drugs extremely addictive ...
drugs that take months to kill and are killing our CHILDREN! Destroying our FAMILIES!
can we use some common sense please and not compare vices to addiction
:roll:
i've never known anyone that OD'd on illegal drugs. (sure it happens) however ive known a few that died from prescription drugs. 1 that got shot buying painkillers. 2 people that died from alcohol poisoning. a kid that played baseball with my son died as a teen from drinking COUGH SYRUP (robotripping) do you expect the government to ban robotussin?
yet there are plenty of ppl that use hard drugs (i don't touch them) recreationally and don't become addicted... still hold down jobs etc. then there are junkies that don't OD and go on using for many years cause their familes enable then to keep using.
how about using common sense when it comes to educating kids & adults with the facts on drugs? leave behind the ridiculous rheotic and overblown dramatic lies that the govenment has drilled into sheeple and open up to reality that will actually HELP ppl to avoid or treat an addicton? wether it's alcohol, tobacco, heroin, meth, presciption opiates or fucking over the counter cough syrup....ANY substance that can be abused to cause addiction or possible death....why do you think all those things fall under "substance abuse?"
next time you get a cold you better watch out....there are KILLER drugs in your medicine cabinet
the rolling eyes very disrespectful ... would you do that to me if we were discussing this in person very telling indeed
actually cough syrup/ cold medicines are regulated now underage can not buy them amount you can purchase is regulated red flag for those manufacturing killer drugs
of course any substance can be abused but Crystal Meth is killing our children
and you can just dismiss that fact .. perhaps because it does not affect you
is this good common sense and being a caring citizen?
"maybe it happens"... wake up ... in fact perhaps hold a dying child
then tell me about it
our government does have a place to protect its citizens...
like when they ban a drug that has been tested and causes harm...
or a food is pulled from the shelves etc
or the regulating of cough syrup because it is used to make meth
or smoking bans, seat belt laws etc etc
Its time to get the Potheads and all drug users out of prisons
and make room for the life imprisonment without parole for those who traffic
and push killer drugs
Then its time to tax the heck out of legalized weed and create new funds to fight drug use
and give help to those who need it
People are not taking this seriously enough ... you an excellent example
people have to care about each other
by the way I take nothing when I have a cold headache flu etc ...
I believe in my own body's defenses
you speak of vices that affects one's health ... vices that are often enjoyed in a reasonable
even sensible way... vices that take decades near to a lifetime to cause death
we are talking killer drugs extremely addictive ...
drugs that take months to kill and are killing our CHILDREN! Destroying our FAMILIES!
can we use some common sense please and not compare vices to addiction
:roll:
i've never known anyone that OD'd on illegal drugs. (sure it happens) however ive known a few that died from prescription drugs. 1 that got shot buying painkillers. 2 people that died from alcohol poisoning. a kid that played baseball with my son died as a teen from drinking COUGH SYRUP (robotripping) do you expect the government to ban robotussin?
yet there are plenty of ppl that use hard drugs (i don't touch them) recreationally and don't become addicted... still hold down jobs etc. then there are junkies that don't OD and go on using for many years cause their familes enable then to keep using.
how about using common sense when it comes to educating kids & adults with the facts on drugs? leave behind the ridiculous rheotic and overblown dramatic lies that the govenment has drilled into sheeple and open up to reality that will actually HELP ppl to avoid or treat an addicton? wether it's alcohol, tobacco, heroin, meth, presciption opiates or fucking over the counter cough syrup....ANY substance that can be abused to cause addiction or possible death....why do you think all those things fall under "substance abuse?"
next time you get a cold you better watch out....there are KILLER drugs in your medicine cabinet
the rolling eyes very disrespectful ... would you do that to me if we were discussing this in person very telling indeed
actually cough syrup/ cold medicines are regulated now underage can not buy them amount you can purchase is regulated red flag for those manufacturing killer drugs
of course any substance can be abused but Crystal Meth is killing our children
and you can just dismiss that fact .. perhaps because it does not affect you
is this good common sense and being a caring citizen?
"maybe it happens"... wake up ... in fact perhaps hold a dying child
then tell me about it
our government does have a place to protect its citizens...
like when they ban a drug that has been tested and causes harm...
or a food is pulled from the shelves etc
or the regulating of cough syrup because it is used to make meth
or smoking bans, seat belt laws etc etc
Its time to get the Potheads and all drug users out of prisons
and make room for the life imprisonment without parole for those who traffic
and push killer drugs
Then its time to tax the heck out of legalized weed and create new funds to fight drug use
and give help to those who need it
People are not taking this seriously enough ... you an excellent example
people have to care about each other
by the way I take nothing when I have a cold headache flu etc ...
I believe in my own bodies defenses
there is no bodily defense against Crystal Meth
:roll: yes i would roll my eyes at you in person because you are being narrow-minded and judgemental. besides your assumptions and insults aren't due respect. just because i don't agree with your govenment mandated rheotric by no means implies i don't take it seriously or that i don't care about people and their wellbeing.
the kid i'm talking about he and his friend purchased the cough syrup that killed them both over the internet...no limit
you do realize that very many drug dealers sell drugs to fund their own drug habit (watch 'Intervention' sometime) so that sweet child that's using meth very well might be dealing it also...you prepared to give that same sweet child life in prison or the death penalty...execute them per your recent oh-so-caring stance?
where does personal responsibility come in? ppl choose to do meth or any number of possibly deadly drugs of their own free will...it's their choice to buy and ingest it. they're not victims...no one's holding them down and forcing them to take it. the denfense against meth or any substance is having the willpower not to use it.
:roll: yes i would roll my eyes at you in person because you are being narrow-minded and judgemental. besides your assumptions and insults aren't due respect. just because i don't agree with your govenment mandated rheotric by no means implies i don't take it seriously or that i don't care about people and their wellbeing.
the kid i'm talking about he and his friend purchased the cough syrup that killed them both over the internet...no limit
you do realize that very many drug dealers sell drugs to fund their own drug habit (watch 'Intervention' sometime) so that sweet child that's using meth very well might be dealing it also...you prepared to give that same sweet child life in prison or the death penalty...execute them per your recent oh-so-caring stance?
where does personal responsibility come in? ppl choose to do meth or any number of possibly deadly drugs of their own free will...it's their choice to buy and ingest it. they're not victims...no one's holding them down and forcing them to take it. the denfense against meth or any substance is having the willpower not to use it.
you have the right to your opinion about me and the subject at hand what you do not have the right to do is be disrespectful and make personal comments in a debate
the fact that comes easily is also very telling.
Telling that you can not respect those you do not agree with
there is not much you can tell me about drugs nor how they get into our children's hands
it matters not who or how they are parasites...CRYSTAL METH itself a parasite to life
I am sorry you can not or will not see this
as far as people choosing ... these are children we are speaking of ..
consequence not fully understood by the brain until age 25 children
For me I will not right off wash my hands of those who fell into the pleasure trap
of killer drugs I will fight to save their lives because they are worth it
and this you will not understand until you love and lose I'm afraid
which I wouldn't wish on an enemy
this post of mine was not directed at you though :?
So? If both of our posts are on topic, I'm acting within the posting guidelines in replying...You want to have a private converstion, there is a way to do that.
Your positions shouldn't change in response to one poster or another, right? This was an easy way out of defending your positions....
sounds all about you ... actually it might sound a little paranoid
now that I reread it
when I was just happy to be considered a friend of Godfathers, why the smilie,
I was actually touched, my heart did a little skip a beat.
Now you call me paranoid, then laugh.....while starting your whole smilie lecture thing over again with Hugh....the emoticons, including the eye-rolling one, are there for a reason...I can't believe you even make this an issue, but you drag people into it by lecturing them about it. Stop. it's ridiculous topic derailing, making it about YOU...or just continue to turn reality on it's head.
And it was also pretty negative, which is your dislike for me showing... therefore not a reasoned debate to take seriously
.
I'm all for change to help anyway we can short of legalizing killer drugs
I'm all for saving the children where the majority of drug abuse starts
but legalizing killer drugs is insanity and hopefully something we will never see
I'd rather see drug dealers get capital punishment first and I am against the death penalty
and I will say one more time the loss of any loved one
is not like that of your own child ... but you already know that
I don't doubt that losing a child is the worst pain a person can endure. What I do doubt is that it would change my opinion of effective drug policy....I can't say how I'd react, but I think it would strengthem my resolve. Again, you're inferring that I just can't know what good policy is because I haven't lost anyone important enough to me to know! Pretty backhanded and personal approach to a debate...
Your admit that your position is emotion-based, enough so that you'd reject a 'core value' for revenge...that pretty much completely discredits your opinion from both a legal and moral sense, does it not?
Also, I can post some stats later,(go to drugwarfacts.org for the cause of death stats)...your continued defense of vice vs CHILD KILLER MASSACRING INSTANT ADDICTION SOUL SUCKING HARD DRUGS is also totally convenient to your drugs of choice, and factually incorrect ( a nice way of saying 'LIES to support your position'). It does NOT take a lifetime to die from alcohol or nicotine/tobacco abuse. not even close. I don't think there are demographically grouped stats, only overall numbers, but I would bet that there are a LOT more alcohol poisoning, and alcohol related deaths among our 'children' than there are illicit drug OD deaths. Check out the script OD death numbers too. The war on SOME drugs, like some of it's supporters, uses emotional ploys to distract from the facts.
:roll: yes i would roll my eyes at you in person because you are being narrow-minded and judgemental.
Must add here that giving respect based only on agreeing with another's opinion
and core beliefs or should we say withholding respect based on the same
is about as judgmental and narrow minded as one can get
this post of mine was not directed at you though :?
So? If both of our posts are on topic, I'm acting within the posting guidelines in replying...You want to have a private converstion, there is a way to do that.
Your positions shouldn't change in response to one poster or another, right? This was an easy way out of defending your positions....
sounds all about you ... actually it might sound a little paranoid
now that I reread it
when I was just happy to be considered a friend of Godfathers, why the smilie,
I was actually touched, my heart did a little skip a beat.
Now you call me paranoid, then laugh.....while starting your whole smilie lecture thing over again with Hugh....the emoticons, including the eye-rolling one, are there for a reason...I can't believe you even make this an issue, but you drag people into it by lecturing them about it. Stop. it's ridiculous topic derailing, making it about YOU...or just continue to turn reality on it's head.
And it was also pretty negative, which is your dislike for me showing... therefore not a reasoned debate to take seriously
.
I'm all for change to help anyway we can short of legalizing killer drugs
I'm all for saving the children where the majority of drug abuse starts
but legalizing killer drugs is insanity and hopefully something we will never see
I'd rather see drug dealers get capital punishment first and I am against the death penalty
and I will say one more time the loss of any loved one
is not like that of your own child ... but you already know that
I don't doubt that losing a child is the worst pain a person can endure. What I do doubt is that it would change my opinion of effective drug policy....I can't say how I'd react, but I think it would strengthem my resolve. Again, you're inferring that I just can't know what good policy is because I haven't lost anyone important enough to me to know! Pretty backhanded and personal approach to a debate...
Your admit that your position is emotion-based, enough so that you'd reject a 'core value' for revenge...that pretty much completely discredits your opinion from both a legal and moral sense, does it not?
Also, I can post some stats later,(go to drugwarfacts.org for the cause of death stats)...your continued defense of vice vs CHILD KILLER MASSACRING INSTANT ADDICTION SOUL SUCKING HARD DRUGS is also totally convenient to your drugs of choice, and factually incorrect ( a nice way of saying 'LIES to support your position'). It does NOT take a lifetime to die from alcohol or nicotine/tobacco abuse. not even close. I don't think there are demographically grouped stats, only overall numbers, but I would bet that there are a LOT more alcohol poisoning, and alcohol related deaths among our 'children' than there are illicit drug OD deaths. Check out the script OD death numbers too. The war on SOME drugs, like some of it's supporters, uses emotional ploys to distract from the facts.
The only thing I have said is it is insanity to legalize killer drugs
Vices are not killer drugs I have supported why this is so
I do not agree there are more alcohol related deaths then with killer drugs
this is an emotional topic and when you take emotion out of it
you wash your hands of real people
we will never agree so we will agree to disagree again
and probably meet up again one day to do it all over again
can I laugh here or not ... better not
sure hope you help get POT legalized by then
I can only think your stance and your supporters stance on legalizing all drugs only hinders that...
the old give an inch take a mile thing ...
:roll: yes i would roll my eyes at you in person because you are being narrow-minded and judgemental. besides your assumptions and insults aren't due respect. just because i don't agree with your govenment mandated rheotric by no means implies i don't take it seriously or that i don't care about people and their wellbeing.
the kid i'm talking about he and his friend purchased the cough syrup that killed them both over the internet...no limit
you do realize that very many drug dealers sell drugs to fund their own drug habit (watch 'Intervention' sometime) so that sweet child that's using meth very well might be dealing it also...you prepared to give that same sweet child life in prison or the death penalty...execute them per your recent oh-so-caring stance?
where does personal responsibility come in? ppl choose to do meth or any number of possibly deadly drugs of their own free will...it's their choice to buy and ingest it. they're not victims...no one's holding them down and forcing them to take it. the denfense against meth or any substance is having the willpower not to use it.
you have the right to your opinion about me and the subject at hand what you do not have the right to do is be disrespectful and make personal comments in a debate
the fact that comes easily is also very telling.
Telling that you can not respect those you do not agree with
there is not much you can tell me about drugs nor how they get into our children's hands
it matters not who or how they are parasites...CRYSTAL METH itself a parasite to life
I am sorry you can not or will not see this
as far as people choosing ... these are children we are speaking of ..
consequence not fully understood by the brain until age 25 children
For me I will not right off wash my hands of those who fell into the pleasure trap
of killer drugs I will fight to save their lives because they are worth it
and this you will not understand until you love and lose I'm afraid
which I wouldn't wish on an enemy
you got all in a twist because i used a freakin smiley and accused me of being disrespectful and accused me of not caring nor taking it seriously because i don't agree with you. all of which speaks of you being narrow and judgemental. also given that you have no clue about what i do or don't know or understand about substance abuse. you of superior knowledge on everything....
wasn't that long ago (last spring maybe) where you stated how proud you were of your well-adjusted adult kids...that were that way because of your awesome parenting. was never aware you also had any die in your arms from abusing meth.
don't forget to let ppl know how many lives you saved today by trolling on a pj board
This what could happen at in Canada if our current federal government gets its way. At a time when we should be legalizing drugs...our federal government is taking a leap back.
Tories’ crime legislation turns teens sharing marijuana into ‘organized criminals’
He comes from a solid middle-class family. He’s a smart, hard-working person with great potential and he’s never been in trouble with the law.
Like millions of Canadians teenagers before him, and at least a quarter of his contemporaries, he’s going through a marijuana phase: something that reliable justice statistics show he will eventually grow out of, just as many police officers, politicians, doctors, teachers and lawyers grew out of.
But times are about to change in Stephen Harper’s Canada.
Under new Conservative crime legislation, this 18-year-old man might never get the chance to reach his professional goals, legal specialists say. Instead, he’ll get a brutal two-year education in a federal penitentiary.
That’s because the young man occasionally does what many in his circle do — swaps small amounts of marijuana with friends.
As he’s walking down a neighbourhood street one night, a police officer spots him hand a couple of joints to a friend.
The two teenagers hadn’t thought about it, but they’re near a school — wherever they go in their urban neighbourhood they’re near a school. It’s night and the school’s closed but that’s no excuse.
The 18-year-old gives some lip to the officer who takes him to the police station and charges him with trafficking. His friend didn’t pay for the marijuana or give him anything in return. No matter. It’s still trafficking under the Criminal Code of Canada.
When the case eventually gets to court, the Crown prosecutor presents the evidence, which is irrefutable, and the judge has no choice but to sentence the 18-year-old to two years in a penitentiary. It’s the mandatory minimum sentence for someone caught trafficking “near” a school or “near” a place where children might gather.
The judge hates not having discretion to consider extenuating circumstances, but the government has given him no choice.
When the young man emerges from prison at the age of 20, he’s carrying the physical and psychological baggage of being incarcerated with hardened criminals and he has a criminal record.
Under the Conservative government’s Safe Streets and Communities Act currently making its way through Parliament, it is probable — some say inevitable — that young Canadian men and women with otherwise unblemished characters will be jailed and branded criminals by their government.
The Conservative government says the new anti-drug measures and changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act — the most controversial of nine pieces of crime legislation — will crack down on organized crime, keep drugs away from children and make streets safer.
“By moving quickly to reintroduce and pass the Safe Streets and Communities Act, we are fulfilling our promise to Canadians by taking action to protect families, stand up for victims and hold criminals accountable,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said when he reintroduced the bill in September.
But a long line of critics say much of the legislation is an expensive recipe for failure.
“It is badly drafted legislation,” says University of Toronto criminologist Anthony Doob. “The government has a role to make good laws and this isn’t good law. We should penalize according to the harm caused and I don’t think that the 18-year-old who gives his 17-year-old friend marijuana deserves a penitentiary sentence. How did kids sharing marijuana suddenly become organized criminals?”
After a recent House of Commons justice and human rights committee hearing into the legislation, Quebec Defence Lawyers Association vice-president Joelle Roy used the example of an 18-year-old going to a rave and being arrested for giving an ecstasy pill to a friend.
“It can happen to you, or me or to our children and even to their children,” she said, with a nod toward Conservative MPs on the committee.
“I see it every day in court. The judge sees in front of him a good kid of 18 years who goes to school and comes from a good family and now he has to send that young man to penitentiary for two years for one ecstasy pill. It makes no sense. The kid isn’t a criminal, but when he comes out he probably will be.”
Mandatory minimum sentences are an attack on the freedom and independence of the justice system, said Roy.
“People who commit crimes time after time will be sentenced for those crimes. We have a system and it works. The government says they want so much to help victims, so why don’t they take that money they will use to build more jails and put it into programs for victims? Canada is a very, very safe country. Why is this government doing this?”
The answer, says pollster Frank Graves, is complicated but lies partly with a politically-shrewd government appealing to its base and to an aging population that craves moral certainty. And, unlike the majority of young Canadians, they vote.
“They tend to be anti-intellectual, anti-science and with little interest in debating the evidence or listening to expert opinion,” says Graves. “Many simply want people who do bad things to be severely punished whether it makes streets safer or not.”
The majority of Canadians still favours measures that prevent crime rather than punish it, but the gap has been narrowing since 9/11, adds Graves.
“But Canadians are still remarkably progressive when it comes to issues of marijuana (more than 70 per cent support decriminalization), same-sex marriage and abortion, and are becoming more so.
“So this may well be the first majority government that achieved its victory with issues on which the majority of Canadians disagree,” he adds.
“That includes tough-on-crime legislation, the F-35 jet purchase, climate change, and scrapping the long gun registry. The majority is opposed, but the majority is scattered and not tightly alloyed around the issues.”
The drug legislation will ensnare a disproportionate number of young people, especially those from minority communities, predicts veteran NDP MP Joe Comartin, who until recently was a justice committee member.
“The fundamental flaw with this legislation is that it is drafted from the perspective of a sleazy, organized drug pusher and ignores the reality that a good deal of drug trading is among kids coming out of the same economic class and same ethno-cultural communities.
“When I watch Rob Nicholson answering questions about this in the House,” says the former criminal lawyer, “he clearly doesn’t understand how easy it is to convict someone of trafficking. You don’t even have to be selling it — if you’re giving it away to friends and families, you’re trafficking.”
Only pressure from the provinces will have any influence on whether the legislation is amended before it becomes law, adds Comartin.
Or maybe not.
Quebec Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier made an impassioned plea to the Conservative majority on the justice committee to freeze what is an extraordinarily rapid fast-tracking of the legislation and consult with the provinces.
The legislation, especially as it impacts young offenders, is “soft” crime, he said. “What we want is a sustainable protection of the public,” he said.
After 40 years of working on the rehabilitation of troubled youth, Quebec has become a much-admired international model, said Fournier, adding emphatically that Quebec will not pay a penny of the millions of dollars it will cost to implement the new legislation.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty won’t pay either. “It’s easy for the federal government to pass new laws dealing with crime but if there are new costs associated with those laws that have to borne by taxpayers in the province of Ontario, I expect that the feds would pick up that tab,” he said.
In response, Prime Minister Stephen Harper seemed unimpressed and urged the provinces to do their constitutional duty.
Other provinces, including New Brunswick and Manitoba, favour the legislation, although neither has said how it intends to pay the extra cost.
The lineup of individuals and groups opposed or concerned about the legislation in its current form is long and varied: The Canadian Bar Association, the Quebec Defence Lawyers Association, the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. And although they do not speak publicly except from the bench, judges deeply dislike mandatory sentencing.
“For young people whose substance use does not constitute a full addiction, incarceration will be the only option under this bill,” the Students for Sensible Drug Policy told MPs in a brief. “This proposed legislation does not recognize the wide spectrum of reasons why people use drugs. Those young people now branded with the stigma and criminal record as a ‘drug dealer’ will have their future employment opportunities further reduced — the opposite of a successful rehabilitation effort.”
Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, says prison, where unsafe drug use is rampant, is the worse place for young drug addicts.
“This is exactly what we should not be doing as a matter of sound public policy,” he says. “Instead of spending hundreds of millions to house people in prisons, think of what that money could do if it was put into expanding access to voluntary treatment in the community. It would pay enormous dividends for public health and individual well-being.”
Incarcerating people for relatively minor marijuana offences is “cracking a nut with a sledgehammer,” adds Elliott.
“Do we really need to throw young people in jail for this?“ he says. “I’m sure the majority of Canadians don’t feel that this kind of activity warrants a criminal record or imprisonment. Why make the vast majority of your population potential criminals for sharing marijuana plants. Where is the sense of proportion?”
Ottawa police officers who are part of a program of interaction with area high school students say they see little evidence that drugs are a major problem, and when school authorities do find marijuana it is in small quantities.
Ottawa Carleton District School Board trustee Cathy Curry says kids need to be punished when they break the law but incarceration is “simplistic.”
“It isn’t taking into consideration what happens in real life,” she says. “Trustees and educators across Canada have learned that there is so much change going on in the teenage brain that they aren’t always as capable of making good decisions as they were when they were 10 and 11. Any parent of teenagers understands that. There are times when your teenager is like someone you’ve never met before.”
The legislation has vocal supporters and almost all of the current round of committee hearings have included victims of horrendous crime and leaders of police associations.
Line Lacasse, a Laval mother whose son Sébastien was brutally beaten and stabbed to death by youth gang in 2004.
“They were 10 young people with no respect for human life,” she told the committee. “If your child was killed in this way you would vote for this bill. We have a life sentence when we lose a loved one. There are no serious consequences for these crimes.”
Quebec Justice Minister Fournier, and others opposed to the increased incarceration of young people, say nothing in the legislation will prevent similar crimes from occurring and accused the government of using high-profile tragedies to justify draconian punishments.
Strong opposition from federal and provincial prosecutors and defence lawyers who say the new laws will cripple an already overloaded court system, and from prison guards who argue that more overcrowding will make prisons more dangerous for inmates and guards, appears to be having no effect.
There is no incentive for the government to backtrack, says pollster Frank Graves
“They have a majority in the Commons and Senate, a neophyte official Opposition whose talent is jockeying for the leadership, a humbled Liberal party and a public that’s sick of politics and isn’t paying attention. And this is a government that clearly signalled its intentions during the last election.
For those that are so concerned about crime, then ban alcohol, gambling, cigarettes and prescription meds!!! all of which leads to crime and addiction.
What about guns? in many places they are legal! and cause more harm.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
wasn't that long ago (last spring maybe) where you stated how proud you were of your well-adjusted adult kids...that were that way because of your awesome parenting. was never aware you also had any die in your arms from abusing meth.
don't forget to let ppl know how many lives you saved today by trolling on a pj board
i'm done. have fun.
you are a cruel person also I see and should do your homework better
funny how some people call people trolls just because they do not share the same opinion :?
trolls are the cruel and unkind, of course, both in the real world and here...
they are filled with ugliness that they spew from an unloving place
I am extremely proud of my children ... all of them
most of you wont understand till it bites you right on the ass but cool to each their own.
Godfather.
That's just it most of us understand...prohibition doesn't work!! It didn't work with alcohol and it's not working with drugs...
In my opinion there are several factors keeping drugs illegal...big pharma (especially cannabis...they have no interest in cannabis because it's a plant that can't be patented...yet there is countless studies that show it's health benefits), the religious right (yet they are huge supporters of capital punishment and guns and guns harm more people yearly) and some in the police (fear they'll lose jobs, what a concept, needing less police).
Prohibition just does not work...better to make it legal, regulate and collect taxes from growers and buyers.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
When a society prohibits something it is because it is a danger to its citizens
like when the govt bans a food product or a drug after testing etc
these have been proven to be lethal products
alcohol is a socially acceptable commodity and not dangerous when used responsibly
common sense tells us POT should be in this category but NOT CRYSTAL METH
it is highly addictive with a quick progression to being lethal
what I think is the people who are wanting to legalize all drugs are actually
harming the effort to legalize weed because society can see how harmful
that would be ... if they give an inch others will take a mile.
That it may actually cause a rethink by govts and cause stricter regulation
and laws.
It is also so incredibly unrealistic because we can not even get POT legalized
in the first place who would ever think all drugs including killer drugs
that are taking children's lives would be legalized.
When a society prohibits something it is because it is a danger to its citizens
like when the govt bans a food product or a drug after testing etc
these have been proven to be lethal products
alcohol is a socially acceptable commodity and not dangerous when used responsibly
common sense tells us POT should be in this category but NOT CRYSTAL METH
it is highly addictive with a quick progression to being lethal
what I think is the people who are wanting to legalize all drugs are actually
harming the effort to legalize weed because society can see how harmful
that would be ... if they give an inch others will take a mile.
That it may actually cause a rethink by govts and cause stricter regulation
and laws.
It is also so incredibly unrealistic because we can not even get POT legalized
in the first place who would ever think all drugs including killer drugs
that are taking children's lives would be legalized.
You seriously think your government is doing anything that's good for you...
-they allow easy access to guns
-steroids and hormones in your meat supply
-cigarettes
-doctors writing out prescription like candy to some people
-etc....
and these things all have 1 thing in common big time lobbyist.
yes no doubt meth should be banned...remember meth is made with many common meds available at the drug store put out by pharmaceutical companies...they have no interest in seeing meth banned...in the area I live I always hear about the grow ops and the people trafficking cocaine, never hear of meth labs...but pretty sure their around...I have a feeling that the lobbyist are paying to keep the pressure on the government to keep going after grow ops and cocaine suppliers.
Sorry but your government is run by lobbyist...they dictate to the politicians what laws they want...completely ban lobbying and audit every politician every year making sure they are only allowed the salary given to them by the tax payer...then maybe they'll start working efficiently and properly.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
holy fuckballs....that article is so full of lies, disinformation, and well...utter bullshit
Yep. First thing, pot is not legal in the Netherlands (contrary to what people may think). It's still a criminal offense. As it is in Portugal. I think when these kind of countries are taken as examples where drugs are legal, there is a huge misunderstanding as to what this means.
Secondly this thing about Portugal is so wrong. Maybe this link will shed a bit of light on this:
Legal substances such as prescription drugs, alcohol, etc. as well as pot (for most people here) are deemed to be OK and socially acceptable 'when used responsibly' (in the US or similar countries). Those are highly addictive too and can be lethal too as we have seen so many times. And these can also kill at a whim - do not need a 'lifetime' of consumption to get to that point. Can 'harder' drugs be used 'responsibly' as well? Why not? There will always be people who will overdo (as we can see with numerous deaths from legal substances), and those who won't.
Should they be decriminalised? Perhaps that would help focus on the user, with rehabilitation/care, information/education before it's too late and on the 'big' dealers - prison. The 'black market' would be hit maybe helping with the drug wars and violent crimes associated with big scale drug dealing (and not the user dealing to finance his/her vice).
Sure we can go down the emotional 'child killer' drugs route but, as another person posted here, I have known young people killing themselves with alcohol (again, not a 'lifetime' vice - 'just' a couple of bottles of vodka, shot after shot) or mixing prescription meds (not that many) with alcohol (not that much) but a lethal combination.
Those can can't be 'responsible' with legal or 'soft' substances will not be responsible with harder stuff. Others might (or may just stay clear of all substances).
Will decriminalising stop consumption? Of course not.
if the government thinks it should be able to take away the right of a person to choose how they treat their bodies, maybe they should:
-make fast food illegal
-put into law how many portions of veggies and fruit you eat per day, punishible by steamed liver
-have supervised police visits where they watch you on the treadmill for 30 minutes per day
-um, how about MAKE CIGARETTES ILLEGAL.
alcohol destroys. cigarettes kill. yet those are still legal, and promoted with loose girls in bikinis.
the only gateway is a person's personality/mental state.
you speak of vices that affects one's health ... vices that are often enjoyed in a reasonable
even sensible way... vices that take decades near to a lifetime to cause death
we are talking killer drugs extremely addictive ...
drugs that take months to kill and are killing our CHILDREN! Destroying our FAMILIES!
can we use some common sense please and not compare vices to addiction
I am astounded that people here continue to engage you with debate. It's a useless proposition. You constantly tell people things like "they aren't using common sense". Then when Prism gives you an eyeroll and easily discredits everything you say with a well thought out articulate debate, you focus on the eyeroll and get all personal and whine like a baby. It's pathetic.......
KILLER drugs KILLER drugs KILLER drugs KILLER drugs...saying killer drugs over and over doesn't make your argument any better. It just reinforces to us that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
There is no need to respond to this post. It's not a debate. I'm not interested in hearing you ramble on about how I don't know how to love or some off topic crap like that. So don't bother... I'll just end up giving you an eyeroll.
if the government thinks it should be able to take away the right of a person to choose how they treat their bodies, maybe they should:
-make fast food illegal
-put into law how many portions of veggies and fruit you eat per day, punishible by steamed liver
-have supervised police visits where they watch you on the treadmill for 30 minutes per day
-um, how about MAKE CIGARETTES ILLEGAL.
alcohol destroys. cigarettes kill. yet those are still legal, and promoted with loose girls in bikinis.
the only gateway is a person's personality/mental state.
you speak of vices that affects one's health ... vices that are often enjoyed in a reasonable
even sensible way... vices that take decades near to a lifetime to cause death
we are talking killer drugs extremely addictive ...
drugs that take months to kill and are killing our CHILDREN! Destroying our FAMILIES!
can we use some common sense please and not compare vices to addiction
I am astounded that people here continue to engage you with debate. It's a useless proposition. You constantly tell people things like "they aren't using common sense". Then when Prism gives you an eyeroll and easily discredits everything you say with a well thought out articulate debate, you focus on the eyeroll and get all personal and whine like a baby. It's pathetic.......
KILLER drugs KILLER drugs KILLER drugs KILLER drugs...saying killer drugs over and over doesn't make your argument any better. It just reinforces to us that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
There is no need to respond to this post. It's not a debate. I'm not interested in hearing you ramble on about how I don't know how to love or some off topic crap like that. So don't bother... I'll just end up giving you an eyeroll.
Actually I know CRYSTAL METH kills ...do you?
remember post what you know about the subject not what you don't know about me
Godfather, as your trusted Consigliere all I can tell you is that there's a lot of money in that white shit.
If it is legalized we lose a lot from our income.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Comments
As with any topic on AMT, I think it's important to consider where people are coming from and what has brought them to their conclusions, sometimes beyond the hard facts and stats.
when I go to find songs to post ... they are heart wrenching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZO2Rhqj ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irvl4pLA ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0MaGiQ2 ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssp7SkTn ... re=related
each one a beautiful child once
people can talk and debate but this is what this stuff does to peoples lives
-make fast food illegal
-put into law how many portions of veggies and fruit you eat per day, punishible by steamed liver
-have supervised police visits where they watch you on the treadmill for 30 minutes per day
-um, how about MAKE CIGARETTES ILLEGAL.
alcohol destroys. cigarettes kill. yet those are still legal, and promoted with loose girls in bikinis.
the only gateway is a person's personality/mental state.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
if it was only what all they do to their own bodies that might different but drug addiction and the drug world they live in also steal hurt and kill so many people that have no addiction or any affiliation with the addict or the world the users and dealers live in, you can look in the news and find robberys and murders all the time by addicts trying to feed a habbit,I have been smoking for 20 years and never killed anybody for a pack of smokes and can't think of any non drug addict smoker who has, bottom line is that drugs affect whole communitys and towns killing innocent people every day.
Godfather.
like a few have already said; making drugs legal will take away the black market with the violent cartels, gangs and killing ppl over drug turf. did prohibition of alcohol work in 1920? of course not. it produced gansters, bootlegers & turf wars to provide the alcohol the public wanted. since they made booze legal again in 1933 how many ppl have been robbed or murdered over the manufacture, sale & distrubution of alchohol? or cigarettes? when all ppl have to do is going to the store to purchase it
do alcoholics still exist...of course. still they're responsible for their actions ...toss em in jail if they drive drunk commit or a violent offense. it's up to them to get treatment, sure their needs to be more treatment centers for all substance abuse. why not build more instead of jails? then drug addicts at least have a chance of getting & staying clean.
because the war on drugs has proven a dismal failure perhaps it's time to end the prohibition of drugs and take away the criminal element...focus the billions in resources on providing treatment for addicts
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
even sensible way... vices that take decades near to a lifetime to cause death
we are talking killer drugs extremely addictive ...
drugs that take months to kill and are killing our CHILDREN! Destroying our FAMILIES!
can we use some common sense please and not compare vices to addiction
I am not talking about POT I am talking about CRYSTAL METH
it will sneak up on you be your very best friend then massacre you
it is WICKED!
:roll:
i've never known anyone that OD'd on illegal drugs. (sure it happens) however ive known a few that died from prescription drugs. 1 that got shot buying painkillers. 2 people that died from alcohol poisoning. a kid that played baseball with my son died as a teen from drinking COUGH SYRUP (robotripping) do you expect the government to ban robotussin?
yet there are plenty of ppl that use hard drugs (i don't touch them) recreationally and don't become addicted... still hold down jobs etc. then there are junkies that don't OD and go on using for many years cause their familes enable then to keep using.
how about using common sense when it comes to educating kids & adults with the facts on drugs? leave behind the ridiculous rheotic and overblown dramatic lies that the govenment has drilled into sheeple and open up to reality that will actually HELP ppl to avoid or treat an addicton? wether it's alcohol, tobacco, heroin, meth, presciption opiates or fucking over the counter cough syrup....ANY substance that can be abused to cause addiction or possible death....why do you think all those things fall under "substance abuse?"
next time you get a cold you better watch out....there are KILLER drugs in your medicine cabinet
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
actually cough syrup/ cold medicines are regulated now underage can not buy them amount you can purchase is regulated red flag for those manufacturing killer drugs
of course any substance can be abused but Crystal Meth is killing our children
and you can just dismiss that fact .. perhaps because it does not affect you
is this good common sense and being a caring citizen?
"maybe it happens"... wake up ... in fact perhaps hold a dying child
then tell me about it
our government does have a place to protect its citizens...
like when they ban a drug that has been tested and causes harm...
or a food is pulled from the shelves etc
or the regulating of cough syrup because it is used to make meth
or smoking bans, seat belt laws etc etc
Its time to get the Potheads and all drug users out of prisons
and make room for the life imprisonment without parole for those who traffic
and push killer drugs
Then its time to tax the heck out of legalized weed and create new funds to fight drug use
and give help to those who need it
People are not taking this seriously enough ... you an excellent example
people have to care about each other
by the way I take nothing when I have a cold headache flu etc ...
I believe in my own body's defenses
there is no bodily defense against Crystal Meth
:roll: yes i would roll my eyes at you in person because you are being narrow-minded and judgemental. besides your assumptions and insults aren't due respect. just because i don't agree with your govenment mandated rheotric by no means implies i don't take it seriously or that i don't care about people and their wellbeing.
the kid i'm talking about he and his friend purchased the cough syrup that killed them both over the internet...no limit
you do realize that very many drug dealers sell drugs to fund their own drug habit (watch 'Intervention' sometime) so that sweet child that's using meth very well might be dealing it also...you prepared to give that same sweet child life in prison or the death penalty...execute them per your recent oh-so-caring stance?
where does personal responsibility come in? ppl choose to do meth or any number of possibly deadly drugs of their own free will...it's their choice to buy and ingest it. they're not victims...no one's holding them down and forcing them to take it. the denfense against meth or any substance is having the willpower not to use it.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
the fact that comes easily is also very telling.
Telling that you can not respect those you do not agree with
there is not much you can tell me about drugs nor how they get into our children's hands
it matters not who or how
they are parasites...CRYSTAL METH itself a parasite to life
I am sorry you can not or will not see this
as far as people choosing ... these are children we are speaking of ..
consequence not fully understood by the brain until age 25 children
For me I will not right off wash my hands of those who fell into the pleasure trap
of killer drugs I will fight to save their lives because they are worth it
and this you will not understand until you love and lose I'm afraid
which I wouldn't wish on an enemy
So? If both of our posts are on topic, I'm acting within the posting guidelines in replying...You want to have a private converstion, there is a way to do that.
Your positions shouldn't change in response to one poster or another, right? This was an easy way out of defending your positions....
Now you call me paranoid, then laugh.....while starting your whole smilie lecture thing over again with Hugh....the emoticons, including the eye-rolling one, are there for a reason...I can't believe you even make this an issue, but you drag people into it by lecturing them about it. Stop. it's ridiculous topic derailing, making it about YOU...or just continue to turn reality on it's head. Love the irony, immediately following name calling and laugh emoticon....
I don't doubt that losing a child is the worst pain a person can endure. What I do doubt is that it would change my opinion of effective drug policy....I can't say how I'd react, but I think it would strengthem my resolve. Again, you're inferring that I just can't know what good policy is because I haven't lost anyone important enough to me to know! Pretty backhanded and personal approach to a debate...
Your admit that your position is emotion-based, enough so that you'd reject a 'core value' for revenge...that pretty much completely discredits your opinion from both a legal and moral sense, does it not?
Also, I can post some stats later,(go to drugwarfacts.org for the cause of death stats)...your continued defense of vice vs CHILD KILLER MASSACRING INSTANT ADDICTION SOUL SUCKING HARD DRUGS is also totally convenient to your drugs of choice, and factually incorrect ( a nice way of saying 'LIES to support your position'). It does NOT take a lifetime to die from alcohol or nicotine/tobacco abuse. not even close. I don't think there are demographically grouped stats, only overall numbers, but I would bet that there are a LOT more alcohol poisoning, and alcohol related deaths among our 'children' than there are illicit drug OD deaths. Check out the script OD death numbers too. The war on SOME drugs, like some of it's supporters, uses emotional ploys to distract from the facts.
and core beliefs or should we say withholding respect based on the same
is about as judgmental and narrow minded as one can get
Vices are not killer drugs I have supported why this is so
I do not agree there are more alcohol related deaths then with killer drugs
this is an emotional topic and when you take emotion out of it
you wash your hands of real people
we will never agree so we will agree to disagree again
and probably meet up again one day to do it all over again
can I laugh here or not ... better not
sure hope you help get POT legalized by then
I can only think your stance and your supporters stance on legalizing all drugs only hinders that...
the old give an inch take a mile thing ...
you got all in a twist because i used a freakin smiley and accused me of being disrespectful and accused me of not caring nor taking it seriously because i don't agree with you. all of which speaks of you being narrow and judgemental. also given that you have no clue about what i do or don't know or understand about substance abuse. you of superior knowledge on everything....
wasn't that long ago (last spring maybe) where you stated how proud you were of your well-adjusted adult kids...that were that way because of your awesome parenting. was never aware you also had any die in your arms from abusing meth.
don't forget to let ppl know how many lives you saved today by trolling on a pj board
i'm done. have fun.
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Tories’ crime legislation turns teens sharing marijuana into ‘organized criminals’
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Torie ... z1ml5UlFfU
He’s an 18-year-old the law defines as a man.
He comes from a solid middle-class family. He’s a smart, hard-working person with great potential and he’s never been in trouble with the law.
Like millions of Canadians teenagers before him, and at least a quarter of his contemporaries, he’s going through a marijuana phase: something that reliable justice statistics show he will eventually grow out of, just as many police officers, politicians, doctors, teachers and lawyers grew out of.
But times are about to change in Stephen Harper’s Canada.
Under new Conservative crime legislation, this 18-year-old man might never get the chance to reach his professional goals, legal specialists say. Instead, he’ll get a brutal two-year education in a federal penitentiary.
That’s because the young man occasionally does what many in his circle do — swaps small amounts of marijuana with friends.
As he’s walking down a neighbourhood street one night, a police officer spots him hand a couple of joints to a friend.
The two teenagers hadn’t thought about it, but they’re near a school — wherever they go in their urban neighbourhood they’re near a school. It’s night and the school’s closed but that’s no excuse.
The 18-year-old gives some lip to the officer who takes him to the police station and charges him with trafficking. His friend didn’t pay for the marijuana or give him anything in return. No matter. It’s still trafficking under the Criminal Code of Canada.
When the case eventually gets to court, the Crown prosecutor presents the evidence, which is irrefutable, and the judge has no choice but to sentence the 18-year-old to two years in a penitentiary. It’s the mandatory minimum sentence for someone caught trafficking “near” a school or “near” a place where children might gather.
The judge hates not having discretion to consider extenuating circumstances, but the government has given him no choice.
When the young man emerges from prison at the age of 20, he’s carrying the physical and psychological baggage of being incarcerated with hardened criminals and he has a criminal record.
Under the Conservative government’s Safe Streets and Communities Act currently making its way through Parliament, it is probable — some say inevitable — that young Canadian men and women with otherwise unblemished characters will be jailed and branded criminals by their government.
The Conservative government says the new anti-drug measures and changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act — the most controversial of nine pieces of crime legislation — will crack down on organized crime, keep drugs away from children and make streets safer.
“By moving quickly to reintroduce and pass the Safe Streets and Communities Act, we are fulfilling our promise to Canadians by taking action to protect families, stand up for victims and hold criminals accountable,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said when he reintroduced the bill in September.
But a long line of critics say much of the legislation is an expensive recipe for failure.
“It is badly drafted legislation,” says University of Toronto criminologist Anthony Doob. “The government has a role to make good laws and this isn’t good law. We should penalize according to the harm caused and I don’t think that the 18-year-old who gives his 17-year-old friend marijuana deserves a penitentiary sentence. How did kids sharing marijuana suddenly become organized criminals?”
After a recent House of Commons justice and human rights committee hearing into the legislation, Quebec Defence Lawyers Association vice-president Joelle Roy used the example of an 18-year-old going to a rave and being arrested for giving an ecstasy pill to a friend.
“It can happen to you, or me or to our children and even to their children,” she said, with a nod toward Conservative MPs on the committee.
“I see it every day in court. The judge sees in front of him a good kid of 18 years who goes to school and comes from a good family and now he has to send that young man to penitentiary for two years for one ecstasy pill. It makes no sense. The kid isn’t a criminal, but when he comes out he probably will be.”
Mandatory minimum sentences are an attack on the freedom and independence of the justice system, said Roy.
“People who commit crimes time after time will be sentenced for those crimes. We have a system and it works. The government says they want so much to help victims, so why don’t they take that money they will use to build more jails and put it into programs for victims? Canada is a very, very safe country. Why is this government doing this?”
The answer, says pollster Frank Graves, is complicated but lies partly with a politically-shrewd government appealing to its base and to an aging population that craves moral certainty. And, unlike the majority of young Canadians, they vote.
“They tend to be anti-intellectual, anti-science and with little interest in debating the evidence or listening to expert opinion,” says Graves. “Many simply want people who do bad things to be severely punished whether it makes streets safer or not.”
The majority of Canadians still favours measures that prevent crime rather than punish it, but the gap has been narrowing since 9/11, adds Graves.
“But Canadians are still remarkably progressive when it comes to issues of marijuana (more than 70 per cent support decriminalization), same-sex marriage and abortion, and are becoming more so.
“So this may well be the first majority government that achieved its victory with issues on which the majority of Canadians disagree,” he adds.
“That includes tough-on-crime legislation, the F-35 jet purchase, climate change, and scrapping the long gun registry. The majority is opposed, but the majority is scattered and not tightly alloyed around the issues.”
The drug legislation will ensnare a disproportionate number of young people, especially those from minority communities, predicts veteran NDP MP Joe Comartin, who until recently was a justice committee member.
“The fundamental flaw with this legislation is that it is drafted from the perspective of a sleazy, organized drug pusher and ignores the reality that a good deal of drug trading is among kids coming out of the same economic class and same ethno-cultural communities.
“When I watch Rob Nicholson answering questions about this in the House,” says the former criminal lawyer, “he clearly doesn’t understand how easy it is to convict someone of trafficking. You don’t even have to be selling it — if you’re giving it away to friends and families, you’re trafficking.”
Only pressure from the provinces will have any influence on whether the legislation is amended before it becomes law, adds Comartin.
Or maybe not.
Quebec Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier made an impassioned plea to the Conservative majority on the justice committee to freeze what is an extraordinarily rapid fast-tracking of the legislation and consult with the provinces.
The legislation, especially as it impacts young offenders, is “soft” crime, he said. “What we want is a sustainable protection of the public,” he said.
After 40 years of working on the rehabilitation of troubled youth, Quebec has become a much-admired international model, said Fournier, adding emphatically that Quebec will not pay a penny of the millions of dollars it will cost to implement the new legislation.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty won’t pay either. “It’s easy for the federal government to pass new laws dealing with crime but if there are new costs associated with those laws that have to borne by taxpayers in the province of Ontario, I expect that the feds would pick up that tab,” he said.
In response, Prime Minister Stephen Harper seemed unimpressed and urged the provinces to do their constitutional duty.
Other provinces, including New Brunswick and Manitoba, favour the legislation, although neither has said how it intends to pay the extra cost.
The lineup of individuals and groups opposed or concerned about the legislation in its current form is long and varied: The Canadian Bar Association, the Quebec Defence Lawyers Association, the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. And although they do not speak publicly except from the bench, judges deeply dislike mandatory sentencing.
“For young people whose substance use does not constitute a full addiction, incarceration will be the only option under this bill,” the Students for Sensible Drug Policy told MPs in a brief. “This proposed legislation does not recognize the wide spectrum of reasons why people use drugs. Those young people now branded with the stigma and criminal record as a ‘drug dealer’ will have their future employment opportunities further reduced — the opposite of a successful rehabilitation effort.”
Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, says prison, where unsafe drug use is rampant, is the worse place for young drug addicts.
“This is exactly what we should not be doing as a matter of sound public policy,” he says. “Instead of spending hundreds of millions to house people in prisons, think of what that money could do if it was put into expanding access to voluntary treatment in the community. It would pay enormous dividends for public health and individual well-being.”
Incarcerating people for relatively minor marijuana offences is “cracking a nut with a sledgehammer,” adds Elliott.
“Do we really need to throw young people in jail for this?“ he says. “I’m sure the majority of Canadians don’t feel that this kind of activity warrants a criminal record or imprisonment. Why make the vast majority of your population potential criminals for sharing marijuana plants. Where is the sense of proportion?”
Ottawa police officers who are part of a program of interaction with area high school students say they see little evidence that drugs are a major problem, and when school authorities do find marijuana it is in small quantities.
Ottawa Carleton District School Board trustee Cathy Curry says kids need to be punished when they break the law but incarceration is “simplistic.”
“It isn’t taking into consideration what happens in real life,” she says. “Trustees and educators across Canada have learned that there is so much change going on in the teenage brain that they aren’t always as capable of making good decisions as they were when they were 10 and 11. Any parent of teenagers understands that. There are times when your teenager is like someone you’ve never met before.”
The legislation has vocal supporters and almost all of the current round of committee hearings have included victims of horrendous crime and leaders of police associations.
Line Lacasse, a Laval mother whose son Sébastien was brutally beaten and stabbed to death by youth gang in 2004.
“They were 10 young people with no respect for human life,” she told the committee. “If your child was killed in this way you would vote for this bill. We have a life sentence when we lose a loved one. There are no serious consequences for these crimes.”
Quebec Justice Minister Fournier, and others opposed to the increased incarceration of young people, say nothing in the legislation will prevent similar crimes from occurring and accused the government of using high-profile tragedies to justify draconian punishments.
Strong opposition from federal and provincial prosecutors and defence lawyers who say the new laws will cripple an already overloaded court system, and from prison guards who argue that more overcrowding will make prisons more dangerous for inmates and guards, appears to be having no effect.
There is no incentive for the government to backtrack, says pollster Frank Graves
“They have a majority in the Commons and Senate, a neophyte official Opposition whose talent is jockeying for the leadership, a humbled Liberal party and a public that’s sick of politics and isn’t paying attention. And this is a government that clearly signalled its intentions during the last election.
“The likelihood any opposition will stop this is close to zero.”
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Torie ... z1ml3ndrEp
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
What about guns? in many places they are legal! and cause more harm.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Godfather.
you are a cruel person also I see and should do your homework better
funny how some people call people trolls just because they do not share the same opinion :?
trolls are the cruel and unkind, of course, both in the real world and here...
they are filled with ugliness that they spew from an unloving place
I am extremely proud of my children ... all of them
That's just it most of us understand...prohibition doesn't work!! It didn't work with alcohol and it's not working with drugs...
In my opinion there are several factors keeping drugs illegal...big pharma (especially cannabis...they have no interest in cannabis because it's a plant that can't be patented...yet there is countless studies that show it's health benefits), the religious right (yet they are huge supporters of capital punishment and guns and guns harm more people yearly) and some in the police (fear they'll lose jobs, what a concept, needing less police).
Prohibition just does not work...better to make it legal, regulate and collect taxes from growers and buyers.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
like when the govt bans a food product or a drug after testing etc
these have been proven to be lethal products
alcohol is a socially acceptable commodity and not dangerous when used responsibly
common sense tells us POT should be in this category but NOT CRYSTAL METH
it is highly addictive with a quick progression to being lethal
what I think is the people who are wanting to legalize all drugs are actually
harming the effort to legalize weed because society can see how harmful
that would be ... if they give an inch others will take a mile.
That it may actually cause a rethink by govts and cause stricter regulation
and laws.
It is also so incredibly unrealistic because we can not even get POT legalized
in the first place who would ever think all drugs including killer drugs
that are taking children's lives would be legalized.
You seriously think your government is doing anything that's good for you...
-they allow easy access to guns
-steroids and hormones in your meat supply
-cigarettes
-doctors writing out prescription like candy to some people
-etc....
and these things all have 1 thing in common big time lobbyist.
yes no doubt meth should be banned...remember meth is made with many common meds available at the drug store put out by pharmaceutical companies...they have no interest in seeing meth banned...in the area I live I always hear about the grow ops and the people trafficking cocaine, never hear of meth labs...but pretty sure their around...I have a feeling that the lobbyist are paying to keep the pressure on the government to keep going after grow ops and cocaine suppliers.
Sorry but your government is run by lobbyist...they dictate to the politicians what laws they want...completely ban lobbying and audit every politician every year making sure they are only allowed the salary given to them by the tax payer...then maybe they'll start working efficiently and properly.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Yep. First thing, pot is not legal in the Netherlands (contrary to what people may think). It's still a criminal offense. As it is in Portugal. I think when these kind of countries are taken as examples where drugs are legal, there is a huge misunderstanding as to what this means.
Secondly this thing about Portugal is so wrong. Maybe this link will shed a bit of light on this:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 46,00.html
Legal substances such as prescription drugs, alcohol, etc. as well as pot (for most people here) are deemed to be OK and socially acceptable 'when used responsibly' (in the US or similar countries). Those are highly addictive too and can be lethal too as we have seen so many times. And these can also kill at a whim - do not need a 'lifetime' of consumption to get to that point. Can 'harder' drugs be used 'responsibly' as well? Why not? There will always be people who will overdo (as we can see with numerous deaths from legal substances), and those who won't.
Should they be decriminalised? Perhaps that would help focus on the user, with rehabilitation/care, information/education before it's too late and on the 'big' dealers - prison. The 'black market' would be hit maybe helping with the drug wars and violent crimes associated with big scale drug dealing (and not the user dealing to finance his/her vice).
Sure we can go down the emotional 'child killer' drugs route but, as another person posted here, I have known young people killing themselves with alcohol (again, not a 'lifetime' vice - 'just' a couple of bottles of vodka, shot after shot) or mixing prescription meds (not that many) with alcohol (not that much) but a lethal combination.
Those can can't be 'responsible' with legal or 'soft' substances will not be responsible with harder stuff. Others might (or may just stay clear of all substances).
Will decriminalising stop consumption? Of course not.
I am astounded that people here continue to engage you with debate. It's a useless proposition. You constantly tell people things like "they aren't using common sense". Then when Prism gives you an eyeroll and easily discredits everything you say with a well thought out articulate debate, you focus on the eyeroll and get all personal and whine like a baby. It's pathetic.......
KILLER drugs KILLER drugs KILLER drugs KILLER drugs...saying killer drugs over and over doesn't make your argument any better. It just reinforces to us that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
There is no need to respond to this post. It's not a debate. I'm not interested in hearing you ramble on about how I don't know how to love or some off topic crap like that. So don't bother... I'll just end up giving you an eyeroll.
remember post what you know about the subject not what you don't know about me
Godfather, as your trusted Consigliere all I can tell you is that there's a lot of money in that white shit.
If it is legalized we lose a lot from our income.