Dump these turkeys: tougher drug stance

[Unforgiven]

Harper government to unveil get-tough national strategy

Sep 29, 2007 04:28 PM
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA – Health Minister Tony Clement says the Harper government will unveil its long-awaited anti-drug strategy as early as next week.
Clement says the $64 million strategy will come in the next few days, and suggests it will involve increased criminal penalties, prevention and treatment programs and a crackdown on smuggling at the border.
Shortly after taking office early last year, the Conservatives killed a bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.

Since then, the number of people arrested for smoking pot has risen dramatically in several Canadian cities.

As a result, thousands of people were charged with a criminal offence that, under the previous Liberal government, was on the verge of being classified as a misdemeanor.

Clement says his government wants to clear up the uncertainty.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day will join Clement in announcing the plan as part of a range of initiatives to be unveiled by the Tories surrounding next month's throne speech.

 

[Colpy]

If the Tories introduce get-tough-on-grass laws, then they are completely out of touch, bordering on idiotic.

That would make them about half as bad as the alternative Liberal Party...............

That is the tragedy of Canadian politics.

BTW, I find it hard to believe they are going to "crack down" on soft drugs. Just doesn't make sense. I think you'll see legislation concentrating on meth-amphetimines and cocaine.

 

[Pangloss]

Sweet Jesus but these guys are out of touch with reality!

Our refusal to admit the culture-destroying failure of the prohibition on drugs is bewildering; billions spent, hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed by thuggish policing, pointless prosecutions and unnecessary incarceration, the creation of an entire new criminal class and the corruption of entire countries is unforgivable.

What I want to do with my body is my business.

Pangloss.

 

[unclepercy]

Sweet Jesus but these guys are out of touch with reality!

Our refusal to admit the culture-destroying failure of the prohibition on drugs is bewildering; billions spent, hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed by thuggish policing, pointless prosecutions and unnecessary incarceration, the creation of an entire new criminal class and the corruption of entire countries is unforgivable.

What I want to do with my body is my business.

Pangloss.

I don't believe what you want to do with your body is your business. On the contrary, that's what we have laws for - no murdering, no assault, no rape, no inciting a riot, no stealing, no - well, you get the idea. The human body is well regulated by law.

Furthermore, society has regulations too - no farting in public, no talking during a movie, no pinching little old ladies, no laughing at a funeral - etc.:lol:

Uncle

 

[triedit]

So long as my tax money funds your health care, your body is MY business too.

If this were as simple as only folks over the age of 18 used it and it never allowed anybody to make intoxicated choices, we wouldn't NEED laws regarding pot. I find the synthetic pills more effective anyway.

 

[Pangloss]

I don't believe what you want to do with your body is your business. On the contrary, that's what we have laws for - no murdering, no assault, no rape, no inciting a riot, no stealing, no - well, you get the idea. The human body is well regulated by law.

Furthermore, society has regulations too - no farting in public, no talking during a movie, no pinching little old ladies, no laughing at a funeral - etc.:lol:

Uncle

Murder is something I do to someone else's body. So are rape, inciting a riot, stealing (well, that is an offence against another's property). As to social taboos, I have no problem with codes that promote social harmony - break those at your own risk. I, for one, always turn off my cell phone at a theatre.

Laws regulating what I do with my own body, however are a different story. I ought to be able to tattoo myself, amputate a limb, take a drug, sell an organ if I wish. If my behaviour subsequently does harm to another, I quite naturally be held to account for that. If it does not - then butt out and leave me alone to live as I choose.

Pangloss

 

[Colpy]

So long as my tax money funds your health care, your body is MY business too.

If this were as simple as only folks over the age of 18 used it and it never allowed anybody to make intoxicated choices, we wouldn't NEED laws regarding pot. I find the synthetic pills more effective anyway.

Got to say, the first line of your post reflects an attitude that irritates the hell out of me...........either offer health care as a benefit of living in this society or don't......attaching strings is a very slippery slope. First it is laws forcing you to wear seat belts, then it becomes an argument in the struggle to end legal firearms ownership, then it is a move to deny treatment to smokers..........where does it end?

Universal health care should not be a threat to Liberty.

It is becoming more so every day.....

Given the choice, I'll take liberty, thank you.

 

[triedit]

Which is why Im not a fan of universal health care *grin*

 

[Kreskin]

Which is why Im not a fan of universal health care *grin*

I suppose if they can ruin their bodies and increase your private medical insurance premiums at the same time then it isn't your business?

 

[Kreskin]

Which also leads to wonder that I've always understood that even under private healthcare everyone gets looked after whether they have insurance or not. If that is the case who's paying for it?

 

[Pangloss]

So long as my tax money funds your health care, your body is MY business too.

If this were as simple as only folks over the age of 18 used it and it never allowed anybody to make intoxicated choices, we wouldn't NEED laws regarding pot. I find the synthetic pills more effective anyway.

Then, in order to be consistent, we ought to prohibit every single choice that isn't the safest and most healthful: cigarettes, alcohol, bacon, horseback riding - all gone. Risky recreational sports - gone. Being a couch potato - lock 'em up.

As I said, if my behaviour results in harm to another (and to a degree, that harm might be defined as cost, as well), then I should be held to account for the harm I have done. But that does not immediately translate to a justification for a set of laws that demonstrably do more harm than good.

And if dope were legal, it could be sold in stores where age verification were enforced. When it is illegal, it is exactly as available to 10 year olds as it is to 35 year old MBAs - all they need is money.

Pangloss

 

[triedit]

I would support a ban on alcohol and cigarettes too, actually.

 

[Pangloss]

Triedit:

Let's leave aside, for the moment, the question of individual liberty. Let's just look at the effects of prohibition and see if it is a wise policy.

The last great prohibition was against alcohol in the U.S. It led to the creation of an entire criminal underclass and all of it's accompanying evils: gun and bomb violence, extortion, the corruption of entire law enforcement and judicial and political systems (remember Chicago?) and the financing of some very nasty criminals and their rapidly-growing associated enterprises.

People still drank - the prohibition never stopped anyone from getting a drink if they wanted one - only the money went to bomb-throwing crooks, not legal distillers.

The current war on drugs has failed - over a period of decades - to achieve any of its objectives. It has led to assaults on civil liberties that were unsurpassed until the Patriot Act. It has led to selective (read: black, latino, poor) arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations - not to mention permament disenfranchisement because you were convicted of posessing $50 worth of weed.

The prohibition on drugs is a greater present danger to the world than drug use.

Pangloss

 

[#juan]

Got to say, the first line of your post reflects an attitude that irritates the hell out of me...........either offer health care as a benefit of living in this society or don't......attaching strings is a very slippery slope. First it is laws forcing you to wear seat belts, then it becomes an argument in the struggle to end legal firearms ownership, then it is a move to deny treatment to smokers..........where does it end?

Universal health care should not be a threat to Liberty.

It is becoming more so every day.....

Given the choice, I'll take liberty, thank you.

Colpy

We do offer health care as a benefit in Canada but the costs are something we try to control. Our health care system shouldn't be abused by any of us. The seatbelt laws are perfectly reasonable. If you don't wear your seat belt and as a result you receive an injury that costs a hundred and forty thousand dollars to fix, is that fair to the rest of us who do wear out seat belts? "Liberty" doesn't include making others pay for your mistakes.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dump these turkeys? In favour of which other turkeys?

 

[Ten Packs]

I would support a ban on alcohol and cigarettes too, actually.

GREAT!

Bring back Al Capone, while you're at it...

Every culture since the beginning of time has found a way to alter their mind with one substance or another - what makes you think a law is going to stop that?

Never mind that - let's just talk boring old Economics... If you could grow a couple Marijuana plants in your gaden next to your tomatoes - do you think anyone would prefer to pay the obscene amounts of money to support Organized Crime doing it for them?

Think about that, the next time you belly-ache about the Grow-Op three streets over from your house...

 

[triedit]

*shrug* the economics and mafia stuff doesnt enter the equation for me actually, although Im sure you are correct. For me, it's just a matter of "do we need these things?" and the answer is no. Nobody needs alcohol, tobacco or non-medicinal marijuana.

 

[lone wolf]

How much money is spent on fighting the drug trade? Sure, nail the hell out of international traffickers. What is the problem with just lightening up on internal enforcement? Leave the laws in place as a backup. Yeah, I'm inviting flames in on me, but bear with me a moment.

If it's almost legal, price drops. Most of the mark-up is risk factor. If some toastio didn't have to rob to feed the need, crime rates drop. Pushers would be put out of business. Organized crime would lose the biggest percentage of its revenues. Courts wouldn't be tied up processing these people. Cops would have time freed up to investigate more serious crime and make our roads safer.

We can protect minors the same way we do now - and there are more cops available to help keep them safe. Half the fun to them is in getting away with something anyhow. It's a lot cheaper to help someone cope with an addiction than it is to keep them behind bars. The addict gets two chances to straighten up, then it's up to God. If he/she dies, it was going to happen sooner or later anyhow.


Wolf

 

[Ten Packs]

*shrug* the economics and mafia stuff doesnt enter the equation for me actually, although Im sure you are correct. For me, it's just a matter of "do we need these things?" and the answer is no. Nobody needs alcohol, tobacco or non-medicinal marijuana.

It doesn't? Have you figured out a way to avoid paying taxes? Taxes that go for increased Policing while REAL criminals don't get the attention and investigation they should (and THAT, sir, is from at least two retired RCMP whom I have known)?
Taxes that support the prison system, the Justice (?) system, the "Legal" profession (which is anything but, most of the time... or should be)?

How many Police were either unable or under-staffed in their investigation that finally led to Willie Pickton - because they were sent out to track down some dumb kid with a half-ounce of grass in his pocket?

THAT "doesn't enter the equation" for you? Then you are a lucky person.

 

[Pangloss]

*shrug* the economics and mafia stuff doesnt enter the equation for me actually, although Im sure you are correct. For me, it's just a matter of "do we need these things?" and the answer is no. Nobody needs alcohol, tobacco or non-medicinal marijuana.

Triedit:

Do you actually think you (or anybody) is enough of an authority about anyone but themselves to say what another person needs? What do you mean by "needs", anyway. For some people a cigar or a glass of wine or a joint or a line is an integral part of their day and hurts no-one. Who is anyone else to say what I need or you need or what anyone needs?

Pangloss