Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

f the legislation passes, drive-by shooting attacks would be punished with prison sentences between four and 14 years.

The proposed legislation would also create new offences for both aggravated assault against a police officer and assault with a weapon against a police officer. These crimes would each carry 14-year sentences.

I don't doubt that the legislation will pass with support but I don't know that it will have a big difference to those in gangs who are fighting over a very profitable drug industry.

[Wild Bill]

I don't doubt that the legislation will pass with support but I don't know that it will have a big difference to those in gangs who are fighting over a very profitable drug industry.

Yep, you're speaking the sad truth!

Passing laws is easy. After all, that's what politicians are paid to do. ENFORCING laws costs money! You need more police and you need to monitor judges to make sure they don't dilute the sentencing intentions.

Sounds good in the papers, 'tho.

[jdobbin]

Passing laws is easy. After all, that's what politicians are paid to do. ENFORCING laws costs money! You need more police and you need to monitor judges to make sure they don't dilute the sentencing intentions.

I think that is what the word "mandatory" means. There will be no discretion for judges.

There is more money in the budget for the police and they keep increasing those budgets.

Enforcing laws and mandatory sentences will have an impact but then we still have a multi-billion drug industry that has defied all attempts to stop it.

It doesn't help when the people who call for major punishments for gang activity are buying drugs in such numbers. And those people who buy come from all political stripes including law and order conservative types.

Edited February 26, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

Judges are bringing on mandatory sentences by their own actions. From the Langley Times a community hit by several public shootings in recent weeks.

Editorial

[Wild Bill]

It doesn't help when the people who call for major punishments for gang activity are buying drugs in such numbers. And those people who buy come from all political stripes including law and order conservative types.

Well, that's not going to change! It's Prohibition all over again!

Millions of Canadians use drugs. Most of them likely "soft" drugs like marijuana but still, huge numbers. They don't accept the rationale behind the prohibition laws and find the chances of getting caught remote. So they ignore the laws and buy the products, just like bootleg liquor with Al Capone.

To me, anti-drug laws are the ultimate in social conservatism. Also the ultimate in futility. Legalization would wipe out huge areas of organized crime overnight.

Sure makes a lot of criminals rich, though.

Meanwhile, we always have a place available in a jail for a kid caught smoking a joint but we have months-long waiting periods for hard core users who want to get clean.

The entire situation is a smoke and mirrors joke delivered by politicians looking for photo ops from the Ned Flanders contingent.

And the rest of us Canadians have to pay for the show with our taxes.

[Progressive Tory]

Well, that's not going to change! It's Prohibition all over again!

The entire situation is a smoke and mirrors joke delivered by politicians looking for photo ops from the Ned Flanders contingent. And the rest of us Canadians have to pay for the show with our taxes.

I'm all for tough on crime measures but I'm afraid I have to agree with Wild Bill here about what constitutes crime and the driving force behind gang warfare. It's drug prohibition. Pure and simple. They are shooting each other for a bigger piece of the pie and until government officials get their heads out of the sand and end prohibition, especially for softer drugs, like marijuana; they are only playing into the hands of the criminals.

They're the ones who need drug prohibition, otherwise they're out of business.

I think shooting a police officer should be an automatic life term, but we also have a responsibilty to protect those officers, and creating an atmosphere of gangs fighting for the right to sell something illegally that shouldn't be illegal in the first place is not only shortsighted, but may be functionally retarded.

Allow our officers to fight real crime. Allow our prisons to be inhabited by real criminals. Force the gangs out of business, instead of just feeding them and their families for the rest of their natural lives. Maybe they'll have to get real jobs.

[Wilber]

I'm all for tough on crime measures but I'm afraid I have to agree with Wild Bill here about what constitutes crime and the driving force behind gang warfare. It's drug prohibition. Pure and simple. They are shooting each other for a bigger piece of the pie and until government officials get their heads out of the sand and end prohibition, especially for softer drugs, like marijuana; they are only playing into the hands of the criminals.

They're the ones who need drug prohibition, otherwise they're out of business.

I think shooting a police officer should be an automatic life term, but we also have a responsibilty to protect those officers, and creating an atmosphere of gangs fighting for the right to sell something illegally that shouldn't be illegal in the first place is not only shortsighted, but may be functionally retarded.

Allow our officers to fight real crime. Allow our prisons to be inhabited by real criminals. Force the gangs out of business, instead of just feeding them and their families for the rest of their natural lives. Maybe they'll have to get real jobs.

People continue to ignore the fact that this is a cross border crime, the majority of marijuana grown in BC is exported to the US in return for cash, other drugs such as cocaine and restricted firearms. Legalizing it in Canada alone will do nothing to combat that trade or the profits it generates.

As far as legalizing drugs go, which ones do you legalize? The ingredients that go into meth and other designer drugs make alcohol and tobacco look like a health foods. Do we legalize that as well and if so, who in their right mind is going to produce them other than criminals, because anyone who tried to foist that stuff off on the public would deserve to have their asses sued off and wind up in jail, including the politicians who made it acceptable.

[guyser]

People continue to ignore the fact that this is a cross border crime, the majority of marijuana grown in BC is exported to the US in return for cash, other drugs such as cocaine and restricted firearms. Legalizing it in Canada alone will do nothing to combat that trade or the profits it generates.

It would at least free up capital to spend on border measures.

As far as legalizing drugs go, which ones do you legalize?

The ones that sprout out of the ground naturally.

[Wilber]

It would at least free up capital to spend on border measures.

The ones that sprout out of the ground naturally.

How so, you will still have the gangs to contend with.

[Progressive Tory]

As far as legalizing drugs go, which ones do you legalize? The ingredients that go into meth and other designer drugs make alcohol and tobacco look like a health foods.

Marijuana for starters. It's bordering on insanity not to.

The question as to other drugs, is not easy but we have to ask ourselves, is prohibition working? Has it stopped drug abuse? Often it's a case of drug of choice, and many believe that if you have an addictive personality, your drug of choice can be anything from religion to gambling. You need a fix.

I think we should end all prohibition and put the money toward education and the root cause of addiction. I know it sounds like a fairy tale, but what is the current system doing? Creating gang wars. Leave the wars to the boardrooms and we won't get caught in the crossfire.

Doctors prescribe designer drugs, and people get addicted to them. If there's a buck in it, the pharmecutical industry will make it. They'll just give it a new, nicer sounding name.

We can't deal with the problem of drug addiction until we admit that our current stategy is not working. We need to shift our focus.

I watched the documentary 'The Union' about the BC drug industry. If Americans can come here and buy drugs, especially Marijuana legally, its not our problem if they try to smuggle them into the U.S.. It's only a problem for US Customs preventing it from entering their country, in the same way they prevent plants and Persian rugs. There's no gain for criminals in Canada.

[Wilber]

I watched the documentary 'The Union' about the BC drug industry. If Americans can come here and buy drugs, especially Marijuana legally, its not our problem if they try to smuggle them into the U.S.. It's only a problem for US Customs preventing it from entering their country, in the same way they prevent plants and Persian rugs. There's no gain for criminals in Canada.

Aaargh, the drug industry is here, the market is in the US, how do you think legalizing the market here is going to end the industry? If the US closes it's border because of our drug policies, that's a huge problem for us.

Doctors prescribe designer drugs, and people get addicted to them. If there's a buck in it, the pharmecutical industry will make it. They'll just give it a new, nicer sounding name.

Yes and if they make an prescribe drugs that kill people they get sued out of business so the only people who are going to make those drugs are criminals. Do you honestly think a drug company is going to accept the legal and financial liability of making crack or chrystal meth?

[jdobbin]

Aaargh, the drug industry is here, the market is in the US, how do you think legalizing the market here is going to end the industry? If the US closes it's border because of our drug policies, that's a huge problem for us.

It is why I said that even bigger penalties in Canada won't stop demand here in Canada or the U.S. The money in the drug market is just too good.

[Wilber]

It is why I said that even bigger penalties in Canada won't stop demand here in Canada or the U.S. The money in the drug market is just too good.

So what do you suggest, just let them fight it out on the streets?

[jdobbin]

So what do you suggest, just let them fight it out on the streets?

Didn't suggest anything. I just said that mandatory sentences sounds good but it is unlikely to address the problem.

You have indicated that any rejection of decriminalization of softer drugs won't be accepted south of the border. That is probably true.

So, my thinking is that the problem will not be really addressed as long as law and order types think it is okay to buy dope from criminals who sell it.

[blueblood]

Didn't suggest anything. I just said that mandatory sentences sounds good but it is unlikely to address the problem.

You have indicated that any rejection of decriminalization of softer drugs won't be accepted south of the border. That is probably true.

So, my thinking is that the problem will not be really addressed as long as law and order types think it is okay to buy dope from criminals who sell it.

It's not a drug problem. Organized crime will find other avenues to make its money if drugs or anything is legal.

Only a change in societal thinking would get rid of organized crime. fat chance of that happening.

[eyeball]

To me, anti-drug laws are the ultimate in social conservatism.

Well, if people like you would stop voting for Conservatives we might not have social conservatism to contend with, but to be fair its probably not entirely your fault.

I blame both the right and left for the progressive authoritarianism that now characterizes the trend of the so-called free-world everywhere around this stupid little planet. The latest example is captured in the spectacle of Barack Obama keeping all the new powers that his office comes with and maintaining the policies that George Bush used to suspend civil liberties. The powers that be giveth but never taketh away and we have no one to blame but ourselves for that.

And the rest of us Canadians have to pay for the show with our taxes.

Not to mention the civil liberties we'll lose when the progressive authoritarians in Harper's party introduce measures on Friday that will supposedly deal with the drug trade the gangs are fighting over. Apparently these will be similar to the sorts of measures the US have put in place to deal with terrorists. I fully expect the left will sit there like a bunch of stooges and rubber stamp the new increased powers of the state.

[eyeball]

As for blaming the US for Canadian progressive authoritarianism.

Places that have decriminalized non-medical cannabis in the United States

[jdobbin]

It's not a drug problem.

You'll have to tell that to Prentice. He has been saying that it is a drug problem all day. Are you saying he is wrong?

Organized crime will find other avenues to make its money if drugs or anything is legal.

I'm sure that is true. However, like alcohol, drugs represents such a huge amount of money that it lends itself to the worst gang violence we have seen since Prohibition.

[guyser]

How so, you will still have the gangs to contend with.

Yes and no.

Gangs will always be around. But when the gangs are mostly broke because they cant sell the 'demon weed' then they diminish in threat.

If there is no turf to defend, then the incidences of gun violence drop off the radar.

As for meth and crack/cocaine, I would suspect that those trades will diminsh too, but not entirely.

Now, about that border problem and mary jane. It aint ours. Just like the gun running into Canada is not the USA's problem, it is ours. But it seems as if he west coast of the US may solve most fo the problem when Cali legalizes pot , which was introduced the other day.......of course they might, Cali is flat broke right now and some estimates of the tax revenue runs to $1B a year.

[blueblood]

You'll have to tell that to Prentice. He has been saying that it is a drug problem all day. Are you saying he is wrong?

I'm sure that is true. However, like alcohol, drugs represents such a huge amount of money that it lends itself to the worst gang violence we have seen since Prohibition.

Do I look Like a party hack?

I have one question, did organized crime go away because of the end of Prohibition?

Gangs will find some other rev. stream

[guyser]

I have one question, did organized crime go away because of the end of Prohibition?

No but one could argue that org crime soared because of prohibition. And with that rise came the crimes, especially capital offences, murder , assaults etc.

Speakeasies came about be cause of the Volstead Act to the tune of twice as many saloons as existed prior to the act. IOW, to get rid of the problem of drinking, they created twice as many bars to drink in.

Lets look at the increase of crime just before and after prohibition.

In large cities the homicide rate went from 5.6 to nearly 10 (per 100G) Federal convicts increased 561 % . About the only crimes that went down were the petty offences.(vagrancy. mischief)

Gangs are involved in prostitution (another one we need to legalize) loan sharking ,gambling and moving stolen goods. Not a whole lot of crime against the man on the street attributed to those four is there? If there is, I doubt it is for murder as can be seen in the lower delta in BC.

It just seems as if our politicians continue on the same path, they will get a better result. This govt, and all the other ones before it, just dont want to admit the truth. One would think with our new generations of PMs and politicians, that they would get smart and admit what every last one of the idiots knows...marijuana banning has not, does not, will not ever be the smart way to go.

The rally last week in Van would not let the organization called LEAP to speak. (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) So whoever planned that rally did not want to solve the problem, they just wanted to be seen doing something.

I suppose bailing out the Titanic with a teacup was a noble thought, but fat lot it did.

Edited February 26, 2009 by guyser

[Progressive Tory]

Well, if people like you would stop voting for Conservatives we might not have social conservatism to contend with, but to be fair its probably not entirely your fault.

It's not a partisan issue. Politicians are afraid of voter reaction, so they won't touch it. I'm not supporting drug use, but the simple fact is that prohibition is not working. We probably spend more on investigating, arresting, ,charging and incarcerating drug criminals than we put into healthcare.

[Progressive Tory]

Yes and if they make an prescribe drugs that kill people they get sued out of business so the only people who are going to make those drugs are criminals. Do you honestly think a drug company is going to accept the legal and financial liability of making crack or chrystal meth?

Who cares? It's no longer a crime to manufacture or sell it. We can regulate and educate, but not prohibit. It's a no-brainer. Make it at home they do wine and beer. Most drugs can be made cheaper than the current 'street value'. Why waste resources prosecuting? Drive the criminals out of business.

[Wilber]

Yes and no.

Gangs will always be around. But when the gangs are mostly broke because they cant sell the 'demon weed' then they diminish in threat.

If there is no turf to defend, then the incidences of gun violence drop off the radar.

As for meth and crack/cocaine, I would suspect that those trades will diminsh too, but not entirely.

Now, about that border problem and mary jane. It aint ours. Just like the gun running into Canada is not the USA's problem, it is ours. But it seems as if he west coast of the US may solve most fo the problem when Cali legalizes pot , which was introduced the other day.......of course they might, Cali is flat broke right now and some estimates of the tax revenue runs to $1B a year.

Legalizing marijuana on both sides of the border would go along way to solving that problem but nothing else will. Anyone who thinks it will solve it on this side of the border should stop smoking the stuff long enough to think about it. The the stuff could not be legaly exported so the crime element will still be there. As long as doing business is easier on this side of the border, this is where criminals will chose to do business.

So, my thinking is that the problem will not be really addressed as long as law and order types think it is okay to buy dope from criminals who sell it.

jdobbin

Ah so it's the law and order types who are buying all the drugs. It's all their fault. What is a "law and order type"? Do you believe in law and order or just everyone grab as much as they can?

[blueblood]

No but one could argue that org crime soared because of prohibition. And with that rise came the crimes, especially capital offences, murder , assaults etc.

Speakeasies came about be cause of the Volstead Act to the tune of twice as many saloons as existed prior to the act. IOW, to get rid of the problem of drinking, they created twice as many bars to drink in.

Lets look at the increase of crime just before and after prohibition.

The difference now is there are a lot more varieties of drugs to choose from. My fear is that legalizing pot, would result in an increase of consumption of the "nasties", the nice thing was during prohibition, people were getting their fixes from getting drunk and generally not other stuff. I'd rather have crime chanelled than risk perpetual chaos.

It's societies attitude that puts the kibosh on crime, in the past crime was viewed more negatively and the crime rate wasn't as bad as it was in recent history.

Organized crime I view as a business, and it has to make money. Legalizing pot would cause them to go into other avenues of income, and we maybe getting into protection and hired hits done on a larger scale to make up for the money "lost" from legalization. Or I can see the harder drugs getting pushed to cover the "losses".

A far more effective tactic would be to jack up the taxes on legal fees to ridiculous levels and create a for profit penal system. Sucking manpower and financial resources by lots of trials and the profits generated by private prisons would empower law enforcement and weaken OC.

Our problem is the justice system can't fund itself as good as OC to be effective.