Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation

[capricorn]

Doesn't work: If you do this you'll be on bail for a year or a year and a half while the crown and defence negotiate and settle, and then you might or might not do jail time, and if you do they'll cut off at least one third for parole, and maybe two thirds if you can keep out of trouble in jail, and maybe....

On CTV's Power Play, BC Sol.Gen. John Van Dongen and AG Wally Oppal made these points. They also said accused individuals refuse bail in order to have the pre trial jail time counted as 2 for 1 to reduce their sentence. Hence, a 15 year sentence is reduced to 6 years. This 2 for 1 business has got to stop.

Here's the link to the interview.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/power-play/thursd...-26/#clip144217

[eyeball]

...punishment does deter crime, but it has to be strong, certain and immediate, and our system does not allow for any of those.

Assuming it did how many millions of Canadian scum-bags are you prepared to see thrown in jail?

Note; we might as well get this war on the proper footing and as you know referring to the enemy as scum-bags instead of human beings makes it that much easier.

[jdobbin]

I think the records also indicate that much of the pot that's grown these days in Canada is simply grown by the people who use it themselves. They do so to save money and to avoid having to expose themselves to criminals. These are responsible normal people who are probably just as nervous of a home invasion by the Hell's Angels as they are the cops.

I'd have to see the breakdown on that. My thoughts are most people don't have homegrown operations simply because it takes a long time as well as some effort. Not all of these major grow ops in Canada for export to the U.S. They supply product all across Canada too.

Its bad enough that the government creates the conditions for criminals to flourish in but do they also have to drive as much business their way as possible? Its just perverse and in the face of legal booze its as good as criminal.

As long as many generally law abiding Canadians buy dope, it will allow the gangs to operate more freely.

The government should consider that.

[jdobbin]

Won't hurt.

Optics if gang violence continues over the lucrative drug trade.

[jdobbin]

First, those analysts have a tendency to study the US, which is a completely different situation than us, say that "this" or "that" doesn't work there, and then impute that it won't work here either. Stupid, imho.

The studies quoted in the last months came from Canadian criminologists working from Statscan numbers.

Second, punishment does deter crime, but it has to be strong, certain and immediate, and our system does not allow for any of those.

Works: If you do this you will immediately go to jail for one year.

I don't know any system that doesn't operate on habeus corpus.

If the government wants to expedite that, they could hire more prosecutors, fund legal aid more and get more judges into place. They would also have to fund more prisons for remand, provincial and federal jails.

Doesn't work: If you do this you'll be on bail for a year or a year and a half while the crown and defence negotiate and settle, and then you might or might not do jail time, and if you do they'll cut off at least one third for parole, and maybe two thirds if you can keep out of trouble in jail, and maybe....

As I said, it requires hiring more Crowns, etc to the job.

The Feds can't simply impose sentences and then watch it clog up the courts and the prisons. If you want to sentence and imprison tens of thousands of more people, you have to pay for it.

Even then, is it enough to stop generally law abiding Canadians from buying dope?

If you want to cut demand down, arrest and sentence dope buyers to 5 years in jail. Think Harper might do that?

[WestViking]

Assuming it did how many millions of Canadian scum-bags are you prepared to see thrown in jail? Note; we might as well get this war on the proper footing and as you know referring to the enemy as scum-bags instead of human beings makes it that much easier.

At present we have about 12,500 men in federal prisons - for all crimes. That represents less than one half of one percent of the male population between the ages of 15 and 70. The suggestion that 'millions' will be thrown in jail as a result of tougher crime laws is fiction.

[jdobbin]

The suggestion that 'millions' will be thrown in jail as a result of tougher crime laws is fiction.

If you want to cut demand for dope in Canada, arresting the users and having them serve prison sentences could increase the numbers dramatically.

Arresting the sellers doesn't cut demand. It just cuts the supply and makes it more lucrative for those still left in the trade. It also probably makes it more violent.

[Argus]

Assuming it did how many millions of Canadian scum-bags are you prepared to see thrown in jail?

All of them.

[Argus]

The studies quoted in the last months came from Canadian criminologists working from Statscan numbers.

Oh I'm sure they were Canadian. And I'm sure their data on harsher sentences not working came ultimately from the united states. It's not as if we've tried it here, after all.

I don't know any system that doesn't operate on habeus corpus.

If the government wants to expedite that, they could hire more prosecutors, fund legal aid more and get more judges into place. They would also have to fund more prisons for remand, provincial and federal jails.

Then do it. But realistically, the problem is our system is overly complex. Any system controlled, devised and designed by lawyers is going to be hideously complex, and get worse over time. We need to simplify things. For example, catch a guy red-handed with a concealed handgun - 1 year in jail. How much court time should that really require? In our system? Probably a full day. Common sense says it should be done in half an hour or less.

The Feds can't simply impose sentences and then watch it clog up the courts and the prisons. If you want to sentence and imprison tens of thousands of more people, you have to pay for it.

We either pay for them to be imprisoned, or we pay in terms of higher insurance premiums, burglar alarms, fees for security guards, higher policing costs, better locks, destroyed property, etc. etc. etc. I'd rather pay for the prisons.

[normanchateau]

"VANCOUVER, British Columbia - Canada's Conservative government proposed a new law Friday that would raise jail sentences for drug crimes, following a surge in gang-related violence in this city as it prepares to host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the new law was intended to address an unprecedented wave of violence that has seen six people gunned down in the past month.

The proposed changes would increase the maximum sentence for marijuana production to 14 years, from seven..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29432204/

Whenever one thinks that Harper can't possibly demonstrate more irrationality than he has in the past, he proves us wrong. Who in their right mind believes that gang-related crime will decline if the maximum penalty for producing marijuana is 14 years instead of seven? Stupid, stupid Harper. He continues to derive his anachronistic drug policies from George Bush and Richard Nixon.

[xul]

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.

Ironically, it seems this thread proved another seemingly irrelative thread in this board.

Afghanistan war un-winnable?

[WestViking]

"VANCOUVER, British Columbia - Canada's Conservative government proposed a new law Friday that would raise jail sentences for drug crimes, following a surge in gang-related violence in this city as it prepares to host the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the new law was intended to address an unprecedented wave of violence that has seen six people gunned down in the past month.

The proposed changes would increase the maximum sentence for marijuana production to 14 years, from seven..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29432204/

Whenever one thinks that Harper can't possibly demonstrate more irrationality than he has in the past, he proves us wrong. Who in their right mind believes that gang-related crime will decline if the maximum penalty for producing marijuana is 14 years instead of seven? Stupid, stupid Harper. He continues to derive his anachronistic drug policies from George Bush and Richard Nixon.

Of course, you can't explain why drug dealers are busily shooting one another in the streets under current laws.

You can read the text of Bill C-15 here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...3962&file=4

[jdobbin]

Ironically, it seems this thread proved another seemingly irrelative thread in this board.

How do you mean?

[Wild Bill]

Of course, you can't explain why drug dealers are busily shooting one another in the streets under current laws.

You can read the text of Bill C-15 here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...3962&file=4

Why did bootleggers shoot each other during Prohibition?

It's all about MONEY!

The parallels with today's drug laws and Prohibition are so obvious that for years now I've suspected that key politicians are likely "on the take" to keep drugs illegal and maintain the incredible profit factor.

[jdobbin]

Oh I'm sure they were Canadian. And I'm sure their data on harsher sentences not working came ultimately from the united states. It's not as if we've tried it here, after all.

Pretty sure they were using Canadian numbers on sentencing. It isn't like murderers are generally getting five year sentences. Even people with cases where people might have some sympathy for the person such as Latimer had to serve the 10 year minimum sentence despite the judge and jury saying he should receive less.

The minimum sentencing in a lot of areas are pretty lengthy. They are about to become even more lengthy.

Then do it. But realistically, the problem is our system is overly complex. Any system controlled, devised and designed by lawyers is going to be hideously complex, and get worse over time. We need to simplify things. For example, catch a guy red-handed with a concealed handgun - 1 year in jail. How much court time should that really require? In our system? Probably a full day. Common sense says it should be done in half an hour or less.

Why even that long? Caught with a gun, remand until trial time and no 2 for 1 sentencing.

We either pay for them to be imprisoned, or we pay in terms of higher insurance premiums, burglar alarms, fees for security guards, higher policing costs, better locks, destroyed property, etc. etc. etc. I'd rather pay for the prisons.

That certainly will fill the prisons.

Now, what to do about the demand for pot?

[Wilber]

What do you suggest? a search of every car that crosses the boarder? We'll have to add 50x as many boarder guards and add mechanics to put cars back together after the searches. The drug war can't be won, we need to educate people on the evils of drugs and catch kids young so we can stop them from becoming adult users.

I'm suggesting that legalizing it in Canada alone won't solve the problem. The trade will not go away and there is no legal way to export the stuff so it will still be organized crime doing business as usual. I totally agree that it has to start with the kids but if you want to deal with gangs, you have to go after them anyway you can. Our "border guards" guard border crossings, they don't guard our borders. The police forces of the municipalities on the border get stuck with that, something they have neither the resources or the time for. The US has a border patrol which actually does what its title suggests.

[Wilber]

Why did bootleggers shoot each other during Prohibition?

It's all about MONEY!

The parallels with today's drug laws and Prohibition are so obvious that for years now I've suspected that key politicians are likely "on the take" to keep drugs illegal and maintain the incredible profit factor.

Prohibition was south of the border not in Canada so why do you think they will stop shooting each other if we legalize it here and it stays prohibited in the US?

[Wilber]

You have left out the word "including" in my statement which I had wrote earlier on in the thread. Why is that?

The police records have indicated that the demand for things like pot doesn't just come from criminals. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? It comes from people who for the most part obey the laws of Canada. The problem with pot is that people who generally don't break any other laws, break this one on usage. In so doing, grow operations run by organized crime flourish.

There was no "including" in that post. Do I have to go back to page one of every thread to decipher your latest post? I don't disagree with that statement. Everyone knows the problem, it's the solution that ain't so easy because most of the customers aren't in this country.

[xul]

How do you mean?

Most Afghan tribe peasants live on growning marijuana and they know if Americans win their "business" will end, so American can hardly win without finding another harmless and profitable business for them.

[jdobbin]

Most Afghan tribe peasants live on growning marijuana and they know if Americans win their "business" will end, so American can hardly win without finding another harmless and profitable business for them.

I think you mean poppies. I often wonder if NATO would be better to just buy the crop and use it for medical morphine for the world supply.

[guyser]

I'm suggesting that legalizing it in Canada alone won't solve the problem.

All indications are that should we legalize it, or decriminalize it, then it will go a very long way to solving the problem.

Just as prohibition did not eradicate drunks, it did reduce crime.

The trade will not go away and there is no legal way to export the stuff so it will still be organized crime doing business as usual.

We do not have to worry about the export of the goods. Thats america's problem. The very same way as guns being smuggled into Canada is our problem.

But lets not stop there.Lets look at the border states where you are.

Alaska, 1oz-no crime (an ounce is a fairly large amount for personal use), 1-4oz misdemeanor meaning likely no charges at all. In Alaska one can grow up to 25 plants without penalty. Privacy laws exist that support this.

Washington - up to 40 grams -misdemeanor although they have this weird thing where you serve a mandatory 24 hour jail stint. (wtf?)

Idaho - 3oz or less-misdemeanor-although you can get 1yr.

Oregon - <than 1oz-misdemeanor and no jail time

California-28grams of less and 28 grams or more-misdemeanor and no charges but over 28g and you may serve 6 months.

But California , will in my estimate, legalize or reduce all but the most serious aspects of drugs and crime to an almost 'legal' stature.

Obama 's office released a statement today saying the Feds were going to stop infrimging on states rights w respect to drug laws,thus the states can make up their own minds. This also has the DEA stopping raids on cultivation spots in Cali, no more raids or med mary jane shops and cafes.

As it is now, legally in Cali, one can ask a doctor for a prescription, and 10 minutes later have some pot in his hand....and no one can do a damn thing.

So wilbur, it looks more like a quality control issue than a legal issue. The reason pot gets run into the US is because BC is notoriously good at making great pot. And here in Ontario, we make great pot, but we have to grow it in houses..which is bad...and export the rest to the US since it is so much better. ...which is their problem.

[guyser]

I think you mean poppies. I often wonder if NATO would be better to just buy the crop and use it for medical morphine for the world supply.

Poppies, hash , you name it.

My contact over there says it flourishes and he walks past piles of it everyday. He of course cant touch or even acknowledge it. But it thrives since the war started.

The amount of money spent on the WoD in the US could buy the entire supply of cocaine more than once. Now that is dumb !

[Alexandra]

The proposed changes would increase the maximum sentence for marijuana production to 14 years, from seven..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29432204/

Whenever one thinks that Harper can't possibly demonstrate more irrationality than he has in the past, he proves us wrong. Who in their right mind believes that gang-related crime will decline if the maximum penalty for producing marijuana is 14 years instead of seven? Stupid, stupid Harper. He continues to derive his anachronistic drug policies from George Bush and Richard Nixon.

Rather than linking to a Vancouver media source N.chateau and quoting a few of the main issues within the proposed changes your hissy fits when it comes to the marijuana possession thingie is so politically transparent. MSNBC? What, the Vancouver Sun is much too close to the subject to report the actual events? It must be assumed you do not read Kim Bolan's blog in order for you to be so out of touch with reality.

These are a few of the actual proposed changes which deals with the real organized crime and drug issues in the Greater Vancouver area:

"VANCOUVER - Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said new legislation introduced Friday will mean drug dealers caught with guns will face at least a year behind bars.

"And if they are dealing near schools, the mandatory term would be two years, Nicholson said.

"Mandatory prison sentences are appropriate for those who commit serious drug offences threatening our society," said Nicholson.

The provision include:

- A one-year mandatory prison sentence for dealing drugs such as marijuana, when carried out for organized crime purposes or when a weapon or violence is involved;

- A two-year mandatory prison sentence for dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamines to youth, or for dealing those drugs near a school or in an area normally frequented by youth;

- A two-year mandatory prison sentence for the offence of running a large marijuana grow operation involving at least 500 plants;

- Increased maximum penalties for cannabis production from 7 years to 14 years imprisonment;

- Tougher penalties for trafficking GHB and flunitrazepam, most commonly known as date-rape drugs."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mandatory...6577/story.html

How you fail to see, read, hear or smell the BC Bud being smoked openly on the streets, in cars, in street cafes, at parties at UBC and Simon Fraser, etc., etc. and throughout all of the Greater Vancouver area as well as all of the ski hills in the Interior and Whistler WITHOUT ANY ARRESTS by the local police forces is unbelievable. Yet, you continue to whine about any arrests and penalties for those caught with a big baggie full of the Bud for purposes of selling to friends and not so friendly friends.

As long as it isn't you or anyone else in the parking lot of the mall when the bullets are flying in broad daylight and one of the major gang bosses is shot through the head and chest while sitting in his vehicle and when the bullets stop a Doctor rushes out from a clinic, pulls this 26 year old out of his vehicle and attempts to stop the bleeding before help arrives and everyone picks themselves up from the sidewalk but luckily he is the only one dead, right Normanchateau? Or, when the 22 year old mother of two driving home with her 4 year old son in the back seat is shot to death by a cold blooded killer in the car in the next lane -- simply because she was married to a rival drug lord -- Oh, right, all of these killings no matter how many innocent people may lose their lives in Greater Vancouver are not nearly as important to you Normanchateau as your own political agenda. Of course those are just two of the dead in the past two weeks.

At last count the drive by shooting in Maple Ridge yesterday seems to have had only one victim. Good thing that. Broad daylight on the street in a family oriented area again. Right. We do not need tougher laws. One of the crime bosses walked out of court the other day on 11 gun charges - with silencer but then he has only been in court 60 times so far. He is 27 years old so he has at least a couple more years to either deal his hard drugs or die in a shootout on a street near you. All of the body armour didn't help the shots to the head of the other gang boss recently. The local police in bucolic Abbotsford are probably wearing their armoured vests to bed now and who would blame them with the rival gangsters trying to eliminate their rivals on a weekly basis? These are hardcore hard drug gangs Normanchateau not the BC Bud smoking thousands in Greater Vancouver. You would of course prefer that any tightening of the Criminal Code should have been enacted years ago right? Under a different Federal regime such as the Chretien/Martin gang? Oh, wait.

`

[DrGreenthumb]

- A one-year mandatory prison sentence for dealing drugs such as marijuana, when carried out for organized crime purposes or when a weapon or violence is involved;

- A two-year mandatory prison sentence for dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamines to youth, or for dealing those drugs near a school or in an area normally frequented by youth;

- Increased maximum penalties for cannabis production from 7 years to 14 years imprisonment;

-

How you fail to see, read, hear or smell the BC Bud being smoked openly on the streets, in cars, in street cafes, at parties at UBC and Simon Fraser, etc., etc. and throughout all of the Greater Vancouver area as well as all of the ski hills in the Interior and Whistler WITHOUT ANY ARRESTS by the local police forces is unbelievable.

As long as it isn't you or anyone else in the parking lot of the mall when the bullets are flying in broad daylight and one of the major gang bosses is shot through the head and chest while sitting in his vehicle and when the bullets stop a Doctor rushes out from a clinic, pulls this 26 year old out of his vehicle and attempts to stop the bleeding before help arrives and everyone picks themselves up from the sidewalk but luckily he is the only one dead, right Normanchateau? Or, when the 22 year old mother of two driving home with her 4 year old son in the back seat is shot to death by a cold blooded killer in the car in the next lane -- simply because she was married to a rival drug lord -- Oh, right, all of these killings no matter how many innocent people may lose their lives in Greater Vancouver are not nearly as important to you Normanchateau as your own political agenda. Of course those are just two of the dead in the past two weeks.

`

Get a life.

Anyone who thinks that growing or selling a plant is committing a "crime" worth caging a human being over is seriously deluded.

All the violence you can come up with is directly CAUSED by the war on SOME drugs. Anybody you know been gunned down over carrots or corn? I swear sometimes the prohibitionists are actually mentally handicapped. You have to be a couple of cans short of a six pack to believe that any bullshit laws are going to lessen the demand for good pot. There are millions of canadians that smoke pot, if each of them buy a gram a day thats a 10 million dollar a day business, and no law is going to stop that business from continuing. Supply and demand trumps the criminal code.

People like you who support tougher drug laws are the ones with blood on your hands for the children and families that are the casualties of this war. Increasing penalties ALWAYS increases the profits and therefore the violence associated with the drug trade. But the blood of those killed on all sides of the conflict are not nearly as important to you Alexandra as your own political agenda.

[eyeball]

Prohibition was south of the border not in Canada so why do you think they will stop shooting each other if we legalize it here and it stays prohibited in the US?

Is there any evidence of gangsters shooting it out over turf wars in Canada when the US prohibited booze?