Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation

[guyser]

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.

We are talking about the legalization of pot.

I dont think your scenario will happen. For one, the use of other drugs has gone down, (some cycles are up)and it is not a 'gateway ' drug, which I hope you are not suggesting pot is.

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.

In 1926, in the middle of prohibition, murder numbers in Chicago were 510. In 2007, 442.

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".

Except we already have 'protection" money paid, but we are not experiencing the murders or increased crime rates.

As for harder drugs to cover the losses, that would already exist if it were true, but it isnt.

You probably like the odd beer. Are you then now inclined to want Grappa,Tequila,or moonshine? I seriously doubt it. You like the taste, and dont want anything else. Most pot smokers are the same.

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.

Jack tha taxes on it, and I agree.

But not to fund for profit prisons. I would never want that, since it makes the justice system attempting to pay their bills on the backs of those in front of them. Justice then flies out the window.

Tak a look at the case in Penn or Ohio, 2 judges charged with fraud for sending kids to a 'for profit' jail. The convictions for the pettiest crimes were severe. We dont want that.

Edited February 27, 2009 by guyser

[capricorn]

I agree with legalizing pot. These are the benefits I see.

1. It would free up jail space which is at a premium right now. Let's make room for perpetrators of violent crimes, including the type the proposed anti-gang legislation is targeting. I don't think building more jails is the answer.

2. Otherwise law abiding citizens would not be hampered by a criminal record. Some of our young citizens who basically experimented with weed, all too often see their futures jeopardized for this experimentation.

3. The revenue from government controlled distribution would be astronomical.

4. I don't know whether pot kills if used by certain individuals but I highly suspect it could. If it does kill in some cases, too bad so sad, let them pay the price through premature death, just like with tobacco and alcohol.

5. The money we spend on law enforcement and courts would be better utilized in catching and prosecuting real criminals.

I'm sure there are other benefits, societal and economic, that I have overlooked. IMO the benefits far outweigh the negatives.

Edited February 27, 2009 by capricorn

[jdobbin]

Do I look Like a party hack?

As I said, you should tell that it isn't a drug problem to Prentice.

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

Some of the most violent organized crime did drop as has been documented in the U.S. and Canada.

Gangs will find some other rev. stream

Nothing quite as profitable and so mobile as drug or, as in the past, alcohol.

[eyeball]

I'd rather have crime chanelled than risk perpetual chaos.

Great another god-damn moral engineer.

You are guaranteed nothing but more chaos, which is exactly what you would say if you were criticizing some god-damn social engineer. Well at least you're not a hypocrite I'll give you that. As I recall you said you support the prohibition of alcohol.

I certainly support consistency, I mean who could argue against that? I think the state would definitely have a better chance of convincing people that the vice of recreationally altering your mind was a crime deserving of punishment if it wasn't selling booze. Consider the technology that police have at their disposal now that didn't exist in the 30's plus the ability of the state to suspend civil liberties...if the state decided to really crack down on society's vices it might just succeed.

I think if the state put some effort into really pumping the fear and hyping the loathing it wouldn't be long until it could justify mandatory drug and alcohol testing for everybody. One strike you go to rehab, two strikes you go to jail, three strikes...you simply disappear.

You're right blueblood why risk perpetual chaos when perpetual order may only be a galvanizing event or two away?

[madmax]

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.

Its legal in Alaska, and the US hasn't orphaned the state.

"In Alaska it is legal both to own and grow marijuana. Alaskans can legally carry up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use. Alaskans are also allowed to grow up to 24 plants at home for personal use. If you ask around, most people will say about 80% of Alaskans smoke marijuana. This is a good example of how Alaska can be so conservative that it starts to actually become liberal. You’ve probably heard about Palin’s 90% approval ratings in Alaska. Just realize about 80% of Alaskans were stoned whenever they were polled. And the other 20% were probably drunk, or drunk and stoned."

[blueblood]

As I said, you should tell that it isn't a drug problem to Prentice.

Some of the most violent organized crime did drop as has been documented in the U.S. and Canada.

Nothing quite as profitable and so mobile as drug or, as in the past, alcohol.

And violent organized crime rose back again when they found something else to do. It would happen again if they legalized pot. Then we get into crystal meth and cocaine which are becoming problematic.

OC isn't dumb, they'll find other ways to make money that can be very profitable.

[jdobbin]

OC isn't dumb, they'll find other ways to make money that can be very profitable.

That may be. If it is then the crime bill that the Tories have put into place won't help a bit.

[blueblood]

We are talking about the legalization of pot.

I dont think your scenario will happen. For one, the use of other drugs has gone down, (some cycles are up)and it is not a 'gateway ' drug, which I hope you are not suggesting pot is.

In 1926, in the middle of prohibition, murder numbers in Chicago were 510. In 2007, 442.

Except we already have 'protection" money paid, but we are not experiencing the murders or increased crime rates.

As for harder drugs to cover the losses, that would already exist if it were true, but it isnt.

You probably like the odd beer. Are you then now inclined to want Grappa,Tequila,or moonshine? I seriously doubt it. You like the taste, and dont want anything else. Most pot smokers are the same.

Jack tha taxes on it, and I agree.

But not to fund for profit prisons. I would never want that, since it makes the justice system attempting to pay their bills on the backs of those in front of them. Justice then flies out the window.

Tak a look at the case in Penn or Ohio, 2 judges charged with fraud for sending kids to a 'for profit' jail. The convictions for the pettiest crimes were severe. We dont want that.

I don't drink so I could care less about the legalization of liquor or not.

I think alcohol prohibition was such a large problem was because alcohol consumption has been a very large part of mainstream society for thousands of years. I hear far more about alcohol consumption in the histories than drug use. I don't think society could cope with ditching booze, hence all of the problems. In the past it was far easier to get rid of pot use, however as it becomes more mainstream, that becomes more difficult, especially with the difficulty in getting the necessary funding to deal with it.

Hard drugs contribute a shat load of money, take a look at those fancy pants mansions in Columbia.

Drug use has more than compensated for the lost revenue of alcohol. If drugs were legal, than something would have to compensate for that lost revenue, those gangsters like their money. Then there is the problem of the escalation into harder drugs which do in fact cause consequences, want those legal too?

The for profit prisons have to occur. It is far to costly for the taxpayers, and far too costly on society to have the present revolving door system. It does not work. One could argue that justice is thrown out the window in our present system, by having society pay the bill to "rehabilitate" felons. Society has paid enough. Why not make the jails profitable. The problem is not with that particular system, it's with the judges down there. But then that's me I could care less about severe penalties, that in itself works as a deterrent. For those who aren't deterred, it's straight to work for a spell.

[blueblood]

That may be. If it is then the crime bill that the Tories have put into place won't help a bit.

I don't think it's about that. It's about clearing trash off the street for a longer period of time. Possible deterrance is a bonus, but you won't hear a politician say that.

[jdobbin]

I don't think it's about that. It's about clearing trash off the street for a longer period of time. Possible deterrance is a bonus, but you won't hear a politician say that.

Politicians always talk about deterrence. It is the criminal analysts who have studied the numbers and found that that it doesn't deter crime. With the money of the drug trade, there is a steady stream of those willing to take the risk of being involved in organized crime.

[blueblood]

Politicians always talk about deterrence. It is the criminal analysts who have studied the numbers and found that that it doesn't deter crime. With the money of the drug trade, there is a steady stream of those willing to take the risk of being involved in organized crime.

They talk about deterrance as the goal, not as the icing on the cake (which would be very thin icing, as we know few people do in fact get deterred) I didn't get the impression that the goal of this legislation was to clear the streets for a spell, they're marketing the goal as deterrance. It doesn't look good for votes among progressives if they market this legislation as "we're throwing trash in jail for longer periods of time"

[jdobbin]

It doesn't look good for votes among progressives if they market this legislation as "we're throwing trash in jail for longer periods of time"

I think that is exactly how it is being sold.

Next step will be heavy punishment for those involved in drugs. I wonder how heavy the hit will be for possession.

[WestViking]

Politicians always talk about deterrence. It is the criminal analysts who have studied the numbers and found that that it doesn't deter crime. With the money of the drug trade, there is a steady stream of those willing to take the risk of being involved in organized crime.

Obviously deterrence does not work. That is why we are enjoying the worst crime wave in many years. There are not enough of us in hug-a-thug programs. Edited February 27, 2009 by WestViking

[eyeball]

I think that is exactly how it is being sold.

Next step will be heavy punishment for those involved in drugs.

Good move, that'll only cause the gangsters to become even meaner and willing to kill cops to defend themselves.

I wonder if they'll let the public see the flag-draped coffins of dead cops?

I wonder how heavy the hit will be for possession.

If its enough to ruin a person's chances of employment expect many to turn to a life of crime.

Throw a bunch of for-profit-prisons into this mix and it really starts to look like a clever blend of moral engineering and economic stimulus in one integrated plan.

[roof_top_eagle]

Here is my problem with this, it's good legislation yes but it doesn't solve the problem of gangs? What we need is a program that will get parents out of poverty so that the kids can play hockey or something instead of getting into a gang! I don't think anything Nicholson can do will stop gang violence it will just add to the street cred of a thug when he gets out after a longer jail sentence. What we need is to dig people out of poverty. I understand that people in poverty need another 10-20 thousand dollars a year to get out of poverty. What we need is a plan to get families this money. Be it better education, more grants and bursaries for adults to return to school or more adult learning programs that increase the ability people have to earn a better living.

To me what it boils down to is more kids feel safe in gangs because they don't have anything else to do after school to keep them off the streets. Yes there are good programs out there for kids to get into but we need a better system to lower the poverty rate. (BTW I think child poverty is junk, parents are in poverty so kids suffer)

I was lucky, I played football after school from the age of 7 up through high school and when it wasn't football season I was at the gym preparing for the next season. I had a blast and gangs never even entered my mind. We need more kids who's parents can afford to do stuff like this for their kids to keep them off the streets!

However I do support the legislation to put criminals behind bars, I just don't think it's the solution. Harper is being lazy and not doing what needs to be done to fix the problem properly.

[roof_top_eagle]

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.

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.

[Progressive Tory]

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.

For decades I have been advocating the legalizing and de-criminalizing of pot. I don't smoke pot but then I don't drink either, simply by choice. If I have wine or beer in the house I'll offer it to guests, but we rarely buy it unless we are having guests.

However, I'm often asked what about hard drugs? I've always said that obviously we can't do that. But now the practical side of my nature is saying, why not? The present system is not working and only the criminals are winning.

We definitely need to rethink our strategy, without ideology. Sure in a perfect world there would be no drug addicts or alcoholics, and people wouldn't be dying of lung cancer from cigarette smoke. But we don't live in a perfect world and all social diseases need to be viewed from the same lens.

We've spent decades fighting a war on drugs, and trillions of dollars and man hours, yet are no closer to winning than we were when we started. In fact, statistics may prove the opposite. We're throwing money away and endangering innocent lives in the process. We need a new strategy that does not include prohibition but regulation.

It won't happen overnight, but we need a new direction. Longer jail times will mean nothing, because the nature of their business includes strategies for not getting caught, and even when they do, there is always someone else to take over 'their territory'.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Progressive Tory]

OC isn't dumb, they'll find other ways to make money that can be very profitable.

They already do. We just need to de-criminalize vices and use our resources to regulate and educate. But we've got to take those vices out of the closet.

We regulate gambling through the sale of lottery tickets and licensed casinos. We regulate alcohol with a minimum age, issuing licenses and taxing. We regulate cigarettes, again with a minimum age and taxing.

We need to do the same with prostitution and drugs. That's the only way you'll get them off the streets. Some of the money saved can be put toward education, because often the only difference is between use and abuse.

[Progressive Tory]

Its legal in Alaska, and the US hasn't orphaned the state.

Just realize about 80% of Alaskans were stoned whenever they were polled. And the other 20% were probably drunk, or drunk and stoned."

That certainly explains Sarah Palin, but was McCain stoned when he thought she'd make a good running mate?

[Progressive Tory]

However I do support the legislation to put criminals behind bars, I just don't think it's the solution. Harper is being lazy and not doing what needs to be done to fix the problem properly.

Very good points eagle. We need a new strategy that might have a chance of actually working. Claiming to be tough on crime to get votes, is just rhetoric. If we really want to get tough on crime, we need to work from the ground up.

I grew up in a poor neighbourhood with a very high crime rate, but not one of my six brothers and sisters ever engaged in criminal activity. A lot of it I guess was my upbringing, but my parents always told us we had options.

We also fortunately had local churches who provided realistic options. I went to Catholic school but played soccer for a United Church. I went to dances at the Anglican Church and belonged to a youth group sponsored by the Baptists. I don't remember at anytime anyone from any of those churches preaching or trying to convert me. The young minister from the Baptist group never even used the words 'God' or 'Jesus'.

Mind you at the end of any of those events, my father was always outside to pick me up and walk me home. It was an embarrassment to a teenager, but now some of my fondest memories.

[jdobbin]

Obviously deterrence does not work. That is why we are enjoying the worst crime wave in many years. There are not enough of us in hug-a-thug programs.

It is why the government will probably be looking at heavier punishments for pot use. Maybe a few years in prison will teach some people not to smoke pot.

[jdobbin]

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?

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.

Edited February 27, 2009 by jdobbin

[eyeball]

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.

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.

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.

[Argus]

That may be. If it is then the crime bill that the Tories have put into place won't help a bit.

Won't hurt.

[Argus]

Politicians always talk about deterrence. It is the criminal analysts who have studied the numbers and found that that it doesn't deter crime. With the money of the drug trade, there is a steady stream of those willing to take the risk of being involved in organized crime.

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.

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.

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....