Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation

Progressive Tory · February 28, 2009

There have been at least four innocent people killed in the past 18 months, two mistaken identity, two just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were executed with four others.

We should never support anybody shooting at anybody in this country. Druglords rarely do their own killing or put themselves at risk. They have an army of 'soldiers' to do the dirty work and we become the battleground.

We need to put them out of business by making it legal.

Prohibition has failed and it's time for a new strategy.

bjre · February 28, 2009

Canada has so strong CAS that can cost $1.2 billion a year only in Ontario. Why there are still so high rate of people educated in this system involve in severe violence? It is because kids did not receive enough discipline when they are in school age. Why gov keep spent a lot of money in CAS and in prison and justice system but just ignore the correct education methods for the kids?

It is said that physical punishment can lead to violence of children, did I find violence decrease by the effort of CAS, did I see good work performance of CAS? did I see their work deserved? It is CAS that contributed a lot to make the kids lost their best education opportunities. The correct education is definitely a key to a peaceful society.

Wild Bill · February 28, 2009

There have been at least four innocent people killed in the past 18 months, two mistaken identity, two just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and were executed with four others. One of those was a gas fitter who was doing a repair at the site and the other was a neighbouring kid who just happened to be walking down the hall at the wrong time. The next time someones car gets shot up in front of you by guys with automatic weapons in the middle of the day, just as you are walking out of the supermarket in your local mall, as happened in suburban Langley earlier in the month, you may change your tune.

PT beat me to it but just to reiterate...how likely would have been for those innocents to die if drugs were legal?

So how does the present status quo make me and my family safer?

How much in taxes are we paying for this farce?

eyeball · February 28, 2009

Please provide a source for you contention.

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is widespread amongst inmates within the Canadian correctional system. Although research suggests that up to half of the prison population is plagued by an alcohol-related birth defect, little has been done by corrections to address this problem.
Source

A Burnaby corrections officer fighting for a special prison for convicts suffering from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is running into trouble with his superiors...
...Steeves may face disciplinary action if he continues to publicly push the initiative.

Source

Another god-damn troublemaker eh? Speaking of which, what liquor store will you be protesting in front of?

Edited February 28, 2009 by eyeball

eyeball · February 28, 2009

The only border guards you ever see patrolling it are on the US side. Canadian border security my ass.

This is what our armed forces should be doing. Securing our borders.

eyeball · February 28, 2009

...how likely would have been for those innocents to die if drugs were legal?

We had a new beer and wine store open where I live recently and there was nary a shot fired by the gang running the liquor store. It's a real mystery why alright.

And no protesters have been seen carrying pictures of pickled fetuses either. Go figure.

WestViking · February 28, 2009

What planet do you live on? I thought I didn't get out much myself!
Anyhow, a quick google gave pages and pages of links but I didn't think you'd accept anything from legalization lobby groups so here's this one:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/11/24/...tudy041124.html

"The survey found that 45 per cent of Canadians have used marijuana at least once in their lifetime. About 70 per cent of those aged 18 to 24 reported using the substance.

Males were more likely than females to use pot, as were those who have never been married.

The study found the use of cocaine and crack also rose from 0.7 per cent in 1994 to 1.9 per cent in 2004.

Overall, it found that the use of illicit drugs by Canadians at least once in their lifetime rose from 28.5 per cent in 1994 to to 45 per cent in 2004."

That was from a Canadian government study group. Please note that the use of cocaine and crack is "mice nuts" compared to the pot numbers.

Here's something from the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/drugs/users.html

"Well, we can officially call ourselves Toker Nation now. According to the 2007 World Drug Report by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Canada has the dubious honour of leading the industrialized world in marijuana use, at least when calculated as a percentage of population.

According to the UN report, which is a staple of police forces around the world, 16.8 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 64 smoked pot or ingested one of its derivatives last year."

To be honest, I had mixed feelings about using the CBC as a reputable source but what the hell...they have to be more "real" than what YOU are implying!

Finally, here's one from York University. Always good to get the lawyers' view! It starts off citing the same UN Report but adds to it after a few paragraphs.

http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/83303ff...33;OpenDocument

"Eugene Oscapella, an Ottawa-based lawyer who specializes in drug policy issues, said the UN report shows that the legal status of marijuana in a given country seems to have little bearing on consumption rates.

The report found that only 6.1 per cent of people in the Netherlands, where marijuana use has effectively been decriminalized, reported trying pot.

This shows decriminalization has no bearing on rates of use, and Canada shouldn't be so afraid to follow the Dutch lead, Oscapella said.

``The criminal law does not prevent people from using marijuana, nor does legalization force people to use it,'' he said."

These links are only the tip of the iceberg. Really, I was surprised that you would question the numbers, given that they have been public knowledge for so long. We are all entitled to our opinions but as far as the magnitude of the number of pot smokers in Canada goes, asking for sources is like a Creationist asking for sources on evolution.

I hope for their sake that Harper's team is not under a similar misconception. Vastly underestimating the number of pot users in Canada when formulating new, stronger laws could trigger a very negative backlash at election time. It would be a shame if this precipitated a change in government when frankly there are many more urgent matters to be resolved. They would be as vulnerable to campaign mockery as Stockwell Day was to Kinsella's "Barney the Dinosaur" shot.

You are mistaken. I did not imply anything. I simply asked for verification of your claim that there were millions of pot users. It appears there are not.

Statistics on once in a lifetime use do not give any reliable information on current use or users. Likewise stats on 'having used or ingested' are not a reliable indicator of current use. Many peop0le experiment with pot, but then drop it because it does not do much for them, due to cost, a change in associates or a decision that rebellion is not their bag. Nevertheless the figures for current use would appearto be appreciably high. You do have a point.

One factor to consider is how much current use would decease if pot was not so readily available. Putting growers and major dealers out of business is an idea worth pursuing. Pot smokers are unlikely to engage in rioting if they do not have a ready supply of weed.

eyeball · February 28, 2009

Pot smokers are unlikely to engage in rioting if they do not have a ready supply of weed.

No, they're far likelier to start growing their own. They'd not only save a ton of money they'd reduce the need for gangs.

Responsible tokers are actually on your side.

Wild Bill · February 28, 2009

One factor to consider is how much current use would decease if pot was not so readily available. Putting growers and major dealers out of business is an idea worth pursuing. Pot smokers are unlikely to engage in rioting if they do not have a ready supply of weed.

Do you have any conception of the logistics required to accomplish such a goal? So far the "war on drugs" has captured less than a few percent of the total estimated supply. Do I have to google up some links for you on more common knowledge as well? How about YOU supply some sources showing that such an idea is even remotely practical??!! Anybody can make a wish.

As Eyeball pointed out, pot is a weed! A user can put a few seeds into a few flower pots and have a supply for some months!

How on earth do you expect to police that?

In my town there are grow ops all over the place. The police find a couple or so every year. Usually they find them either by a fluke of luck or the grow op was run by people totally inept at covering their tracks. It's just so easy! Less than a mile from my home there was a high rise apartment building that had TWO ENTIRE FLOORS running as a grow op! This to me was mind boggling! Every apartment had been rented in a different name and the rents were all paid on time. The superintendent never knew. He never had any problem or need to visit those floors.

When you are talking boatloads of money anything becomes possible.

We've been at this game for 60-70 years now and pot is still here, more than ever! It would take a virtual police state to stamp it out. Even if there were the political will where would we get the money? What's more, there doesn't appear to be the popular support. Even those Canadians who aren't active smokers would never support such a "pogrom".

I understand the need to pay taxes but not to support a Ned Flanders social agenda. Hiring more Officer Wiggums will not win the war on drugs.

I say again, it's a farce. Until I hear some real-world, cost-effective arguments to the contrary, I will spare about as much time to those championing "Prohibition" as I do to astrology and predicting the future by reading bumps on peoples heads.

Argus · February 28, 2009

Pretty sure they were using Canadian numbers on sentencing. It isn't like murderers are generally getting five year sentences.

The problem lies in the definition of the term "murder". All too often, because of how restricted the law is, and the rules of evidence with regard to intent, murderers don't get charged with murder. They get manslaughter instead. The most famous case I know of is the punk who went to a shopping mall looking for trouble, picked a fight with a shopkeeper, stabbed him to death, then stood there gleefully, shouting "I killed you, you bastard. I'm going to watch you die!" in front of numerous witnesses.

Not murder. Manslaughter. I think he got 2 years.

Lots of murders don't get prosecuted as murder, just like attempted murder is a charge which is virtually never laid because the law is so restricted it's almost impossible to prove.

"Why, yes, I did shoot that man fourteen times in the chest, your honour, but I just meant to teach him a lesson. I never meant to kill him."

That's good enough. No intent there. You can't prove intent. He gets charged with assault with a deadly weapon or assault causing bodily harm or something similar.

DrGreenthumb · February 28, 2009

You are mistaken. I did not imply anything. I simply asked for verification of your claim that there were millions of pot users. It appears there are not.
Statistics on once in a lifetime use do not give any reliable information on current use or users. Likewise stats on 'having used or ingested' are not a reliable indicator of current use. Many peop0le experiment with pot, but then drop it because it does not do much for them, due to cost, a change in associates or a decision that rebellion is not their bag. Nevertheless the figures for current use would appearto be appreciably high. You do have a point.

One factor to consider is how much current use would decease if pot was not so readily available. Putting growers and major dealers out of business is an idea worth pursuing. Pot smokers are unlikely to engage in rioting if they do not have a ready supply of weed.

Do you still believe in Santa Clause too? I bet you believe the world is only a few thousand years old like most of the rest of the nutty bible thumpin hicks that think prohibition does anything but increase the violence and harm that drugs can cause. Don't forget that all these studies that show such high rates of pot use depend on people self reporting their drug use which is currently illegal. The numbers of current users are likely many times higher than those that admit to it. Also many people who say they "used to" use it, in fact still do use it. They just are not comfortable admitting that to some phone canvasser, who could report them to someone and cause them to be investigated , loss of their job or home , or even to a jail cell. People like you who support prohibition policies are actually providing the continued profitability to these gangsters, and guaranteeing an escalation of the violence. History shows that people are always willing to fight, kill, and even die for their freedom. What makes you think that a a pot grower or seller will be any different? When facing a lengthy prison term if taken down by police people will be FAR more likely to shoot back. I will personally place the blame for the next mayerthorpe like incident, or the next dead cop on jean poutine, west viking, and any other foolish ideologue that continues to push for policies that incite violence and hatred.

Legalize and regulate drugs and probably 50% more people will respect and co-operate with police. When you send out our officers to bully and spy on people for doing something that half the country doesn't see as criminal its no wonder that the police are given so little respect. They deserve NO RESPECT when they continue on this moronic quest to stop people from growing and using plants however they see fit.

Its time to throw these stupid conservatives to the curb and put somebody in government who has a little better grip on reality.

Wilber · March 1, 2009

PT beat me to it but just to reiterate...how likely would have been for those innocents to die if drugs were legal?
So how does the present status quo make me and my family safer?

How much in taxes are we paying for this farce?

You contradict yourself, in a previous post you said.

Why did bootleggers shoot each other during Prohibition?
It's all about MONEY!

About 80% of Canadian pot production goes south. Legal here, illegal there, same thing as the prohibition days. You still have gang warfare fighting over the profits to be made exporting something that is illegal in the US.

You guys slay me. Scumbags are shooting each other as well as innocents in the street because they are slimeballs who will to run over anyone who gets in their way in order to get what they want and you sit there maintaining that "the system" is forcing them to do it. What a *% up way to look at life.

Smallc · March 1, 2009

maintaining that "the system" is forcing them to do it. What a *% up way to look at life.

That's not what anybody has been saying. What they are saying is that banning the stuff hasn't helped....increasing restrictions of that ban won't make things any better.

DrGreenthumb · March 1, 2009

You contradict yourself, in a previous post you said.
About 80% of Canadian pot production goes south. Legal here, illegal there, same thing as the prohibition days. You still have gang warfare fighting over the profits to be made exporting something that is illegal in the US.

You guys slay me. Scumbags are shooting each other as well as innocents in the street because they are slimeballs who will to run over anyone who gets in their way in order to get what they want and you sit there maintaining that "the system" is forcing them to do it. What a *% up way to look at life.

Actually I'd say the real scumbags are people like you and your counterparts south of the border that continue to escalate the WOD and all the violence and harm that it causes. You cause the deaths of innocents just as much as the ones who pull the triggers in this war of YOUR creation. Prohibition causes the danger and the violence and you cry for more of it. The blood is on YOUR hands, not mine.

Edited March 1, 2009 by DrGreenthumb

WestViking · March 1, 2009

Do you still believe in Santa Clause too? I bet you believe the world is only a few thousand years old like most of the rest of the nutty bible thumpin hicks that think prohibition does anything but increase the violence and harm that drugs can cause. Don't forget that all these studies that show such high rates of pot use depend on people self reporting their drug use which is currently illegal. The numbers of current users are likely many times higher than those that admit to it. Also many people who say they "used to" use it, in fact still do use it. They just are not comfortable admitting that to some phone canvasser, who could report them to someone and cause them to be investigated , loss of their job or home , or even to a jail cell. People like you who support prohibition policies are actually providing the continued profitability to these gangsters, and guaranteeing an escalation of the violence. History shows that people are always willing to fight, kill, and even die for their freedom. What makes you think that a a pot grower or seller will be any different? When facing a lengthy prison term if taken down by police people will be FAR more likely to shoot back. I will personally place the blame for the next mayerthorpe like incident, or the next dead cop on jean poutine, west viking, and any other foolish ideologue that continues to push for policies that incite violence and hatred.
Legalize and regulate drugs and probably 50% more people will respect and co-operate with police. When you send out our officers to bully and spy on people for doing something that half the country doesn't see as criminal its no wonder that the police are given so little respect. They deserve NO RESPECT when they continue on this moronic quest to stop people from growing and using plants however they see fit.

Its time to throw these stupid conservatives to the curb and put somebody in government who has a little better grip on reality.

Okey Dokey - why don't you try that again - after a nap and sober?

WestViking · March 1, 2009

Actually I'd say the real scumbags are people like you and your counterparts south of the border that continue to escalate the WOD and all the violence and harm that it causes. You cause the deaths of innocents just as much as the ones who pull the triggers in this war of YOUR creation. Prohibition causes the danger and the violence and you cry for more of it. The blood is on YOUR hands, not mine.

Sorry, but law-breaking losers cannot blame decent, law abiding citizens for the havoc they create. When criminal drug dealers shoot it out, the whole illegal drug culture is complicit; accessories before the fact.

DrGreenthumb · March 1, 2009

Sorry, but law-breaking losers cannot blame decent, law abiding citizens for the havoc they create. When criminal drug dealers shoot it out, the whole illegal drug culture is complicit; accessories before the fact.

Why shouldn't we blame "decent" law abiding citizens for the havoc they create? If they create the havoc with their irrational need to control how others live their lives and use their bodies then they are absolutely to blame. WestViking the blood of innocents is on YOUR hands. It is your fault that the drug laws create the atmosphere that leads to violence. It is your fault when a drug dealer kills someone for non-payment of accounts because the court system is not available for dispute resolution in an underground market. It is your fault when a family dies in a house fire because they were afraid to have a qualified electrician install their lighting/ventilation system. It is your fault when a drug user is too afraid to call the police to protect them from an overzealous "collector". The blood of every cop killed while executing a drug warrant is on your hands too. You are worse than the "scumbags" you complain about.

Wilber · March 1, 2009

Why shouldn't we blame "decent" law abiding citizens for the havoc they create? If they create the havoc with their irrational need to control how others live their lives and use their bodies then they are absolutely to blame. WestViking the blood of innocents is on YOUR hands. It is your fault that the drug laws create the atmosphere that leads to violence. It is your fault when a drug dealer kills someone for non-payment of accounts because the court system is not available for dispute resolution in an underground market. It is your fault when a family dies in a house fire because they were afraid to have a qualified electrician install their lighting/ventilation system. It is your fault when a drug user is too afraid to call the police to protect them from an overzealous "collector". The blood of every cop killed while executing a drug warrant is on your hands too. You are worse than the "scumbags" you complain about.

I know this post was directed at WestViking but you have said similar things to me so I will respond.

Tell you what, let's legalize everything. Crime will be a thing of the past. Jesus, you aren't accountable for anything are you? You want to get stoned and will justify anything to do it. What a self centered SOB. My son is a cop you A hole, dealing with these homicidal pricks on a daily basis. Don't you dare say something like that to me.

If I thought legalization of marijuana in Canada alone would stop gang warfare and make his job and my life safer, I would be in favour of it and so would he. He has told me as much, but knowing something about these people and the way they operate, we're not that delusional.

DrGreenthumb · March 1, 2009

I know this post was directed at WestViking but you have said similar things to me so I will respond.
Tell you what, let's legalize everything. Crime will be a thing of the past. Jesus, you aren't accountable for anything are you? You want to get stoned and will justify anything to do it. What a self centered SOB. My son is a cop you A hole, dealing with these homicidal pricks on a daily basis. Don't you dare say something like that to me.

If I thought legalization of marijuana in Canada alone would stop gang warfare and make his job and my life safer, I would be in favour of it and so would he. He has told me as much, but knowing something about these people and the way they operate, we're not that delusional.

So the truth comes out, your family has a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Your son is sucking on the prohibition tit, that makes your position a lot more understandable. Its sad that you would put so many people's lives in jeopardy for your job security. You must be one self centered SOB. If your son gets killed because of the unregulated underground drug market you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Also I have a relative dying of cancer that needs cannabis to survive you A-hole so I don't feel particularly sorry for your son having to deal with a problem that is created by people like you, and perpetrated against peaceful citizens like myself. I don't even feel sorry for cops who are injured in this war that they lobby for themselves. You want to have a war don't expect the casualties to be only on the side of the innocent people you choose to persecute. Take your self-righteous attitude and shove it! You are the aggressor and you cause the suffering, just because not everyone bows to your will doesn't mean you can blame them for the situation you create.

I bet not one person in history died over cannabis before it was outlawed.

Wilber · March 1, 2009

So the truth comes out, your family has a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Your son is sucking on the prohibition tit, that makes your position a lot more understandable. Its sad that you would put so many people's lives in jeopardy for your job security. You must be one self centered SOB. If your son gets killed because of the unregulated underground drug market you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Also I have a relative dying of cancer that needs cannabis to survive you A-hole so I don't feel particularly sorry for your son having to deal with a problem that is created by people like you, and perpetrated against peaceful citizens like myself. I don't even feel sorry for cops who are injured in this war that they lobby for themselves. You want to have a war don't expect the casualties to be only on the side of the innocent people you choose to persecute. Take your self-righteous attitude and shove it! You are the aggressor and you cause the suffering, just because not everyone bows to your will doesn't mean you can blame them for the situation you create.

I bet not one person in history died over cannabis before it was outlawed.

Now my son is responsible for your relative having cancer. What jerk.

tango · March 1, 2009

People suck gas, glue, shaving lotion, various cleaning fluids, etc to get a dangerous possibly deadly high. People who want to kill themselves with 'drugs' can find a way, even if street drugs are magically gone.

If you legalize and take away the criminal element, drugs hurt no one but the one taking them. I don't see why anybody has a right to control what people do to themselves.

I read somewhere that marijuana - hemp - was prohibited because some company invented nylon, and they wanted to get rid of the competition (rope, fabric, sails, etc ... hemp is the magic weed in more ways than one!)

I believe that.

The people who think they are ideologically opposed are just brainwashed by the corporate establishment, imo.

I'm definitely in favour of getting rid of the criminal element and drugs that infest our streets with danger, by legalizing everything, controlling, regulating like alcohol, creating a whole whack of legitimate jobs and collecting a bundle of taxes.

DrGreenthumb · March 1, 2009

Now my son is responsible for your relative having cancer. What jerk.

Where did I say that A-hole? You quoted my entire post but i couldn't find that anywhere. Very telling though that a member of your family profits from prohibition. No wonder you support it, its money in the bank for your boy. I say that people like you are responsible for the drugwar and all the people it hurts. That includes cancer patients who can't find a good supply and have to break the law just to survive chemotherapy. So I don't blame your son for my relative having Cancer but i blame him and you and all your ilk for making his life and millions of others more dangerous and difficult.

You have the blood of innocents on your hands.

I hope Christ will forgive you because I sure as hell won't

jdobbin · March 1, 2009

The problem lies in the definition of the term "murder". All too often, because of how restricted the law is, and the rules of evidence with regard to intent, murderers don't get charged with murder. They get manslaughter instead. The most famous case I know of is the punk who went to a shopping mall looking for trouble, picked a fight with a shopkeeper, stabbed him to death, then stood there gleefully, shouting "I killed you, you bastard. I'm going to watch you die!" in front of numerous witnesses.

I can't comment on something I don't about. I'm sure there have been plenty of cases where the police and prosecution have made decisions on what charges will stick for a crime.

In terms of the various degrees of murder, the court often has to show intent to commit murder. The burden of proof has always fallen on the prosecution.

Not murder. Manslaughter. I think he got 2 years.

On initial observation it seems little low but then I don't know the case in question.

Lots of murders don't get prosecuted as murder, just like attempted murder is a charge which is virtually never laid because the law is so restricted it's almost impossible to prove.

I guess it is a question of how much discretion you want to give to police and prosecution in determining intent. If they don't have to show a lot of evidence, I'm sure they can put many more people in prison.

"Why, yes, I did shoot that man fourteen times in the chest, your honour, but I just meant to teach him a lesson. I never meant to kill him."
That's good enough. No intent there. You can't prove intent. He gets charged with assault with a deadly weapon or assault causing bodily harm or something similar.

I don't know if that is the case.

I understand people's frustration. However, there's also frustration if people are put away for violent crime and evidence later appears to show they didn't commit the crime.

It is why the burden of proof always must fall on the state.

eyeball · March 1, 2009

If I thought legalization of marijuana in Canada alone would stop gang warfare and make his job and my life safer, I would be in favour of it and so would he. He has told me as much, but knowing something about these people and the way they operate, we're not that delusional.

I aknowledge that legalizing pot alone would never stop gangs from operating but it would certainly diminsh their income drastically enough that they would be forced to turn to criminal activities that are much harder to commit and far easier to combat. There would simply be less opportunities for gangs and fewer of them as a result. Wouldn't this make you and your son a lot safer?

As for the US angle, there are enough states moving in this direction already and Obama has apparently said the federal government won't stop states from doing so. The writing is on the wall. Get with the program.

bush_cheney2004 · March 1, 2009

....As for the US angle, there are enough states moving in this direction already and Obama has apparently said the federal government won't stop states from doing so. The writing is on the wall. Get with the program.

Nope....this is wishful thinking of the Obama kind...extended across the border by smoke it would seem.