Government introduces tough anti-gang legislation

[Progressive Tory]

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.

Where do I sign? I'm with you 100 %

[Wilber]

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

You justify the actions of people chose to who kill and steal because it suits your lifestyle and personal agenda.

[Wilber]

Double post.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Wilber

[Argus]

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.

You sound like those violent people who blame the victim, saying "You made me do this. It's all on you."

But we all know better. We all would like the druggies to just crawl away and die.

[Argus]

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.

It hasn't really helped because we don't have much of a judicial system and we don't have much in the way of intelligent punishments. We also don't have much in the way of treatment programs.

[Michael Hardner]

Wilber, although DrG went too far, IMO, by accusing people like you of having blood on your hands, you should have gone against that ridiculous accusation on its own merits rather than attacking him. Your posts on this thread are a sober eye-opener as to the depth of this problem.

-- -- -

After reading this thread, it seems to me that the most promising options proposed are drastic new approaches: either a law-and-order approach that involves changing the judicial system, and enacting a new kind of prohibition, or a program of complete permissiveness, with support programs.

Either one of these approaches represents enough of a change that we can say it hasn`t been tried yet, and as such it might be the approach that works. However, these approaches would also be expensive and risky.

When you reflect on the fact that the drug trade has probably continued at the same level for awhile now, you may come to ask why we see all of this as a problem today. The answer is that it`s the gang violence that is the problem. Once peace returns to the area, then the `problem`will go away. The problem is that the normal people are threatened now by the drugs and gangs.

As such, I think the most realistic approach that will be taken is just to wait for it to die down, i.e. do nothing at all. That is what has always worked in the past, and there is no reason to think that it won`t work here.

[Argus]

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.

Does it go beyond the realm of the understandable, of the acceptable, to suggest that any time anyone points a firearm at another person and shoots at them that should almost automatically be accepted as intent to commit murder, especially when they aim at or strike them in the head or torso? And that anyone who stabs another person in the head, neck or torso should automatically be considered to have the intent to kill? That is the case in other nations. But not here.

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

There were no extenuating circumstances. The victim was blameless. The murderer was not a juvenile, not drunk or on drugs, not insane, and not provoked.

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.

To my mind, there is no need whatsoever to show intent when someone deliberately shoots or stabs someone in the head, neck or torso. The intent is patently obvious.

[Argus]

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?

Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59

The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."

Drug legalization

[Wild Bill]

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.

I can only speak for myself and I do not share in the hyperbole of the pot champions. I'm not a user myself but simply a classic liberal, or libertarian if you like.

However, how about a source for your 80% claim?

Even if true, if pot were legal and the only money was in export I would expect that activity would be mostly confined to border towns, making the situation easier to police. I doubt if we'd see gangland shooting in Moosonee.

Meanwhile, yes we do have slimeballs shooting up the streets, especially in cities like Toronto. My point is that the status quo is obviously not working. The Tory approach seems like something drawn up by Ward Cleaver of "Leave It to Beaver".

I'm a "utilitarian", I guess. If you're going to tax me then you should be spending it in ways that work. From my perspective, I see little or no difference between the Tory approach to the drug problem and Jane Stewart's HRDC or the gun registry.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. Again, as P T Barnum said:

"Makers, takers and fakers. There are no other kinds."

On this issue it would seem that Harper's crew are not makers. Perhaps they simply don't have the cultural background to grasp it. Toronto imposes gun laws on western farmers that are inappropriate. Harper's westerners impose drug laws from a Sunday school perspective.

Meanwhile, I and my family are no safer but still taxed!

What else is new...

[jdobbin]

Does it go beyond the realm of the understandable, of the acceptable, to suggest that any time anyone points a firearm at another person and shoots at them that should almost automatically be accepted as intent to commit murder, especially when they aim at or strike them in the head or torso? And that anyone who stabs another person in the head, neck or torso should automatically be considered to have the intent to kill? That is the case in other nations. But not here.

My understanding is that our laws are not that different from other western countries. Which countries are you referring to that have different definitions of intent?

I certainly have no problem with larger charges on weapons related offences in general but the burden of proof falls on the prosecution to give evidence of intent. It can't be assumed.

There were no extenuating circumstances. The victim was blameless. The murderer was not a juvenile, not drunk or on drugs, not insane, and not provoked.

As I said, it seems a low sentence. I wonder what the rationale was in the decision of the court.

To my mind, there is no need whatsoever to show intent when someone deliberately shoots or stabs someone in the head, neck or torso. The intent is patently obvious.

I'd have to disagree. Premeditation to do harm to someone has to be treated more severely.

I'd settle for higher weapons possessions charges even if a crime has not been committed. If a crime is a committed with a weapon, I believe the charges should be higher.

Having said that, I still don't believe that more severe sentences is going to be the complete deterrent to crime that some people think. One of the root causes of the uptick in gang violence is drugs. The irony is that as supply tightens with police raids on supplies, it makes those who still deal all that much more wealthy due to demand.

Canada must find a way to reduce demand.

[WestViking]

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.

There are and always will be a few people who suck gas, glue and solvents, or who drink shaving lotion, mouthwash and various cleaning fluids, etc to get a dangerous and possibly deadly high. Legalizing drugs will not have much effect on them.

Legalizing drugs will not remove the criminal element. We have numerous moonshiners, bootleggers and cigarette smugglers on the go. There is and always will be some criminal trade in licit substances, materials and property. Autos and electronics are hot items for theft and resale. Strip joints and massage parlours thrive on the fringes of society as do booze and drug cans. Problems arise when fringe crime goes mainstream and infect an entire town or city. When dealers are hanging around school yards and booze/drug cans set up in residential neighbourhoods, it is not long before criminal warfare breaks out and the public is put at risk.

People toss around the term 'war on drugs' as if that is somehow causing our crime problem. First the 'war on drugs' is an American concept / slogan that was not and is not part of our Canadian justice system. We are after criminals, in particular those who run drugs, human trafficking rings (including the sex trades), protection and money laundering rackets and burglary/theft rings. Drugs are an integral tool in all of these rackets, used to hook and later keep slaves in line; slaves who work in the sex trade, act as enforcers, steal to order, or forced to work hard for long hours for little or no pay. Coercion, intimidation, threats and violence all go along with the drugs to achieve an end - which is to get rich living of the misery of other humans. Human trafficking, which includes the sex trades, is rapidly replacing dugs as the main source income for criminal gangs. These are billion dollar, world-wide rackets and legalizing marijuana will not slow the carnage on our streets for an instant.

The root causes of crime are not illegal drugs or poverty; the root cause is amoral, predatory, violent criminals. We are not dealing with Robin Hoods stealing from the rich to give to the poor, nor are we dealing with poor people who have turned to crime for survival. In any Canadian city, welfare pays better and is far less dangerous than criminal activity. Members criminal gangs steal from everyone, in particular poor people who cannot defend themselves. The think nothing of enslaving and abusing people until they are of no further use and then murdering them and dumping the corpse in a ditch or a shallow grave in the country.

[Progressive Tory]

As such, I think the most realistic approach that will be taken is just to wait for it to die down, i.e. do nothing at all. That is what has always worked in the past, and there is no reason to think that it won`t work here.

When has it ever worked in the past?

[eyeball]

Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone. Consequently, health officials estimate that Amsterdam has 7,000 addicts, 20% of whom are foreigners.58 These addicts are responsible for 80% of all property crime in the city, thus necessitating that Amsterdam maintain a police presence far greater than those of cities of comparable size in the United States.59

The Dutch have not raised one dollar in tax revenue from drug sales, and drug violators account for 50 percent of the Dutch prison population, a higher proportion than in the United States.60 The Netherlands is the most crime-prone nation in Europe and most drug addicts live on state welfare payments and by committing crimes.61 Nationwide, the number of reported crimes increased to 1.3 million in 1992 from. 812,000 in 1981.62 Faced with public disgust at home over soaring drug related crime and pressure from other European Community countries to strengthen drug laws, Dutch authorities are implementing an aggressive program to reduce drug-linked crimes and disturbances and show new teeth in combatting illegal drug sales.63 Eberhard van der Laan, leader Of the Social Democrats in the Amsterdam City Council says, "People are absolutely fed up with all the troubles caused by drug addicts - car windows broken, noise, whole streets almost given up to the drug problem."

Drug legalization

So are you telling us that there are only 7000 people in Amsterdam who smoke marijuana and that these are responsible for 80% of the crime? Or are you saying that marijuana is the same or worse than heroin? Are you suggesting that the Netherlands is about to outlaw marijuana because of heroin? If that's the case outlawing alcohol because of marijuana would probably make a similar sort of sense don't you think?

[Progressive Tory]

The root causes of crime are not illegal drugs or poverty; the root cause is amoral, predatory, violent criminals. We are not dealing with Robin Hoods stealing from the rich to give to the poor, nor are we dealing with poor people who have turned to crime for survival. In any Canadian city, welfare pays better and is far less dangerous than criminal activity. Members criminal gangs steal from everyone, in particular poor people who cannot defend themselves. The think nothing of enslaving and abusing people until they are of no further use and then murdering them and dumping the corpse in a ditch or a shallow grave in the country.

The root causes of crime is indeed poverty, but it is also opportunity. Marijuana is illegal and since pot use has not diminished in the past 50 years, it becomes about supply and demand. We demand it and they supply it, by whatever means possible.

Marijuana has been mistakenly called a gateway drug, but the only thing that makes it a gateway is the fact that it has to be purchased from criminals who would prefer you partake of the more profitable cocaine or heroin.

Anyone hanging around elementary schools who are not supposed to be there, are instantly removed. This is not where drugs are being obtained. No drug dealer is that stupid, because the immediate thought would be pediphile and he'd behind bars before he could try to flog his first joint.

As to your claim about welfare paying more, I can only speak for Ontario; but a single recipient receives $ 572.00 per month, but only if they have a proper mailing address and are actively looking for work. Have you tried to rent anything for $ 572.00 a month, leaving enough money to eat once in a while?

We are not suggesting the legalization of robbery or murder. But maybe the police could focus their attention on actual crime, instead of wasting resources on something that is no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Regulate and tax it and use some of the revenue to educate against ABUSE. Like the illegal sale of alcohol and tobacco, violators are heavily fined and sometimes jailed.

Tougher sentences will not stop gangs or gang violence. We need to attack it from the bottom up.

[jdobbin]

The root causes of crime are not illegal drugs or poverty; the root cause is amoral, predatory, violent criminals.

The Conservatives have said the uptick in violent gang crime in Canada is a result of the drug trade.

[eyeball]

Tougher sentences will not stop gangs or gang violence. We need to attack it from the bottom up.

To say we are truly attacking this from the bottom up though we'd need tougher sentences for users.

If my little town is any indication the silence on the demand side of the equation is nowhere near as deafening as it seems to be from the politicians. The Ned Flanders of the world are clearly indicating they want to see a crack down on users even if it means employing some decidedly Stalinesque solutions. I certainly wouldn't characterize this segment as a majority but the volume of their voice is definitely amplified beyond reason. Any politicians who might otherwise speak out probably don't because they don't see many constituents who aren't afraid of speaking out in today's fear saturated world - a risk society that is characterized by fear and a preoccupation with security - a society that is being progressively driven towards authoritarianism by panicky moral entreprenuers and galvanizing events. If your not with them you're against them. The war on drugs is a civil war and people who value liberty need to start fighting it in the same grassroots trenches the Ned Flanders crowd is.

It seems this recent outbreak of gang hostilities is following in the wake of the break-up of the Hells' Angles in the lower mainland few years back. It'll settle down and so will people but society will now have a bunch of new laws and fewer civil liberties. When the law finally catches up with and takes down the gang that emerges victoriously from this recent war a new war will break out amongst new and probably even more violent gangs. When that happens we'll see another round of moral panic and crackin' down and gettin' tough and that's the push-me pull-me mechanism by which we frog march our society towards an authoritarian oblivion. Its a god-damn tragedy and we should know better.

Edited March 1, 2009 by eyeball

[Wilber]

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.

My point is that anyone who thinks organized crime will not be involved in the drug trade because Canada legalizes it is dreaming, because the biggest market for Canadian marijuana is the US. If what you say is true and the US does legalize it, that will go along way toward dealing with this particular gang problem without us doing anything, but nothing else will. If and when the US does legalize marijuana, it would be pointless for us not to follow suit. During prohibition, gangs were involved because alcohol was legal on one side of the border and illegal on the other side. It didn't stop until it was legal on both sides and it won't this time. I don't have a problem with doctors prescribing the stuff in cases where it has been shown to be beneficial but that is an issue for legislators, not the police. I am much more a pragmatist than a prohibitionist.

If there is a reason the problem has become worse, it is because of our society's attitude toward the law and its unwillingness to make people accountable for their personal choices. Back in the day, if you committed a crime, you went to jail. No more, people get conditional sentences for crimes of violence on a daily basis. If you murdered someone, you didn't get a chance to do it again because they strung you up. No more. Now it is likely to be plea bargained down to manslaughter with double credit for time served and mandatory release after two thirds of the sentence. A "twelve" year sentence now becomes six or seven before it even begins. An insult to anyone's intelligence. I am neither an advocate of locking people up and throwing away the key or capital punishment, but that is our system.

Consequently, we have decided from now on to stress the rehabilitation of individuals rather than protection of society.

Jean-Pierre Goyer, Justice Minister Oct 7, 1971

[Oleg Bach]

What do you do with officals that bragged a few years ago that BC pot is the finest in the world..that at one point a pound of pot was right up there and almost equal to a pound of coke...sure our western growers of weed are proud - BUT - personally and logically speaking - dope is not neccessary in life...BUT...seeing that we have such a stressful and predatory finacial system - between the gov and the banks - we drive our population to seek artifical relief..as for the gangs --- new deportation laws should be put in place..rapid firing laws that can have a hooligan back in his place of origin so fast that his pin head spins! Also: You man consider shipping a born in Canada crimminal with a facilitating mother--- back to HER place of origin and insist that the son accompany her to were ever the hell they came from...It's getting messy out there and I am tired of having to lower my head and not make eye contact with some lunitic carrying a pistol.

[bush_cheney2004]

What do you do with officals that bragged a few years ago that BC pot is the finest in the world..that at one point a pound of pot was right up there and almost equal to a pound of coke...sure our western growers of weed are proud ....

I agree....BC Bud is crap compared to Hawaiin Skunk. Or so I'm told.....

[Oleg Bach]

I agree....BC Bud is crap compared to Hawaiin Skunk. Or so I'm told.....

So I was told also ----

[eyeball]

My point is that anyone who thinks organized crime will not be involved in the drug trade because Canada legalizes it is dreaming, because the biggest market for Canadian marijuana is the US. If what you say is true and the US does legalize it, that will go along way toward dealing with this particular gang problem without us doing anything, but nothing else will. If and when the US does legalize marijuana, it would be pointless for us not to follow suit.

It is pointless for us to not follow the example of the US...okay. Then lets start allowing municipalities and regions and provinces to determine how they deal with the issue of drugs themselves and tell the federal government to mind its own business too.

If there is a reason the problem has become worse, it is because of our society's attitude toward the law and its unwillingness to make people accountable for their personal choices.

What business does a Libertarian like you have apologizing for the state interfering in people's personal choices?

Back in the day, if you committed a crime, you went to jail. No more, people get conditional sentences for crimes of violence on a daily basis. If you murdered someone, you didn't get a chance to do it again because they strung you up. No more. Now it is likely to be plea bargained down to manslaughter with double credit for time served and mandatory release after two thirds of the sentence. A "twelve" year sentence now becomes six or seven before it even begins. An insult to anyone's intelligence. I am neither an advocate of locking people up and throwing away the key or capital punishment, but that is our system.

Yes, and like that system you point at pot and murder and equate them in the same bloody sentances and march to the same drum beat of fear that creates authoritarianism.

I am much more a pragmatist than a prohibitionist.

Boy, I'd sure hate to see an unpragmatic Libertarian in action.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is pointless for us to not follow the example of the US...okay. Then lets start allowing municipalities and regions and provinces to determine how they deal with the issue of drugs themselves and tell the federal government to mind its own business too.

Pointless to not follow the U.S.? Why is that? The U.S. isn't even metric yet!

[Oleg Bach]

Pointless to not follow the U.S.? Why is that? The U.S. isn't even metric yet!

You are now! Zaaapp! Hey B C - The definition of orgainized crime or gang crime should be re-set ---and adjusted - if two laywers conspire to stiff someone out of their inheritance - well that's a crime - if two gangers decide to pop Winston the third....love those black names....with a couple of caps to get rid of the competioin - I say take the little lawyers and stick them in the same cell - and let nature take it's course.

[Wilber]

It is pointless for us to not follow the example of the US...okay. Then lets start allowing municipalities and regions and provinces to determine how they deal with the issue of drugs themselves and tell the federal government to mind its own business too.

The criminal code is a federal jurisdiction in this country.

What business does a Libertarian like you have apologizing for the state interfering in people's personal choices?

You mean personal choices like gunning down people in parking lots?

Yes, and like that system you point at pot and murder and equate them in the same bloody sentances and march to the same drum beat of fear that creates authoritarianism.

Gibberish, I did no such thing. You are the one justifying murder in the name of "peoples personal choices".

Boy, I'd sure hate to see an unpragmatic Libertarian in action.

I've never claimed to be a Libertarian. There have to be limits. Libertarianism is like anarchy, a pipe dream because someone will always want to be the boss and will do anything to become one. Eventually you wind up with a despot running the place. Gang wars are a basic example of that process. They are allowed to function because we enable their behavior.

[eyeball]

The criminal code is a federal jurisdiction in this country.

So what? Why should this stop other jurisdictions from deciding if they want it enforced in their locations? This is in the thrust and spirit of the policies the US is now talking about putting in place. There's no reason why we can't here.

You mean personal choices like gunning down people in parking lots?

No, like unwinding with a beer or two at the end of the day.

Gibberish, I did no such thing. You are the one justifying murder in the name of "peoples personal choices".

Where on Earth did I say that?

I've never claimed to be a Libertarian. There have to be limits. Libertarianism is like anarchy, a pipe dream because someone will always want to be the boss and will do anything to become one. Eventually you wind up with a despot running the place. Gang wars are a basic example of that process. They are allowed to function because we enable their behavior.

Yes, this is why we place limits on what the state can do to people. By the way who's this "we" you're talking about? I'm not the one who is enabling authoritarianism, you are.