B.C. court is soft in the head.

[Wilber]

Why? What difference would that make?

Probably none, you don't seem to know the difference.

I kind of feel sad for the Bacon boy's parent's. I can't imagine there's anymore shell-shocked victims of the war on drugs than these two. The greatest outrage to me is that the Conservatives are so beholden to the fundies in their midst while the Liberals are so afraid of appearing soft on whatever the Conservative's want to appear hard on.

You obviously haven't been following this story.

[eyeball]

Probably none, you don't seem to know the difference.

The only difference I see is that government liquor store gangs aren't in a shooting war with private beer and wine store gangs. Why? I just don't get it, do you?

You obviously haven't been following this story.

What, you're telling me the parents forced them into their life of crime?

[Wilber]

The only difference I see is that government liquor store gangs aren't in a shooting war with private beer and wine store gangs. Why? I just don't get it, do you?

Ya I do.

What, you're telling me the parents forced them into their life of crime?

It's obvious to anyone following this story that they fully support them and will accept no possibility that they could be criminals, in spite of the fact they drive around in luxury cars that they have sent out of province to be illegally armoured, wear body armour themselves and carry illegal weapons. No, I don't believe they forced their sons into a life of crime but they are a big reason none the less. It seems you believe that anyone who commits a crime of violence because they are in the drug trade is therefore not a criminal because you don't believe in drug laws. The deaths of the two innocents in the Surrey Six are victims of society, not the scumbags who executed them in cold blood. One of whom was Jamie Bacon.

[eyeball]

Ya I do.

Do tell.

It's obvious to anyone following this story that they fully support them and will accept no possibility that they could be criminals, in spite of the fact they drive around in luxury cars that they have sent out of province to be illegally armoured, wear body armour themselves and carry illegal weapons. No, I don't believe they forced their sons into a life of crime but they are a big reason none the less.

They're either peace loving naive leftists or really hard-boiled Libertarians or hard core members of the NRA.

It seems you believe that anyone who commits a crime of violence because they are in the drug trade is therefore not a criminal because you don't believe in drug laws. The deaths of the two innocents in the Surrey Six are victims of society, not the scumbags who executed them in cold blood. One of whom was Jamie Bacon.

I don;t know why, I never once said they weren't criminals.

Edited July 7, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

They're either peace loving naive leftists or really hard-boiled Libertarians or hard core members of the NRA.

Whatever they are, their denial and complicity is going to result in the loss of their family, either to gunfire or prison.

I don;t know why, I never once said they weren't criminals.

Maybe not but you seem quite willing to blame their crimes on anyone but them.

[eyeball]

Whatever they are, their denial and complicity is going to result in the loss of their family, either to gunfire or prison.

Maybe not but you seem quite willing to blame their crimes on anyone but them.

I think I've made it pretty clear I'm willing to assign blame where blame is due. You on the other hand seem to think the blame should stop with the parents.

By the way ever hear the term parens patriae?

[Wilber]

I think I've made it pretty clear I'm willing to assign blame where blame is due. You on the other hand seem to think the blame should stop with the parents.

No I don't think is should stop with the parents but considering their actions, I find it impossible to feel sorry for them. The Bacons are bad people and they would still be bad people if drugs were legalized. They would just find another way to victimize others for their own benefit.

By the way ever hear the term parens patriae?

Yes. What's your point? Are you saying the Bacons are thugs and killers because the courts didn't take them away from those parents you feel sorry for? On what grounds? The father works in the school system and the mother is a mid level manager at a financial institution. Is no one responsible for their own actions in your world?

[eyeball]

My point is to draw the analogy between a parent and a government. Imagine a parent pouring a double, lighting up a smoke and then calling in their kid to lecture them about the evils of doing dope. Contrast that with a government that busts people for pot while selling them booze.

Parenting/governing as much as anything is about setting consistent examples and...well...if you can't get the point of what I'm saying it has to be because you don't want to get it. Are you suggesting parenting and governing are so completely different as to deliberately disavow that kids can't tell shit from Shinola when they see it?

You may be right about the Bacon Bros becoming criminals in spite of an end to prohibition but I call BS to any implication you're making that all other drug criminals would likewise start switching to bank heists, kidnappings, etc. These seem too much like real work with more risk. That said I have to allow for the possibility that prohibition is like a gateway to criminal endeavors and that many will make the switch to other criminal acts.

Our country's approach to the entire issue of people altering their minds recreationally needs to start from scratch. The first thing I'd do is answer the question is it or should it be a crime to do just that, recreationally alter one's mind. Get high, unwound, stoned, drunk, wasted, lubricated, call it what you will but lets at least be grown up to admit everyone is doing exactly the same thing, just with different substances, drugs, intoxicants alterants etc.

As for the real causes of crime, I submit the vast majority is caused directly and indirectly by the governments disgracefully inconsistent policies on getting high. Some estimates I've read point to half or more of Canada's prison population were born with FAS, and this seems to correlate with what I see in my local papers court reports vis a vis the number of cases involving alcohol fueled violence, DUI etc etc compared to all other crimes. Here is a drug that is known to actually cause criminal behaviour due to brain damage and the f^&king government is selling it.

What it should be doing, since it's tacitly admitted getting wasted or stoned etc is not worth outlawing per se that people might want to unwind or lubricated etc with a safer drug like pot. But no, it has to create a real moral hazard and set the worst possible example it can for how to...parent or govern...call it what you will, its so alike as to be indistinguishable in so many ways it's not funny.

[Non_Partisan]

You have that backwards sir. The pro legalization crowd is the one in favor of costly and never ending government action. The owness is on THEM to prove that prohibition is good public policy and worth the massive ammount of money spent on enforcement, litigation, and incarceration.

And they have utterly failed to do so.

Sorry I don't quite follow you, its up to the pro legalization crowd to prove that prohibition is good public policy?

[Non_Partisan]

No, this issue is already completely morally fubar, God forbid we should put rigid political ideology on top of that. Speaking of hazardous morality - and I'm glad to see you're primarily interested in curbing crime and disease by the way - consider the huge number of prisoners currently in jail who were born with fetal alcohol syndrome. Almost all of them were likely poisoned in the womb by alcohol the government sells. Assuming society is actually being protected from harm by prohibition I'd argue that the rights of people with FAS to equal protection before the law has been violated by the government. If only fetus' had rights.

That would be a good argument if you were advocating for the prohibition of alcohol. All narcotics whether legal or illegal have costly negative health effects, that is why most illicit drugs are illegal. For better or worse the general public has chosen otherwise for alcohol and tobacco.

Tough on crime? What crime?

Yes it is true that overall crime rates are generally low, but gang activity in British Columbia has been on the rise since the 1990's. A lot of people including myself believe it's because the BC courts have been too soft on drug peddlers. Over the years the RCMP and the Metro Vancouver police have expressed frustration over the revolving door for drug charges in British Columbia. Now I agree with you that the gangs in B.C. would take a big hit if their primary source of income was taken away from them, but as I said before, people who advocate for restricted legalization would have to show that the benefits would outway the costs for the taxpayer.

For economic arguments against prohibition that really make sense I recall the Fraser Institutes observation that prohibiting drugs and thereby trying to defy the law of supply and demand is akin to trying to defy gravity. But what do they know? I seem to recall the Fraser Institute also telling us we should loosen up restrictions on selling alcohol, so consumers could have more choices, or some such noble thing.

The Fraser Institute consists of a bunch of Libertarian ideologues, they are more concerned with pushing libertarianism than they are about finding sound policy issues to problems. If you are going to argue for restricted legalization, I'd suggest researching the studies and statistics of those countries that have chosen that route.

Smack them as hard as you like, there will always be two or more for every one you do. Evolution will also insure these only become more ruthless over time, look at Mexico, hell look at the Bacon Bros. Speaking of iron fists, society in turn could also evolve in the same direction and who knows what measures we might entertain to eliminate drug use?

You cannot draw an analogy between Mexico and Canada. Mexico has a large degree of abject poverty in comparison to Canada. People in Mexico choose the drug trade because there is little or no alternative for many of them. The Bacon Brothers had a lot of choices, they chose to become scumbags because they obviously didn't have any respect for their community, and do not fear the law. There is a lot of evidence that soft laws lead to crime, (ie the results of Johnson's Great Society in the late 60's, pre Giuliani New York City, permissive welfare states in Europe) Some of us on this forum don't trust human nature and believe this to be true.

[Bonam]

parent or govern...call it what you will, its so alike as to be indistinguishable in so many ways it's not funny.

Sorry but no. The government is not my father, it is not my mother, nor is it my Big Brother.

That you think of the government as a parent taking care of you, its child, certainly sheds some light on some of your positions...

[eyeball]

Sorry but no. The government is not my father, it is not my mother, nor is it my Big Brother.

That you think of the government as a parent taking care of you, its child, certainly sheds some light on some of your positions...

It's certainly not my parent either.

My position is simply that a parent and a government should set and follow consistent examples. That's it, no more. I don't know about you but I see lots of people ignoring both parents and governments, especially when they realize how full of shit they are.

[eyeball]

That would be a good argument if you were advocating for the prohibition of alcohol.

I'm just advocating that parents and governments send a clear consistent message on substance use. I'm arguing that the garbled message kids and society are getting is making things worse.

Yes it is true that overall crime rates are generally low, but gang activity in British Columbia has been on the rise since the 1990's. A lot of people including myself believe it's because the BC courts have been too soft on drug peddlers.

The vast majority of peddlers are like mom and pop stores compared to superstores. Only a tiny number are in the hard-boiled class the Bacon's are in.

The problem with your approach is that it's not just the billions that will need to be spent to house thousands of peddlers. The courts are also just the tip of the problem. You'll also have to do away with many of our evidentiary rules and civil liberties to allow police to even lay charges in the first place.

Over the years the RCMP and the Metro Vancouver police have expressed frustration over the revolving door for drug charges in British Columbia. Now I agree with you that the gangs in B.C. would take a big hit if their primary source of income was taken away from them, but as I said before, people who advocate for restricted legalization would have to show that the benefits would outway the costs for the taxpayer.

Look to California for evidence that the costs of cracking down and getting tough are too high to bear.

The Fraser Institute consists of a bunch of Libertarian ideologues, they are more concerned with pushing libertarianism than they are about finding sound policy issues to problems. If you are going to argue for restricted legalization, I'd suggest researching the studies and statistics of those countries that have chosen that route.

I'm only arguing for a consistent approach to policy. Selling truly deadly dope with one hand while proposing to throw thousands of people in jail for dope that's not deadly is about the farthest thing I can imagine a sound policy looks like. The cognitive dissonance alone is enough to inspire enormous contempt for the law but the moral dissonance is probably what finally pushes people over the edge and into criminality, that plus the huge profits prohibition creates.

You cannot draw an analogy between Mexico and Canada. Mexico has a large degree of abject poverty in comparison to Canada. People in Mexico choose the drug trade because there is little or no alternative for many of them. The Bacon Brothers had a lot of choices, they chose to become scumbags because they obviously didn't have any respect for their community, and do not fear the law. There is a lot of evidence that soft laws lead to crime, (ie the results of Johnson's Great Society in the late 60's, pre Giuliani New York City, permissive welfare states in Europe) Some of us on this forum don't trust human nature and believe this to be true.

And your beliefs tell you its reasonable to draw an analogy between the Bacon brothers and someone who's selling a few ounces of pot to a few friends and crack down on all of them just as hard? It's ridiculous. B.C.'s government is soft in the head and stupid on crime.

Meanwhile thousands of potential new criminals are born to drunk mothers every year. Notice how we so often blame the dealers when drugs ruin a person's life but booze dealers seem to get a free pass.

[Wilber]

People have choices. They can either chose to respect the lives of other humans and the laws we live under or victimize them for their own advantage. The Bacons grew up in a two parent home, in a good neighbourhood and went to good middle class public schools with many kids who didn’t have some of the advantages they did, yet the great majority of those kids chose to respect their fellow humans. The Bacons are what they are because of their own choices.

A large proportion of middle and upper level gang bangers come from what most would consider solid middle class families, not the downtrodden poor who have had no opportunities. There are probably many contributing factors including the explosion of media, entertainment and communications in the past few decades but not the least is the failure of those most responsible for their upbringing to demand an adequate standard of respect for others and the laws we live under. That would include parents, schools and society itself. The law is the least of the problems. There have always been laws that were unpopular to some and always will be. The only way you will get rid of all crime would be to get rid of all laws. Of course you would still have victims, just no criminals. The old idea that you don’t break unpopular laws but work at changing them has gone out of fashion.

Most peddlers work for people like the Bacons. Most common is they get a $1000 bag from a gang member, sell it, return the money to the gangster and get their cut. Don’t come back with the money or the drugs and they have a big problem. If they get creative or get caught and the money and drugs are confiscated for evidence, the law is the least of their worries. Not my idea of a mom and pop operation.

[eyeball]

Most peddlers work for people like the Bacons. Most common is they get a $1000 bag from a gang member, sell it, return the money to the gangster and get their cut. Don’t come back with the money or the drugs and they have a big problem. If they get creative or get caught and the money and drugs are confiscated for evidence, the law is the least of their worries. Not my idea of a mom and pop operation.

I doubt it. Most mom's and pops are flying below the cops and the Bacon's radar and are growing and selling their own amongst a small circle of friends.

In any case the government could also drop it's pretenses and put the same bag on sale beside the whiskey rack for a tenth of the cost the Bacon's are asking. But you'd rather it insist on defying gravity.

Edited July 8, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

I doubt it. Most mom's and pops are flying below the cops and the Bacon's radar and are growing and selling their own amongst a small circle of friends.

In any case the government could also drop it's pretenses and put the same bag on sale beside the whiskey rack for a tenth of the cost the Bacon's are asking. But you'd rather it insist on defying gravity.

You have a fixation on pot. These guys are into much more.

[eyeball]

You have a fixation on pot. These guys are into much more.

No my fixation is on the overall lack of moral and legal consistency that has contributed to the contempt these sorts of guys developed for the law and I think we're on similar tracks. You probably came the closest to showing this when you wrote;

There are probably many contributing factors including the explosion of media, entertainment and communications in the past few decades but not the least is the failure of those most responsible for their upbringing to demand an adequate standard of respect for others and the laws we live under. That would include parents, schools and society itself.

So you really don't think the fact booze is legal and that the government sells it has no impact on a society that is also under orders not to do drugs? I wonder if the Bacon Brother's parents smoked dope and cigarettes and drank booze in front of them when they were kids? It's entirely possible they were even born with FAS.

Edited July 8, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

No my fixation is on the overall lack of moral and legal consistency that has contributed to the contempt these sorts of guys developed for the law and I think we're on similar tracks. You probably came the closest to showing this when you wrote;

So you really don't think the fact booze is legal and that the government sells it has no impact on a society that is also under orders not to do drugs? I wonder if the Bacon Brother's parents smoked dope and cigarettes and drank booze in front of them when they were kids? It's entirely possible they were even born with FAS.

I don't get your argument. You seem to be saying that because booze destroys lives, legalizing all drugs would make life better. It makes no sense to me. I smoked and drank in front of my kids. Neither of them drinks very much (one not at all) and neither have ever smoked. As a matter of fact, the grief I got from them when they saw me smoking was a big factor in my finally quiting. Maybe because both were heavily involved in sports. I don't know, adults can learn from kids to. Now the Bacons are the way they are because they have fetal alcohol syndrome. Amazing who we employ in our school and financial systems. A huge stretch methinks and unless there is some clear evidence of it, laughable. Certainly none of their shyster lawyers have ever made that claim in their defense.

[Non_Partisan]

I'm just advocating that parents and governments send a clear consistent message on substance use. I'm arguing that the garbled message kids and society are getting is making things worse.

The general public has decided that alcohol and tobacco should remain legal. If this upsets you so much than go start a campaign for its prohibition.

The vast majority of peddlers are like mom and pop stores compared to superstores. Only a tiny number are in the hard-boiled class the Bacon's are in.

Your spinning the issue, were not talking about the small fry. The RCMP and Vancouver Police Department weren't complaining about dime corner dealers, they were complaining that their job was futile because peddlers connected to major criminal gangs consistently walked.

The problem with your approach is that it's not just the billions that will need to be spent to house thousands of peddlers. The courts are also just the tip of the problem. You'll also have to do away with many of our evidentiary rules and civil liberties to allow police to even lay charges in the first place.

Really??? The Anti Gang Law didn't cause the Province of Quebec billions of dollars. In fact it saved the Province a considerable amount of money by ending a gang war that had previously allowed biker gangs to roam about relatively unimpeded. But perhaps you would like to go back to having 11 year old children getting killed in the streets from car bomb shrapnel???

Likewise, Ontario has introduced their own anti gangland legislation and have upheld challenges to the federal law, by incarcerating the scumbags. But in British Columbia, the Provincial court allows the same sort of ilk to walk.

It's easy to critisize the status quo, the hard part is offering a credible alternative. So I will say it for a third time. people who advocate for restricted legalization would have to show that the benefits would outway the costs for the taxpayer. So far you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support this argument.

[bloodyminded]

It's easy to critisize the status quo, the hard part is offering a credible alternative. So I will say it for a third time. people who advocate for restricted legalization would have to show that the benefits would outway the costs for the taxpayer. So far you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support this argument.

There was a study done between drug use in Amsterdam and drug use in San Francisco.

There was not a higher incidence of drug use in Amsterdam; nor was there a higher rate of addiction and health problems.

The only difference is that in SF there are costly legal "remedies" to the drug problems that are far more economcially severe than in Amsterdam.

Yes, it's only one study, of two regions, so nowhere near complete. (I'm anticipating a response along these lines.) However, this one study is far superior evidence to the zero evidence offered by the other side of the debate.

So...your turn.

[Non_Partisan]

There was a study done between drug use in Amsterdam and drug use in San Francisco.

There was not a higher incidence of drug use in Amsterdam; nor was there a higher rate of addiction and health problems.

The only difference is that in SF there are costly legal "remedies" to the drug problems that are far more economcially severe than in Amsterdam.

Yes, it's only one study, of two regions, so nowhere near complete. (I'm anticipating a response along these lines.) However, this one study is far superior evidence to the zero evidence offered by the other side of the debate.

So...your turn.

If you read the earlier posts, I am not looking to defend prohibition because I am open to restricted legalization if it can be proven it will be more cost effective for the tax payer. I am however oppossed to people who don't want to throw the book at gangsters because they feel prohibition is the problem, and therefore legalization is the only route.

[eyeball]

I don't get your argument. You seem to be saying that because booze destroys lives, legalizing all drugs would make life better. It makes no sense to me. I smoked and drank in front of my kids. Neither of them drinks very much (one not at all) and neither have ever smoked. As a matter of fact, the grief I got from them when they saw me smoking was a big factor in my finally quiting. Maybe because both were heavily involved in sports. I don't know, adults can learn from kids to.

Yes it's all about learning between the generations, but usually from examples in the case of substance use, rarely from talking about it.

My Dad (and a few uncles and aunts) smoked and drank themselves to ruination and finally death in front of me. Dad did this while also lecturing me on the evils of drug use. It made no sense to me. I don't smoke and I learned to use substances in moderation, sometimes the hard way but I learned. Dad stopped smoking when he came out for his last visit before he passed away because he didn't want my kids to see him smoking while coughing up a lung at the same time. My kids are adults and compared to what I hear about and see from a few of their friends they use substances in moderation too. My father's contradictory position became an estranging factor in our relationship. My kids talk to me all the time. I cannot help that I've done something right and that things are better. My kids are not going to see me die of emphysema or a bloated liver.

Now the Bacons are the way they are because they have fetal alcohol syndrome. Amazing who we employ in our school and financial systems. A huge stretch methinks and unless there is some clear evidence of it, laughable. Certainly none of their shyster lawyers have ever made that claim in their defense.

In the cracks between the tragedies, the whole issue of substance use is laughable, I was being facetious. Their family history notwithstanding, the more obvious links between the Bacon Brother's, their criminality and our blinkered prohibition policies are as crystal clear as they were between Al Capone and his government.

Simply legalizing all dope or simply adding alcohol (and tobacco) to prohibition are certainly not the answers. I offer these extreme suggestions merely to point out the contradiction of a government that preaches abstinence while selling deadly addictive intoxicants. To me it's no different than my Dad's approach.

There is no doubt at all in my mind that our currently blinkered approach to the whole issue of substance use needs to be turned on its head. The fact we have made this a criminal issue instead of a health issue is retarded and the resulting cognitive and moral dissonance that stems from authority saying one thing whole doing another too often results in disaster.

I will not however budge from my position that whatever case the government is trying to make out of crime and drug use is utterly corrupt given it's complicity in the disease known as FAS and the high number of FAS victims that are already filling our prisons. There is something truly and deeply disturbing about that and I cannot for the life of me explain how so many anti-drug and anti-crime warriors can ignore this glaring contradiction. What sort of drug do you have to take to blank that out?

Edited July 9, 2010 by eyeball

[eyeball]

It's easy to critisize the status quo, the hard part is offering a credible alternative. So I will say it for a third time. people who advocate for restricted legalization would have to show that the benefits would outway the costs for the taxpayer. So far you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support this argument.

That's because its not the argument I'm making.

I'm arguing for consistency in societies approach to substance use.

[bloodyminded]

If you read the earlier posts, I am not looking to defend prohibition because I am open to restricted legalization if it can be proven it will be more cost effective for the tax payer. I am however oppossed to people who don't want to throw the book at gangsters because they feel prohibition is the problem, and therefore legalization is the only route.

A reasonable position, but no one here is saying that gangsters shouldn't prosecuted.

My remarks were a direct response to this:

people who advocate for restricted legalization would have to show that the benefits would outway the costs for the taxpayer. So far you haven't presented a shred of evidence to support this argument.

So ok, a shred of evidence has been presented; do you have any counter-evidence?

[Wilber]

That's because its not the argument I'm making.

I'm arguing for consistency in societies approach to substance use.

I'm arguing for some consistency when it comes to violent criminal behavior. That really is the essence of this thread. The fact that society may or may not have a consistent approach to substance abuse in no way justifies the actions of organized crime. Are you going to legalize every activity that can make gang members a buck? If not, you will always have them because there will always be people in society who are willing to take that route.

This not either a health issue or a crime issue, it is both. It is criminals taking advantage of a health issue and I don't know why you would want to cut them any more slack than the government you are so critical of.

That's really too bad about your dad but would it have made any difference what his drug was? He was right to lecture you about the evils of drug use but he should have included his own. After all, he was a good example. Society has recognized the problems that can come from liquor and tobacco use. Penalties for impaired driving continue to become more severe, smoking is regarded as quite antisocial and its use becomes more restricted every day, particularly in BC. I would say society recognizes that all drugs can be bad for you, legal or not. If you want to remove restrictions from the use of all drugs, you will have to include those on booze and tobacco as well.