B.C. court is soft in the head.

[eyeball]

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.

I never once said it did. But it seems you have to keep pretending as if I did so your arguments can completely and consistently avoid the connection between prohibition and 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.

No. I just want the government to stop criminalizing a very specific 'crime', that of the personal vice of recreationally altering one's mind. It's continued efforts to do so are making things worse not better.

This not either a health issue or a crime issue, it is both.

True enough. Go ask the people who cause and suffer from FAS. I see you also consistently avoid discussing the appalling number of criminals the government is complicit in creating by selling liquor. Tough on violent criminal behaviour my ass.

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.

I never said I wanted to cut violent people a bunch of slack. As for taking advantage of an issue, it's scary how much mileage politicians can get out of crime, even when it's going down.

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.

And smoking is increasing amongst teens. Go figure. As I said the governments policies on substance use are completely FUBAR.

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.

OTOH it should be easier now than ever to do the opposite and prohibit them too. Police have all sorts of technology that wasn't available during Al Capone's day and as many would have us believe society's attitudes are certainly leaning more towards cracking down and getting tough than leniency. You certainly seem to believe harsher penalties are the ticket to stamping out virtually every criminal act known to man. Never mind me advocating for prohibition of everything, what's your excuse for not doing so? I'd say that winds at your side's back not mine.

[Wilber]

I never once said it did. But it seems you have to keep pretending as if I did so your arguments can completely and consistently avoid the connection between prohibition and organized crime.

Of course there is a connection between prohibition and organized crime. So what, prohibition or anything else doesn't cause crime. Criminals cause crime. People who have no respect for the lives and welfare of others. Just because something is prohibited doesn't force people to be organized crime members or addicts.

No. I just want the government to stop criminalizing a very specific 'crime', that of the personal vice of recreationally altering one's mind. It's continued efforts to do so are making things worse not better.

No it isn't, legal or not, society will still have to pick up the pieces, just like with alcohol and tobacco.

True enough. Go ask the people who cause and suffer from FAS. I see you also consistently avoid discussing the appalling number of criminals the government is complicit in creating by selling liquor. Tough on violent criminal behaviour my ass.

People have to assume some sort of responsibility for what they consume whether it is alcohol or anything else. There are a lot of legal things you can buy that will get you high and screw up you or your fetus. If someone sniffs glue, is the government responsible for the results because it is legal to buy the stuff? At least there is some effort to control access to booze and smokes. Even though the government makes a bundle off them, they don't push their use. I think you might have a more valid argument when it comes to promoting addictive behaviour with regard to gambling.

I never said I wanted to cut violent people a bunch of slack. As for taking advantage of an issue, it's scary how much mileage politicians can get out of crime, even when it's going down.

Gang activity only goes down when there is a concerted effort to fight it.

And smoking is increasing amongst teens. Go figure. As I said the governments policies on substance use are completely FUBAR.

Again, if something is going wrong, it must be the governments fault. Got a link for that?

OTOH it should be easier now than ever to do the opposite and prohibit them too. Police have all sorts of technology that wasn't available during Al Capone's day and as many would have us believe society's attitudes are certainly leaning more towards cracking down and getting tough than leniency. You certainly seem to believe harsher penalties are the ticket to stamping out virtually every criminal act known to man. Never mind me advocating for prohibition of everything, what's your excuse for not doing so? I'd say that winds at your side's back not mine.

Prohibiting everything won't work. People need access to at least some vices. The best government can do is try and keep the negative effects to a minimum. I have never said that harsher penalties are the ticket to anything except keeping those who have shown themselves to be either incorrigible or a danger to the public from continuing to victimize others.

[eyeball]

Prohibiting everything won't work. People need access to at least some vices.

Is that the official line? It should be in the preamble of a Substance Use Act that at the very least should be encouraging people to do safer ones more responsibly.

If they're denied access to safer ones who's fault is that?

[Wilber]

Is that the official line? It should be in the preamble of a Substance Use Act that at the very least should be encouraging people to do safer ones more responsibly.

If they're denied access to safer ones who's fault is that?

Safer is in the eyes of who is pushing it. The safety of any of them is questionable and all are unsafe if abused. Booze has been around since before recorded history. It will still be around ten thousand years from now and it will still be the drug of choice for most people.

[Non_Partisan]

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

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

Okay fair enough but here you state....

I just want the government to stop criminalizing a very specific 'crime', that of the personal vice of recreationally altering one's mind.

Your previous posts have shown your not an advocate of prohibition, so if the government was consistent across the board with mind altering substances, what would your ideal solution be if not restricted legalization? decriminalization?

The problem with saying the government is inconsistent in its message towards substance abuse, is that in a democracy the government reflects the will of the general public, they have chosen that alcohal and tobbaco should remain legal, others should not, regardless of the health implications.

Every illicit narcotic has negative health implications, the question is how much more is it going to cost the tax payer if we legalize another illicit substance? Is the health care system going to be futher strained because of the negative mental and physical health implications of decriminalizing or legalizing further substances?

[Bonam]

First: existing laws must be upheld and criminals under those laws must be punished in accordance with those laws, regardless of our opinions on how/whether those laws should be changed in the future.

Now, as for the argument about legalization vs prohibition... to me the issue is simple, at least in principle. The government should not have the power to tell you that you cannot use mind-altering substances. As long as the individual is harming no one else, they should be able to do whatever the heck they want to themselves. However, if a substantial causal link can be established between the use of a certain substance in a certain context that leads to the harm not just of the voluntary user, but of others, then laws should be implement to protect the public from that individual.

For example, drinking alcohol and then driving is likely to harm other people, so it should be against the law. Drinking alcohol while sitting at home is not likely to harm other people, and should be allowed. Smoking in your back yard is unlikely to harm other people, and so should be allowed. Smoking in a crowded public area subjects others to second hand smoke which can have adverse health effects, and so should be disallowed. So I guess my opinion would be that in their own homes or other specific locations, people should be allowed to use substances as they wish, but any activities likely to harm others should be prohibited.

Now as for the argument about health care and costs for taxpayers... well, users of alcohol, tobacco, or other substances subject themselves to additional health risks. These risks should be scientifically quantified, and users should be charged additional health premiums. The simplest way to implement this is to simply have the items sold with a large tax on them which the government uses for treatment of illnesses associated with those products. The magnitude of the tax should be dynamically adjusted on a yearly basis to reflect the cost of the related health care.

Illegal distribution (bypassing the tax/health premium system) and inappropriate use (i.e. DUI, use in public places where it is forbidden, etc) of these substances should remain punishable by law.

[eyeball]

Safer is in the eyes of who is pushing it. The safety of any of them is questionable and all are unsafe if abused. Booze has been around since before recorded history. It will still be around ten thousand years from now and it will still be the drug of choice for most people.

What's safer should be according to what medical science says. As it is now the law has approached the problem backwards and what's dangerous is based on subjective biases. For the same reason much of what constitutes the crime bills our government has been proposing are not supported by most criminologists.

My link

[eyeball]

The problem with saying the government is inconsistent in its message towards substance abuse, is that in a democracy the government reflects the will of the general public, they have chosen that alcohal and tobbaco should remain legal, others should not, regardless of the health implications.

Hmmm, we chose? I must have missed that referendum.

Every illicit narcotic has negative health implications, the question is how much more is it going to cost the tax payer if we legalize another illicit substance? Is the health care system going to be futher strained because of the negative mental and physical health implications of decriminalizing or legalizing further substances?

You were provided evidence and I also suggested you look at the conclusions California seems to be coming to.

"And if the bill doesn't pass this year, it will soon. Or, the bill will be irrelevant because the voters will have passed the measure to regulate and tax marijuana that will be on the ballot this November."

Link

Would you like to see people in B.C. have an opportunity to vote in a similar manner on this issue?

[Non_Partisan]

Hmmm, we chose? I must have missed that referendum.

Alcohal prohibition in Canada never had widespread support across the country, it was enacted individually by the Provinvce's in the early 20th century, than reppealed in the 1920's largely due to the unpopularity of the law. No sane politician would advocate for the prohibition of alcohal today, because it would be political suicide.

Tobacco was never prohibited because its link to cancer wasn't exposed until the 1960's. Prohibiting soft drugs as you stated before also become's problemtic because it becomes a cash cow for organized crime, so its better to tax it.

You were provided evidence and I also suggested you look at the conclusions California seems to be coming to.

Link

Would you like to see people in B.C. have an opportunity to vote in a similar manner on this issue?

I could be wrong, but I think the majority of Canadians are in principal, in favour of legalizing marijuana. Our soverienty on this issue though, is somewhat restricted because of our right of centre cousin to the South. If we were to legalize it there would most likely be economic and social ramifications for Canadians in terms of trade and border crossing. Add that into the mix and most Canadians probably don't think legalizing marijuana is worth it.

What is going on in California is interesting but I wouldn't get to excited. If it passes it will be in conflict with federal law, and with the Republicans poised to retake the senate in the upcoming elections, I doubt any amendments will be made to it to accomadate California.

[Wilber]

I could be wrong, but I think the majority of Canadians are in principal, in favour of legalizing marijuana. Our soverienty on this issue though, is somewhat restricted because of our right of centre cousin to the South. If we were to legalize it there would most likely be economic and social ramifications for Canadians in terms of trade and border crossing. Add that into the mix and most Canadians probably don't think legalizing marijuana is worth it.

What is going on in California is interesting but I wouldn't get to excited. If it passes it will be in conflict with federal law, and with the Republicans poised to retake the senate in the upcoming elections, I doubt any amendments will be made to it to accomadate California.

As over 70% of Canadian marijuana production is for export, legalizing it on our own would do nothing to curb organized crime's involvement. On the other hand, if the US did legalize it, we would be fools not to.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I could be wrong, but I think the majority of Canadians are in principal, in favour of legalizing marijuana. Our soverienty on this issue though, is somewhat restricted because of our right of centre cousin to the South....

Patently false....marijuana was banned in Canada under the 1923 Opium and Drug Act...years before similar legislation in the U.S.A.

[Borg]

(link to article)

The Bacon brothers are drug thugs and their targets were also drug thugs. Some would suggest that the best thing would be to give the Bacon boys a fresh clip of ammo and tell them to get back to work. If it was just another of Vancouver's ongoing strings of drug gang assassinations, I doubt people would give it much thought, but in this case it sounds like they killed people who weren't actually involved in the drug war, so they're in for it.

However...

...you can't do that.

That they "accidentally" monitored his communications with ranks with "I didn't realize the tazer went off 5 times". If the RCMP want to get people's respect again, they should stop saying stupid crap and start obeying their own rules.

-k

Look - the fact is the people of BC have a say in the legal aspects of the province. Do they exercise it? Apparently not. To blame the courts - as you did in the title of the thread - only highlights the true problem in BC - the people of the province are soft in the head.

Quit your bitching about the system and do something about it

Borg

Edited July 25, 2010 by Borg

[Remiel]

Patently false....marijuana was banned in Canada under the 1923 Opium and Drug Act...years before similar legislation in the U.S.A.

Good job at confusing the political will of yesteryear with that of today.

[bloodyminded]

Good job at confusing the political will of yesteryear with that of today.

It's pretty desperate, for sure. Stems from nationalistic oversensitivity.

[bush_cheney2004]

Good job at confusing the political will of yesteryear with that of today.

But "sovereignty" is just that...the will of yesterday projected forward each day. The fact is that Canada scheduled cannabis years before the US feds....sure smells "sovereign" to me. You can bitch about royal assent or even drug trafficking treaties, but don't blame the USA, your biggest dope market.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's pretty desperate, for sure. Stems from nationalistic oversensitivity.

Yea, sensitive like pointing to the USA (yet again) as an excuse for scheduled substances and criminal code.

[ToadBrother]

But "sovereignty" is just that...the will of yesterday projected forward each day. The fact is that Canada scheduled cannabis years before the US feds....sure smells "sovereign" to me. You can bitch about royal assent or even drug trafficking treaties, but don't blame the USA, your biggest dope market.

Blaming the US for our problems is old hat. Saves having to actually find the will to deal with them ourselves.

At any rate, I don't blame the US or Canada so much as I blame the cops in general, who in both countries receive vast budgets to kill the drug problem, knowing full well that it is unsolvable. Even better for the cops, keeping drugs illegal has all sorts of perks; crime in other related areas like prostitution, guns, gang turf wars and so forth. How big would the FBI be without illegal narcotics? How many excess RCMP officers would there be? The units and task forces and all the other mumbo jumbo committees of law enforcement keep getting bigger and bigger on both sides of the border. It just feeds off of itself.

Of course, poor ol' Mexico, being on the frontlines, gets the s--tstorm that goes along with laws that essentially make gangsters rich, while we put up with what looks in comparison like modest inner-city and urban crime.

[Wilber]

At any rate, I don't blame the US or Canada so much as I blame the cops in general, who in both countries receive vast budgets to kill the drug problem, knowing full well that it is unsolvable. Even better for the cops, keeping drugs illegal has all sorts of perks; crime in other related areas like prostitution, guns, gang turf wars and so forth. How big would the FBI be without illegal narcotics? How many excess RCMP officers would there be? The units and task forces and all the other mumbo jumbo committees of law enforcement keep getting bigger and bigger on both sides of the border. It just feeds off of itself.

That's it, blame the cops for enforcing the laws made by the people you elected. There will never be a shortage of work for cops because there will never be a shortage of creeps.

[dre]

That's it, blame the cops for enforcing the laws made by the people you elected. There will never be a shortage of work for cops because there will never be a shortage of creeps.

The real problem behind our failure adopt better drug policy is that enforcement/litigation/punishment has become a massive and powerfull industry. It employs hundreds of thousands of people from cops, to lawyers, to judges, clerks, prison guards etc etc etc. The people have lobbies, unions, and trade associations and they have a lot of sway over our government.

Then you have industries that are INDIRECTLY related. The Pharmy industry, tobacco industry, alcohol industry, etc. These industries are ALSO very powerfull and they dont want another recreation or medicinal drug on the market to compete with.

If you throw in all the organized drug criminals themselves with the afformentioned industries its pretty clear that theres a HELL of a lot of people that benefit greatly from the perpetual failed war on drugs. Theyre just tickled pink about it. They know its a permanent source of income because the war can never be won.

[bush_cheney2004]

....If you throw in all the organized drug criminals themselves with the afformentioned industries its pretty clear that theres a HELL of a lot of people that benefit greatly from the perpetual failed war on drugs. Theyre just tickled pink about it. They know its a permanent source of income because the war can never be won.

Errr...you left out the dopers who are buying all the drugs.

[eyeball]

Errr...you left out the dopers who are buying all the drugs.

How on Earth do consumers benefit from inflated prices?

[ToadBrother]

That's it, blame the cops for enforcing the laws made by the people you elected. There will never be a shortage of work for cops because there will never be a shortage of creeps.

Oh BS. Every time there's talk on either side of the border about liberalizing drug laws, who are the first people out of the gate against it? Law enforcement. To legalize drugs would represent a vast slashing of law enforcement.

Who is it that has perpetrated all the nonsense about "gateway drugs" or about "instant addiction" from crystal meth. Neither has any foundation in science, and yet every time someone talks about legalizing pot, the first thing you get is angry looking cops going on TV to announce that it's dangerous and leads to heroin, prostitution and Armageddon.

If the cops were simply public servants doing what they were told, rather than active advocates of a specific set of policies, I'd be with you, but as it is they are not unbiased, and since they have a considerable amount to gain from the continued criminalization on drugs, it explains a considerable amount.

[ToadBrother]

If you throw in all the organized drug criminals themselves with the afformentioned industries its pretty clear that theres a HELL of a lot of people that benefit greatly from the perpetual failed war on drugs. Theyre just tickled pink about it. They know its a permanent source of income because the war can never be won.

What always bothers me is why we keep trying to re-run Prohibition. We know that it was a dismal failure, that the creation of an artificial scarcity of a popular drug simply made organized crime rich and large, and that even after it was repealed, because a whole host of other drugs, not to mention prostitution and gambling, were still made illegal by the Great Moralists, they were quickly able to make up the shortfall and get even bigger. Bootlegging was nothing compared to cocaine and opiates, and in short order domestic mobsters, Mafiaso and the like were the retailers for a vast supply chain that stretched to Central Asia and the jungles of Latin America, making all sorts of really bad guys very very very rich.

For these guys, like the rum runners back in Prohibition times, the odd shipment getting busted, the odd bootlegger getting nailed, even the turf wars were just the cost of doing business. It hasn't changed, it's just got bigger.

I don't think legalization will cure all the ills. There will always be some element of society that is going to self-destruct via chemicals. Accepting that fact, one can then formulate a rational policy.

[bush_cheney2004]

How on Earth do consumers benefit from inflated prices?

They get to use their dope and sell some on the side.

[Wilber]

Oh BS. Every time there's talk on either side of the border about liberalizing drug laws, who are the first people out of the gate against it? Law enforcement. To legalize drugs would represent a vast slashing of law enforcement.

Who is it that has perpetrated all the nonsense about "gateway drugs" or about "instant addiction" from crystal meth. Neither has any foundation in science, and yet every time someone talks about legalizing pot, the first thing you get is angry looking cops going on TV to announce that it's dangerous and leads to heroin, prostitution and Armageddon.

If the cops were simply public servants doing what they were told, rather than active advocates of a specific set of policies, I'd be with you, but as it is they are not unbiased, and since they have a considerable amount to gain from the continued criminalization on drugs, it explains a considerable amount.

Actually you don't hear cops saying that. You will find many police officers who think that continuing to criminalize marijuana use is a waste of time. Their only question is, how do you go about legalizing it in the present political climate on both sides of the border? Police actually spend more time dealing with the results of drug (including alcohol) use than they do fighting the "drug war". Most of our property crime, domestic violence and yes, prostitution is a result of addiction.

You are right about them not being unbiased though. They have to deal with the results of addiction every working day, not just beak off about them on internet forums.

Edited July 26, 2010 by Wilber