Mandatory Jail Sentence for Growing Five Pot Plants

[bloodyminded]

WHY? They are capable to do that themself and MORE. They suppose to pay the victims - not the other way 'round.

Except in upside down civilization.

Then let's hear your solution: if criminals are to be incarcerated, and they lack sufficient funds to pay for it...who pays? What is to be done?

[Saipan]

Liberals should stand up for what they believe in. Here is Ignatieff commenting on a different bill that also introduces mandaTory minimums. This one on human smuggling:

"We feel after much thought and reflection that this bill is in violation of the charter. Mandatory detention is just not in the Canadian tradition.

Actully confiscation of legally acquired firearms in not the Canadian tradition.

Punishing criminals IS. And always was.

[Saipan]

Then let's hear your solution: if criminals are to be incarcerated, and they lack sufficient funds to pay for it...who pays? What is to be done?

1) They have to work harder, longer hours, instead watching TV and playing in gym.

2) LOT of light criminals don't have to be in prisons. For example, shoplifter needs only 5 - 10 lashes and then clean the sidewalk in front of that store AFTER his regular work. It works like a charm.

3) The most dangerous criminals need to be hanged. 'Specially those who killed more than once.

[eyeball]

1) They have to work harder, longer hours, instead watching TV and playing in gym.

2) LOT of light criminals don't have to be in prisons. For example, shoplifter needs only 5 - 10 lashes and then clean the sidewalk in front of that store AFTER his regular work. It works like a charm.

3) The most dangerous criminals need to be hanged. 'Specially those who killed more than once.

And that grow a little pot?

[bloodyminded]

1) They have to work harder, longer hours, instead watching TV and playing in gym.

The amount they're renumerated wouldn't come close to paying for their keep.

Of course, you didn't know this; because you don't bother to find things out.

2) LOT of light criminals don't have to be in prisons. For example, shoplifter needs only 5 - 10 lashes and then clean the sidewalk in front of that store AFTER his regular work. It works like a charm.

Yes, bring back the lash...for misdemeanors, yet!

3) The most dangerous criminals need to be hanged. 'Specially those who killed more than once.

Nope.

Edited December 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

And that grow a little pot?

Same as those who destill a little alcohol.

[Saipan]

The amount they're renumerated wouldn't come close to paying for their keep.

How did you calculated?? How does "renumeration" of victims sufice?

Yes, bring back the lash...for misdemeanors, yet!

No, for the criminals.

[eyeball]

Same as those who destill a little alcohol.

Growing cannabis and making marijuana is more like growing grapes and making wine.

Distilling alcohol is more like manufacturing meth.

[bloodyminded]

How did you calculated?? How does "renumeration" of victims sufice?

You're dancing around here.

but just in case your preposterous question was sincere: we both know that inmates are not paid for their work amounts sufficient to cover their incarceration.

That's not a debatable political opinion, Saipan. (Nor is it a judgement, lest you fly off on another tangent about my support for high-paid inmates jobs, which is not the case.) I'm merely pointing out the truth.

As for victim recompense: same math applies anyway, so I don't see your point.

(In fact, I don't think you have a point; as you've admitted elsewhere, you just enjoy being argumentative and trying to push people's buttons; and like most trolls, you are amusingly proud of this banality.)

No, for the criminals.

You said that people who commit misdemeanors should get the lash. Try to keep up with your own arguments, at least.

[Saipan]

Does anyone seriously believe marijuana is a serious threat anymore?

No more and no less than alcohol.

[Saipan]

but just in case your preposterous question was sincere: we both know that inmates are not paid for their work amounts sufficient to cover their incarceration.

And that is EXACTLY the problem I was addressing. They need more work, not more gym.

You said that people who commit misdemeanors should get the lash.

No, you said that, and now second time.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Saipan

[guyser]

you said..

Quote

2) LOT of light criminals don't have to be in prisons. For example, shoplifter needs only 5 - 10 lashes and then clean the sidewalk in front of that store AFTER his regular work. It works like a charm.

..and typical little troll you deny it now...

No, you said that, and now second time.

Either man up or leave. You ignorance drags down the forum.

Cue ignorant dumb ass response from the idiot in 5 4 3 2...

[bloodyminded]

you said..

..and typical little troll you deny it now...

Either man up or leave. You ignorance drags down the forum.

Cue ignorant dumb ass response from the idiot in 5 4 3 2...

Thank you for pre-empting my scroll-back and subsequent exposure of Saipan's essential dishonesty, guyser. I am feeling little heart to commit to such wastes of time, for someone who can never, ever admit he's wrong: even when his own words prove it irrevocably.

[AngusThermopyle]

No more and no less than alcohol.

Actually Saipan you are incorrect on this point. Numerous studies have shown Marijuana to be far less harmfull than Alcohol on both a personal and societal level.

[Saipan]

Growing cannabis and making marijuana is more like growing grapes and making wine.

It's like growing poppy and making drugs.

Distilling alcohol is more like manufacturing meth.

No, it's like competitions to manufacturing Jamaican Rum, Whisky, vodka....etc.

[Saipan]

you said..

..and typical little troll you deny it now...

Put up or shut up. Where did I deny what I said?

Edited December 2, 2010 by Saipan

[AngusThermopyle]

It's like growing poppy and making drugs.

Nope, not really, weed is a whole different proposition from Opium Poppies.

[Saipan]

Nope, not really, weed is a whole different proposition from Opium Poppies.

They are all different. We need road checks for drug influence - not just alcohol.

[dre]

They are all different. We need road checks for drug influence - not just alcohol.

No we need less road checks, and we need more of the policy we have to work in real crimes. Right now we have a situation where the law and order crowd is screaming for more enforcement every time theres a really bad crime, but 90% of the police are doing traffic checks, or sitting by the boat launch to make sure you have your personal pleasurecraft operating permit.

[bloodyminded]

Put up or shut up. Where did I deny what I said?

ME:

You said that people who commit misdemeanors should get the lash.

YOU:

No, you said that, and now second time.

Yeah, I know, I know: "English isn't my first language, what's your excuse?"

The point being this: don't try to argue English with those who have a superior knowledge of the language.

And that's my generous appeal; because in truth, I think the problem is not your understanding of the language, but rather your essential dishonesty.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Sir Bandelot]

Nope, not really, weed is a whole different proposition from Opium Poppies.

It doesn't really matter much, I don't see what the fuss is all about. The sad fact is, marijuana smokers are treated far more harshly than alcoholics. This despite all the research into relative harm of these substances. And no one will ever convince me that criminalization is a solution for people who ave bad personal habits.

On another note, I read elsewhere that this bill did not, in fact, recently pass the senate. It was only brought up in a committee meeting, but has yet to be actually voted on. Can anyone confirm this?

Edited December 2, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Saipan]

No we need less road checks

Of course - to those who are impaired. Who'd want to get busted

and we need more of the policy we have to work in real crimes.

Registering duck guns?

Right now we have a situation where the law and order crowd is screaming for more enforcement every time theres a really bad crime

YES. You'll hear the screams again every December 6....... on, and on, and on... Go deal with Wendy Cukier or Alan Rock.

[Sir Bandelot]

On another note, I read elsewhere that this bill did not, in fact, recently pass the senate. It was only brought up in a committee meeting, but has yet to be actually voted on. Can anyone confirm this?

The Vancouver Sun article in the OP is not correct. The senate did NOT pass this bill. So much for validity in quoting reliable sources.

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

3rd Session, 40th Parliament,

Volume 147, Issue 69

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, Speaker

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Bill to Amend—Eleventh Report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallace, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duffy for the adoption of the eleventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, with an amendment), presented in the Senate on November 4, 2010.

Hon. Charlie Watt: Honourable senators, once again . . .

[Editor's Note: Senator Watt spoke in Inuktitut.]

Thank you. I stand before honourable senators today on the issue of Bill S-10, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. With this legislation, formerly known as Bill C-15 in the last session, we are again asked to accept mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders and are again asked to accept a bill that provides for drug courts only in some parts of this country.

Drug courts are not available in the North, East or the province of Quebec. Honourable senators, we are also looking at a bill that ignores a vital tradition established in the Criminal Code, known as the Gladue principle. Under this principle, judges are mandated under section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code to look for alternatives to jail for Aboriginal offenders. Judges have been instructed to pay specific attention to the circumstances surrounding Aboriginal offenders during sentencing.

The minister stated that Bill S-10 will override the Gladue principles and that the mandatory minimum will apply to all people.

Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs received testimony last month from a witness, Michelle Mann, who spoke about interconnectedness of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, substance abuse, Aboriginal offenders and the mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes.

In the North, I have seen the ravages of alcohol on Inuit youth and the impact that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder has on the children. It is a fact that too many Aboriginal people struggle with this terrible condition without proper diagnosis or support. They too often find themselves in trouble with the law because they struggle with this condition, and not simply because they are criminals.

Michelle Mann cautioned the committee. She said:

Canada's legal framework protects the rights of all Canadians, including offenders, to live without being disadvantaged by discrimination because of their race or disability. Mandatory minimums for drug offenders in a context where Aboriginal people disproportionately experience substance abuse issues and disproportionately suffer from FASD raise the spectre of discrimination based on both disability and race against Aboriginal offenders within justice system.

She then asked:

Where the offence is committed as a result of substance abuse, compounded by the disability of FASD and by Gladue factors, what are the government's obligations from a legal and policy perspective? Does a mandatory minimum meet these responsibilities, particularly in areas where drug courts are not available?

Honourable senators, if this bill is passed without addressing these issues, it places a judge in the position of having to give a mandatory minimum sentence. It eliminates their ability to suspend that sentence when certain circumstances, like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, are present. Aboriginal people are struggling against some pretty tough odds. This bill creates yet another road block to rehabilitation.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard from dozens of witnesses who all agree there are serious problems with this bill. Mandatory minimum sentences are not a cure-all remedy that will solve Canada's issues with drug crimes. Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code does not give preferential treatment to aboriginal offenders — it attempts to level the field, but clearly this is not enough, as we have such a disproportionate representation of Aboriginals in our jails.

Collectively, Inuit and other Aboriginal people are so disadvantaged before entering the courts that we should be asking ourselves questions like: How can we tip the balance towards more equitable living standards? How can we provide culturally relevant intervention before crimes are committed? How can we ensure that Aboriginal people are well nourished, safely housed and have access to regular medical care?

We should be asking what the best practices are for them in drug rehabilitation. How do we reduce depression and anxiety within our Aboriginal communities? As parliamentarians, we have the opportunity to pass laws that will encourage community leaders to invest in the health and well being of their members.

I believe the time has come to hold an inquiry into the status of Aboriginal incarceration in this country. It is time for us to create new alcohol-free and drug-free communities in remote regions of the country where our youth can go back to the land and reclaim their personal well being. We need to create addictions treatment facilities in the North and on reserves.

If Bill S-10 is truly the best that Parliament has to offer, then we have failed to uphold the honour of the Crown, and we are further perpetuating the injustices to aboriginal citizens.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Charlie Watt: Therefore, honourable senators, I move:

That the Eleventh Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs be not now adopted but that it be amended:

(a) in the opening paragraph, by replacing "following amendment" with "following amendments"; and

( by adding amendment No 2 as follows:

"2. Page 6, clause 6: Add after line 14 the following:

"(6) A court sentencing an aboriginal person who is convicted of an offence under this Part is not required to impose the minimum punishment for the offence if the court is satisfied that

(a) the minimum punishment would be unduly harsh, having regard to the circumstances of the aboriginal offender; and

( another sanction that is reasonable in the circumstances is available.

(7) If, under subsection (6), the court decides not to impose a minimum punishment, it shall give reasons for that decision." ".

(On motion of Senator Comeau, debate adjourned.)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate/DEB-E/069db_2010-11-24-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3#48

[Bonam]

Yes, bring back the lash...for misdemeanors, yet!

You know, just thinking about this objectively, I really don't think it's that crazy. Spend a few minutes getting lashes, or spend a few weeks/months in jail? Talking for sorta moderate level crimes here though, not "misdemeanors". Which would you choose? Personally I'd rather suffer pain for a bit and then get on with my life than rot in a jail for a much longer time period. Heck, you could make the decision up to the criminal if you want, they can pick. I'm sure many would go for the quick lashing rather than the jail term, and society would save some money.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Bonam

[Saipan]

ME:

Your words.

YOU:

My words.

Try not to mix those two. That way you won't be confused.