Mandatory Jail Sentence for Growing Five Pot Plants

[Saipan]

Heck, you could make the decision up to the criminal if you want, they can pick.

Makes sense.

For hard core criminals, life (or noose) or castration. Their choice. Life would carry a 12 hour shifts. No weekends, no TV, no gym (not that they would want any gym at end of the day).

[DrGreenthumb]

--trimmed to save space

I actually think it is total bullshit that they would suggest that aboriginalk offenders should be spared the mandatory minimums if others won't be. That is total descrimination. If it is unfair to jail aboriginals over drug crimes it is just as unfair to jail other ethnic groups.

Edited December 3, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[AngusThermopyle]

Well I have to agree with you. Why should one person with fetal alcohol syndrome be favoured over another with the same syndrome. That is given that FASD is the determining factor.

[eyeball]

--trimmed to save space

I actually think it is total bullshit that they would suggest that aboriginalk offenders should be spared the mandatory minimums if others won't be. That is total descrimination. If it is unfair to jail aboriginals over drug crimes it is just as unfair to jail other ethnic groups.

The drunken elephant in the room of course is that government outlets supply the booze that causes FASD and then builds the jails that house them once their disease causes them to become criminals. The disgraceful perversity of it all should be enough to drive just about anyone to drink. It's just too bad fetuses don't have rights of some kind then we might have half a chance to prevent a lot of pain and heartbreak.

The government obviously doesn't have any fundamental issues with people recreationally altering their minds otherwise booze would be illegal. This being the case the very least it should be doing is suggesting people consume less toxic substances.

[AngusThermopyle]

The government obviously doesn't have any fundamental issues with people recreationally altering their minds otherwise booze would be illegal. This being the case the very least it should be doing is suggesting people consume less toxic substances.

Well they could suggest that. Or they could make all substances illegal. To me what makes the most sense though would be to level the playing field when it comes to similar or comparable substances. Even though booze can not be compared to weed as it is much more harmfull over all.

[eyeball]

Well they could suggest that. Or they could make all substances illegal. To me what makes the most sense though would be to level the playing field when it comes to similar or comparable substances. Even though booze can not be compared to weed as it is much more harmfull over all.

I think it's what people do with pot or booze that should be the issue.

I'd rather they approach the issue of substance use from the same fundamental starting point such as its purpose, altering one's mind. Should it be legal or illegal, yes or no?

Settle that then all the other stuff should follow such as how who where and when. Why should be obvious enough.

[dre]

I think it's what people do with pot or booze that should be the issue.

I'd rather they approach the issue of substance use from the same fundamental starting point such as its purpose, altering one's mind. Should it be legal or illegal, yes or no?

Settle that then all the other stuff should follow such as how who where and when. Why should be obvious enough.

Its not rocket science. If you want to make pot less of a problem, then take the money wasted on enforcement/imprisonment, and spend it on treatment.

[Saipan]

Its not rocket science. If you want to make pot less of a problem, then take the money wasted on enforcement/imprisonment, and spend it on treatment.

Would you treat gunrunning and gambling?

Suddenly every breaking of the law needs to be "treated".

How much does it cost to take the driver's licence away for the rest of one's life?

[Sir Bandelot]

Greenthumb, I agree but at the very least it does open the door to consitutional challenges. This bill is not decided yet, it still has a few more steps to take before it becomes law. But I suspect that if it does, it will soon fall. As should any carte-blanche attempt at introducing mandatory sentencing, legislated by politicians who sit in their offices and know nothing.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Saipan]

Under Liberal government one politician alone can decide and implement confiscation of property of millions of people.

[guyser]

and finally

Under Liberal government one politician alone can decide and implement confiscation of property of millions of people.

Prove it.

Edited December 3, 2010 by guyser

[Saipan]

Prove it.

Read C-68, as rammed through the House by Alan Rock using piles of lies.

[Sir Bandelot]

Read C-68, as rammed through the House by Alan Rock using piles of lies.

Oh, thats too bad. Now you can't play with firearms without a licence. But what can you do, government have spoken. Maybe need to go pound sand...

[Saipan]

Now you can't play with firearms without a licence.

What do you mean "now"?

Licences are here since 1978. NO one discusses licences - only registration/confiscation.

You mean you didn't know?

[Sir Bandelot]

Wrong, hunters didn't have to register their rifles or shotguns. You want to have it both ways. You want the government to punish people who smoke dope, put them in jail or cane them, but you don't like it if the government tells you can't have restricted firearms. Just because you personally don't like something, that somebody else does? Either you support government control, take away freedom of the people, or you don't. So which is it.

[Saipan]

Wrong, hunters didn't have to register their rifles or shotguns.

They still don't - because of amnesty (in fact perpetual amnesty since 1998)

But you forgot (again) you were talking licencing, not registration. Make up your mind.

You want to have it both ways. You want the government to punish people who smoke dope, put them in jail or cane them

No, you do. It's in your post.

I said I don't want potheads on the road. I couln't care less what they do at home. Same with alcohol.

but you don't like it if the government tells you can't have restricted firearms.

Actually I can have restricted firearms. I have licence for all three classes, unrestricted, restricted and prohibited.

Either you support government control, take away freedom of the people, or you don't. So which is it.

So you believe all people should be free to fly planes? No government control over who can practice medicine, open pharmacy? Manufacture firearms........?

[Zachary Young]

You shouldn't need a license to own a gun. Actually the whole system of compulsory licensing in every field should be done away with. This is one of the reasons why we have only 2.2 doctors per thousand people, because the Canadian Medical Association is a cartel which limits the supply of doctors in this country. But this is all entirely off topic, this thread is about drugs and all drugs should be legalized immediately, recreational or otherwise. This would immediately bankrupt most of the criminals in our society, save us billions every year on enforcement, reduce medical costs (you'd no longer have to go to a doctor if you needed a prescription from a pharmacist) and junkies would no longer have to whore themselves out or break into your houses to finance their addictions because the cost of drugs would be pennies on the current dollar. People have a right to consume what they please, it is none of your business what someone chooses to consume and we certainly don't need government to be regulating this matter. Government if it is to exist at all should be kept tiny and constantly guarded against the expanse thereof. Regulate violence, protect property rights, this should be the purpose of government, not some all powerful monolith that controls every aspect of our lives. You cannot improve matters through state action, because there are constant and enormous costs to everything the government does.

[DrGreenthumb]

You shouldn't need a license to own a gun. Actually the whole system of compulsory licensing in every field should be done away with. This is one of the reasons why we have only 2.2 doctors per thousand people, because the Canadian Medical Association is a cartel which limits the supply of doctors in this country. But this is all entirely off topic, this thread is about drugs and all drugs should be legalized immediately, recreational or otherwise. This would immediately bankrupt most of the criminals in our society, save us billions every year on enforcement, reduce medical costs (you'd no longer have to go to a doctor if you needed a prescription from a pharmacist) and junkies would no longer have to whore themselves out or break into your houses to finance their addictions because the cost of drugs would be pennies on the current dollar. People have a right to consume what they please, it is none of your business what someone chooses to consume and we certainly don't need government to be regulating this matter. Government if it is to exist at all should be kept tiny and constantly guarded against the expanse thereof. Regulate violence, protect property rights, this should be the purpose of government, not some all powerful monolith that controls every aspect of our lives. You cannot improve matters through state action, because there are constant and enormous costs to everything the government does.

Mostly agree other than I think that the government should provide some services and infrastructure. I don't mind paying a little taxes so that everyone has access to good roads, education, electricity,health care, telephone service etc. Police, military and government should really only be used to protect us from outside threats, or from being victimized by others. We don't need the government to protect us from our own choices.

[Zachary Young]

Mostly agree other than I think that the government should provide some services and infrastructure. I don't mind paying a little taxes so that everyone has access to good roads, education, electricity,health care, telephone service etc. Police, military and government should really only be used to protect us from outside threats, or from being victimized by others. We don't need the government to protect us from our own choices.

Ever been 'educated' in a public school? They aren't so hot. It's just not a system that is designed towards unleashing the creative capacity innate in every human being. You are supposed to sit down and shut up and listen to some idiot who doesn't have what it takes to make it in the real world go over a curriculum that no one cares about. It is learning by rote, mere regurgitation. It dumbs us down and makes us obedient, which is fine if you want to live in a top down hierarchical society but if what you want is a society full of free and independent individuals, all using their mind and bodies to improve their own situation and inadvertently serving the collective good it's probably not ideal.

I want roads, I want education, I want electricity and health care, I don't think the government provides telephone service currently but it's a good thing. I just happen to disagree with you on the mechanism through which these services should be provided. It's like the old joke in the soviet union. Two babishkas are waiting in a bread line for three hours to receive their moldy rye and one says to the other "isn't it terrible, waiting for hours in line like this?" and the other replies "yes, but think about how bad it is in America where the government doesn't give out bread at all!".

There is a misconception that just because the government currently does something this is the only way it can be done. That's just not true. Just because there is no cost to the end user for these services doesn't mean there is no cost... can you imagine how powerful and productive our society would be if there wasn't literally hundreds of billions of dollars in government waste? If over paid bureaucrats didn't receive six figure salaries to sit on their asses? If lucrative government contracts, all of which are paid for by taxpayers, weren't awarded based on the idea of patronage? Can you imagine how amazing our society could be if we were truly free?

Socialism doesn't work. This is the history of the 20th century. South Korea's economy is 40x that of North Korea for a reason. If you look at Eastern Europe now you see the biggest advocates of capitalism and liberty, because they understand what living in a country where the government does everything means. You need to make a choice - either support government ownership of the means of production, either support socialism, communism, collectivism and all the evils that this system of government entails, or become an advocate of liberty and capitalism and join in the good fight. There is no third option, no middle of the road, their is slavery and tyranny on one side and freedom and liberty on the other. The end result of the interventionist state, of this sort of mixed market economy we have currently is socialism, Ludwig von Mises pointed out, and he was as right about that as he was about anything else.

The war on drugs is an obvious example of harmful government policy, and opposition to this war is important mostly because it is a great example of how every other form of government policy is also harmful. It's just that the war on drugs is the most obvious. You have woken up to the damage done by the state in one area of society, probably because you are a pot head (nothing wrong with that, I used to smoke a lot of herb myself) but it's time to wake up to the rest. The government really and truly is evil, and it's an evil that most be opposed vigorously.

[DrGreenthumb]

The War on drugs is mostly forced on everyone by the capitalists that you seem to worship. Public education means that everyone gets some not just the children of the wealthy. Socialism is not dead, nor evil, and neither is private enterprise. The best societies find the proper balance between the two. We have too much wealth in the hands of too few people in this country. Those wealthy sorts have too much influence on government and use the government to force their bad ideas like prohibition on everyone else. Who supports prohibition? The capitalism loving, bible thumpers that vote Conservative. If your theory was correct then why is it that the right wing are the ones advocating a police state and rampant authoritarianism? Hmm and at the same time the "socialist" NDP are the ones advocating for personal freedom and civil liberties? I used to be a card carrying member of the "progressive" Conservative party. Why have all the capitalists turned into paternalistic authority loving fascists, if capitalism is such a force for freedom? Seems all it does is further empower the rich to dominate the not so rich. At the same time their wealth guarantees them better treatment from the justice system, so all the new freedom crushing laws don't apply the same to those with the wealth to defend themselves from the laws they want to impose on others.

[Zachary Young]

And yet the biggest opponents of the war on drugs, libertarians, are also the biggest advocates of capitalism. Something isn't consistent in your world view brah. Actually public education means the poor and the middle class are FORCED to use the public schools. You see the wealthy and the powerful can afford to pay for both the public school system, through property taxes, as well as having their children educated in private schools. Now I've never been to a private school and I doubt they are significantly better because they are forced to use the same curriculum but I do imagine they ARE better, but the poor cannot access these because they have already been forced to pay for public schools. Anyway you would be much better served by dropping out and getting a job than going through our education system in my opinion. Working for a living is what really teaches you about life, responsibility, getting ahead and winning the class war.

I am not a member of the Conservative Party and I think you are wrong to imply that the conservative party advocates capitalism. All major political parties everywhere advocate the expanse of government power. Look at what Stephen Harper has done as prime minister. Government spending has gone up. We are currently at war. Randoulph Bourne once wrote that war is the health of the state. Nothing is less capitalist, nothing is more pro government than waging an aggressive war of conquest in a foreign country. And let us not forget that the left wing political parties in this country are not against prohibition. They might make mild and pathetic over turns towards decriminalization (the effective status quo already) but what you need to understand is that there is only one political party in this country. The conservatives, NDP and liberals are all exactly the same. They might have different rhetoric but in terms of policy they all advocate for expanding the size and scope of government. None of them want to roll back the state, certainly not when they are in power.

You cannot balance socialism and capitalism, nor should you want to. The state ownership of the means of production is a bad idea. Look at the history of the 20th century! Look what has happened to socialist societies. We are talking about the enslavement of millions, about death camps and the complete devastation of societies. This is what you advocate as a happy medium? Perhaps we will only send a few million to the gulags instead of tens of millions? Socialism is a half baked idea, one that must be opposed vigorously and without fail.

As for 'too much wealth' in the hands of too few - you must ask where does this wealth come from? If this is wealth that was created, should it not belong to the person who created it? What right do you have to wealth you had no part in creating? You seem to be motivated simply by jealousy here. The world owes you nothing and you should accept this fact. Simply because you were born into this world? There is nothing special about you, you're not a magnificient snowflake, you got lucky to be born into this country now make something of yourself or leave us alone, but don't imagine that what we have created you should deserve. If you want to sit on a couch playing video games and getting high all day, that's fine, but don't do it on my dime buster.

The socialist NDP do not advocate personal freedom because they advocate against economic freedom. In no measure can any sort of freedom exist absent economic freedom. Without the right to own property, to do as you please in your own castle, with the money you make, what other right is important? The NDP have nearly ruined our society. You do realize it was only a few decades ago they were supporting the outright nationalization of heavy industry right? That if we had gone with them our nation would be another soviet union? Of course even the idiots in that political party have long since abandoned that rhetoric, but none the less the beliefs remain, they have just learned to lie about them. This is a political party which advocates communism, they are worthy of contempt and ridicule and nothing more.

Now you are correct that the conservatives are authoritarian and advocate the warfare / police state. Politics is a little more complicated than the simple idea of left and right. Conservatism is not capitalism. I am not an advocate of the establishment right, I advocate for the private ownership of the means of production, for the freedom of everyone in our society, I couldn`t care less about elections and which politician lies slightly less than the rest. I care about freedom. I care about liberty.

[Saipan]

This is one of the reasons why we have only 2.2 doctors per thousand people

Way less than that. In this part of NW Ontario it's 2 doctors per 2,800 people. Less than one doctor per thousand.

[Oleg Bach]

Only in your inconsistency. It seems only fair that you should execute the potheads too.

Not that I really hate pot .. I just dispise those that replace beautiful reality with some artifically induced one..kind of loke spitting in the face of God and being ungrateful for your natural state. Creational use is NOT good - re-creational use is tolerable..In other words - nothing wrong with having fun some times but not all the time. Like the cave man who finds ferented berries in the crack of a rock - one might drink and move on - the other might drink and return over and over again till his health was gone..

[bloodyminded]

The NDP have nearly ruined our society.

Ah! So that's what happened to it! The NDP.

[Saipan]

Ah! So that's what happened to it! The NDP.

Yes, Ontario started to recover from Bob Rae disaster. Harris paid half of Rae's debt off but now McGuinty stalled it again.