Lax sentencing for criminals

[Wild Bill]

As I said, I don't support laws against pot -- except against smuggling and big time dealers. I wouldn't even mind experimenting with legalizing it and taxing it.

That being said, the fact is there are laws against it, and if people are so frantic to get some burning weeds into their mouths they're willing to risk prison time don't expect me to feel sorry for them. Whether you 'support' the law or not it exists. So either amuse yourself some other way or take the risks.

Again, it's not that simple. If the only justification of a law is that the State is big and mean and can hurt you if you disobey then you are simply breeding disrespect and contempt for the law. Most people don't claim to have a deep understanding of the Law but they have a general feeling that it is for the most part based on rational reasoning for the protection of society. Pot smoking is a lifestyle/personal choice area and intelligent politicians (is that an oxymoron?) avoid such issues like the plague! Arguements that the Law protects us from ourselves always come across as weak and actually just enforcing some other person's personal value system, denying an individual the right to practice his own. The absurdity of circular arguements like "Pot smoking promotes Crime! Why? Because it's illegal!" make the Law look like a pompous ass.

First off, as I had said, there are millions of Canadians who have or do smoke pot. This is the ONLY law-breaking act they likely do!

The risk of getting caught is very minimal, literally somewhere around winning a big lottery ticket. The Tories seem bent on improving those odds to catch more people.

I stand by my premise that the Tories will lose far more than they will gain from attacking marijuana users. The latest move to tighten up supply by making individuals unable to grow their own medicinal marijuana in favour of government licenced larger growers will only gain ridicule. Why? Because most people have no respect for the quality or cost-effectiveness of government grown or made ANYTHING!

Politics is all about perception rather than truth or accuracy. The Tories already have a perception that they are Priscilla Goodbodies totally out of touch with the social mores of mainstream Canadians. Harper has fought the perception that Conservatives are just bible thumpers with a political agenda since his Reform days. Stockwell Day proved that there are many in the party who actually believe that evangelical Christians are a silent majority in Canada, rather than the tiny sect they truly are.

If the press comes up with too many examples of otherwise ordinary Canadians having their lives ruined because of something trivial like having one plant in their basement then the Tories are going to look like a liberal's worst nightmare, a bible-thumper with the power to beat people up with the Law to enforce their prissy moral POV.

Why doesn't Harper just hand Layton another 10 seats now instead and save himself a lot of time and effort?

Edited July 4, 2011 by Wild Bill

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey BC, I used her as an example, a metaphor rather than a blueprint!

Ummm...OK...and I used Canada's variousOpium and Drug Act(s) as a dose of reality for this contemporary political game. Banning such things for economic, social, and racist motives is certainly not new in Canada or other dominions going way back to the 19th century. Things like riots in Vancouver and books like The Black Candle had a lot more to do with banning narcotics and pot than anything Carrie Nation's temperance movement did in the US (or Canada).

Carrie Nation metaphors are unnecessary when so many Canadian versions exist, unless ignoring this aspect of Canadian history is by political design. Now who would want to do that?

[Wild Bill]

Ummm...OK...and I used Canada's variousOpium and Drug Act(s) as a dose of reality for this contemporary political game. Banning such things for economic, social, and racist motives is certainly not new in Canada or other dominions going way back to the 19th century. Things like riots in Vancouver and books like The Black Candle had a lot more to do with banning narcotics and pot than anything Carrie Nation's temperance movement did in the US (or Canada).

Carrie Nation metaphors are unnecessary when so many Canadian versions exist, unless ignoring this aspect of Canadian history is by political design. Now who would want to do that?

Point taken! It's just at my age it was easier to remember a shorter name than Aimee Semple McPherson.

[dre]

How about this? The people who are so ungodly stupid and weak, who don't care if the punishment for growing some pot is years in jail because they're so bloody desperate to put some burning weed in their mouths and suck down the smoke, will be removed from the streets, hopefully before they can breed more of their misbegotten ilk.

That really sums up your position right there.

Lets recap your little plan... Round up the 5 - 10 million Canadians that have commited the crime of using marijuana and throw them into thousands of new prisons.

Brilliant!

[Molly]

That really sums up your position right there.

Lets recap your little plan... Round up the 5 - 10 million Canadians that have commited the crime of using marijuana and throw them into thousands of new prisons.

Brilliant!

...and leave them there for a long, long, long time, because we have to prevent them from doing the terrible harm to society that they must be doing (whatever that is. We can't think of anything, but since it's illegal, it must be wa-ay bad.) and jail isn't a hardship to low-lifes like that anyway. Some of them even like it, so jailing them is a humanitarian act.

[jacee]

Soon we'll see issues arising about seniors smoking their medical marijuana in retirement and nursing homes. :-]

[Saipan]

They don't need to get high.

Standing up fast will do the trick for less.

[Wild Bill]

That really sums up your position right there.

Lets recap your little plan... Round up the 5 - 10 million Canadians that have commited the crime of using marijuana and throw them into thousands of new prisons.

Brilliant!

And don't forget, millions of Canadians will stand and cheer, certain to vote Tory next election!

NOT!

[Oleg Bach]

They don't need to get high.

Standing up fast will do the trick for less.

Better have a glass of water or something - you don't sound well. I have one gripe with todays highly altered pot - it is addicting...it wasn't before and it is now - our attitudes towards this drug have to be revised...and there should be an educational program to show it is not "natural" - that it is crimminaly enhanced through hybred cloning...Pot simply is not good to take on as a daily thing - it will make you stupid and cost a lot of money...as for tossing people in jail for being pot junkies....nawh - if we do that we might as well jail all the jerks that are altered on pharma product - that would mean half the judges and most of the lawyers - nothing more disconcerting than a lawyer popping pills in the bathroom.

[eyeball]

if people are so frantic to get some burning weeds into their mouths they're willing to risk prison time don't expect me to feel sorry for them.

That's such a weird way to put it. Would you feel the same way if they put a warm fresh-out-of-the oven brownie into their mouths?

It's actually what they're putting into their brains that really has your ginch in a knot isn't it?

By the way do you feel as glaring resentful of people who put fermented grapes or potatoes into their mouths, and what about the fact that so many who do go on to become or reproduce the vast majority of vicious murderers, rapists and street criminals that you are so obviously very concerned and worried about?

[Oleg Bach]

That's such a weird way to put it. Would you feel the same way if they put a warm fresh-out-of-the oven brownie into their mouths?

It's actually what they're putting into their brains that really has your ginch in a knot isn't it?

By the way do you feel as glaring resentful of people who put fermented grapes or potatoes into their mouths, and what about the fact that so many who do go on to become or reproduce the vast majority of vicious murderers, rapists and street criminals that you are so obviously very concerned and worried about?

I would rather communicate with a drunk on occassion that a daily user of pot...at least the drunk gets sick and gets sober eventually and is reasonable - Chronic pot head never sober up..because of the nature of the toxin...that it has less a posioning effect than that of alcohol. Pot heads might not be violent but they do practice lack of due dilgence to the extreme. IF pot head are in charge they might not create violence and mayhem - but they will not notice it when it occurs because they are to high to be realistic and warey of things that need correction ----all is well dude....sheesh!

[noahbody]

10 days difference to that average sentence is about $11 million.... so you have to wonder how much more likely someone is to reoffend if they are sentenced to 63 days instead of 73, or if they will be even less likely to reoffend if it's extended to 83 days.

On a second impaired charge, the minimum sentence is 14 days. On a third it's 90 days. If people are serving 1/3 of their sentences, an average of 73 days of jail time would indicate more serious impaired charges such as Impaired Driving Causing Death are included in the statistic...

Anecdote suggests that the law of diminishing returns sets in fast, and that the recidivism rate difference between 63 days, 73 days, 83 days... 103 days, 153 days... is almost non-existent.

... so 73 days is a completely irrelevant stat.

[Wild Bill]

Thought this link might be relevant to the discussion:

http://news.yahoo.com/portugal-drug-law-show-results-ten-years-experts-180013798.html

Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal's decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

"There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal," said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law."

[Sir Bandelot]

IF pot head are in charge they might not create violence and mayhem - but they will not notice it when it occurs because they are to high to be realistic

It's not as bad as you think. If violence and mayhem occurs, they will just bake cookies

[noahbody]

Thought this link might be relevant to the discussion:

http://news.yahoo.com/portugal-drug-law-show-results-ten-years-experts-180013798.html

Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal's decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

"There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal," said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law."

Not to burst Joao's bubble, but the population growth/decline trends in Portugal likely contributed significantly. It went from a negative growth rate low point to a population spike between 1970 and 1975.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:PRT&dl=en&hl=en&q=portugal+population+growth

[Molly]

On a second impaired charge, the minimum sentence is 14 days. On a third it's 90 days. If people are serving 1/3 of their sentences, an average of 73 days of jail time would indicate more serious impaired charges such as Impaired Driving Causing Death are included in the statistic...

... so 73 days is a completely irrelevant stat.

What? What are you talking about?

In the first place, sentences vary wildly from province to province, not always sticking to the criminal-code mandated minimums (so a person wanting to know the effect of over/under-sentencing could probably have a look at the impact of that), and in the second place, the reference is to sentence, not how much of that sentence is actually served. In the third place, the charge is impaired, not impaired causing death... but in the fourth place, it wouldn't matter a darn whether it's included or not anyway since it's the cumulative effect we are looking at.

Do you have some kind of problem with the idea of 'average' representing an overall tendency? I find it more meaningful than some unanalyzed string of unrelated anecdotes... And 5 here... is not the relationship between recidivism (and/or escalation) and retribution the very subject under discussion?

What is your point? Are you just nitpicking for fun or are you trying to say something meaningful? (Did you understand the point you seem to be attempting to refute?)

[Tilter]

Scotty, on 03 July 2011 - 05:37 AM, said:

How about this? The people who are so ungodly stupid and weak, who don't care if the punishment for growing some pot is years in jail because they're so bloody desperate to put some burning weed in their mouths and suck down the smoke, will be removed from the streets, hopefully before they can breed more of their misbegotten ilk.

I take it you are referring to the millions of idiots who use nicotine???

Oh no, you are referring to "pot", that other inhalant that causes 0 cancer deaths a year

Edited July 5, 2011 by Tilter

[bloodyminded]

I take it you are referring to the millions of idiots who use nicotine???

Oh no, you are referring to "pot", that other inhalant that causes 0 cancer deaths a year

Just so. (And as someone who smoked cigarettes for 25 years, I can personally attest to your "idiots" remark. It's probably about right. I'm not an evangelical ex-smoker, who lectures anybody about it; but I do believe I was profoundly stupid. )

[Shwa]

I take it you are referring to the millions of idiots who use nicotine???

Oh no, you are referring to "pot", that other inhalant that causes 0 cancer deaths a year

Yes, pot is benign:

Get the facts: Frequently asked questions about marijuana and cancer risks of long-term recreational smoking of marijuana

The fact that many people who smoke marijuana also smoke tobacco makes it difficult to determine the strength of the association. However, given the strength of expert opinion, our knowledge that marijuana and cigarette smoking contain as many as 50 of the same cancer causing substances and the resulting probability of harm associated with long-term use of marijuana and with exposure to second-hand marijuana smoke, the Canadian Cancer Society recommends that exposure to marijuana smoke should be avoided.

Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals

There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke. It is known that tobacco smoke contains 4000 chemicals of which 60 are classed as carcinogens. Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied. It is less combustible than tobacco and is often mixed with tobacco in use. Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Shwa

[Scotty]

And don't forget, millions of Canadians will stand and cheer, certain to vote Tory next election!

NOT!

You are forgetting, WB, that while millions of Canadians might smoke pot, those who actually care a lot about the freedom of pot smokers are more likely to be liberals or NDPers or Greens than Tories. The Tory base is generally all in favour of crackdowns on drug users. And even if they don't really care overmuch about pot smokers, well, they're not shedding a lot of tears for them either.

[Scotty]

That really sums up your position right there.

Lets recap your little plan... Round up the 5 - 10 million Canadians that have commited the crime of using marijuana and throw them into thousands of new prisons.

Brilliant!

I doubt the tories plan on rounding up a million people. But by stiffening the laws it will cause the more intelligent ones to, perhaps regretfully, decide it isn't worth the risk. As to the others, the addicts who have to have their pot no matter the risk, throwing a few into prison as an example isn't going to make many people cry, at least, not many people inclined to vote for the Conservatives.

[Scotty]

That's such a weird way to put it. Would you feel the same way if they put a warm fresh-out-of-the oven brownie into their mouths?

Yes. I like Fritos corn chips. But if the government brought in a law which could put me in jail for six months for having Fritos around the house I'd stop buying Fritos.

How complicated does this have to be for you?

[Oleg Bach]

It's not as bad as you think. If violence and mayhem occurs, they will just bake cookies

There is a place up the street- that is a pot store..they sell "cookies" - My kid who likes to smoke injested some of these semi-illegal cookies - He did not have a good time - He considered going to the hospital....I would say there is a littles indirect violence involve in pot. They say that it is all "natural". So is coke and junk.

[Scotty]

I take it you are referring to the millions of idiots who use nicotine???

Oh no, you are referring to "pot", that other inhalant that causes 0 cancer deaths a year

I think people who smoke cigarettes are idiots, too, if that makes you feel any better.

[bloodyminded]

Yes. I like Fritos corn chips. But if the government brought in a law which could put me in jail for six months for having Fritos around the house I'd stop buying Fritos.

How complicated does this have to be for you?

I probably would too, my cowardice taking precedence over principle if I consider the rewards of the newly-illegalized behaviour to be insufficient for the potential risks.

However, it's pretty galling to hear someone talk this way. If a law is unjust, we're going to condemn the lawbreakers and, tacitly, defend the increasingly-authoritarian government?

Well, being a Commissar is often the easiest route. But not the best one.

Edited July 5, 2011 by bloodyminded