Drugs and Prohibition

[eyeball]

Its hard to have a "pilot project" to test out a new idea when you have the government trying to make a "one size fits all" approach from 1000 miles away. Sort of along the same veign as your complaints about the DFO.

It's hard to argue with that alright. I'm still concerned that isolating people by creating little Sodoms and Gomorrahs plays into the hands of prohibitionists. Perhaps the best place for a federal influence will be through the Charter.

[dre]

You're not looking at this objectively at all. Not everyone is going to be driving drunk, but the cops are going to stop everyone coming out of the establishment. That's unfair to the establishment. I don't drive drunk, but I sure as hell wouldn't keep going to a pub that's constantly monitored by the cops. I don't want to deal with that inconvenience constantly. At least when it's on the street somewhere, it's random.

The Supreme Court does. So it's a non-starter.

Here's a 1985 case for reference: http://scc.lexum.org/scc-eliisa/highlight?language=EN&documentScope=judgment&documentScope=news&documentScope=bulletin&all=r.i.d.e.&path=http://scc.lexum.org/en/1985/1985scr2-2/1985scr2-2.html&query=r.i.d.e.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the important part:

All of the arguments that you've made were fully considered by the court. If you want to take the time to read through the entire decision, you can see why they decided the way they did. Ultimately, it's for the reason I said. The level of inconvenience is minor compared to the greater purpose of public safety achieved by random roadside tests.

All of your talk about liberty is addressed in there as well. Driving your car freely on public highways can be considered a liberty, but it is not a fundamental liberty. In fact, it's a highly regulated activity. You don't have a fundamental right to drive on public highways.

Anyway, like I said, it's a non-starter. The SCC has already ruled on it. You can disagree all you want, but it's clearly an effective program that has saved many lives. Most people would much rather the few minutes of inconvenience being pulled over so they can catch drunk drivers immediately, rather than the alternative: not having a few minutes of inconvenience, while the police have to wait until someone is so inebriated that they weave between lanes, wrap their car around a pole, or kill someone before the cops are able to respond.

As for your slippery slope argument, the RIDE Program began in 1977 (35 years ago). That slope doesn't seem to be very slippery.

You're not looking at this objectively at all. Not everyone is going to be driving drunk, but the cops are going to stop everyone coming out of the establishment.

Thats not what I suggested. I already told you I dont think the cops should be able to do that at all. They should still have to look for reasons to be suspicious a driver is drunk, but they are just much more likely to find them there.

As for the rest of your post, I never said that random checks were illegal. I explained why I personally think they are a bad idea, and once again... you can apply that justification to almost anything. And I HAVE seen movement down this slippery slope. The government is busy writing a bill right now to allow them more easily monitor your communications. They badgered Canadian phone companies and ISP's to violate your privacy more than 80 thousand times last year alone, and now they want to set up machines in ISP's to monitor traffic. I see cops closing in on hundreds of peacefull protesters and round them up like they do in places like China, only for us to find out later that they werent even protesting... just walking down the wrong street at the wrong time.

And now we are going to throw small time drug criminals in prison.

All of this is part of that slippery slope, and all of it represents the erosion of civil liberty.

[cybercoma]

All the reasons you give for this being an erosion of liberty, etc., etc., are addressed by the SCC's ruling.

Explain to me clearly what liberty you lose with the RIDE program.

[dre]

All the reasons you give for this being an erosion of liberty, etc., etc., are addressed by the SCC's ruling.

Explain to me clearly what liberty you lose with the RIDE program.

Im not arguing that ruling. Im not saying these things are illegal. Im saying I personally think its wrong and that its a dangerous way to think.

I consider free movement throughout society to be a core liberty. I consider the freedom to go about my day without being harrassed a liberty... provided I dont act suspicious or break the law. My personal view on law enforcement is not that you shake down random people until you find something. You presume people are innocent until you have a reason to think they arent, and then you investigate.

Edited April 18, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

I consider free movement throughout society to be a core liberty. I consider the freedom to go about my day without being harrassed a liberty... provided I dont act suspicious or break the law. My personal view on law enforcement is not that you shake down random people until you find something. You presume people are innocent until you have a reason to think they arent, and then you investigate.

No one's taking away your free movement throughout society. If you're going to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, however, you might every now and again have to stop for a few seconds so the cops can be sure you're not wasted. The benefits far outweigh the costs. Are you really so arrogant that a few seconds of your time is worth the deaths of innocent people?

[dre]

No one's taking away your free movement throughout society. If you're going to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, however, you might every now and again have to stop for a few seconds so the cops can be sure you're not wasted. The benefits far outweigh the costs. Are you really so arrogant that a few seconds of your time is worth the deaths of innocent people?

You keep saying the same things, and now youre attempting to make whats been a pretty good conversation nasty and personal. We have a fundamentally different view on law enforcement and how it should work, and Im more vigilante when it comes to my privacy and liberty than you are, and more suspicious of government, and where these things might lead. We are just going to have to agree to disagree, and I hope the courts make better decisions in the future.

[eyeball]

It needs to be pointed out that the development of Google-cars should virtually eliminate impaired driving.

[dre]

It needs to be pointed out that the development of Google-cars should virtually eliminate impaired driving.

You just better hope they dont build a google fishing boat

[Guest Manny]

I'm against the RIDE program, in principle as well. For the same reasons that dre listed. It also bugs me that the police constantly harass ordinary citizens every day, waste resources, while the real criminals carry on doing their thing, unabated. It's easy to go after people who are unarmed and non-violent, for petty crimes, or haul people to the side of the road for no reason and shine a light in their face. But if you threaten the real bad boys, they'll blow your ass away and kill your family. That's the difference.

And this rant is not off-topic. I say this in the context of prohibition. When my cousin Alfredo was arrested for possession on marijuana, they told him it was part of a sting operation. They were training rookies how to arrest people, and pot smokers are easy to arrest because they always just do what they're told.

That was when Alfredo was young, and not so smart. He quit the marihanna many years ago. But now he has a criminal record, he can't go to the United States. Even though it a long time ago.

It's ok, he don't like it there anyway.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Manny

[cybercoma]

You keep saying the same things, and now youre attempting to make whats been a pretty good conversation nasty and personal. We have a fundamentally different view on law enforcement and how it should work, and Im more vigilante when it comes to my privacy and liberty than you are, and more suspicious of government, and where these things might lead. We are just going to have to agree to disagree, and I hope the courts make better decisions in the future.

You're not being more vigilant. The Supreme Court has already found that it's a reasonable limit on a person's freedom to be stopped momentarily by a RIDE program. I tend to agree. You're being unreasonable and suggesting that it ought to be exceedingly difficult for police to carry out their duties to keep our roads safe. Stopping you for a few seconds at a roadblock is not some gross abuse of power and erosion of your rights as you say. You haven't even come close to proving that. Meanwhile, I've made arguments to the opposite effect that you've just brushed off saying you're not talking about the legality of it. Sorry, dre. Principles and legality are related.

Edited April 18, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I'm against the RIDE program, in principle as well. For the same reasons that dre listed. It also bugs me that the police constantly harass ordinary citizens every day, waste resources, while the real criminals carry on doing their thing, unabated. It's easy to go after people who are unarmed and non-violent, for petty crimes, or haul people to the side of the road for no reason and shine a light in their face. But if you threaten the real bad boys, they'll blow your ass away and kill your family. That's the difference.

None of this has any relation to reality. RIDE programs are announced to the public ahead of time on most instances. When police find that there's an increase in the number of people that are drunk driving, it's usually mentioned in the papers that they will increase roadside checks. They almost always have them around the holidays because more people drink and drive then too. Moreover, they're not harassing ordinary citizens. If you're not drinking and driving you're on your way in less than 30 seconds. At most, I've been asked two questions: "how are you doing tonight, sir?" and "have you had anything to drink this evening?" After that they let me go. Thirty-seconds is pushing it. I'm usually on my way in less than 10 seconds.

I don't even know what the hell you're on about with people being armed or unarmed. I don't see how this has anything to do with the RIDE program. Moreover, at worst it carries a sick suggestion that people need to arm themselves and be combative with the police. That's shameful. At best, I can only assume that you mean they should focus resources on people that are armed, as though firearm related offences are the only things police investigate. Obviously that's not true.

Finally, you say they are doing this for no reason at all, coupled with the fact that it's a waste of resources. There has been a demonstrated benefit to the RIDE program at reducing drunk driving over the last 3 decades. Moreover, they continue to catch people that are operating their motor vehicles while impaired. I really don't care about your minor 10 second inconvenience when the RIDE Program continues to result in drivers being arrested for blowing over the legal limit and drivers getting 12-hour suspensions for being near the legal limit. A friend of mine used to have one of those personal electronic breathalysers. There's some minor differences between people, but I found that I had to be considerably wasted to be over .08. I don't think any rational person would get behind the wheel at that level of intoxication. So as long as they continue arresting those people, the program benefits everyone.

And this rant is not off-topic. I say this in the context of prohibition. When my cousin Alfredo was arrested for possession on marijuana, they told him it was part of a sting operation. They were training rookies how to arrest people, and pot smokers are easy to arrest because they always just do what they're told.

That was when Alfredo was young, and not so smart. He quit the marihanna many years ago. But now he has a criminal record, he can't go to the United States. Even though it a long time ago.

It's ok, he don't like it there anyway.

Your rant is on topic for the thread, off-topic for the discussion about RIDE.

[The_Squid]

I was stuck at a roadblock for 20 minutes. And this was at 11 am on the main highway that is the only access to and from a small town. I think they were looking for people (surfers) smoking pot, seatbelts, etc.

I was the "random" vehicle stopped while others went by and I was stuck there because I had the audacity to tell the cop that it was none of their business where I was coming from or where I was going (as if it wasn't obvious). This is not supposed to be some totallitarian state where you have to show papers to get through checkpoints... where you have to justify and explain where you are from and where you are going as if it is the business of the cops and everyone is under suspicion....

[dre]

You're not being more vigilant. The Supreme Court has already found that it's a reasonable limit on a person's freedom to be stopped momentarily by a RIDE program. I tend to agree. You're being unreasonable and suggesting that it ought to be exceedingly difficult for police to carry out their duties to keep our roads safe. Stopping you for a few seconds at a roadblock is not some gross abuse of power and erosion of your rights as you say. You haven't even come close to proving that. Meanwhile, I've made arguments to the opposite effect that you've just brushed off saying you're not talking about the legality of it. Sorry, dre. Principles and legality are related.

You're not being more vigilant.

Sure I am. You dont care of the police randomly jack people up, I do.

Meanwhile, I've made arguments to the opposite effect that you've just brushed off saying you're not talking about the legality of it. Sorry, dre. Principles and legality are related.

I didnt brush your argument off, its just comparing apples to oranges. Im expressing a personal opinion... it doesnt have to match any legal opinion. Why do you keep trying to argue this point? We have a fundamentally different view of the role of the police and government. Lets just agree to disagree, and move on.

[Guest Manny]

None of this has any relation to reality. RIDE programs are announced to the public ahead of time on most instances.

When police find that there's an increase in the number of people that are drunk driving, it's usually mentioned in the papers that they will increase roadside checks. They almost always have them around the holidays because more people drink and drive then too.

Usually? Not usually, in my area. They have more of them around holidays, yes, but they don't disclose to us where and when. it's not helpful for them. If they did, and I was drinking and knew they were going to be there, I would simply drive another way.

Moreover, they're not harassing ordinary citizens. If you're not drinking and driving you're on your way in less than 30 seconds. At most, I've been asked two questions: "how are you doing tonight, sir?" and "have you had anything to drink this evening?" After that they let me go. Thirty-seconds is pushing it. I'm usually on my way in less than 10 seconds.

It really comes down to whether you feel obligated to answer any questions about what you are doing, where you've been to anyone without precedent. I personally don't agree. but then, I don't feel that police officers are all good. I've been treated badly by them a few times in the past, without necessity.

I don't even know what the hell you're on about with people being armed or unarmed. I don't see how this has anything to do with the RIDE program. Moreover, at worst it carries a sick suggestion that people need to arm themselves and be combative with the police. That's shameful. At best, I can only assume that you mean they should focus resources on people that are armed, as though firearm related offences are the only things police investigate. Obviously that's not true.

Well I tried to explain what I am going on about, going after harmless people especially in the context of drug users in the war on drugs. you know who really runs your town? The mob and Hells Angels, that's who. You know who the cops will never go after?

No, I don't suggest people should carry guns. I suggest they should focus resources on the real criminals. but they don't like to do that, for reasons already mentioned.

Here's a picture of the mayor of Toronto, shaking the bikers hand.

http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/torstar_21Jan2002c_files/020114_hells_angels1.jpg

Here is why we have prohibition, it benefits the powerful organized crime and they have powerful influences, right to the top of our society.

Your rant is on topic for the thread, off-topic for the discussion about RIDE.

I already explained, it has to do with arresting drug users in prohibition, how easy they are to arrest. How they use them as training for new police officers. They won't do that with drunks, as training for rookies, because the drunks more often tend to fight. So they know, pot smokers are non violent, easy to bust. you won't be getting much trouble from them. but still, despite the lack of violence and danger they present to society, off to jail they go.

And then the cops take the hush money, given them by the courts and put it in their own pockets. You don't believe me, I can provide the links. Happened in Toronto a few years ago. Those are the ones who shine a light in your face, at the side of the road! Yeah U should trust them... NOT.

Discussing RIDE itself is actually more off topic than what I said. I wasn't just talking about ride.

Anyway you won't convince me, because I don't trust the police, for those reasons I gave.

[cybercoma]

Sure I am. You dont care of the police randomly jack people up, I do.

Now you're being an idiot.

I didnt brush your argument off, its just comparing apples to oranges. Im expressing a personal opinion... it doesnt have to match any legal opinion. Why do you keep trying to argue this point?

I keep bringing it up because the legal 'opinion' addresses the criticisms of your personal opinion.

[WWWTT]

And the point of the last question, in the limited amount of space one has to ask the question, is to see if people have done any recreational drugs out of the most common legal ones.

So what? The question isn't about drug abuse.

The forum only allows 3 questions per post. Start your own thread about health issues if you're so concerned.

Hey I am only stating why I will not participate in this poll.

And I do not believe you can decriminalize or legalize anything like marihuana or cocaine,etc,etc without ever at least mentioning drug abuse or addiction!They are integrally intertwined for forever.

This is purely a health issue.I believe the core issue you are trying to get at is that these substances should have never been dealt with through the justice system in the first place.Obviously there will always be a certain involvement though our judicial process but never to the extent as we have seen around the world!

As far as starting another thread about the health issues is a good idea however will require expensive time.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Usually? Not usually, in my area. They have more of them around holidays, yes, but they don't disclose to us where and when. it's not helpful for them. If they did, and I was drinking and knew they were going to be there, I would simply drive another way.

If you have had something to drink but can still remember to navigate a clear passage home then maybe you can still properly operate a motor vehicle?

WWWTT

[Jerry J. Fortin]

My take on this subject is my realization of an economic opportunity. What I want the government to do is create the framework for a public consensus to resolve the question of whether or not to decriminalize pot. Should the public desire to act in favour of decriminalization, a very lucrative tax grab may be realized. Instead of adding realized revenues to the general income stream provided by the tax paying public, legislation could be devised to divert realized income from the new revenue stream to be applied to debt reduction.

Debt reduction is the single most important issue of citizens with respect to program service delivery. It is those programs and services that account for a vast portion of government expenditures. Those programs are the social safety net we have devised and created for the universal access of federal programs and services to all Canadian citizens. Every dollar paid for debt serving is a dollar removed from that social safety net. In order to preserve and maintain this safety net we are required to examine the potential opportunities associated with the addition of a new revenue stream, one created through the decriminalization of specific drugs.

Given that the industry already exists that is designed to produce large profits outside of the framework of legal taxation, the time may have come to realize the folly that we call the war on drugs. The war on drugs has been funded through tax dollars that literally deprives the social safety net, the governments single greatest expense. Instead of creating funding security for all Canadians programs and services we find ourselves continuing to throw good money after bad.

I will suggest that the Federal Government of Canada undertake a new policy path that will lead to a viable means of not merely protecting and maintaining the social safety net, but instead designing a method of funding that is completely transferable from one fiscal problem to another. Is it a tax grab, certainly. It deprives illegal efforts of profiteering and reduces the expenses associated with law enforcement. That is a win/win scenario for the tax payer. The product is taxable, the business that sells the product is taxable. The people working in the industry are taxable. We are talking about a revenue stream that delivers massive profits under all economic conditions, an industry that is exactly like the alcohol industry.

[dre]

My take on this subject is my realization of an economic opportunity. What I want the government to do is create the framework for a public consensus to resolve the question of whether or not to decriminalize pot. Should the public desire to act in favour of decriminalization, a very lucrative tax grab may be realized. Instead of adding realized revenues to the general income stream provided by the tax paying public, legislation could be devised to divert realized income from the new revenue stream to be applied to debt reduction.

Debt reduction is the single most important issue of citizens with respect to program service delivery. It is those programs and services that account for a vast portion of government expenditures. Those programs are the social safety net we have devised and created for the universal access of federal programs and services to all Canadian citizens. Every dollar paid for debt serving is a dollar removed from that social safety net. In order to preserve and maintain this safety net we are required to examine the potential opportunities associated with the addition of a new revenue stream, one created through the decriminalization of specific drugs.

Given that the industry already exists that is designed to produce large profits outside of the framework of legal taxation, the time may have come to realize the folly that we call the war on drugs. The war on drugs has been funded through tax dollars that literally deprives the social safety net, the governments single greatest expense. Instead of creating funding security for all Canadians programs and services we find ourselves continuing to throw good money after bad.

I will suggest that the Federal Government of Canada undertake a new policy path that will lead to a viable means of not merely protecting and maintaining the social safety net, but instead designing a method of funding that is completely transferable from one fiscal problem to another. Is it a tax grab, certainly. It deprives illegal efforts of profiteering and reduces the expenses associated with law enforcement. That is a win/win scenario for the tax payer. The product is taxable, the business that sells the product is taxable. The people working in the industry are taxable. We are talking about a revenue stream that delivers massive profits under all economic conditions, an industry that is exactly like the alcohol industry.

The problem is they lobby well, and the public doesnt. Trial lawyers, booze companies, coffee companies, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, the prison industry, etc... thats quite the group to take on.