Canadians fed up with government's soft on crime and drugs approach

[I am Groot]

Black or white, Asian or native, old or young, man or woman, east coast or west, there's very little support for the softly-softly approach to crime, especially violent crime and drug addicts. Which once again shows the gap between the government classes, including the judiciary, and the people of this country who want law and security.

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadians-fed-up-with-government-on-crime-drugs-poll

[Guest]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Black or white, Asian or native, old or young, man or woman, east coast or west, there's very little support for the softly-softly approach to crime, especially violent crime and drug addicts. Which once again shows the gap between the government classes, including the judiciary, and the people of this country who want law and security.

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadians-fed-up-with-government-on-crime-drugs-poll

I'm on board with any move to keep violent offenders behind bars but I don't understand why people can't see that the war on drugs cannot be won. 

The only way change can come about is with a complete paradigm shift on the issue.  All drugs should be legal, regulated and supplied by the government.  Users should be registered and issued with ID.  Treatment should be optional and free if requested.  Once such a program is in place the illegal sale of drugs should dry up considerably due to a lack of customers and new users should be far fewer as there would be no point in trying to get new customers if they don't have to come to you for their supply.

Ideally, and I used the word consciously, it would result in far less crime, fewer social problems and fewer medical problems.  With the mandated use of an ID it should also allow for the prevention of youth falling under the spell.

Other than the cost, which I think would be massive at first, but eventually crossing over on the way down the cost of the current system on the way up, the main problem with such a shift is commitment.  It would be fatal to such a program for a new government to suddenly change tack on election, so it would have to be a multi party initiative.  And it can't be half arsed.  If you allow an illegal trade to remain you have failed.

I realise it's never going to happen.

[eyeball]

Quote

Canadians fed up with government's soft on crime and drugs approach

Again? So how long will it take until the olde 'crack down and get tough' rhetoric wears off....again?  Probably about the time the cost and impossibility of searching every single vehicle for drugs and guns crossing our border starts to bite.

Maybe Poilievre could sell summary execution as a cost effective solution.

[myata]

The activist agenda is only a banner, flag to distract population from government's ineptitude and inability to solve any real problems. Inflation, cost of living, stagnating and degrading living standards for majority of population, old age security, healthcare, drinking water, now actual reduction in emissions, it's a near-total failure if one checks the actual results, not promises and reports. The mindless ride may have run its course. Paytime!

[SpankyMcFarland]

Iran is not known for its soft on drugs approach and yet has a bigger problem than we do. Capital punishment for trafficking has just meant killing a lot of ethnic minorities and poor people. 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[TreeBeard]

I wish we were softer.  If handing out some free drugs prevents property crime and frees up police and emergency services resources, then I am all for it.  

[herbie]

What does soft on crime mean? When I read the Court Report, people are getting fined, going to jail and being punished.

We even have Opposition leaders who have no idea why bawling about decisions made by the Corrections department. Making up a acandal, and people falling for it.

He even revealed why - "the man should be dead" which points out the main reason he's not fit to be speaking to the subject.

Punish! Punish! Punish MORE. Seems to be a lot of people's concept of justice.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

I wish we were softer.  If handing out some free drugs prevents property crime and frees up police and emergency services resources, then I am all for it.  

It doesn't and it won't.

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I'm on board with any move to keep violent offenders behind bars but I don't understand why people can't see that the war on drugs cannot be won. 

People remember when there weren't homeless camps all over the place stuffed full of unrepentant addicts with no interest in changing. Governments, particularly the one in BC, have been getting kinder and kinder over the decades and all that's resulted in is more and more addicts, more and more crime and more and more overdoses. People are fed up with city parks full of addicts, tired of not being able to let their kids out, or even walk them around safely. They're tired of the crime these people represent. They want mandatory treatment and mandatory custody until they reform.

4 minutes ago, herbie said:

What does soft on crime mean? When I read the Court Report, people are getting fined, going to jail and being punished.

We even have Opposition leaders who have no idea why bawling about decisions made by the Corrections department. Making up a acandal, and people falling for it.

He even revealed why - "the man should be dead" which points out the main reason he's not fit to be speaking to the subject.

Punish! Punish! Punish MORE. Seems to be a lot of people's concept of justice.

Or, here me out here, maybe justice is people's idea of justice.

And yes, justice would see Bernardo dead.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Again? So how long will it take until the olde 'crack down and get tough' rhetoric wears off....again?   

Boot camps!!!

Oh wait... Is it still 1995?

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Again? So how long will it take until the olde 'crack down and get tough' rhetoric wears off....again?  Probably about the time the cost and impossibility of searching every single vehicle for drugs and guns crossing our border starts to bite.

There are ways of cracking down on illegal firearms, especially the ones being smuggled across and sold to the gangs. Fund undercover stings trying to buy them in every city. But the Liberals have avoided them because they don't want a fresh parade of black and brown faces into the courts and prisons. I'll tell you what my idea of cracking down is. Anyone who smuggles firearms across the border to sell gets a minimum ten years in prison on their first offense, life on the second. Anyone with a criminal record who buys a gun gets the same. Anyone who uses it on someone- the same. You get a ten-year sentence on your first offense, and you never get out after your second. 

Minimum and rapidly building sentences for repeat offenders who commit any kind of violence.

And if the judges don't like it they can go suck a bag of dicks. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by I am Groot

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

People remember when there weren't homeless camps all over the place stuffed full of unrepentant addicts with no interest in changing. Governments, particularly the one in BC, have been getting kinder and kinder over the decades and all that's resulted in is more and more addicts, more and more crime and more and more overdoses. People are fed up with city parks full of addicts, tired of not being able to let their kids out, or even walk them around safely. They're tired of the crime these people represent. They want mandatory treatment and mandatory custody until they reform.

Sure, but that's never going to end.  Like I said in my response to your OP, the war on drugs will never be won.  The situation you describe will only get worse, regardless of how many people they lock up. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

 The situation you describe will only get worse, regardless of how many people they lock up. 

..

and he knows it ?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

There are ways of cracking down on illegal firearms, especially the ones being smuggled across and sold to the gangs. Fund undercover stings trying to buy them in every city. But the Liberals have avoided them because they don't want a fresh parade of black and brown faces into the courts and prisons. I'll tell you what my idea of cracking down is. Anyone who smuggles firearms across the border to sell gets a minimum ten years in prison on their first offense, life on the second. Anyone with a criminal record who buys a gun gets the same. Anyone who uses it on someone- the same. You get a ten-year sentence on your first offense, and you never get out after your second. 

Minimum and rapidly building sentences for repeat offenders who commit any kind of violence.

And if the judges don't like it they can go suck a bag of dicks. 

I look at firearms differently from drugs and generally agree with you on this.

The government points at target shooters being denied their sport and insists they are cracking down on gun crime.  Poltroons.

[I am Groot]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Sure, but that's never going to end.  Like I said in my response to your OP, the war on drugs will never be won.  The situation you describe will only get worse, regardless of how many people they lock up. 

We've never really tried. Our previous efforts simply resulted in locking people up in prisons. What Canadians in this poll want is forcing them into rehab. I would add that if that doesn't work then they go to prison. It serves absolutely no purpose to have people in and out of jail on fresh charges every few months. Better they stay in.

And no one is claiming that will eliminate drug abuse or addicts. But it will certainly cut down the numbers infesting city streets.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

We've never really tried. Our previous efforts simply resulted in locking people up in prisons. What Canadians in this poll want is forcing them into rehab. I would add that if that doesn't work then they go to prison. It serves absolutely no purpose to have people in and out of jail on fresh charges every few months. Better they stay in.

And no one is claiming that will eliminate drug abuse or addicts. But it will certainly cut down the numbers infesting city streets.

I don't know that it will.  It is in the real criminals (suppliers) interests to maintain their customer base and they will find ways to do that. 

And then, even if people are forced into rehab they are vulnerable to the same people who got them hooked in the first place as soon as they get out.  Which increases the numbers on the streets again.

[I am Groot]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know that it will.  It is in the real criminals (suppliers) interests to maintain their customer base and they will find ways to do that. 

And then, even if people are forced into rehab they are vulnerable to the same people who got them hooked in the first place as soon as they get out.  Which increases the numbers on the streets again.

Well, maybe we need to go the Singapore route with drug smugglers.

[TreeBeard]

35 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It doesn't and it won't.

But it does…. We need treatment, not jail for drug users.  We know treatment reduces crime and we know that a stint in jail for an addict won’t cure them, overloads police and the justice system trying to deal with them repeatedly.  
 

We also know that prohibition has failed.  

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Well, maybe we need to go the Singapore route with drug smugglers.

We have a constitution that won’t allow it.   And, if Canada was a single city that could control every entry point, you might have a chance that repressive, barbaric laws might actually work.  But we live above the biggest drug dealer in the world, and they have access to us over a very long and undefended border.  

Edited June 15, 2023 by TreeBeard

[I am Groot]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

But it does…. We need treatment, not jail for drug users.  We know treatment reduces crime and we know that a stint in jail for an addict won’t cure them, overloads police and the justice system trying to deal with them repeatedly.  
 

We also know that prohibition has failed.  

Treatment is a good thing. There should be treatment for everyone who wants it. And then treatment for those who don't. And if that doesn't work then it's jail or some kind of long-term work farm/camp.

Edited June 15, 2023 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

Judge strikes down mandatory minimum 90 day sentence for 'invitation to sexual touching for a child under 16' calling it 'cruel and unusual punishment'. 

https://www.canlii.org/en/nu/nucj/doc/2023/2023nucj15/2023nucj15.html?autocompleteStr=r v ss%2C 2023&autocompletePos=3

[TreeBeard]

20 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Judge strikes down mandatory minimum 90 day sentence for 'invitation to sexual touching for a child under 16' calling it 'cruel and unusual punishment'. 

https://www.canlii.org/en/nu/nucj/doc/2023/2023nucj15/2023nucj15.html?autocompleteStr=r v ss%2C 2023&autocompletePos=3

Read it.  Seems reasonable.  

Judge’s analysis, that you seemed to ignore:

VI. ANALYSIS

 

A. Is the MMP Grossly Disproportionate in this Case?

 

 

[22]   A 90 day jail sentence is not grossly disproportionate in SS’s case. 
 

 

[23]   To reiterate, in the early morning hours, an intoxicated 27 year old male entered a bedroom in a home where he had been welcomed to socialize in, and asked a 13 and 14 year old girl to have sex with him. The girls refused, but he persisted, offering them money to take off their pants, and cigarettes and alcohol, to persuade them to have sex with him.
 

 

[24]   This is serious criminal conduct.

[I am Groot]

47 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Read it.  Seems reasonable.  

Apparently, you and the judge don't have much of an issue with grown men preying on underage girls.

House arrest is NOT reasonable.

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by I am Groot

[herbie]

So what IS reasonable? Do tell us.

I mean what would a Judge know about law & justice anyway? You're already comfortable with political leaders shooting off their mouth with populist trash like Trump instead of acting like a responsible leader.

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

The only way change can come about is with a complete paradigm shift on the issue.  All drugs should be legal, regulated and supplied by the government. 

 

That would be a catastrophic mistake.

It would send a message to young people that drugs are ok and we will supply you with them and pay for it.

The number of drug addicts would increase dramatically and along with it all the problems connected with drug addictions, psychological problems, health problems, divorce problems, family problems, etc.

Plus all the free drugs would have to be paid for by the hard-working taxpayers, thus adding another expense to government budgets.

Why should taxpayers pay for drugs for people who have no wish to stop taking them and go into rehab?

"The fact is, no one can wholeheartedly serve two masters (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13). Any time spent kneeling before the god of drugs is time spent with your back towards the God of the Bible.

In summary, the Bible teaches us that "denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world" (Titus 2:12)."

Free drugs for everyone would be about the most insane thing to happen.  It would just further destroy society as many would get on the free supply and have no intention of quitting.

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

All drugs should be legal, regulated and supplied by the government. 

I am not sure if you are serious and really believe that or just playing the Devil's advocate.

"4. Illicit drugs destroy the body and are condemned: 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19.

5. Illicit drugs are condemned because its fruit is rotten. Matthew 7:17ff. Frequent drug users are losers with messed up lives constantly shooting themselves in the foot. Eventual loss of family, wealth, jobs, friends and life itself. Drug users are associated with biker gangs, going to bars, immoral sexual activity, illegal activity. Successful people do not use drugs. Take a look at the people who use drugs and line them up with people who do not... big difference! Look at the lives of 5 people you know who use drugs. Generally they have many chums, but few close friends, high rate of changing jobs and are often unemployed, are absentee parents who party all night while their teens are left home unsupervised, are irrational in their logic and thinking pattern being plagued with poor judgement. They have many sexual partners, are often unfaithful to their spouses and are violent and irrational with their children. They tend to be selfish and unable to exercise self control in any area of their lives. When confronted with such facts, they simply deny the truth and accuse you of being crazy, when in fact they are the crazy ones. They are hurting and unhappy but they don't know why... just as the Bible says:

Proverbs 4:18 perfectly describes the difference between drug users and Christians who do not: "But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, That shines brighter and brighter until the full day. The way of the wicked is like darkness; They do not know over what they stumble."

6. Drug use is outright condemned in the Bible: Gal 5:20."

Drugs and the Bible: E, Shrooms, Cocaine, Crack, Marijuana