Teenage Drug Dealers

[geoffrey]

This is a good reason why I think we need to have mandatory minimums in drug trafficking as well:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...eath060207.html

[scribblet]

This is a good reason why I think we need to have mandatory minimums in drug trafficking as well:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...eath060207.html

He knew what he was selling and surely knew the dangers. Darned right he should serve some time, in boot camp too.

[Leafless]

Geoffrey

You wrote- " This is a good reason to have mandatory minimums in drug trafficking as well."

You know you probably would not see this story in print or stuck in some corner of the newspaper if the Liberals were in power as they support the drug culture.

But from my experience the problem lies with the parents in a lot of cases by basically being negligent concerning their own children's welfare and safety.

But I agree harsher sentences are necessary relating to drug trafficking.

[Insom Elvis]

There was a case in my hometown in the U.S. where some teens, girls i believe took some pills they had acquired from one of the teen's parents. The teen who was staying the night became ill and wouldnt respond to phone calls so the first teen went to check on her and found her in poor condition. When relating the problem to her parent's the first teen was advised "to stay out of it." The second teen died from this overdose. Here's a link to the article.

Teen overdose death

I'm not sure how severe the punishment should be for the first tenn, but the parents should absolutely be nailed to the wall. Not only did the parents allow the use of the drugs wich resulted in a death, but they looked the other way when the teen was in need when they could have saved a life rather than their reputations.

[BubberMiley]

Harsher penalties for drug trafficking isn't going to keep drugs out of the hands of kids. Decriminalizing drugs to eliminate the black market and regulate their access will keep drugs out of the hands of kids. But that would involve eliminating the black market, and nobody wants that.

[GreenWhiteandPink]

How about charging the owners of stores and company's that make and sell cigerattes, they know the dangers of their product . One kid dies and all the social conservaties are in a uproar, yet 40000 canadians die a year from smoking related diseases and nobody say's a word.

[Hollus]

If mandatory minimums are the answer why are americans who've had them for decades fighting for their removal?Families Against Mandatory Minimums

[geoffrey]

Harsher penalties for drug trafficking isn't going to keep drugs out of the hands of kids. Decriminalizing drugs to eliminate the black market and regulate their access will keep drugs out of the hands of kids. But that would involve eliminating the black market, and nobody wants that.

That sure worked with alcohol eh? No underage drinking in Canada thats for sure.

Bullshit. Legalisation has never stopped youth drug problems.

And if your encouraging the legalisation of estcasy, I sit here dumbfounded.

Leafless I agree, where the hell are the parents? Lock up these 16 year old try-hard gangsters and creeps though too! Giving estcasy to 13 year old girls, wow that kid must have some serious mental disturbances... probably because those infamous parents aren't around.

[geoffrey]

There was a case in my hometown in the U.S. where some teens, girls i believe took some pills they had acquired from one of the teen's parents. The teen who was staying the night became ill and wouldnt respond to phone calls so the first teen went to check on her and found her in poor condition. When relating the problem to her parent's the first teen was advised "to stay out of it." The second teen died from this overdose. Here's a link to the article.

Teen overdose death

I'm not sure how severe the punishment should be for the first tenn, but the parents should absolutely be nailed to the wall. Not only did the parents allow the use of the drugs wich resulted in a death, but they looked the other way when the teen was in need when they could have saved a life rather than their reputations.

Those parents should serve some serious time... maybe a delayed sentance to take effect after their daughter becomes an adult, give them some time to think over their stupidity.

[Hollus]

Harsher penalties for drug trafficking isn't going to keep drugs out of the hands of kids. Decriminalizing drugs to eliminate the black market and regulate their access will keep drugs out of the hands of kids. But that would involve eliminating the black market, and nobody wants that.

That sure worked with alcohol eh? No underage drinking in Canada thats for sure.

Bullshit. Legalisation has never stopped youth drug problems.

And if your encouraging the legalisation of estcasy, I sit here dumbfounded.

Leafless I agree, where the hell are the parents? Lock up these 16 year old try-hard gangsters and creeps though too! Giving estcasy to 13 year old girls, wow that kid must have some serious mental disturbances... probably because those infamous parents aren't around.

Geoffrey, what the hell do you know about parenting? For alot of parents out there, just getting clothes, food and a roof for their heads takes up most of their time and energy. How are parents that struggle to make ends meet supposed to compete with peer pressure and cultural influence?

[geoffrey]

Harsher penalties for drug trafficking isn't going to keep drugs out of the hands of kids. Decriminalizing drugs to eliminate the black market and regulate their access will keep drugs out of the hands of kids. But that would involve eliminating the black market, and nobody wants that.

That sure worked with alcohol eh? No underage drinking in Canada thats for sure.

Bullshit. Legalisation has never stopped youth drug problems.

And if your encouraging the legalisation of estcasy, I sit here dumbfounded.

Leafless I agree, where the hell are the parents? Lock up these 16 year old try-hard gangsters and creeps though too! Giving estcasy to 13 year old girls, wow that kid must have some serious mental disturbances... probably because those infamous parents aren't around.

Geoffrey, what the hell do you know about parenting? For alot of parents out there, just getting clothes, food and a roof for their heads takes up most of their time and energy. How are parents that struggle to make ends meet supposed to compete with peer pressure and cultural influence?

I don't know a whole lot about parenting I'll admit. I do, however, know that how you raise your kids is not dependant on your paycheque, but instead your priorities.

There are great poor parents, and lousy rich parents. According to your theory, about how I can't blame parents for their childrens actions, all poor parents are too busy to deal with peer-pressure and culture...

I never had to deal with peer-pressure after the fact because my parents had already taught me well in advance between what is good behaviour and bad behaviour. I knew doing drugs was bad from probably about age 10.

Yet we have these parents that encourage legalisation of drugs, and then tell their kids they are bad. It's sending mixed messages. We have to stop telling our children drugs are ok. The biggest cultural influence on kids and drugs has been our governments policy towards drugs.

I remember clearly in high school, young kids in grade 10 when I was in my graduating year, talking about how great things will be because Jean Chretien was going to legalise pot. Obviously there isn't anything bad about doing pot because its going to be legal in Canada!

With no morality in our political leadership, yup, I agree, kids are exposed to negative influences beyond their parent's control.

If the kid at 16 can afford a big supply of "e", then his family isn't so poor that mom or dad can't take a day off to talk to their kid about drugs.

Blame poor choices on society, I'm sure you'll find people take alot more responsibility that way.

[BubberMiley]

That sure worked with alcohol eh? No underage drinking in Canada thats for sure.

Bullshit. Legalisation has never stopped youth drug problems.

The last time drugs like marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc. were legal, there was no youth drug problem.

When I was a kid, you could buy as much weed in my school as you wanted, but you had to go to great lengths to get beer.

I don't think anyone ever decided not to take Ecstacy because it's illegal. I also don't think the drug laws ever prevented anyone from getting their hands on Ecstacy. So what have the drug laws done?

Edited August 27, 2010 by BubberMiley

[geoffrey]

That sure worked with alcohol eh? No underage drinking in Canada thats for sure.

Bullshit. Legalisation has never stopped youth drug problems.

The last time drugs like marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc. were legal, there was no youth drug problem.

When I was a kid, I could buy as much weed in my school as I wanted, but I had to go to great lengths to get beer.

I don't think anyone ever decided not to take Ecstacy because it's illegal. I also don't think the drug laws ever prevented anyone from getting their hands on Ecstacy. So what have the drug laws done?

Of course there was no problem if it was all fine and legal.

Do you actually think that legalising drugs stops kids from using them? Not likely.

Again, I ask, where the hell were the parents?

Or since the new idea from the Liberal-left is that the government should raise your children, where the hell were the teachers/nurses/doctors/friendly neighbourhood civil servants?

Do you really think it will be good for kids today to hear the government supports marijuana use?

[BubberMiley]

Do you actually think that legalising drugs stops kids from using them? Not likely.

I know the law as it is doesn't stop them, so there's not much to lose in that regard. But yeah, illegal drugs are easier to get for kids than legal ones like cigarettes and alcohol. So of course it won't stop it, but it would make it more difficult for them to get.

And as for "the message that now they're legal, they're ok." Put all the money saved from enforcing drug laws and all the money gained from taxing drugs towards prevention programs for kids emphasizing how they're not ok.

[geoffrey]

I know the law as it is doesn't stop them, so there's not much to lose in that regard. But yeah, illegal drugs are easier to get for kids than legal ones like cigarettes and alcohol. So of course it won't stop it, but it would make it more difficult for them to get.

I disagree with this. It's easy to get alcohol or cigarettes as a minor. You see these young kids all the time at the bars.

And as for "the message that now they're legal, they're ok." Put all the money saved from enforcing drug laws and all the money gained from taxing drugs towards prevention programs for kids emphasizing how they're not ok.

Well its sending a mixed message thats for sure. Legalise something and then say you shouldn't do it. I'd rather have it illegal and say you shouldn't do it.

[BubberMiley]

Well its sending a mixed message thats for sure. Legalise something and then say you shouldn't do it. I'd rather have it illegal and say you shouldn't do it.

Even if it facilitates them getting it by creating a black market that has no qualms selling it to kids? Even if all it does is make it forbidden fruit and therefore more alluring? Even if it provides organized crime with millions and millions of dollars? For what mixed message? Is it a mixed message that glue is legal? You can get even more blasted off that.

I bet if they made glue illegal, kids would be lining up to try it.

[tml12]

Well its sending a mixed message thats for sure. Legalise something and then say you shouldn't do it. I'd rather have it illegal and say you shouldn't do it.

Even if it facilitates them getting it by creating a black market that has no qualms selling it to kids? Even if all it does is make it forbidden fruit and therefore more alluring? Even if it provides organized crime with millions and millions of dollars? For what mixed message? Is it a mixed message that glue is legal? You can get even more blasted off that.

I bet if they made glue illegal, kids would be lining up to try it.

Oh man Bubber...I agree with you...

Prohibition never worked and never will work...

[geoffrey]

Well its sending a mixed message thats for sure. Legalise something and then say you shouldn't do it. I'd rather have it illegal and say you shouldn't do it.

Even if it facilitates them getting it by creating a black market that has no qualms selling it to kids? Even if all it does is make it forbidden fruit and therefore more alluring? Even if it provides organized crime with millions and millions of dollars? For what mixed message? Is it a mixed message that glue is legal? You can get even more blasted off that.

I bet if they made glue illegal, kids would be lining up to try it.

Oh man Bubber...I agree with you...

Prohibition never worked and never will work...

Rampant legalisation hasn't worked either. Criminals will just sell something else.

[BubberMiley]

Rampant legalisation hasn't worked either. Criminals will just sell something else.

When was there rampant legalization? Back in the 1920s when the average person had never even heard of coke and weed, nevermind designer drugs? So let the criminals sell something else--used cars or something.

[fixer1]

I believe that the teen involved in selling the girls the drug should be sentenced to a term of 10 years minimum, and he should be transferred to prison at the age of 18. He above all else sold a substance that took the life of a girl. Yes he did not intend for it to happen but it did and so he should face the consquences of his actions. He could reduce his jail time by one half, if he turns in the person who sold it to him. Otherwise he should do the full time on his ticket.

Ay age 16 we all pretty much know and understand the idea of action and consequnces, so he now should not be surprised by what comes his way. If he is given the sentence I have suggested, I am pretty sure he will give most drugs a wide birth after his release. If he is a model prisoner, he could apply for national parole at 1/3 his sentence, and with good behaviour time he may even get by without having to enter the prison system.

While many will say this is too harsh, I believe it is balanced with just about the right weight of punishment against what he can do to make it better.

[Hollus]

I believe that the teen involved in selling the girls the drug should be sentenced to a term of 10 years minimum, and he should be transferred to prison at the age of 18. He above all else sold a substance that took the life of a girl. Yes he did not intend for it to happen but it did and so he should face the consquences of his actions. He could reduce his jail time by one half, if he turns in the person who sold it to him. Otherwise he should do the full time on his ticket.

Ay age 16 we all pretty much know and understand the idea of action and consequnces, so he now should not be surprised by what comes his way. If he is given the sentence I have suggested, I am pretty sure he will give most drugs a wide birth after his release. If he is a model prisoner, he could apply for national parole at 1/3 his sentence, and with good behaviour time he may even get by without having to enter the prison system.

While many will say this is too harsh, I believe it is balanced with just about the right weight of punishment against what he can do to make it better.

I dissagree man. I not personly familiar with this case, but I am familiar with the drug culture in schools. Lots of kids do "E". Atleast they did 5years ago when I was in highshool. It wasnt just a few drugies either, it was just normal kids curious about what they've been told not to try. They've been told about the long-term effects on seritonone(spellcheck?) and depression, but they know that trying it once-or maybe a little more often- is not likely going to kill them. Its horrible that the girl died, but 13 or 14 is when alot of kids first start experimenting with drugs. We dont know the circumstances of how she took it, wether it was forced on her or she was a willing participant. That the kid was 16 and she was 13 could be cause for concern, but depending on what month they were born its not completely unlikely that they were peers. All Im trying to say is: yes the kid should be held accouctable for his actions, but I think we should reserve judgement untill we know just how much of a roll he played in this girls decision to take the drug.

[Spike22]

Time to get medievil on their ass. I think slave labour is required after all for example isn't it about time we had a 4 line divided highway from coast to coast vice the mostly 2 lane 1950's built TC highway.

If this slavery does not work then Singapore law for traffickers is required. I don't care how old they are. Boo hoo at age 8 kids know right from wrong. Then the taxpayers are not on the hook for these scumbag, low lifes.

[August1991]

Follow up:

The Gazette (Montreal)

Wed 10 May 2006

PAUL CHERRY

Dateline: VALLEYFIELD

Source: The Gazette

A 17-year-old who sold ecstasy to Stevie Reilly, 13, walked out of a youth court free yesterday after a judge ruled he should not be jailed for his crime.

Stevie, a Rigaud girl, died in February after taking the party drug.

While delivering the sentence yesterday, Judge Linda Despots said the youth court could not get caught up in the "wave of sympathy" felt for the girl's family and was required to sentence the 17-year-old for the crimes he had pleaded guilty to.

Despots's ruling infuriated Stevie's parents.

Her father, Greg Reilly, stormed out of the courtroom as it became clear the youth would serve no more time in custody. As he headed for the door, Reilly came within inches of the 17-year-old, brushing

past as courthouse guards watched closely.

"To me, it legitimizes selling drugs," Reilly said.

Dawn Reilly, Stevie's mother, also was upset.

"This is cartoon justice," she said. "I think Daffy Duck could have given a better judgment.

"If you're under 18, you're invincible."

The youth was 16 when Stevie died and cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

He pleaded guilty to invitation to sexual touching, four counts of drug trafficking, obstructing justice and two counts of violating a conditional release.

Despots said crown prosecutor Mylene Gregoire failed to prove Stevie's death was an aggravating circumstance to consider in the sentence.

The youth, who was living in Hudson when he sold Stevie an ecstasy pill and gave her half of another, was sentenced to two years' probation. He had already spent three months in a youth detention centre. He left the courthouse holding his mother's hand.

Link

[Charles Anthony]

Parents (I mean that on both sides, the perpetrator and the victim) have to take more responsibility for the safety of their children because the state will not.

From the same article:

Stevie was visiting a girlfriend in Hudson on Feb. 4 when they decided to visit the youth's house. It was there that Stevie paid $15 for an ecstasy pill. He gave her half of another because she said she didn't feel any effect from the first pill. The teenagers had the house to themselves, as

the youth's mother was spending the weekend with an Ontario man

she had met in December.

The bold emphasis is mine. We must ask "Where were the parents??" because possibly this tragedy was the culmination of previous bad examples.

Just as a trolling aside, maybe the people who promote subsidizing daycare for 0-2 year-olds have a solution??

[Drea]

The teenagers had the house to themselves, as the youth's mother was spending the weekend with an Ontario man she had met in December.

[/indent]The bold emphasis is mine. We must ask "Where were the parents??" because possibly this tragedy was the culmination of previous bad examples.

OMG! the mom left the teenagers BY THEMSELVES for two days.

I notice you bold the "mother (OMG!!) was spending time with a (gasp!) M-A-N!" And from Ontario no less!! -

Shameless-single-mother-whore that she is should have been at home looking after her children!

My parents (my TWO parents) left us teenagers at home while they went on a weeklong holdiay! We could have died! How irresponsible of my parents.

Once a kid reaches a certain age you gotta give them things like "weekends by themselves". They are, after all, in training to become adults. If we hold their hands until they are 30 how will they ever know they can count on themselves?

This is tragic that one teen died, but you can't blame the parents for this one...

By the way, more kids die in car accidents than from drugs -- we shouldn't let them drive until they are 30 I guess.