Skip to main content

Moving our drugs laws back 30 years

I thought it was interesting that on the same week that the CBC reported, about the conservatives reintroducing their legislation aimed at drug traffickers and organized crime by proposing mandatory jail sentences for serious drug offences.

The NY Times reported that there is an aggressive effort under way in New york State to finally dismantle what remains of the stringent 1970s-era drug laws, which imposed stiff mandatory sentences as a way to combat the heroin epidemic then gripping New York City. The governor will be introducing laws, reinstating the judges discretion in sentencing,

As the Canadian crime rate continues to decline, with 2006 the latest year for which there is statistics, being the lowest crime rate in twenty-five years, the conservatives are also proposing to double the maximum sentences from 7 to 14 years for serious offences including possession of Class II drugs such as marijuana.

The conservatives are basically moving us back to the early days of the US war on drugs, which has since filled their prisons and given them the largest prison population in the world. Today one in every thirty one American adults, is in jail, on probation or on parole.

As the mainstream media continues to sensationalize each act of violence to pump up their ratings and scare the hell out of suburbia, the opposition parties are afraid to look like they are not tough on crime. Somebody had better start doing their job here, checking the numbers and questioning the logic or there is going to be a lot of us in jail.

In Canada and for the purposes of this proposed legislation, a criminal organization as defined in section 467.1(1) of the Canadian Criminal Code as a group of three or more people whose purpose is to commit serious offences for material benefit.

Note to the wise, two is a party three is hard time.



JAWL

Comments

BlastFurnace said…
One has to wonder if an attempt to bring our drug policy closer to that of the failed US approach, is part of the move towards having a fully open border with the Americans. You can't very well have the arrangement that exists in Europe, if there isn't fairly similar approaches to fighting organized crime. I think there'd be a lot to gain by having open borders -- but not at this price.

Popular posts from this blog

662

That is the number of Syrian refuges that the Harper government has brought into Canada.

From the Globe and Mail:
However, the government is facing criticism because 2,374 Syrian refugees have so far been settled. Of that number, only 622 - or 26 percent - were assisted by the government. The others were privately sponsored by individuals or non-government. The others were privately sponsored by individuals or non-government organizations. The NDP argues that in addition to private sponsors, the government should immediately accept 10,000 Syrian refugees. Liberal leader Justin Trudeau said the target should be 25,000 government-sponsored refugees, which he estimates would cost Ottawa $100-million.In other words the Harper government that banters around the 10,000 plus refugee number has brought in 622 refugees or about 170 families.

The other 2,352 so called refugees that Harper has allowed to emigrate to Canada consist of wealthy Syrian Christians who paid their own way in, hightailing …

Election close call, Omar, Bob and move over Warren

Wow that was a close one:
With the NDP leading in the polls at the beginning of September, I started to prepare myself, for the very first time in my life, to vote for the NDP. Mulcair looked good enough for me, with some of the best lines about Harper's Government during most of his interviews, except that he would always add the phrase, "just like the liberals" to the end of it and I thought, if I'm one of those Harper hating, Liberal voters that you probably need to vote for you, why the hell are you insulting me with this partisan bullshit.