Who's Online
6 registered (stillastudent, Frank_S, p_light420, 3 invisible), 123 Guests and 41 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Advertisement
Shout Box

Newest Members
Vivian, ShootinUpAlmonds, edm3d, renwasa, blonk6
39069 Registered Users
Top Posters (30 Days)
Doobie_Brother 159
kenny_canuck 96
weedmen 80
Chris628 61
rasta 55
Forum Stats
39069 Members
55 Forums
183372 Topics
1650288 Posts

Max Online: 1054 @ 07/29/08 07:31 AM
June
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
Advertisement
Page 4 of 34 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33 34 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#1506906 - 02/28/09 07:17 AM Re: How to get tough on gang violence? Legalize drugs [Re: puff_tuff]
Harry Pothead Offline
Old hand
**

Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 1020
Loc: Relaxing at Dimmer Beach
Dan is one smart writer to bad Harper cannot read \:\(
_________________________

Top
#1506927 - 02/28/09 08:41 AM Re: "Drug Crackdown" Bill C-15 introduced in Commo [Re: JodieEmery]
reggaesmoker Offline
Old hand
***

Registered: 09/11/03
Posts: 752
Loc: Alberta, Canada
 Originally Posted By: JodieGR
 Originally Posted By: Geekiator
 Quote:

increased maximum penalties for cannabis production from 7 years to 14
years imprisonment; and,


I'm pretty sure the maximum sentence for growing pot used to be 14 years, and I think the Canadian Supreme Court reduced the maximum to 7 years sometime in the 90s. I think it was considered cruel and unusual punishment, or something like that.


There's this bit of info from http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?List=ls&Query=5273&Session=15&Language=e#constitutionality

B. Constitutionality of Mandatory Minimum Sentences

Mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment are generally inconsistent with the fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender,(9) as they do not allow a judge to make any exception in an appropriate case. However, this does not necessarily mean that a minimum sentence is unconstitutional. A mandatory minimum sentence may constitute cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,(10) if it is possible for the mandatory punishment, in a specific matter or reasonable hypothetical case, to be “grossly disproportionate,” given the gravity of the offence or the personal circumstances of the offender.

By way of example, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in 1987 that a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of seven years for importing or exporting a narcotic constituted cruel and unusual punishment because it failed to take into account the nature and quantity of the substance, the reason for the offence, or the absence of any previous convictions.(11) The applicable provision was accordingly struck down. Conversely, the current mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison for criminal negligence causing death, where a firearm is used, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000, on the basis that such an offence necessarily involves wanton and reckless disregard for life and safety.(12)



So considering you would be charged with trafficking and receive a minimum sentence for passing your friend a joint, it seems to me this law could be challenged.
_________________________
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich."
Sir Peter Ustinov

Top
#1507080 - 02/28/09 03:07 PM Re: "Drug Crackdown" Bill C-15 introduced in Commo [Re: reggaesmoker]
krazykanuk Offline
Enthusiast
***

Registered: 06/09/08
Posts: 279
Loc: ON. Canada
Great stuff!

Love it! \:\)

KK ;\)
_________________________
CCLDR
http://www.ccldr.net/


Top
#1507086 - 02/28/09 03:37 PM Re: "Drug Crackdown" Bill C-15 introduced in Commons [Re: escapegoat]
Zantoo Offline
Veteran
**

Registered: 02/23/02
Posts: 1551
Loc: Somewhere where I don't know w...
Anyone have links to proof/studies that mandatory minimums don't reduce crime?

I'd also like hard links to proof/studies that an increase in policing presence on streets reduces crime?

I've looked but can't find the proof/studies.

I am pretty sure I've read these claims, but I'd like substantiation.

Top
#1507101 - 02/28/09 04:41 PM Re: "Drug Crackdown" Bill C-15 introduced in Commons [Re: Zantoo]
JodieEmery Offline

Mrs. Marc Emery
****

Registered: 12/04/01
Posts: 8942
Loc: Vancouver BC
Go here for a great list of Reports and Briefing Papers:
http://cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums.html

Also see:

Mandatory Minimum Penalties:
Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2002/rr02_1/index.html
Prepared for Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada, Ottawa, January 2002, by Thomas Gabor, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa, and Nicole Crutcher, Carleton University

Top
#1507407 - 03/01/09 03:23 PM Re: "Drug Crackdown" Bill C-15 introduced in Commons [Re: JodieEmery]
Alan Middlemiss Offline
Old hand
***

Registered: 02/08/06
Posts: 828
CTV news basically lied or was led astray to only mention organized crime related offenses and selling drugs to youth.

No mention of 1-200 plants 6 months. Not a peep about producing extracts or resins garnishing a year in jail automatic. Nothing about forced treatment for Cannabis convicts.

Thats some bad reporting right there. Considering CTV and Canwest Global just went to the government for a bailout (and were refused) , its easy to see that CTV "conservative television" is going to follow the tune played by Harper.

Did you just notice that CTV host Mike Duffy was appointed into the senate ?

Top
#1507566 - 03/02/09 03:43 AM Mulgrew: New laws will have little impact on gangs [Re: JodieEmery]
puff_tuff Offline

Newshawk Extraordinaire
***

Registered: 04/24/00
Posts: 8068
Loc: Shuswap BC
Monday, March 2, 2009

New laws will have little impact on gangs

Ian Mulgrew, columnist
The Vancouver Sun


Premier Gordon Campbell has packed away his Dirty Harry rhetoric, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's police photo ops are over, the cabinet boys are back from their whirlwind tour of Ottawa and the gang violence continues unabated.

What did you expect?

Nothing announced by the federal government last week will have an impact on the current urban gang problem. Sorry. But true.

And I'm skeptical the newly appointed "public-security commissioner" to lead the province's fight against gangs will help.

David Morhart, who has been B.C.'s deputy solicitor-general since 2005, doesn't fill me with confidence given the government's record -- an abysmal Lower Mainland policing arrangement and out-of-control gang violence.

The federally promised murder statute changes are nothing more than legislative legerdemain -- gang killings always have drawn first-degree murder charges.

They get plea-bargained away in many cases -- and that's exactly what will continue to happen.

The new offence of drive-by shootings carrying a minimum four-year prison term, with the possibility of up to 14 years behind bars, is similarly a headline grabber that will have little effect.

Right now, they can hit gangbangers caught doing drive-bys with charges that draw similar time. The bad guys don't care because they rarely (read: never) get caught.

As for the mandatory sentences for drug-related offences -- the U.S. tried that approach and is abandoning it.

The Tory anti-drug crime bill, for instance, includes a maximum of 14 years in jail for growing cannabis and a two-year mandatory prison term for cultivating more than 500 plants.

Those penalties are way out of step with the threat the substance poses.

These measures won't help; they'll simply increase the price of pot by driving up the risk premium producers charge.

As everyone keeps saying, end the prohibition against cannabis and you'll take away the bulk of the money that keeps gangs operating, you'd raise millions in taxes and you could improve health care and more effectively fight juvenile use of the drug.

Meanwhile, Attorney-General Wally Oppal and Solicitor-General John van Dongen returned empty-handed from Ottawa professing disappointment.

It could have been foreseen.

They were looking for Criminal Code amendments to make it easier for police to breach our constitutional right to go about life free of state monitoring.

There are good reasons for updating the wiretap law adopted in the 1970s to apply to 21st-century technology. And it is a measure that would certainly help combat gangs.

But those changes must be carefully thought through and the balancing of rights carefully weighed. The feds realistically can't move quickly on that.

Sadly, the truth of the matter is we can't bust these gangs without wiretaps, informers and undercover cops infiltrating them at grave risk.

That kind of insidious but necessary policing unfortunately is also expensive.

For the state to engage in these operations requires time, resources, loyalty and long-term commitments. We don't have that in the current policing system in the Lower Mainland.

The other items Oppal and van Dongen were looking for -- changes to disclosure requirements (to speed up trials) and an end to two-for-one credit for time served -- were completely wishful thinking.

The Supreme Court of Canada is the author of the current demands on the Crown to show its hand in criminal cases.

Disclosure requirements are based primarily on fundamental constitutional rights as the court sees them (not something Parliament can easily mess with) and that is not going to change anytime soon.

Neither is the two-for-one credit for time served, which is dictated by the provincial court of appeal.

The reason the court has told judges to use that as the norm is the B.C. jail system is overcrowded and prisoners in remand receive rougher treatment than those serving their sentence.

It's an issue of fairness and what's right, nothing else.

Regardless, neither of these issues is an impediment to charging and prosecuting gangs.

That's what was wrong last week with all the political events around gang issues: They so missed the point: We want charges laid for blatant cold-blooded crimes, not excuses and promises of new laws.

We've heard it all before.

Author: imulgrew@vancouversun.com

Contact: sunletters@vancouversun.com
Contact: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/letters.html

vancouversun

_________________________

Top
#1507981 - 03/03/09 08:01 AM Re: Mulgrew: New laws will have little impact on gangs [Re: puff_tuff]
escapegoat Offline
Ganja God
***

Registered: 04/20/02
Posts: 5534
Loc: Retired
Here's the actual text. Like always, the devil is in the details.

Medical patients need to contact their MPs now to demand representation and testimony from patient's perspective at any committee!

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/402/Government/C-15/C-15_1/C-15_1.PDF

Top
#1507985 - 03/03/09 08:07 AM Re: Mulgrew: New laws will have little impact on gangs [Re: escapegoat]
escapegoat Offline
Ganja God
***

Registered: 04/20/02
Posts: 5534
Loc: Retired
 Quote:
That kind of insidious but necessary policing unfortunately is also expensive.


The way the surveillence society is going, this won't be necessary in the future.

Go watch The End of Violence and remember, Google Earth is what the Americans *let* the Russians have, and who knows what Putin is up to.

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/e/end_violence.html

 Quote:

Meanwhile, in a nearby observatory, computer scientist Ray Bering (Gabriel Byrne) spends his nights gazing through telescopes that are pointing down, not up. Ray is involved in developing a top-secret government surveillance project that is supposed to cut down police response time to a crime. However, as the project approaches fruition, Ray becomes concerned that, in the wrong hands, it could be horribly misused. His fears are given form one night when he watches from afar as two men are gunned down.


Top
#1508011 - 03/03/09 09:50 AM Re: Drug Crackdown Bill C-15 introduced in Commons [Re: Alan Middlemiss]
banty2 Offline
Stoner
**

Registered: 08/13/05
Posts: 659
Loc: BC
So, I guess it's now appropriate for someone that has a small personal grow of about 12 plants, to up their grow to 199 plants, as the same penalty applies huh!
_________________________
MY LIFE HAS GONE TO POT

Top
Page 4 of 34 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33 34 >