That was awkward...

"INCARCEREX" - Do Not Mix With The Charter Or Common Sense

2011-12-05T23:59:00.000-05:00

Tonight was so very sad, justice in Canada has suffered a terrible blow.

Ottawa mum on cost to provinces as crime bill clears House

Because we all know, the Conservatives are “Tough on Crime!“

"INCARCEREX" - Do Not Mix With The Charter or Common Sense - Made before the second last election but still spot on relevant today.

The Liberals have already officially responded:

POSTED ON DECEMBER 5, 2011

OTTAWA – Liberal Leader Bob Rae made the following statement today on Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill:

“I want to salute the hard work of our friend and colleague Irwin Cotler, the Liberal Justice and Human Rights critic, who has worked tirelessly to try to improve this legislation for the benefit of all Canadians. He introduced amendments to get tougher on terrorists. He introduced amendments to incorporate the needs and views of Quebec. Unfortunately, his expert advice and work were almost completely ignored – the only exception being when the Conservatives tried to re-introduce Mr. Cotler’s sensible amendments on terrorism as their own, despite having first rejected them without explanation.

Mr. Cotler continued:

“The Conservatives’ bundling together of 9 bills that warranted independent discussion, their shutting down of debate in committee, and their rejection of all amendments while arrogantly labeling others as supporters of criminals and not victims, undermines Parliament and democratic process. They have rammed through the House of Commons a law and order agenda that is poorly thought-out, rushed and demonstrates the Conservative commitment to governing by ideology instead of facts and evidence.

This bill will impose mandatory minimums that will turn young offenders into hardened criminals. It fails the mentally ill, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the poor. It repeats the mistakes of failed, expensive and discredited American crime policy. Police and prisons officials from states like Texas are telling Mr. Harper very clearly: We tried what you are doing but it drained the public coffers and made our communities less safe. Do not go down our failed path.

At the end of the day we will have more crime, less justice, skyrocketing costs, prison overcrowding, less rehabilitation for the offenders, less protection for victims and less protection for the public. Liberals are committed to pursuing a crime and justice approach that is evidence-based, cost effective and focused on preventing crime and victimization.”

Please also visit It Could Get Worse for different ways you can still help "Kill the Bill".

I'll update tomorrow with more media links, the disappointment in the MP's who voted for this "Everything plus the kitchen sink" Bill has me cranky, up late, and tired. *sigh*.......

Fan****ingtastic! MP Pat Martin Just Used The Word I Keep Using!

2011-11-17T22:15:00.038-05:00

Finally posting this, the baby woke up just before I was finished and then the day went speeding by.....

1:39 A.M. - So at this late, or early depending how you see it, hour, it's up for debate on the validity of some expletive enhanced Tweets sent from NDP MP Pat Martin's Twitter Account.

Update: Awesome. It's him alright!)

Here's my "just too long to Tweet" response:

Imagine that! @PatMartinMP is Human! Admit it, you've probably used that word talking about Politics.

I was watching the Bill C10 clause by clause Senate debate on CPAC and a Conservative MP complained about how long it was taking to go through it all. So I say out loud to myself (and to the oblivious baby, who's too enthralled with an Elmo book to take any exception to my cussing) with the sheer gusto that this MP is going to hear my reply to his whining:

"Well! That's what happens when you mash NINE fucking crime bills into one big whopping wad of FAIL!"

Sure he didn't catch my response, but I felt better putting my opinion out there into the Universe. Indeed, the cursing solidified my point.

Crime is complex and justice demands that each case is handled individually and fairly. We employ Judicial Discretion because it is imperative to democracy. Bill C-10 is overly broad "You bad! - Go to jail!" Cave Man thinking. It's actually dangerously stupid to treat something as important as our legal and correctional system so recklessly. You know it, Steve knows it, the media knows it, we all know it! I mean, what could be dumber than combining crime legislation?

There's a reason crime is lower in Canada than in the United States, it's because we've resisted the ideological temptation of locking up non-violent first time offenders for long periods of time when community supervision or probation would be more beneficial. It's called a Correctional System for a reason, the goal is to correct, not to make one's mental state so broken and fragile that it's no surprise when people re-offend. Not only does helping people turn their lives around make our communities safer, it is also exponentially more cost effective. (I could really get into it about the Prison Farms program here, but I digress)

Prisons are also increasingly becoming warehouses for the mentally ill and alcohol & drug addicted. With a lack of programming people are released back into our communities without the benefit of medical and psychological attention and they get into trouble all over again. Ask yourself, do you want Canadians to be helped while they serve their sentence so when they get out of prison they stay out? Or do you want people released unstable, angry and ripe for recidivism?

We've seen the social and economic disaster unfold before our very eyes in the United States over the last four decades from one size fits all persecutions and yet the Harper Conservatives still insist on careening down the same destructive path, our safety and hard earned tax dollars be damned!

Honestly, if the Conservatives had drafted really good separate bills pertaining to violent crimes, especially those committed upon children, then I would wholeheartedly support them. I don't play to party lines when it comes to the best method of keeping our kids safe and reducing crime. I want the smartest, most effective laws on the books for the benefit of my own kids and my fellow Canadians. Alas, because C-10 is a "Everything plus the kitchen sink" omnibus bill the only smart, logical, reality-based choice we have is to fight against it.

Anything less would be fucking criminal.

"It represents a huge step backwards; rather than prioritizing public safety, it emphasizes retribution above all else. It's an approach that will make us less safe, less secure, and ultimately, less Canadian." ~ From "Bar association blasts tough-on-crime bill" ~ Organization representing Canada's lawyers says proposed Bill C-10 has been rushed, ignores evidence and will create out-of-control costs

Also see: Canadians: Don't Be Tricked by the "Safe Streets and Communities Act" - It's Omnibusted!

and

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

After Christy Clark said she supports Harper's Crime Bill, a group of 40 concerned citizens organized by http://www.LeadNow.ca gathered in front of her office to "Just Say NO to C-10!" and show that tens of thousands of Canadians have signed a petition opposed to this omnibus crime bill. As of November 17th, 111,000 Canadians have signed the petition! Sign the petition and get updated on future activities at http://leadnow.ca/

Avaaz also has a Petition to stop the Harper crime bill, over 102, 000 have signed!

UPDATE: Once again thumbing their noses at democracy, Tory MP Goguen moves motion to end committee hearings on omnibus crime bill

'This puts the mock in democracy,' says NDP MP Jack Harris about the Conservation manoeuvre ~ http://www.hilltimes.com/news/legislation/2011/11/17/tory-mp-goguen-moves-motion-to-end-committee-hearings-on-omnibus-crime-bill/28825

Image Via the NAACP:

"The United States is the world's leader in incarceration with 2.3 million people currently in the nation's prisons or jails -- a 500% increase over the past thirty years. These trends have resulted in prison overcrowding and state governments being overwhelmed by the burden of funding a rapidly expanding penal system, despite increasing evidence that large-scale incarceration is not the most effective means of achieving public safety."

"In addition to the extreme human toll this is taking on our Nation, the financial costs are staggering: The National Association of State Budget Officers estimates that states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in FY2008, or 1 in every 15 general fund dollars. Adding local, federal and other funding brings the national correctional spending total to $68 billion. This is money that cannot be spent on education, health, transportation, or other projects that benefit society as a whole." ~ NAACP Supports Legislation To Help States Reduce Prison Population

Canadians: Don't Be Tricked by the "Safe Streets and Communities Act" - It's Omnibusted!

2011-09-19T00:38:00.007-04:00

"I would love to have all you soft of crime guys come post after some one close to you was violated for ever. Why do you want criminals out early.

You look at the cost to society of keeping them in jail. No one mentions the cost to society of letting them out. " - "Gambitdude2" on CBC Message Boards re: Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill

The above is just an example of some comments talking about "us Lefties letting criminals run rampant through our streets". Here's my response:

You're missing the whole point, Mandatory Minimum drug laws and much of the legislation laid out in the Tory Omnibus Bill are for *after* a criminal offense has already taken place. After. While Benjamin Franklins' famous quote "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" was actually fire-fighting advice, it also stands true as a way to fight crime. My bleeding heart doesn't need to "Hug a Thug" - it wants to divert people from becoming involved in the criminal justice system in the first place. That's not being "Soft on Crime", that's addressing the subject of crime realistically and proactively.

As we know, crime in Canada is at a historic 30 year low. If the Conservatives pour billions of hard earned taxpayer dollars during these tough economic times towards building new prisons and the astronomical budgets needed to operate these facilities (along with additional ballooning legal costs to persecute more Canadians entering the justice system, not to mention how much Provinces are going to have to pony up) it diverts funds away from true necessities like hospitals and health care, education, job creation, childcare, mental health supports, the environment, infrastructure, transit and other essential services that benefit all Canadians. The more educated, healthy, employed, industrious, productive and happy we are, the less likely our citizens will engage in criminal activity. This is being SMART on crime.

Anybody who believes every human will be "perfectly behaved" is fooling themselves. Of course Canadians are concerned about crime and we want to be safe where we live, work, go to school, play and socialize. Alas the reality is that no place on Earth ever has been or ever will be Crime Free because we are Human. We are a species driven by emotion - you'll be hard pressed to find someone who actually looks up the sentence of a criminal code violation before breaking a law. (You know it's true.)

History has shown throughout our whole existence people have committed crimes fueled by what they feel or by way of mental anguish or defect. No decree, police force or punitive law will stop this reality of Human Nature. Of course hurting others is not acceptable and those who victimize others physically and/or financially should face punishment, but it's reckless to drive crime policy based on fear and an absence of judicial discretion, Canadians deserve better than that! Our very own Canadian Justice Department has concluded that Mandatory Minimums don't work, cost taxpayers dearly and fail at keeping people safer.

Obviously violent, dangerous offenders should be sought out by police and incarcerated - that is the most important utilization of law enforcement and our correctional system. You'll get no argument from me about keeping paedophiles and murderers like Paul Bernardo behind bars and off our streets, but we also must have the common sense to leave ideology, deceiving (Tough on Crime!) mantras and knee jerk reactions out of our legal system as all crime is not "equal".

We are smart enough (I hope!) to recognize that a couple of college kids growing 6 cannabis plants should not be lumped in with a bill that targets child molesters, (Seriously, read this about C-10: Child rapist to get less time than pot grower, Incarcerated weed offenders to skyrocket) Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms legislates that sentences should be proportionate to an offense. The state of California has gone broke because of correctional spending, proving that locking up non-violent drug users and pizza thieves as long as gun-wielding carjackers is superfluous and does nothing to improve community safety. Why would we want to emulate such a disaster?!

I'm not the only one calling the Tories out on this, if this mish-mashed, rhetoric-laden, incoherent patchwork of an Omnibus(ted) Bill passes through Parliament let's say goodbye to our great country and prepare to suffer the harsh societal consequences of American-style "justice". Git 'er done!

And p.s. to "Gambitdude2" - I HAVE been a victim of crime.

UPDATE October 26th. 2011: Even Texas says to the Conservatives You're Doing It Wrong.

"Republican governors and state legislators in such states of Texas, South Carolina, and Ohio are repealing mandatory minimum sentences, increasing opportunities for effective community supervision, and funding drug treatment because they know it will improve public safety and reduce taxpayer costs," said Tracy Velázquez, executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute.

"If passed, C-10 will take Canadian justice policies 180 degrees in the wrong direction, and Canadian citizens will bear the costs."

From the October 18th, 2011 edition of The National.
CBC's Terry Milewski discovers the Canadian government's crime policies - including the building of more prisons - are getting poor marks in Texas.
Please read the accompanying article for this story: Texas conservatives reject Harper's crime plan 'Been there; done that; didn't work,' say Texas crime-fighters

Here's more amazing articles recently published discussing the colossal failure that is Bill C-10:

Judge deems Harper's crime bill 'strain' on system: http://www.vancouversun.com/Judge+deems+Harper+crime+bill+strain+system/5468859/story.html
"As Justice Bauman said, Parliament and the legislatures have a constitutional obligation to ensure that the judiciary, which is a separate and independent pillar of our government, is able to bring people to justice in a timely fashion and that citizens have access to justice.
Both the criminal and civil legal systems are cornerstones of a civil society and they are both in jeopardy."

The mandatory minimum mess: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/mandatory+minimum+mess/5559692/story.html
"And remember the phrase "real property that belongs to a third party"? That's what a rented apartment is. Imagine a university student living in a rented apartment with her boyfriend, suggests University of Toronto criminologist Tony Doob. She grows a single marijuana plant. She rolls a joint for her and her boyfriend. And just like that she's a "trafficker" subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of nine months in jail.

Are these outcomes simple, clear, and predictable? Hardly. They're shocking as hell. But mandatory minimums have a nasty tendency to do that.

Remember the infamous case of the pizza thief sent to prison for life in California? The law didn't say "pizza thieves shall get a life sentence." The law said anyone convicted of a third felony would get a life sentence. Pizza theft is normally a misdemeanor. But that poor sap had committed previous felonies and a different law said that petty theft committed by anyone convicted of felonies must be prosecuted as a felony. So misdemeanor pizza theft became his third felony and he was sent to prison for life - an outcome almost everyone thought was insane."

Bill C-10 will create the prisoners to fill Conservative prisons: http://rabble.ca/news/2011/10/bill-c-10-will-create-prisoners-fill-conservative-prisons
"Bill C-10 is a massive piece of legislation of roughly 100 pages that rolls nine laws from organized and drug crime, to pardons, to child sex offenders, to migrants entering Canada and young offenders into a single omnibus law. The panel is focusing on how the bill's policy on mandatory minimum sentencing for selling, or even giving away a small amount of drugs, will criminalize a generation and attack some of the most vulnerable people in our society."

Harper's omnibus crime bill won't reduce victimization rates: http://www.behindthenumbers.ca/2011/10/24/omnibus-crime-bill-won't-reduce-victimization-rates/
"Lorraine Berzins worked in federal penitentiaries for 14 years and was the victim of a hostage-taking. As spokesperson for the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, she says the Harper tough-on-crime agenda “goes so much against all the evidence about what keeps communities safe, and it does so much harm, and they are going to spend so much money, that it’s really surprising that there isn’t more opposition.”

Steve Sullivan of Ottawa Victim Services (and erstwhile Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime) says “victims understand, better than most, that nearly all offenders will eventually be released from prison. . . . The best protection victims, their families, and the community will have is if the offender can learn to modify negative behavior before he or she is released.” In other words, rehabilitation programs are key.

In spite of eloquent pleas by victims’ advocates, the Harper government forges ahead with a retrograde, antediluvian and discredited approach to criminal justice. Its only “solution” for any and all crimes is a long prison sentence."

Safe Streets and Community Act Will End Real Justice: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/js-vijaya/tough-on-crime_b_1021169.html
"Some of my fellow criminal lawyers have cynically pointed out that ultimately we lawyers alone will benefit from the draconian mandatory sentences that are attached to the new legislation. We will now be able to look clients in the eyes and say, "Well, why should you plead? There is no upside to 'making a deal.' Let us put the government up to task and let them prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not as if the judge will have any discretion in sentencing even if you were allegedly carrying on in the spirit of Mother Teresa!"

Quebec National Assembly calls for withdrawal of Bill C10: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+National+Assembly+calls+withdrawal+Bill/5580621/story.html
"The motion, presented by the Parti Québécois, but winning the support of the Charest government and all parties and independents present, says Bill C-10 goes against the values of Quebecers."

From the Church Council on Justice and Corrections: CCJC Bulletin – Omnibus Bill: http://ccjc.ca/2011/10/20/ccjc-bulletin-omnibus-bill/
"The CCJC urges everyone to actively and vocally express their concerns about Bill C10. Let us not by our silence condone the suffering of others."
and Will the Omnibus Bill Bankrupt Canada?: http://ccjc.ca/2011/09/19/will-the-omnibus-bill-bankrupt-canada/
"The government’s Parliamentary Budget office projected the increase costs related to just one of bills would be more than five billion dollars – more than doubling current expenditures for the corrections system alone. Furthermore, he revealed that the provinces and territories would have to contribute the largest proportion of the increase."
More from the Globe & Mail: Coalition of churches condemns Ottawa’s justice plan: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coalition-of-churches-condemns-ottawas-justice-plan/article1884171/

And lastly, Leadnow has created an email campaign for Canadians:

"The good news is that more and more Canadians are speaking out and public opinion is close to a decisive shift. We need to strengthen each other’s voices to show the Conservative government that they must choose a better path, or pay a serious political cost for a cruel Crime Bill that will make Canada a meaner and more dangerous place."

"Our Conservative government is trying to rush through a cruel Crime Bill with mandatory sentences that will fill new prisons. Even conservative Texans think the Crime Bill is too harsh, costly and ineffective. Send a message to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to stop the Crime Bill from making Canada meaner and more dangerous."

Read the rest here and send your letter easily, so far over 15 000 Canadians have!

And just out today: Canada's homicide rate declines to 44-year low

I will continue to add story links as they are published. Funny that we're not seeing many articles in support of the bill. Where are they, Conservatives?

*crickets*

*The Church Council on Justice and Corrections (ccjc.ca)is a national faith-based coalition of eleven founding churches incorporated in 1972. We promote community responsibility for justice with an emphasis on addressing the needs of victims and offenders, mutual respect, healing, individual accountability, and crime prevention. It is primarily by education and community development initiatives that we foster healthier communities and crime prevention through social responsibility. CCJC has demonstrated in publications, pilot projects and numerous other initiatives how to strengthen community through its understanding that real justice requires the pursuit of wholeness for all. We work with both multi-faith and non-religious partners and have achieved international recognition for our contributions to creative thinking about criminal justice.

This post was updated/edited October 26th 2011.

Please Stand By......

2011-05-03T04:20:00.004-04:00

The landscape has changed, we need to regroup on Saturday and figure out a new game plan.

And hey, at least there's a One Seat Bright Side to this head-shaking turn of events.

From: http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-problems-with-first-past-the-post-voting-explained/ Watch part two: http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-alternative-vote-instant-runoff-explained/

In the meantime....We're Canadian, we'll keep fighting, this just makes us stronger and more determined!
We'll be alright....

We! Are! Cannabian! And We're Voting Too!

2011-04-19T16:20:00.004-04:00

Millions of Canadians use Cannabis,
and guess what?
We're voting too!!!

Canada's marijuana activists unite against American-style drug laws - 420 vote mobs to be held in over 10 cities across Canada
on April 20th
"All you have to do is look at the disastrous experience in the U.S. with mandatory minimum sentences to know this is a dumb idea", says Marc-Boris St-Maurice, Executive Director of NORML Canada.

Attention All Freedom Loving Canadians!

As we are all aware, Canada is on the hustings. This election is necessary as Stephen Harper and his Conservatives are the only party in our country's history to be found guilty of being In Contempt of Parliament. Their refusal to be honest and disclose the hit to the wallets of Canadian Taxpayers regarding the cost of American-style superfluous prisons, Stupid-On-Crime bills and engineless jets triggered a motion of Non Confidence in the Harper Government, and rightly so! (Oh, and let's not forget about all the other ShitHarperDid.)

In the age of the Internets, people are using social media to coordinate and then share "Vote Mobs" to reach youth and those who may not realize just how important it is to exercise our democratic right to vote. What is a "Vote Mob" you may ask? According to VoteMob.ca: "Vote Mobs encourage friends, families, neighbours, and communities to get out and vote, together!" So, in the spirit of 420 and a concerted effort by the Cannabis Community to get rid of Lock 'em Up Steve, #420VoteMobs will be happening all across our great land. Visit and share the Facebook 420 VoteMob Event Page to get the word out to other Canadians.

Please also visit LeadNow, it's really impressive! They also have all VoteMob videos that have been posted online so far on one page.

In times of much needed fiscal restraint, taxpayers deserve to be treated fairly - the Tory plan to spend billions on jails when crime is declining is grossly irresponsible of Stephen Harper. As far as campaigning goes, the smart party in this political race will not shy away from the elephant in the room that is Harper's ideological hunting down of Canadian cannabis users who dare stand up for their own personal autonomy and freedom. Note to the Conservatives: Canadian adults don't appreciate such intrusion into our lives. Bring on May 2nd. and Election 41!!!

VoteMobs: Inspired by Rick Mercer!

Thank you, Canadian Youth - you are inspiring!

Meanwhile, Harper is also using social media....

Departing Harperland

2011-04-10T04:20:00.015-04:00

"Whoever controls the media,
controls the mind."
~ Jim Morrison

First, READ THIS.

And then THIS.

Now, can anyone please tell me where Canada went? Does Stephen Harper ^NOT realize that Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of the press, along with the right to freedom of expression? Or maybe the query should be, "Does he even care?".

You know, at first I wasn't quite sure about it when the other parties started to refer to the Tories as the "Conservative Regime", but now I'm certain that the label fits. This is not the Canada I was born and raised in, and it's certainly not the political, social and undemocratic environment I wish for my sons to grow up in.

For the love of every single Canadian* and our beautiful country, please realize that May 2nd. is a gift to all Canadian citizens of voting age. On this day each one of our voices are equal, in the basic yet effective form of a checkmark on a paper ballot.

We have the opportunity to oust the Guilty of Contempt Harper led Conservatives from Parliament. Then, we can begin to repair and mend the damage the Tories have thrust upon us, I know collectively we are strong and we can achieve this goal together!

In our National Anthem we sing "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee", so let's honour that pledge and defend this most awesome land from coast to coast to coast.

I'm tired of living in Harperland, I need my True North Strong and Free!

Don't let Parliamentary crime pay! Peter Russell, constitutional expert, talks about the Harper Government's contempt for parliamentary democracy and what is at stake in the Canadian Election 2011.

2007 From CBC's "The Hour." Stephen Harper and Media Control

Sing it!!!
By therealg8g20: "This is a song that was performed by Richard Underhill in Kensington Market in 2008. I found the raw video on Youtube and asked the author if I could make a new remix with the footage. Perhaps this can become the theme song for those of us who are concerned about the direction this government is taking our country in. I'm hoping that it will inspire those who are not happy with the leadership of the Harper government, but haven't gotten involved yet, to get active, get organized and get involved! Maybe we can make this video go viral!" Vimeo Version: http://vimeo.com/13803436

for the love of every single Canadian* - Seriously. Read it. Please.

UPDATE 4/14/2011: Check out more at http://shitharperdid.ca/
http://www.leadnow.ca
and http://sowhatdidimiss.blogspot.com/

Hey Americans: Want a Job? Just Go To Jail!

2011-03-27T14:43:00.000-04:00

One of the great things about social media is connecting with intelligent people who you'd otherwise never get the chance to "meet". Facebook and Twitter have brought thousands of new friendly voices into my realm over the past few years and they are what I lovingly refer to as my "Mad Posters" - meaning, they/we love to share news and videos and education regarding not just the Drug War, but injustice in whatever form it happens to take throughout the world.

"Posting Links" is one of the best tools that social activism has, on any given day I am gifted with personalized judicial and ecological news from Canada, the States and beyond. With the click of a mouse a daily itinerary is before me and I appreciate those who take the time to "Pass It to the Left".

While much of what we share is from news outlets and other mainstream media, what I cherish the most are contributions from everyday people passionate about making a difference. On Saturday a "Note" was posted on Facebook and it was so informative that I asked the writer, Lydie Meunier, if she would let me post it here to share with all of you and she graciously accepted.

Lydia brilliantly opens our eyes to scheming corporations and the U.S. Prison Industrial Complex coveting much sought after jobs and profiting greatly from free and cheap inmate labour. It's also a shocking glimpse of what will happen here in Canada if the Conservatives are re-elected and allowed to proceed with their fear driven crime agenda and American style prison plans.

GUEST POST
U.S. Unemployment Exacerbated by the Outsourcing of Jobs to Prisons
By Lydie Meunier

SLAVERY IS BACK IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Call your Congress Members and Ask them to Put a Stop to this Infamy!!!

I know that many people don't want to look into prison labor and the impact it has on unemployment figures because this is a disturbing issue. And yet, Jobs are outsourced to prisons, and slavery is being reinstated because corporations are counting on, and taking advantage of folks' apathy and disdains for prisoners... Meanwhile jobs for law abiding citizens are taken away from them to be given to cheap prison labor.

Today, prisoners are being exploited by corporations, paid more or less 40 cts/hour, more often less than more, sometimes paid nothing at all (see current situation in Georgia prisons not covered by the media), in lieu of the minimum $7.25/hour that corporations would have to pay to law abiding citizens. The difference, quite clearly, contributes to major corporate profits, while law abiding citizens are still unemployed and continue to lose their jobs.

On the FREE National market (vs. the WALLED industrial complex market), only 9% of our GDP comes from manufacturing. You can not sustain a middle class lifestyle with a service economy. To turn that 9 % into a much higher number, we need to introduce a new Bill in Congress to stop the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to prisons (outsourcing to prisons is now called "insourcing").

When you consider the major corporations that employ prison labor (furniture factories, Microsoft, Boing, IBM, Starbuck, Victoria secret, BP, Sodexo, medical supplies, road signs, military supplies, etc.) you quickly realize that moving jobs back to law abiding citizens would surely help diminish unemployment figures!!!

The way these prison partnerships typically work is that a manufacturer wanting to increase profits moves their equipment, technology, materials and unfinished goods to a factory setting within a prison industry facility. Once up and running, the same products come off the assembly lines and are shipped as before. The difference is this, private sector employees of the company have been terminated or laid off. A handful of employees are usually kept on long enough to train inmates and prison supervisors in the manufacturing used to make the products. Once that is accomplished, they are also eliminated and their positions taken over by a prison industry supervisor.

This insourcing of labor creates quite a number of unemployed citizens. Burdens are placed on state and community social help programs, unemployment compensation, etc. So while the corporation saves lots of money in labor costs - no more unemployment insurance premiums, less expenses in lease of facilities (usually leased by the prison operators at $1.00 per year), and no more employee benefits such as medical insurance, vacations or paid time off - the communities they vacated are left to fund the unemployed left in their wake. In addition the local government loses taxes that were paid by the corporation, previous landlords of the facilities once leased to the corporations are left with vacant property and local shops and other businesses suffer a drop in sales due to the newly unemployed workers left behind.

Efforts to involve Union officials, management and labor leaders in rectifying this issue have been unsuccessful for some reason. Politicians and Union leaders are too busy arguing about outsourcing of our jobs overseas and seem to not have any interest in eliminating or addressing insourcing. The next time you or your neighbor loses your/their job; before looking toward China or India to see if you can see your job making its way there, look the other way and see if perhaps some criminal that stole your car has just as easily stolen your job and income as well.

Source: INSOURCING- A new concept about private sector job losses, by Bob Sloan, November 10, 2010

The prison industrial complex shows the fastest growth in profits, with politicians and judges and lawyers, and the top 2% investing in its stocks, which constitutes the most corrupt conflict of interests: for each incarceration, the private prison industry is not only paid big bulks by our tax money, it also disposes of the people as private property subcontracted to corporations. Meanwhile, we keep paying for the prison industrial complex to sustain itself with our tax money, oblivious to the fact that we are also paying with the loss of our jobs!!!!

Wake up folks!!! This is not only a national disgrace, it is a national scandal!!!

The United States has the highest incarceration rate!!!! Do you want to know why? Follow the money!!!

Here is a report for you to read to understand the mess this country is in regarding employment politics by regressing into slavery The prison industry in the United States: big business and a new form of slavery

Civilian Inmate Labor Camps designed to manufacture army supplies Jobs that used to be performed by law abiding citizens

Insourcing - Transfer of Private Industry Jobs to Prison Industry-Made in USA

PRIVATIZED PRISONS - PRISON LABOR IS SLAVERY

Here are more links related to more recent news in Georgia where prisoners have been forced to work without pay for their labor, a violation of the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude:

The Largest Prison Strike In American History Goes Ignored By US Media

Prisoner Strike Enters New Phase, Needs Our Support

Prison labor on the rise in US

Corporatocracy can best be described as: "A type of government in which huge corporations, through bribes, gifts, and the funding of ad campaigns that oppose candidates they don't like, become the driving force behind the executive, judicial and legislative branches". It explains why prison labor is ignored by politicians and main stream media!!!!!

Federal PIECP and Program Violations: Discussions on the use of prison labor in the U.S. and corporations that eliminate private sector jobs with inmate labor

While we are busy believing that prisoners need to pay their debt back to society, corporations are cheating society by "hiring" prison labor

Prisoner Advocate Elaine Brown on Georgia Prison Strike

Mass Incarceration in America

Private Prison Industry Helped Draft Arizona Immigration Law

Prison Economics Help Drive Ariz. Immigration Law

Private Prison Lobby Behind Arizona's Immigration Law

Rachel Maddow: Exposing Private Prison Industry Role in Shaping Arizona's Anti-Immigration Law - August 14, 2010 - Corporate Con Game

PRIVATE PRISONS AND THE ARIZONA ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAW - Dec 13, 2010

VALLEY OF THE DRY BONES: HUMAN BODIES FOR PRIVATE CELLS (2002)

Prison Labor: A Dynamic Sector - Covert Action Quarterly #54 - Fall 1995

Prison Labor - Policy Report 2002

BP Hires Prison Labor to Clean Up Spill While Coastal Residents Struggle - 2010

Prison labor cheats society - 2001

As Prison Labor Grows, So Does the Debate - Published on Sunday, March 19, 2000 in the New York Times

Prison Industry Funnels Donations To State Lawmakers Introducing SB1070-Like Bills Around The Country

The Prison Industrial Complex: Does It Create A New Form Of Slavery? How Much Labor Is Done In The Prison System?

"One might think an enterprise able to pay unskilled workers just 21 cents an hour would be able to manufacture goods it could sell at rock-bottom prices. Unfortunately, that is not so when the enterprise is Ohio's Penal Industries system." Penal Industries Costs Out of Line - February 3, 2011 - The Intelligencer

"ACLU 2010 report presents the results of a yearlong investigation into modern-day "debtors' prisons," and shows that poor defendants are being jailed at increasingly alarming rates for failing to pay legal debts they can never hope to afford." American Civil Liberties Unions - 2010 - See 2011 update

Last year, officials in McIntosh County, Okla., south of Tulsa, issued about 1,500 debt-related arrest warrants, up from about 800 a year before the crisis, according to a court clerk. More than 950 borrowers got similar warrants in Salt Lake City courts last year. Maricopa County, Ariz., officials issued 260 debt-related warrants in 2010 Welcome to Debtors' Prison, 2011 Edition

Other people's suffering makes such a lucrative opportunity for investment Private Prisons Have Future Growth All Locked Up - Oct 20, 2009

Prison Valley - A web documentary exploring the Prison Industry

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

The United States continues to have the largest incarcerated population and the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.
- Human Rights Watch, World Report, 2008

This Truth Ad Brought To You By...

2011-03-16T04:20:00.007-04:00

Me! Okay, while I don't have a big advertising budget to create and air, not an "Attack Ad", (Those are just so.... UNCanadian, to me) but a Truth Ad, I thought I'd utilize the Power of The Internets to share a spot on video with my fellow Canadians highlighting the Conservative push to replicate the failed American War on Drugs*.

The following was originally created by the Drug Policy Alliance in the United States. Marc Emery paid for a Canadian version for the last Federal election as Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have been pushing their Stupid On Crime Agenda for many years now.

"INCARCEREX" - Do not mix with The Charter or Common Sense.

Chances are (If we're lucky!) there's an election coming this Spring** and Canadians have to decide just where our priorities lie. Ask yourself: "What do Canadians need more? Money for Education, Health, Child and Elder Care, Infrastructure, (Which will also create jobs, we all use roads and bridges, lets make them safe & smooth!) the Environment, etc? Or do you want to copy failed U.S. Drug War policy, and shovel BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of your hard earned tax dollars towards building and operating prisons, especially at a time when crime is at a 30 year low and we're SIXTY BILLION dollars in debt? (See the Canadian Debt Clock to your right--->)

~Pic from: Wall Photos by Jodie Joanna Emery

And FYI, for all the bleating the Conservatives put forth about being the only party who care about victims of crime, let us be reminded that in 2010 the Tories slashed Grants for the Victims of Crime Initiative by 43% & the Contributions to the Victims Of Crime Initiative by 34%. Please also read the Globe and Mail article: Canada warned not to follow U.S. tough-on-crime ‘mistakes’, although, I'm sure the Conservatives will stupidly continue to ignore the advice from our neighbours to the south. #FAIL

*****

"What purpose does it serve the Conservatives to quash judicial discretion? To disregard evidence and research that clearly demonstrates that Mandatory Minimum Sentencing is ineffective, expensive and a fallacious approach regarding drug policy and criminal legislation? I ask my fellow Canadians, "Are YOU comfortable with the knowledge that your government blatantly ignores the findings of our very own Justice Department?" ~ Con Job! Tories Ignore Justice Department Reports

****

*the Conservatives are refusing to allow Canadian taxpayers to be privy to the estimated costs of Bill S-10 along with other crime bills citing "Cabinet Confidence", and the Opposition just may call the Tories out with a vote of non confidence.

**War on Drugs ~ AP: Billions Spent Had Meager Effect In 40-Year War On Drugs

An Associated Press analysis of America's 40-year war on drugs concludes that the country's costly effort has met virtually none of its goals. In 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, he declared drug abuse "public enemy No. 1 in the United States" and promised to wage an "all-out offensive." His first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it's $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation.

The AP tracked where that money went and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent: $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries, including $6 billion in Colombia; $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs; $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs; $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, and $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone.

News Flash - People Like Primo Bud

2011-03-04T04:20:00.007-05:00

"If drug gangs in Mexico are successful enhancing the quality of their product, they can sell the improved marijuana for up to five times the normal price. The going rate for top quality U.S. marijuana is around $2,500 per pound, while Mexican types sell for under $500, U.S. law enforcement officials say."
~ Mexico marijuana growers learn new tricks from US

My response:

"They say its used for pain management, but drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels would have the same effect,"

Yes, but the difference is that the bottle of Jack Daniel's can kill you, while the Cannabis can't. That is, unless you can ingest approximately 1500 pounds of it within 15 minutes.

Like fine wine, people will pay good money for quality cannabis. The Mexican cartels have recognized this truth and are upping their game to compete in the black market opposite "Primo" California bud."

C'mon, we can't be surprised by this - we all know that Cannabis is worth more because it's illegal. The best solution to stop the drug war violence is re-legalization and regulation, a controlled production, quality tested, sales industry much like what already exists for the previously banned alcohol. The bonus will be tax revenue, legitimate jobs in an already booming, established market, and taxpayer savings through lower legal, court, incarceration and probation costs. Plus, Industrial Hemp is a plant mine eagerly waiting to prosper, so the environment also wins.

Why is this plant illegal again?

Con Job! Tories Ignore Justice Department Reports

2011-02-11T21:52:00.083-05:00

CON JOB: verb-transitive ~ To swindle (a victim) by first winning his or her confidence; dupe.–noun ~ A swindle. –adjective ~ Of, relating to, or involving a swindle or fraud: a con artist.

ALARMIST: person or group/organization who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

~Pic courtesy of FrankD

Are you scared yet?

In a cheap attempt to sway uninformed Canadians into voting for them, the Conservatives continue to be alarmist, trying to convince you that Canada is bursting at the seams with dangerous criminals lurking on every corner like a Boogeyman in your closet. Harper, Toews, Nicholson, Glover et al want you quivering, believing that no one can save you and your family from becoming victims except for the "Tough on Crime!" party! The kicker? Crime has actually been declining in Canada, in fact, crime rates fell by about about 3% in 2009 — 17% lower than a decade ago. Joseph Neuberger puts some context to this: "The last time Canada's crime rates were as low as Statistics Canada says they are now, The Sting and American Graffiti played at the movies; Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon ruled the airwaves and M*A*S*H was tops on TV." (Please read the whole awesome article Tough on Crime Bill Is Tough on Us All)

The following is from a previous post I wrote called "Calling the Tories Out on Bill C-15 - "The Politics of Fear". This information is applicable to Bill S-10 and deserves to be highlighted as the Conservatives continue to attempt to label the opposition as *soft on crime and pull one over on Canadians who are unfamiliar with the consequences of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing from drug offenses:

On the Canadian Department of Justice website you can find the report: "Mandatory Sentences of Imprisonment in Common Law Jurisdictions: Some Representative Models" by Julian V. Roberts With the assistance of Rafal Morek and Mihael Cole. Report prepared for the Department of Justice Canada © GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2006-11-09

Highlights from the 55 page report include:

The judiciary in Canada and elsewhere are opposed to mandatory sentences of imprisonment. The Canadian Sentencing Commission (1987) found in their survey of judges that slightly over half felt that minimum sentences impinged on their ability to impose a just sentence and that inappropriate agreement between defense and Crown counsel may result.

The future of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada remains unclear. There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits. Nevertheless, mandatory sentences remain popular with some Canadian politicians.

Where mandatory sentences do exist, they have been the object of considerable (and growing) opposition from a variety of parties, including advocacy groups, judges, academics and criminal justice professionals. This opposition has led to a number of Bills to amend or repeal the mandatory sentences legislation. While a number of countries have passed mandatory sentencing legislation within the last decade, there is evidence that jurisdictions with the most severe mandatory sentencing laws are beginning to repeal, or consider repealing, the most punitive sentences of imprisonment.

Trends in Mandatory Sentencing Legislation - After a decade in which a number of common law countries enacted mandatory sentencing legislation, there is clear evidence that several jurisdictions are now either repealing or amending these punitive laws. For example, in 2002 the Michigan mandatory sentencing laws were significantly amended. The effects of these amendments include the following:

• elimination of mandatory minimum sentencing for certain controlled substance
violations;
• creation of provisions that permit courts to consider important mitigating factors; and
• revision of the quantities of drug that trigger certain sentences.

This movement towards a more flexible, judge-determined sentencing scheme is a result of several factors with international repercussions including:

• a shift in public opinion away from supporting strict mandatory minimum sentencing (see above);
• the impact of Advocacy groups such as
Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation (FAMM);
• growing public disenchantment with the “War on Drugs” that initially triggered many of the most punitive mandatory sentencing laws (see Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004);
• news media coverage of “three-strikes” cases in which offenders whose “third strike” consisted of a less serious felony and stories of offenders receiving lengthy prison terms for offenses such as stealing a bicycle from a garage have undermined public support for this kind of sentencing; and
• growing concern among criminal justice professionals that mandatory sentences have played an important role in keeping prison populations from declining, even in an era of falling crime rates.

Mandatory Sentencing and Public Opinion - Although this report deals only with the statutory regimes with respect to mandatory sentences of imprisonment, it is worth noting that there is evidence from a number of jurisdictions that public support for mandatory sentencing has declined over the past decade. Mandatory sentences of imprisonment represent the most punitive sentencing reforms of recent years and are found in many western nations. Often justified by reference to public opinion, they have proved highly controversial in practice. Where do members of the public stand with respect to the issue? Few studies have addressed public knowledge of statutory minimum penalties; fortunately, the surveys that exist on this issue have generated the same findings: the general public has little knowledge of the offenses that carry a mandatory minimum penalty, or of the magnitude of the statutory minima. For example, in 1998, members of the public responding to the British Crime Survey (BCS) were asked if they were aware of the mandatory minimum prison term of three years for offenders convicted of burglary (see Roberts, 2003).

Even though this mandatory sentence had been the object of considerable media attention, less than one quarter of the sample responded affirmatively. This finding is consistent with earlier research in Canada that found that very few members of the public had any idea which offenses carried a mandatory sentence (Roberts, 1988 - It should not be surprising that public knowledge of mandatory sentences is poor. Opinion surveys conducted in several jurisdictions have shown that the public knows little about maximum sentences, sentencing options, alternatives to imprisonment, sentencing patterns, recidivism rates, or many other elements of the sentencing process (see Roberts and Hough, 2005, for a review). For example, respondents may overlook the fact that mandatory sentences of imprisonment violate important sentencing principles such as proportionality in sentencing. In addition, mandatory sentences of imprisonment may prove expensive by increasing the costs of the correctional system as more offenders are admitted to custody (and for longer periods of time).)

There is clear evidence that even in the United States, where support is stronger for mandatory sentences, public support for the concept is declining. For example, in 1995 over half of the sampled public in the US held the view that mandatory sentences were a good idea (Roberts, 2003). In 2001, this percentage had declined to slightly more than one-third of respondents (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2002; Roberts, 2003). In fact, over half the polled public in the US now favour the elimination of “three-strikes” mandatory sentences (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2002). The most recent polling on the issue of mandatory sentencing comes from the state of New Jersey. When asked whether mandatory jail or mandatory drug treatment was the more effective approach to non-violent offenders, respondents chose treatment over imprisonment by a three to one ratio (Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004). Three-quarters of the sample favoured allowing judges to set aside mandatory sentences “if another sentence would be more appropriate” (Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004).

The Future of Mandatory Sentencing - It would be overstating the case to say that the pendulum has swung away from mandatory sentencing to a model of sentencing that privileges judicial discretion. However, it is clear that public and legislative interest in mandatory sentencing laws has declined, and is likely to continue to decline in the near future. Although the public supports tough sentencing measures for violent offenders, the experience with mandatory sentencing legislation in a number of countries has shown that these laws do little to promote public confidence in the sentencing process.

This report has demonstrated that while mandatory sentences of imprisonment proved popular in the 1990s across a number of common law jurisdictions, closer examination of the laws reveals that many countries allow courts the discretion to sentence below the minimum when exceptional circumstances exist. This usually means that courts are permitted to consider mitigating factors relating to the offense or the offender, in some cases, as long as the judge provides written reasons for doing so. In addition, while the general public appears to favour the use of mandatory sentences for offenders convicted of the *most serious offenses and repeat offenders, there are important limits on public support for strict mandatory sentencing laws. When the public is provided with more information regarding the law and the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender, the tendency is not to favour punitive sanctions such as mandatory minimum sentences.

*most serious offenses ~ s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada states: "sentences should be proportionate to the offense and reflect the degree of responsibility of the offender."

Another report on the Canadian Department of Justice Website is:
MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES:
Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures

Thomas Gabor, Professor
Department of Criminology
University of Ottawa
Nicole Crutcher
Carleton University
Research and
Statistics Division
January2002

An excerpt from section 5.4 Mandatory Sentences for Drug Offenses states:

Some of the most sophisticated research in this area has
been undertaken at the Rand Corporation (Caulkins et
al., 1997). Through various mathematical models, Rand
researchers compared the cost effectiveness of various
drug prevention/control strategies, including lengthy
MMS. Their analysis considered the cost of each
strategy and the expected yield in terms of both drug
consumption and crime reductions. Their conclusion
was that conventional sentences imposed on dealers are
more cost effective than long MMS reserved for fewer
offenders and that treating heavy users is more cost
effective than either approach in lowering drug use or
drug-related crime. MMS were found to be the most
cost effective strategy only in the case of the highest level
dealers; however, the low thresholds at which MMS
tend to kick in means that these laws are more likely to
ensnare low-level offenders. Also, high-level dealers are
more likely to avoid MMS, as they are in a better position
to have information to trade for an exemption from
these penalties. Finally, these investigators note that the
time horizon of evaluations is critical, as MMS become
less cost effective over time.

Hansen (1999) asserts that the tide is turning against
MMS for drug infractions. He notes that they have done
little to reduce crime or to put large-scale dealers out of
business. Rather, they have filled prisons with young.
low-level, non-violent individuals at great cost to
taxpayers. Hansen points out that, in Massachusetts,
84% of inmates serving mandatory drug sentences are
first-time offenders.

...MMS fail to discriminate between these hardcore drug
dealers and those who feel compelled to sell due to an
addiction or difficulties encountered in participating
steadily in the work force. The implication is that
employment opportunities, more accessible drug
treatment, and alternative sentences would be
preferable to the “iron fist of the war on drugs.”

Harsh MMS and the “drug war” approach in general
show little effect in relation to drug offense. Judges
routinely circumvent the “mandatory” death sentences
for drug trafficking in Malaysia and the tough MMS in
the US have imprisoned mostly low-level, nonviolent
offenders. MMS do not appear to influence drug
consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable
way. A variety of research methods concludes that
treatment-based approaches are more cost effective
than lengthy prison terms. MMS are blunt instruments
that fail to distinguish between low and high-level, as
well as hardcore versus transient drug dealers.
Optimally, it would appear that tough sentences should
be reserved for hardcore, high-level dealers, while
treatment may be more appropriate for addicted dealers
and employment opportunities may be more cost
effective in relation to part-time dealers who are
underemployed.

Conclusion: 9.5 Mandatory Sentences for Drug Offenses

Severe MMS seem to be least effective in relation to drug
offenses. Studies using a variety of methodologies
seriously question the value of the “drug war” approach.
The draconian penalties in Malaysia are routinely
circumvented by the judiciary and the tough MMS in the
US (both at the state and federal levels) have imprisoned
mostly low-level, nonviolent offenders. Drug
consumption and drug-related crime seem to be
unaffected, in any measurable way, by severe MMS.
Both mathematical modeling techniques and field work
arrive at the conclusion that treatment-oriented
approaches are more cost effective than harsh prison
terms.

9.9 Concluding Remarks

From a utilitarian point of view,
incarcerating occasional, non-violent offenders, for
substantial periods, constitutes a colossal waste of
justice system resources.

...Therefore, MMS should not be
introduced merely to placate a political constituency or
without regard to a thorough understanding of the
infractions or offenders for whom they are intended. ~ Fin

*****

"Discretion is a science of understanding, to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and right, between shadows and substance, between equity and colourable glosses and pretenses, and not to do according to their men's will and private affections." ~ Justice Edward Coke

*****

What purpose does it serve the Conservatives to quash judicial discretion? To disregard evidence and research that clearly demonstrates that Mandatory Minimum Sentencing is ineffective, expensive and a fallacious approach regarding drug policy and criminal legislation? I ask my fellow Canadians, "Are YOU comfortable with the knowledge that your government blatantly ignores the findings of our very own Justice Department?"

Please also be aware that the Conservatives keep cost of crime measures a secret and these ideologically driven bills will criminalize and imprison large numbers of young Canadians. The legislation is also opposed to by all other Canadian political parties, (Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and Green) the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, a 39-year-old coalition for justice reform that represents 11 of the largest Christian denominations, the Canadian Bar Association and well over 500 Health researchers slam Tory mandatory-minimum-sentence proposal for drug crimes.

Prevention. It's worth more than a pound of Tory rhetoric for Canadian families and hard working taxpayers. Lets ignore the Con Job, Canadians, of course we are all concerned about crime, but lets be brave and approach solutions to keeping our kids and communities safer by being smart, logical and realistic about crime policy.

Ignoring evidence that clearly proves that Mandatory Minimum Sentences escalate crime and violence in our neighbourhoods? Now that's scary!

Fortunately, we can see what has happened in the
United States when a government is "Stupid on Crime"
because they don't want to be labeled "Soft on Crime".

*****

“Still, my own personal view is that it’s a mistake to take away discretion from judges, In the last couple of decades, the U.S. has gone the way of mandatory sentencing for a whole bunch of crimes and the result is their prisons are jammed.

I find it hard to understand how the richest country in the world has one of - if not the - highest prison population in the world. There’s something wrong there, and the problem is mandatory sentences. I’m disappointed to see Canada drifting in that direction.” ~ Retired Quebec judge John Gomery

*****

*soft on crime ~ From: It's a 'myth' Canada is soft on crime
It is a myth that Canadian courts are soft on crime and that the Charter of Rights is responsible for criminals escaping conviction or receiving light jail terms, says Canada's chief justice, Beverley McLachlin.

The Charter of Rights, signed on April 17, 1982, as part of the repatriated Constitution, gave judges the power to not merely interpret laws, but to strike them down if they were found to violate any of the established rights.

They include freedom of religion, expression and association, the legal right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Equality guarantees, including freedom from discrimination based on age, sex, race, or disability, came into effect in 1985.

Because We Say So - The Conservative Know-It-All Crime Agenda

2011-02-09T13:10:00.018-05:00

Stephen Harper and the Conservatives think Canadians are stupid, and believe they know more regarding health, drug policy & community safety than over 500 professionals in the fields of health, drug policy and community safety. Thankfully there are some very important people speaking up regarding this draconian approach to drug legislation.

Letter to Government Expressing Opposition to Bill S-10

February 6, 2011

Right Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Hon. Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
Hon. Jack Layton, Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada
Mr. Gilles Duceppe, Leader of the Bloc Québécois
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Dear Sirs:

Re: Opposition to Bill S-10, the Penalties for Organized Crime Act

We, the undersigned, are concerned that the federal government is pursuing significant amendments to federal drug legislation, through Bill S-10, which are not scientifically grounded and which research demonstrates may actually contribute to health and social harms in our communities. We join with other individuals and community groups that have previously expressed concerns in their testimony to various Committees and in open letters, and we outline our key concerns, in brief, below.

Please click here to read the whole press release and hopefully you will share this with your fellow Canadians. Thanks! ~MaryJane

"When the public is provided with more information regarding the law and the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender, the tendency is not to favour punitive sanctions such as mandatory minimum sentences." ~ "Mandatory Sentences of Imprisonment in Common Law Jurisdictions: Some Representative Models"

Oh yes, one more thing, in e-mails sent out to pastors and Church officials, the Church Council on Justice and Corrections said their group wants an about face on new prison building and legislation that would fill new jails with more criminals. The council is distributing graphics that lay out statistics about the cost and scope of the crime legislation. The council is asking that their ready-made inserts be included in parish bulletins or otherwise put in the hands of church-goers. They join LEAP Members and Clergy who condemn the War On Drugs.

From Justice council shows bite taken by Tories’ new prison policy :

"Lorraine Berzins, community chair of justice for the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, said the group wants an about face on new prison building and legislation that would fill new jails with more criminals.

“This is a critical time when all this money is about to be poured into something that is so clearly a destructive direction,” Berzins said.

The council is trying to get people beyond emotional and theoretical arguments by having them look at concrete facts — including the numbers of prisoners who are mentally ill, addicted or without job skills, said Berzins."

And more via The Globe and Mail:

"The letter comes weeks after the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, a 39-year-old coalition for justice reform that represents 11 of the largest Christian denominations, wrote a strongly worded letter to Mr. Harper condemning legislation that is expected to increase the number of convicts dramatically and require billions of dollars worth of prison construction.

The health professionals say they want drug legislation that is based on sound scientific evidence.

“Bill S-10 will put small scale growers of marijuana in jail for a minimum of six months, even though the RCMP's study of some 25,000 cultivation files reveals that violence or the threat of violence among cultivators is rare,” said Neil Boyd, professor and associate director of the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University. “We will be spending tens of millions of dollars to imprison individuals who represent little if any real threat to the public.” From Health researchers slam Tory mandatory-minimum-sentence proposal for drug crimes, - Globe and Mail

UPDATE 4 /9/11: If the Conservatives get a majority in Election 41 they have threatened to have all of their ill thought out stupid on crime bills crammed into one huge omnibus bill. Talk about an ideological, close-minded, extremely damaging FAIL! Please also remember, the reason the Harper Conservative government was found In Contempt of Parliament was because they refused to release the costs of these crime bills to Canadian Taxpayers.

Picture courtesy of FrankDiscussion.net

UPDATE: Please be advised that the MMS from Bill S-10 are now being included in Conservative Bill C-10 "Canadians: Don't Be Tricked by the "Safe Streets and Communities Act" - It's Omnibusted!"

Harper Stacked Conservative Senate Dangerously Stupid On Crime

2010-12-14T16:20:00.006-05:00

The Canadian (Conservative stacked) Senate has obviously disregarded all of the experts who testified against Bill S-10 during Senate Committee hearings, regardless of the evidence and research presented that proves that not only do mandatory minimums for drugs not work - they, along with draconian prohibition laws, cause MORE HARM than good to our society!

Senate Quietly Passes Bill S-10 and Mandatory Minimums For Marijuana

Parents, this is not a bill aimed strictly at cartel kingpins as the Tories would have you believe. No, this wolf in sheep's clothing will have our sons and daughters, aka "easy police prey", thrown in prison because they prefer to use cannabis, a much safer substance than legal alcohol and nicotine filled cigarettes. Many college students will grow a small amount of plants for themselves and a few friends so they don't have to come into contact with drug dealers, certainly this is not Organized Crime! Under Bill S-10 the "serious crime" of baking a batch of Pot Brownies will demand a judge hand down a mandatory minimum sentence of no less than 18 months imprisonment (Seriously.) and even the simple action of passing a joint is deemed "drug trafficking".

I've stated many times throughout my blog that of course we would prefer our youth to not use any drugs at all, be it alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, cannabis, oxycondon, ecstasy, etc. But the reality is that many will experiment (as millions of us did in our youth) with different substances. In this case, we certainly wish that if they are unfortunately caught by police, they NOT be persecuted and sent to prison with violent criminals! And if your child fell victim to drug addiction, would you rather them receive counselling and rehabilitative help? Or be locked up and punished alongside dangerous felons?

Stand up, Canadian Parents! It's time to get educated - we must refute ideological drug war rhetoric and defend the civil rights and safety of our children! Prohibition legislation creates and causes violence in our neighbourhoods. Let's be the "Smart On Crime" Generation that demands our government put public safety and common sense first - we can start by defeating Bill S-10 in the House of Commons. I ask that you please contact your Member of Parliament and request that they do the right thing by our kids and fellow Canadians and VOTE NO on Bill S-10!!!

U.S. Surgeon Gen Joycelyn Elders: Legalize Marijuana!
"We Criminalize People At The Highest Rate In The World!"

"Incarcerex" - Steve's solution to fill Canadian taxpayer
funded prisons with cannabis consumers.

To learn more about Bill S-10, please visit http://www.WhyProhibition.ca/s10 , http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums.html , sign the Petition and also read another post I wrote "Look! Over There! A Shiny Thing!!!" - written before Stephen Harper stacked the unelected Senate with Conservatives. (so much for "Sober Second Thought!")

*****

‎"When the public is provided with more information regarding the law and the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender, the tendency is not to favour punitive sanctions such as mandatory minimum sentences." ~ "Mandatory Sentences of Imprisonment in Common Law Jurisdictions: Some Representative Models"

*****

"Cannabis use, however, was generally infrequent, with 45.7% of previous-year users reporting use two or fewer times during the previous three months. In addition, most users did not report experiencing serious harm due to their cannabis use."

"For the general population of Canadians, the use of illicit drugs was usually limited to cannabis only. About 28.7% of Canadians reported using only cannabis during their lifetime, and 11.5% used only cannabis during the previous year."

"According to a 2009 report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, health-related costs per user are eight times higher for drinkers than they are for those who use cannabis, and are more than 40 times higher for tobacco smokers. It states: “In terms of (health-related) costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user.”

"The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) has also published a document outlining the relationship between the perceived seriousness and the actual costs of substance abuse in Canada. The study found that, while the total social costs associated with alcohol are more than twice those for all other illicit drugs, the public consistently rated the overall seriousness of illicit drugs as higher in the Canadian Addiction Survey.

The reasons for this misperception may relate to the fact that alcohol is a legal, socially accepted product that is regularly used by the vast majority of Canadians. While over 90% of Canadians have direct, personal experience with alcohol, only 3% of CAS respondents reported past-year use of the five most popular illicit drugs, so perceptions of risk will likely be inflated for these substances due to the unfamiliarity factor. The CCSA also points to the police, concerned citizen groups, political leaders and policy makers as those involved in amplifying the perceptions of the risks associated with illicit drug abuse.**"

Mark Ertel, president of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa, has said that the measures would strip judges of the ability to apply discretion for mitigating circumstances and could turn Canadian correctional institutions and penitentiaries into US-style inmate warehouses.65 Mr. Ertel argues that automatic jail sentences, with no allowance for mitigating considerations, will inevitably prompt the kind of appeal that led to a 1987 Supreme Court of Canada decision (R. v. Smith) striking down a seven-year mandatory minimum sentence under the now-repealed Narcotic Control Act as cruel and unusual punishment. He also argues that the bill targets the wrong problem as almost all violent crime is alcohol-related, yet liquor manufacturers will not be prosecuted**.

Some opponents of the mandatory sentencing that is a feature of the drug bills have noted that the increase in costs to operate prisons will draw funds away from social programs, like those addressing improved education, health care and child poverty, which reduce crime. Incarceration is seen as poor stewardship of both money and human resources.**

Other opponents of mandatory minimum sentencing have taken note of the fact that the United States, which has championed the use of such sentences for many years, is, in some cases, moving away from them. The thinking is that by depriving judges of discretion and forcing them to apply rigid and arbitrary sentencing rules, the United States built irrationality into its justice system. Yet, even though American courts mete out sentences that are double that of British and three times that of Canadian courts, the US violent crime rate is higher than in those two countries.

In addition, while crime rates in both Canada and the United States have fallen by almost the same amount in recent years, the incarceration rates in the two countries have followed different patterns: in Canada, unlike in the US, there has been no substantial increase in the size of the prison population.

One editorial has noted that, despite 25 years of harsh mandatory minimums, disproportionate numbers of the poor, the young, minorities and the drug addicted have been thrown in US jails with no impact on the drug business itself, which has flourished**.

Opponents of mandatory minimum sentences point to two Department of Justice studies that conclude that such laws are not effective and are increasingly unpopular as crime-fighting measures in other countries. A 2005 study concluded: “There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits.”

A 2002 study, meanwhile, found that mandatory minimum sentences do not appear to deter crime. The reasons for this lack of deterrence include the fact that they bar judges from using their discretion to sentence individuals. As a result, prosecutors and police take up the discretionary role, often choosing not to charge people with offences that would automatically lead to a prison term. Mandatory minimum sentences also sometimes lower conviction rates, as juries refuse to convict accused people facing automatic but seemingly unfair prison terms. Furthermore, while these types of sentences show success in deterring firearms or drunk driving crimes, they appear to have no impact on drug crime. ~
No. 40-3-S10E Legislative Summary of Bill S-10: An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

*****

In terms of social costs, the vast majority of the social costs of cannabis are enforcement-related while the vast majority of tobacco costs are health-related. The social costs of alcohol are about evenly distributed between health care and enforcement.

In terms of costs per user: tobacco-related health costs are over $800 per user, alcohol-related health costs are much lower at $165 per user, and cannabis-related health costs are the lowest at $20 per user. On the enforcement side, costs for cannabis are the highest at $328 per user—94% of social costs for cannabis are linked to enforcement.** Enforcement costs per user for alcohol are about half those for cannabis ($153), while enforcement costs for tobacco are very low.

The harms, risks and social costs of alcohol, cannabis and tobacco vary greatly. A lot has to do with how the substances are handled legally. Alcohol and tobacco are legal substances, which explain their low enforcement costs relative to cannabis. On the other hand, the health costs per user of tobacco and alcohol are much higher than for cannabis. This may indicate that cannabis use involves fewer health risks than alcohol or tobacco. These variations in risk, harms and costs need to be taken into account as we think about further efforts to deal with the use of these three substances in Canada. Efforts to reduce social costs related to cannabis, for example, will likely involve shifting its legal status by decriminalizing casual use, to reduce the high enforcement costs. Such a shift may be warranted given the apparent lower health risk associated with most cannabis use.**" ~ Cannabis, Tobacco and Alcohol Use in Canada, Comparing risks of harm and costs to society

*****

" The evidence is clear, Cannabis has no lethal dose**, so you can't die from it. The impact on the brain structure for cannabis is nil, but there can be very serious brain function changes with alcohol abuse. Also, more dramatic liver functions are impaired with alcohol. Malnutrition, B-vitamin deficiency, and Korsakoff's Disorder are all linked to alcohol, but not cannabis." ~ Dr. Mitch Earleywine, University of Southern California psychologist, author of "Pot Politics: Marijuana and the Costs of Prohibition","Understanding Marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence" and "Mind-Altering Drugs: The Science of Subjective Experience."

Please also watch this interview with Dr. Earlywine: SHOW 18: Dr. Mitch Earleywine - Parents' Guide to Marijuana .

And just a little more "fyi":

Kelly McParland: Stockwell Day’s criminal logic

I’m trying hard to take Stockwell Day’s warnings about unreported crime and the need for more jails seriously — I really am — but I can’t say I’m having much luck.

Maybe it’s the linkage that’s causing the trouble, as in, there isn’t any.

Mr. Day maintains that Canada needs more prisons. Specifically, he wants to spent $9 billion building more penitentiaries to hold all the criminals the Harper government intends to round up thanks to its tough-on-crime legislation.

But statistics show that crime is going down. The most recent report, released just a few weeks ago, shows a 17% drop from a decade ago, continuing a trend that has shown an ongoing decline in crime figures for the past ten years.

The data released by Statistics Canada … shows that the overwhelming number of criminal charges involved nonviolent offences. More than 45% of all offences reported in 2009 were for minor thefts such as shoplifting, or mischief. There were still nearly 50,000 people charged with possession of marijuana.

In contrast, homicides, attempted murder, serious sexual assaults and crimes against children, made up less than one quarter of one per cent of all reported offences.

Yet another indicator, the Crime Severity Index, which is a weighted average of criminal offences, is down 22% from the level in 1999.

So why spend billions building prisons when crime is decreasing? Because, claims Mr. Day, unreported crime is rising. And he knows this because Statistics Canada also has a measure that keeps track of crime victims, as opposed to crime reports, and calculates the gap.

The noise you hear is Absurdious, the God of Irony, being stomped to death under the jackboots of Stockwellian logic. First of all, as you may have heard, the Conservatives are in the middle of cancelling the collection of mandatory census data, arguing that voluntary data is just as good. But here we have Minister Day dismissing crime statistics — which are reported voluntarily — as unreliable. (Not all crime stats, mind, just the crime stats he doesn’t like. The crime stats he does like, the ones on unreported crime, are entirely trustworthy.)

Second, if the crimes are unreported, the perpetrators must be unarrested, and therefor the construction of prisons to hold them becomes just a little bit redundant, wouldn’t you say?

Mr. Day, who had managed to re-establish his reputation after his disastrous turn as Canadian Alliance party leader, is getting killed in editorial pages across the country. Montreal’s Gazette wrote that it was disconcerting to see him “scrape the bottom of the logical barrel -indeed, break right through the bottom of it” in trying to justify his prison budget. “Day’s interpretation of statistics is a crime,” said the Edmonton Journal, woy out there in Harper country. Several blogs quoted Mr. Day’s own convoluted words so readers could try to figure out or themselves what he was attempting to say.

Don’t bother. The answer is easy: The Conservatives think tough-on-crime sells well with voters, and if that means building prisons to house non-prisoners for unreported crime, well, who are they to argue? And never mind the eloquent case put forward by the recently-released Conrad Black, who made a powerful argument against following the U.S. down the road of prisons stuffed with oversentenced underlings wasting away at immense cost, with little benefit to the overall good of society.

Nope, logic isn’t going to get us anywhere on this one, folks. You just have to take it on faith. If, that is, you have that much faith in Mr. Day.

National Post
Shared under Educational Fair Use (See below)

**Cannabis has no lethal dose**:

"No acute lethal overdoses of cannabis are known, in contrast to several of its illegal (for example, cocaine) and legal (for example, alcohol, aspirin, acetaminophen) counterparts." - Stephen Sidney, M.D., associate director for clinical research at Kaiser Permanente, in an editorial published 9/20/03 in the British Medical Journal (Vol. 327, pp. 635-635)

"Unlike many of the drugs we prescribe every day, marijuana has never been proven to cause a fatal overdose." - Joycelyn Elders, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General, in a 3/26/04 editorial published in Rhode Island's Providence Journal

"The estimated lethal human dose of intravenous Marinol is 30 mg/kg (2100 mg/70 kg). Using this estimation of lethal dose, the equivalent inhaled THC would represent the smoking of 240 cannabis cigarettes with total systemic absorption of the average 8.8 mg of THC in each cigarette.

"Since absorption is much less than 100 percent, the amount of smoked marijuana required to reach lethality is on the order of one to two thousand cigarettes."

"The physical impossibility of a fatal overdose using smoked cannabis is obvious." - Denis Petro, M.D., in his 1997 paper "Pharmacology and Toxicity of Cannabis", published in the book "Cannabis in Medical Practice - A Legal, Historical and Pharmacological Overview of the Therapeutic Use of Marijuana", pg 62

"Marijuana has been used as a medicinal herb for thousands of years, going back to ancient civilizations in Egypt, India and Africa. In all that time, up to and including the present day, there has never been a report of a fatality directly due to the consumption of marijuana.

"In contrast, over 1,000 people die annually in the US from an overdose of our most common non-prescription drug, aspirin. In addition, many thousands of deaths result from the legal prescription drugs.

"After hearing two year's worth of evidence on the presumed dangers of marijuana, DEA Judge Francis L. Young said this: 'marijuana is the safest therapeutically active substance known to man ... safer than many foods we commonly consume.'" - Bill Zimmerman, Executive Director of Americans for Medical Rights

"Drugs used in medicine are routinely given what is called an LD-50. The LD-50 rating indicates at what dosage 50% of test animals receiving a drug will die as a result of drug induced toxicity...

"At present it is estimated that marijuana's LD-50 is around 1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means in order to induce death, a smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette.

"NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately 0.9 grams. A smoker would have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about 15 minutes to induce a lethal response. In practical terms, marijuana cannot induce a lethal response as a result of drug-related toxicity." - Judge Francis L. Young wrote in a 1988 decision

"A commonly used over-the-counter product like aspirin has a therapeutic ratio of around 1:20. Two aspirins are the recommended dose for adult patients. Twenty times this dose, forty aspirins, may cause a lethal reaction in some patients and will almost certainly cause gross injury to the digestive system...

"By contrast, marijuana's therapeutic ratio... is impossible to quantify because it is so high." - Judge Francis L. Young wrote in a 1988 decision

"No one has ever died of THC [marijuana] poisoning, mostly because a 160-lb. person would have to smoke roughly 900 joints in a sitting to reach a lethal dose." - Time Magazine in a Nov. 4, 2002 cover story

"Death by overdose isn’t the only danger that drugs present, but it is one important measure. In fact, a study conducted by Kaiser Permanente from 1979-1985 with a follow-up in 1991 found no correlation between marijuana use and death, evidence that even heavy marijuana use for decades does not appear to be associated with major health risks, whereas heavy alcohol users will develop cirrhosis and other potentially fatal conditions." - David Borden, Executive Director of The Drug Reform Coordination Network, wrote MedMJpro/con

Meanwhile......

Prescription narcotics cause more deaths than both heroin and cocaine

TORONTO, December 7, 2009 - Deaths related to narcotic pain relievers have doubled since 1991: Study

Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists

Side Effects May Include...Coma or Death?!

Big $$$, Big Pharma

I'm just sayin'...

**Bolding is mine

MP Shelly Glover is Not4Me!

2010-11-19T04:20:00.037-05:00

"I ask, what parent in their right mind would have their child thrown in prison amongst truly violent criminals for
the "crime" of using drugs?"

This week the Conservative Government released an over the top commercial about your little Bieber-loving teeny bopper getting hooked on drugs. (All of 'em?) Before we know it, she's cutting herself, flashing ghastly lip sores and for some reason is sporting a really bad dye job.

The following is an expansion of my original response to the Maclean's post: Just say no after Shelly Glover went cherry picking in the House of Commons and touting "DARE 2.0":

Prohibition does not keep drugs out of our children's hands. Prohibition leaves drugs to be controlled by the black market, and we all know that drug dealers don't ask for ID. If our Government was truly serious about keeping drugs out of the hands of minors it would legalize and regulate the sale to adults. Any teen will tell you they can purchase pot much more easily than they can get alcohol and cigarettes, because the sale of those substances are controlled.

Shelly Glover needs to do some reading. "Summary from The 2002 Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs:

Many substances, including some common foods, have some level of toxicity. Cannabis presents almost no toxicity and cannot lead to an overdose.

~ Cannabis itself is not a cause of other drug use. In this sense, we reject the gateway theory.

The relationship between cannabis use and delinquency and crime, based on research evidence, we concluded that:

~ Cannabis itself is not a cause of delinquency and crime; and
~ Cannabis is not a cause of violence.
~ Early drug legislation was largely based on a moral panic, racist sentiment and a notorious absence of debate"

Moms, (and Dad's too!) we have to stand up and demand our politicians and police focus on REAL Crime that does hurt our kids, like child abusers and paedophiles. Parents should be demanding the BILLIONS of dollars our government spends every year on enforcing pot growers (Which also entails sending helicopters to search for plants. Say that back to yourself - "sending helicopters to search for plants...". While our country is drowning in the Conservative caused Ocean of Debt your tax dollars are being spent to send cops to fly expensive-to-run machines through the sky to find PLANTS to rip out of the ground after they are spotted. Mother Nature must be so proud!) instead be put towards catching child predators.

It's quite disturbing the Conservatives would rather shovel money towards escalating enforcement and incarceration of cannabis consumers, instead of FACTUAL education and programs that will help kids in our communities. How many universities could have been built (with billions of your tax dollars) while the hellbent Tories are busy planning, implementing and executing prison expansions? How many scholarships for Canadian kids could have been paid for? How many treatment spots would exist for those who desperately need help for addiction instead of the government spending your hard-earned money for enforcement, court, lawyer, incarceration and probation costs of cannabis users?

"As for the jails, who will fill them? she asked. “Is it a case of build it and they will come?”

She suspects what they’ll do to fill those jails is just lower the criminal bar so they will have enough people to fill the jails.
And then they can say,
we told you so." ~ Margaret Atwood, Atwood launches assault on gov't with razor-sharp wit

I am truly appalled that we have politicians that trample on our individual freedom and rights, they perpetrate this con under the guise of being "Tough on Crime!". Well, I want our politicians to be SMART about crime and focus their legislative efforts on incarcerating those who truly are a danger to our society. Canadian Moms & Dads, (Grandparents too!) we have to be vocal in this fight, we have to let our parental voices be heard - we deserve to have common sense drug policy in Canada and imprisoning our young people for using or selling a plant is wholly criminal in itself. I ask, what parent in their right mind would have their child thrown in prison amongst truly violent criminals for the "crime" of using drugs?

Our neighbours to the south who have literally 4 more decades of harsher drug laws and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing experience than us have demonstrated that the: "Drug War Continues to Fail Spectacularly - AP: IMPACT: After 40 years, $1 TRILLION, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals"

I implore my fellow Canadians to learn about Bill S-10 (formerly C-15), and please take note that Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has yet to provide evidence to support this horrendous law. Under Bill S-10 simply baking a batch of pot brownies will get you sentenced to a MINIMUM 18 MONTHS (!!!) in jail, and judges will have NO discretion, no choice but to hand out that insane sentence.

"Calling the Tories Out on Bill C-15 - "The Politics of Fear": http://maryjanecannabian.blogspot.com/2009/11/cal...

"Bill S-10 ~ New Name For Bad Law": http://maryjanecannabian.blogspot.com/2010/05/bil...

"Canadians: Get Up! Stand Up!": http://bit.ly/15enP9 Talkin' "Smart On Crime" post from June 2009

Please contact your Senators and MPs and request they be SMART about crime and vote NO on Bill S-10! For more info visit CannabisFacts.ca S-10 info page and www.whyprohibition.ca.

You may be a mother, Shelly Glover, but you certainly don't speak for me. You see, I like to enlist common sense and listen to things like facts, and evidence regarding drug policy. You can bleat to the sheeple "What about the children!?" all you want, but any Mom who cares enough to put knee-jerk reaction aside in favour of careful research will agree with me - Cannabis Prohibition causes way more harm to our society than actual drug use does. Of course we don't want kids to use drugs, and responsible parents will educate themselves about all drugs, licit and illicit, so we can give our kids the honest to goodness truth and real facts about all drugs because really, it's not the governments job. While I appreciate education about drugs as a public service, our children deserve such important information presented truthfully. If you lie about cannabis, kids are going to think you also lie about much more dangerous drugs, and that in itself is grossly irresponsible!

For parents looking for real facts about drugs, two great sites are Canadian Students For Sensible Drug Policy, who has countered the Conservatives with their own Not4Me website: and CannabisFacts.ca .

www.not4me.org Media Conference April 13, 2010 Part 1:

Part 2:

On April 13, 2010, Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy (CSSDP) held a media conference discussing the launch of www.not4me.org, a drug education website created in response to the government's inadequate 'Drugs not4me' campaign. Instead of fear and negative stigma, CSSDP created a drug information website based on honest information and including harm reduction tips. Part 1 features CSSDP staff member Caleb Chepesiuk discussing the shortfalls of the federal government's approach. Part 2 features CSSDP board of directors member Tamara Kalnins discussing www.not4me.org

Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, and Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, talk about the futility, violence and devastation to children caused by the War on Drugs as well as the availability of tested, safe alternatives. ~ Watch Part 2: Retired cop and former Governor speak out against War on Drugs . Find more great LEAP videos here: CopsSayLegalizeDrugs YouTube channel.

*****

Addendum

Realistically only a small percent(1) of Canadians develop an addiction to hard drugs, and because I actually took the time to attend an informative presentation/meeting about InSite I recall a cruel truth - a harsh fact is that many hard drug users are sadly*victims of violence, people who had been physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, who had witnessed violence, or who had family members with alcohol or substance abuse problems.

"Poverty, homelessness, lack of education, family dysfunction and parental substance misuse, mental health problems, and a history of child abuse are all social determinants that place people at higher risk of misusing drugs or of injecting drugs.

Individuals who develop alcohol and other drug addiction are still stigmatized in Canadian society. Canadians who inject drugs are even more stigmatized, as they are, by and large, rejected by society because of the illegal nature of their behaviour, their sometimes disorganized lives, and their vulnerability to diseases. They are often labeled as difficult to manage, disruptive and manipulative. A significant portion of society views them as lesser persons - criminals and derelicts. These attitudes and misconceptions have resulted in a variety of harms, including public apathy, undiagnosed mental illness and inaccessible treatment (2) and rehabilitation programs.

It is estimated that up to 125,000 people in this country inject drugs. This includes an estimated 25,000 Canadians who inject steroids. "
~ Where did I find this? Why, right here.

Unfortunately:

"About 73% of federal dollars on drug policy in Canada go toward enforcement. Only 2.6% goes to prevention, only 2.6% goes to harm reduction and about 14% to treatment. That is a very uneven balance."
~ MP Libby Davies

Updated Nov. 21st to include the Margaret Atwood article.

UPDATE 2: November 24th.
MP Marlene Jennings, Official Opposition Critic for Justice and the Attorney General, has released this statement on criminal justice concerning the punitive, tunnel-vision "Tough on Crime!" Torie mantra. Here is an excerpt:

"In the 2010 budget the government slashed Grants for the Victims of Crime Initiative by 43% and the Contributions to the Victims of Crime Initiative by 34%. This money would have gone directly to community groups that help victims recover from trauma. Furthermore, the government’s Fall 2010 advertising report showed that $6 million was set aside to produce an advertising campaign directed at victims of crime, while funding for the Victims of Crime Initiative last year amounted to just under $4 million. The ad campaign is shockingly hypocritical, since the Conservatives have spent more money on the ads than they have on actual initiatives to help victims of crime."**

Update 3:‎"Not exactly an accurate reflection"
Critics slam the Tories’ new anti-drug campaign, Macleans magazine, December 3, 2010.

UPDATE 4: The Conservative Government has decided to roll all of their crime bills into one huge Omnibus Bill and have vowed to pass this within 100 days of Parliament resuming. Read Goar: Timely warning for Canada about prisons and please visit CannabisFacts.ca to find out more. You can also contact your Member of Parliament regarding the Omnibus Bill - let them know we do not want Canadians to suffer the dire consequences of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing!
Blog updated/edited September 17, 2011.

Update 5 October 27, 2011: New post up about Omnibus Bill C-10, "Canadians: Don't Be Tricked by the "Safe Streets and Communities Act"
- It's Omnibusted!" ~ http://maryjanecannabian.blogspot.com/2011/09/canadians-dont-be-tricked-by-safe.html
and Parents PLEASE READ "The mandatory minimum mess" by Dan Gardner: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/mandatory+minimum+mess/5559692/story.html
Excerpt:
"And remember the phrase "real property that belongs to a third party"? That's what a rented apartment is. Imagine a university student living in a rented apartment with her boyfriend, suggests University of Toronto criminologist Tony Doob. She grows a single marijuana plant. She rolls a joint for her and her boyfriend. And just like that she's a "trafficker" subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of nine months in jail.

Are these outcomes simple, clear, and predictable? Hardly. They're shocking as hell. But mandatory minimums have a nasty tendency to do that."

UPDATE 6 Nov. 23/11: A MUST READ FOR ALL PARENTS! Tories’ crime legislation turns teens sharing marijuana into ‘organized criminals’

"Incarcerating people for relatively minor marijuana offences is “cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.”

I'm asking all Moms (and Dad's and Grandparents too!) to participate in a Bill C-10 Protest: via @Leadnow:

Canadians are standing together against a fill-the-prisons approach to justice that has failed everywhere it’s been tried.

Join a coalition of groups for two days of action to speak out against the cruel Crime Bill. Time is running out to make Canada safer, not meaner - we need you to help us all make a big impact.

Where: Our MP’s local constituency offices.

When: Focus on Thursday at 1pm, with actions throughout Thursday and Friday.

We’re going to tell our MPs: Don’t mess up like Texas. Stop the cruel Crime Bill.

Go to http://www.leadnow.ca/stop-the-crime-bill to find out the location closest to you. Thanks, MaryJane.

*****

(1)- Canada's population as of November 2010 is
34, 252, 000+ (StatsCan Population Clock)

(2) Mentally ill offenders swamping prisons

**Bolding is mine.

*Several studies demonstrate that raped or sexually assaulted women and adolescents display substantial increases in drug, alcohol, and nicotine use and abuse. Prospective data from the National Women's Study (Kilpatrick, et al., 1997) demonstrate that rape and physical assault increase risk of alcohol and drug abuse in previously non-abusing women.

Investigators have suggested that violence plays a role in adolescent and adult substance abuse. In these conceptualizations, substance use represents a strategy to cope with the stress produced by interpersonal aggression . Hypothetically, distress produced by assault drives individuals to engage in behaviors that reduce negative emotions, such as situational avoidance or drug use . That is, use or abuse of substances following assault may be an effective, but maladaptive, strategy to diminish negative affect. Support for this learning-theory model is provided by studies that demonstrate an association between affect regulation and substance use . The coping theory of substance use presupposes that increased negative affect following exposure to stressors, as opposed to stressor exposure, per se, increases the likelihood and intensity of use. Clinically significant reactions to negative life events, such as those manifested in symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), might be expected to have strong relationship with substance use behaviors. Using data from the National Women's Study (NWS), Epstein, Saunders, Kilpatrick, and Resnick (1998) found support for this hypothesis by demonstrating that the relationship between childhood rape and adult alcohol abuse was mediated by PTSD. ~

Cherry picking, when used figuratively, refers to selective extraction of points in an argument in order to refute or affirm them while ignoring others which will not support the point(s) being made. Often, these cherry-picked factoids or references will be over-extrapolated and oversold to give the impression that they are representative, when they are not.

(Burnam et al., 1988; Kilpatrick et al., 2000; 2003; Miller, Downs, Gondali, & Keil, 1987; Miranda et al., 2002; Polusny & Follette, 1995; Rheingold et al., 2004; Simpson & Miller, 2002). (Kilpatrick et al., 1997).
~ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986828/
( Bean, 1992 ; Brown, 1989 ; Dembo et al., 1987 ; Ireland & Widom, 1994 ;
Lindberg & Distad, 1985 ). ( Kilpatrick, Acierno,
Resnick, Saunders, & Best, 1997 ). (e.g., Brown, 1989 ; Hernandez, 1992 ; Levenson, Oyama, & Meek, 1987 ; Stasiewicz & Maisto, 1993 ; see also Stewart, 1996 ).
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/Psy394Q/Behavior%20Therapy%20Class/Assigned%20Readings/Substance%20Abuse/Kilpatrick2000.pdf

Like The Borg, SaveCalifornia Thinks You Must Be Assimilated

2010-10-27T03:56:00.016-04:00

Have you seen this, for lack of a better word and a chance of sounding crass, BS?

Oppose Legalizing Marijuana (Prop. 19)

From marijuanaharmsfamilies.com:

"Marijuana bosses are moving beyond "medicinal marijuana" and now want to usher in a FULL-BLOWN marijuana culture to forever change California (Prop. 19). They want the next generation to think it's "normal" to "get high"!"

"Studies show marijuana is a gateway drug to cocaine and meth. Teens and young adults are especially at risk from today's potent, mind-altering marijuana, which can permanently damage their developing brains and young lungs. If pot is legalized, your health and auto insurance will likely cost more because increased addictions, accidents, and drug rehab will burden all Californians. “Drugged driving” will become commonplace. It will be a new "right" to get high on marijuana at work, even in transportation jobs. Marijuana legalization means cities and counties can OK selling pot in grocery stores and permit marijuana operatives to buy thousands of acres of farmland. " -

"Marijuana Operatives"! "Marijuana bosses"? Crystal Meth!? Please!

As we head towards November 2nd. and the vote for Prop 19 initiative to legalize cannabis for adults on the California ballot, please take heed of the rampant propaganda running amok. While there's so much ignorance and misinformation in this video that it would take me quite awhile to break it all down, (as it is this post has already taken me about 7 hrs - off and on while nursing and of course - typing with one hand) I'd like to point out this particular thorn: the main reason for the high numbers of young people in rehab for cannabis is because once busted for pot possession they are often presented with two choices: Rehab or Prison. Which one would you choose? Also noted is that the ability to rate and comment features have been disabled for this video. Convenient eh.

So, being irked I decided to do a little googling about the group marijuanaharmsfamilies.com and came upon SaveCalifornia, an arm of SaveAmerica and the Campaign for Children and Families, responsible for posting the video.

"SaveCalifornia.com is your pro-family organization dedicated to defending and representing the values of parents, grandparents and concerned citizens who believe in family, faith and freedom. Based on the Left Coast, SaveCalifornia.com, along with our national arm, SaveAmerica.com, works, leads and fights in the media, culture and government on behalf of marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and real education for children."

Along with fighting Prop 19, the Savers also supported Prop 8 and release statements like:

"This is just the beginning of this new, blatant and perverse indoctrination of children via Harvey Milk Gay Day. “Milk Day” is designed to teach children they may be homosexual, bisexual or transsexual, and that they should support political activism to destroy marriage and family and religious opposition to the harmful “LGBTQ” agenda. It will increase even more next year, and then Harvey Milk’s indoctrination will manifest in many more government schools in 2012 when May 22 finally falls on a school day, Monday. Parents and grandparents, I plead with you to rescue your children and grandchildren from immoral education and awful peer pressure. Harvey Milk Gay Day is just one of 6 school sexual indoctrination measures passes in the last several years. And there’s a raft of other pressing reasons to save children from government-run schools."

Randy Thomasson of the Savers and the Campaign for Children and Families once compared county clerks who offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples to "Nazi officers during WWII [who] had been ordered to gas the Jews."

Really.

Thomasson blames the acceptance of cannabis, gay rights, and a womans right to choose on "dumbed down" voters and government (Public) schools:

"DUMBED-DOWN VOTERS - Elections used to be about what kind of government we would get. Now I think elections are more about what kind of people we are. Hear me on this. Most voters went to government schools where knowledge of the written United States and California Constitutions are NOT taught. Nor are the historical Christian convictions of our founding fathers and the Judeo-Christian foundation of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, most government school graduates are taught that God should be kept in the closet, that evolution is fact, and that feelings are as important, as or even more important, than hard facts (which is why some school districts don’t even give A-F grades anymore). Ignorance makes people easy prey."

Californian voters, he says "are not as virtuous or morally principled as they used to be."

"Today, the main influence upon the minds and hearts of children is government schools, with dumbed-down academics, political correctness, anti-God and anti-morality sentiments, negative peer pressure and now even hints of socialistic teaching. Public schools these days don’t teach the Christian foundation of our government, which is why many voters today support immorality and socialism. The best thing parents and grandparents can do for their children and grandchildren is to permanently remove them from the government school system so they can develop good character, critical thinking and learn to stand for truth."

"FACT: California laws have changed so radically in the last few years, your child WILL be sexually indoctrinated and subjected to very negative influences if left in the government school system. Take action. Rescue your child now, before it's too late." ~ rescueyourchilddotcom, a project of SaveCalifornia

The Savers want you to:

"Target the culture: Work to change the culture at the same time you work to reform the government. Encourage more parents to home-school. Invite union workers to resign from the anti-family unions so they don’t fund anti-family, anti-life political candidates or campaigns. Promote sexual abstinence amongchurch children and all schoolchildren, and sexual purity in general. Work to clean pornography out ofyour community. Visit employers to encourage them to promote man-woman marriage in thei rbusinesses for the benefit of their product/service as well as their employees." as highlighted in their missive 10 WAYS TO BUILD A PRO-FAMILY ARMY.

"Hold regular meetings" they say.

"Consider a bi-weekly movie night where you show a patriotic or spiritual message or "classic film with a message" (*Reefer Madness, perhaps?) movie in a large house or church hall. Bring the DVD andpopcorn, and provide a brief introduction and lead a discussion afterward to educate and provideexamples from the movie. This is where you sign up more people to join your army. Sign up teenagers too and make sure you have them join your email list, mailing list, Facebook and Twitter pages, if you have them."

They highlight videos from single mothers, one with 7 kids who says marijuana addiction (!) destroyed her life (even though she was doing crank and meth and continuing to have kids - but yeah, it was all the fault of the "evil gateway drug" marijuana). She herself stated she made bad choices.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Cannabis doesn't make you try harder drugs, never once have I ever hauled on a joint and thought "Hey! Now I gotta try me some heroin!". Her decisions led to her addiction of hard drugs - not cannabis, it's like blaming Twinkies and KFC Double Downs for that extra 10 pounds you gained, not the fact that you chose to shove them down yer piehole.

Even though I'm an Athiest I'm not anti-religion, if people want to believe in a god that's their perogative and who am I to say what you should believe or who you may believe in. Some of my very best friends in the whole world are very religious, one is even married to a pastor and teaches Sunday School, the difference between them though and the Randy Thomasson's of the world is that they aren't condemning everyone who does not think like them as deviant sinners. Judgy Judgersons belonging to any religious brigade who profess it's their way or the highway, veer away from our conservative status quo and yer evil and trying to bring society down, just seems blasphemous** to me....

I'm also not "anti-family", I'm a married Mother with 5 wonderful Sons and promote strength in the family unit - however that unit is made up. I am for personal autonomy and freedom. People have the right to choose who they love right along with what substances they ingest. I don't need a zealot like Randy Thomasson inciting hatred in the name of a god and telling me how to vote, and certainly not how to raise my children. I teach my kids love, compassion, tolerance, respect, responsibility and acceptance - they know not everbody is the same and being different is what makes all of us special in our own way. Now that's a part of building a strong family unit. And wouldn't you know it, I came up with those values all on my own, because that's just a part of being a good parent, and a good person - regardless of religion.

So. Voting, Gay, Athiest, Pro-Choice, Cannabis Consumers With Kids Attending Public Schools in California and the people who love you for who you are - you are officially SaveAmerica''s #1 Enemy. Take that info with you into the voting booth on November 2nd. Just Say Now and be the generation who ends distructive Cannabis Prohibition!

C'mon now, Mama said.

*****

"So many things in life come down to people making personal decisions for themselves. We don't always make the best choices, but such is life, and each experience - great or small, right or wrong, happy or sad - shapes the person we become. Everyone has regrets and can question their actions (did I really wear that top to that party back in grade 11? What was I thinking??!!??) and hindsight is 20/20. But that is the beauty of life, it's a journey, sometimes it's bumpy and sometimes it's smooth sailing and in the end each of us owns the road we've travelled down. There are different views of "The Meaning of Life", and no two people have the exact same philosophies and I think that's wonderful, otherwise this would be one really boring existence. What would be the point of a life with no individuality and no personal autonomy? The geek in me rejoyces that we are not living in Hives of The "Borg" - I subscribe to a more "Browncoat/Independent/Resist The Alliance" way o' life."

The Borg is a collective, meaning that they—or it—possess a single mind. That Borg mind has the single intent of “assimilating” all organic species into the collective. The Borg are utterly without mercy or compassion. In a collective society only the needs of the group as a whole are considered, and in this utilitarian calculation the needs of the unrivaled number of Borg will nearly always override any other considerations.

The Alliance (from Firefly/Serenity)

A scene at an Alliance school, where a teacher sadly muses that it's hard to understand why the benighted Independents, the secessionists, have resisted the attempt to bring them the gifts of civilization. Little River Tam knows:

"We meddle... people don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads, and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome." ~MaryJane Cannabian, in Science Trumps Ideology

*****

*(Reefer Madness, perhaps?) - My suggestion, mwahahahaha.

**the Latin Vulgate employs the word blasphemare to designate abusive language directed either against a people at large (2 Samuel 21:21; 1 Chronicles 20:7) or against individuals (1 Corinthians 10:30; Titus 3:2).

Post Links:

Oppose Legalizing Marijuana (Prop. 19) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7K5oYlqMXw&feature=related

marijuanaharmsfamilies.com - http://www.marijuanaharmsfamilies.com/

Prop 19, Just Say Now by Students for Sensible Drug Policy - http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/

savecalifornia.com on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/savecalifornia

ALERT: Defend Prop. 8, rescue schoolchildren, get equipped to vote - http://savecalifornia.com/blog/?p=1126

Why did Californians vote that way? - http://savecalifornia.com/blog/?p=1141

RescueYourChild - http://rescueyourchild.com/

10 WAYS TO BUILD A PRO-FAMILY ARMY - http://savecalifornia.com/images/stories/PDFs/10_ways_to_build_a_profamily_army_032609.pdf

Good As You: Randy Thomasson Roundup - http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/randy_thomasson

Thomasson: School 'Milk' will turn your kids gay - http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/08/thomasson-schoo.html

Lei Green, 32, Single-mother of seven - http://www.cadfy.org.php5-13.websitetestlink.com/test/index.php/in-their-own-words

"Mama said" - Moms For Marijuana - http://www.momsformarijuana.com/

Science Trumps Ideology - http://maryjanecannabian.blogspot.com/2009/11/science-trumps-ideology.html

Sam's The Man! Medical Cannabis Activist Lights Up The House of Commons

2010-10-06T11:06:00.019-04:00

Cannabis patient-turned-activist Samuel Mellace is interviewed on CBC's Power & Politics about smoking pot as Question Period wrapped up yesterday. Mr. Mellace is bringing attention to the disastrous state of Health Canada's Medical Marijuana Program. Read more here. (CTV News)

Please don't forget how law enforcement treats medical cannabis users in Canada. Mr. Mallace's fears are warranted.

An Utter Lack of Compassion & Common Sense

2010-06-03T21:21:00.021-04:00

The news broke today: Quebec Police RAID all Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Quebec.

Angry and saddened, I left a comment after the story: Medical marijuana clubs raided in Montreal:

Do the police have nothing better to do than raid Compassion Clubs that help sick people? Have all the murderers and rapists and domestic abusers and paedophiles been caught in Quebec that shutting down Cannabis Dispensaries are the police priority?

Cannabis has never killed anyone but Big Pharma drugs have - should we be forced to take these narcotics where the side effects include death? BTW, legal prescription medications are the 4th. leading cause of death in Canada, including deaths in hospital settings - but Cannabis is the "bad" drug? The hypocrisy is astounding.

"Side Effects May Include...Coma or Death?!"

Damaging the CALM

International Researchers Reveal Medical Cannabis Breakthroughs!

And please, for everyone here commenting and voicing their disapproval about Cannabis prohibition, please contact your MP about Bill S-10 - the Tories are trying to introduce even tougher laws for Cannabis: "Bill S-10 ~ New Name For Bad Law"

even though: Drug War Continues to Fail Spectacularly - AP: IMPACT: After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals. -
~Fin

And again I'd like to post:

"The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.

We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensable to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community." ~ The Charter for Compassion

UPDATE:
Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy (CSSDP)

CSSDP Statement on Compassion Club Raids

Already in 2010 several medical marijuana compassion clubs have been raided by police in Iqaluit, Guelph, Toronto, Montreal, and Quebec City. Staff have been given or threatened with criminal trafficking charges. Patients unfortunate enough to be inside at the time of the raids have been detained, questioned, and charged for attempting to access medicine that has been produced safely and responsibly. The clubs have had their contents confiscated, crippling their ability to conduct business, and more importantly denying patients safe and secure access to medication.

Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy (CSSDP) is firmly opposed to these raids. We are firmly opposed to the use of police enforcement against the only real challenge to organized crime, responsible regulation. CSSDP is firmly opposed to the war on drugs, as it has clearly become a war on the sick, a war on youth, a war on people of colour and people living in poverty, a war on communities in Canada and around the world.

Compassion clubs exist because the Canadian government has refused to update the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations so that the regulations work for patients, and not against them. Thousands of Canadians who use cannabis medically depend on compassion clubs for secure access to safely and responsibly produced medicine. Why? One reason is because Health Canada only offers one strain of cannabis, despite the fact that there are hundreds of varieties, with differing benefits, which treat different ailments.

Robert Ling, president of the McMaster CSSDP chapter is one of these Canadians who depend upon compassion clubs for safe access to safe medicine. When asked about the raids, he stated

“The raids going on throughout Canada are a travesty for anyone who needs medicinal cannabis. I waited 12 weeks for my last MMAR renewal, so I had to live in fear, worrying that a trip to a compassionate center to get the medicine my doctor has prescribed may end me up in jail. This is another example of how medical cannabis users are discriminated against. The Canadian government and police departments all over Canada have to realize that jailing sick Canadians gets us nowhere. A lot of people, like myself, are productive because of the cannabis they use. Without this vital medication, I am usually bed ridden and forced to live out my day in extreme pain. Cannabis has allowed me to be productive through some of the worst pains I have experienced in my life. I was able to finish two years of intensive university school work in part thanks to this drug. Disabled Canadians deserve a productive life like everyone else and this definitely is not the case when we raid compassionate centers which provide sick Canadians the medicine they need. Raiding compassionate centers will only force sick people like me to go back on the streets picking up the medication we need from black market sources. This has to stop!”

Compassion clubs provide a necessary medical service for thousands of Canadians. CSSDP calls for an end to these raids and that there be appropriate legal protection for medical marijuana compassion clubs. ~
Originally published HERE, please visit their website for more great links and info regarding Canadian Drug Policy.

Death for Plants is Insanity

2010-05-31T13:34:00.012-04:00

My comment submitted at the end of the article:

Chinese drug traffickers condemned to death

This is a tragedy - no one should ever be put to death for Cannabis! Cannabis is a plant less harmful than alcohol, tobacco and many prescription narcotics that is not worth much - it is only made valuable because of its prohibition. If Government regulated its sale people would not sell it in the black market.

Cannabis is also a medicine that has been used for thousands of years and indeed has helped many people overcome pain from cancer treatments. Cannabis Hemp is also valuable as a food, fabric, paper, textile and biofuel and should be used the world over to help our environment. Shen Neng first wrote about Cannabis in China over 2700 years ago and it is disrespectful to our ancestors to shun and criminalize and kill people over a plant that used to be such an integral part of our lives.

People have been using Cannabis for thousands of years and no laws will ever stop Mother Nature from growing it, or people from using it. The smart thing to do is regulate it so organized crime can no longer profit from its sale.

It is time the "War on Cannabis" is ended and we set all Cannabis prisoners free - it is just not right to kill people over a plant! ~MaryJane Cannabian

Addendum: Please also read a prior post I wrote about other Cannabis sellers put to death "(Selling) Weed Kills - Law, Religion & The War on Cannabis and join the Facebook Group World Against Death Penalty For Cannabis. Thanks, MaryJane

Black's On Track

2010-05-29T17:38:00.023-04:00

I left a comment on the National Post website after reading the brilliant article "Canada's inhumane prison plan" by Conrad Black in todays edition. I've extended it here though to add even more links and info.

I'm thankful that Mr. Black has addressed the Consevative "Tough on Crime!" agenda, it is a subject deserving of the attention of all Canadians. (And just an FYI - over the past 19 years crime in Canada has been declining after a spike in 1991.) As a non-violent offender in an American jail, I believe his POV is something we should take into consideration as the Tories are following down the road of US style Mandatory Minimum Sentences and are also disregarding the time people spend in the harsh conditions of Canadian Correctional Remand Centres. ( Under the newly passed Tory legislation *Bill C-25, remand time will become longer than sentenced time — though remand inmates are still considered to be innocent until proven guilty. There have been preliminary estimates that the total price tag will be between $7 billion and $10 billion over five years. A majority of the costs fall on the provinces.

From Calling the Tories Out on Bill C-15 - "The Politics of Fear" - (Addendum - Bill C-15 is now Bill S-10, reintroduced after Tory prorogation)

The Conservatives are blatantly playing "The Fear Card" which would surely make Harry J. Anslinger proud. In Canadian politics the fear-appeal is becoming increasingly rampant and widespread. I ask you to remember the following: whenever you hear any person in a position of legislative power and that person (or party) agitates the public's fear of crime and proposes that supporting a bill will reduce the perceived threat, he or she may be using this tactic as a means to induce fear and to imply that other people or parties are not concerned with crime and community safety.

“Since the Canadian government justifies this criminalization, in part, as a means of protecting our youth, we are standing up and saying, ‘not in our name.’” ~ Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy

and from Stupid Is As Stupid Does:

MP Mark Holland: "The Harper government claims to be "tough on crime," but their discredited U.S.-style policies on crime and punishment are making Canadians less safe.

Their ineffective and costly plan, entitled A Roadmap to Public Safety, should more accurately be entitled A Roadmap to Public Disaster.

Modelled after failed American policies even diehard Republicans now admit are an abject failure, it will result in more prisons and longer sentences, while doing nothing to reduce recidivism. When over 90% of the prison population will be released, the Harper government's failure to seriously invest in vital programming needed for rehabilitation and reintegration, including substance abuse treatment and mental illness care, is nothing short of reckless." -

I'd also like to add that the Consevatives have not produced any evidence or research that proves these "Tough on Crime" measures are effective in keeping people safer or reducing crime. Our neighbours to the South have been down this failed road.... why would Stephen Harper want to follow down the same doomed path, and at great expense to Canadian Taxpayers? (Read "House passes billions of dollars in crime bills, doesn’t know full costs")

I'm no bleeding heart either, I'm a firm believer in harsh and long punishment for criminal perpatrators that truly deserve it - for convictions of murder, rape, vehicular manslaughter, domestic and child abuse, paedophelia, child abduction, etc. - crimes that truly harm the physical and emotional well being of our fellow human beings. But the Tories are not distinguishing the difference between violent criminal acts and non-violent offenses. They are lumping all acts together 'cause you know, that "CRIME!" word is super scary and it's a great vote getter too. They are depending and praying on your fear. Please don't be fooled.

Apologizing for Writing Bad Drug Laws:

18 January 2010 — Former Capitol Hill staffer Eric Sterling discusses the negative effects that drug laws he wrote are having on families and society. Mr. Sterling is now a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P), which any citizen can join for free at www.leap.cc . Watch more LEAP videos on their YouTube Channel : CopsSayLegalizeDrugs

*****

"When you come to these kinds of issues, I think a good deal of humility is in order. These reforms have stood the test of time. It was for later generations of politicians to take a more incautious, exclusive, dogmatic stand to treat other opinions as if they were, if not illegitimate at least somehow "beyond the pale," and they polarized opinion. To the extent that opinion was polarized by those, if I may put it this way, on the left, it provoked an equal and opposite reaction from those on the right — wedge issues. Then we come to a situation in which one group of politicians is pointing a finger and saying, "They are soft on crime" with another group saying, "These fellows are hangers and floggers."

It is lunacy. If one hears people saying those things in Parliament, in Canadian politics, about each other, you know you are listening to lunatics. There is no other way of putting it. It is nuts." ~ Senator Murray

*****

*Bill C-25 :
Third reading of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody) Statement made on 21 October 2009 by Senator Serge Joyal

Hon. Serge Joyal:

Honourable senators, this issue of Bill C-25 is a serious one. Surrounding this bill there has been a lot of — I will use a word that I do not like to use on the Senate floor — "politicking," which is essentially concentrating attention on political slogans instead of looking at the merits of the bill. My intention this afternoon, in reply to Senator Wallace, is to concentrate on the merits of the bill and avoid any politicking or political slogans.

The problems I have with this bill are threefold. The first one relates to the Charter. This bill has three serious Charter implications. I am not inventing them for honourable senators this afternoon; I draw those conclusions from the testimony of five experts that we heard. I will quote from them later in my intervention this afternoon.

Second, this bill will have a serious impact on the condition prevailing in the prisons for the inmate population and the staff that is there to maintain order and serve them.

Third, this bill will affect drastically the most vulnerable in the prison system, namely, people suffering from mental disorders, Aboriginal people and women. As an aside on the bill's impact, we heard from the president of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel that it will clog the bail courts. That is not the impact that is wanted by those who drafted the bill. I totally recognize the objectivity of their intentions, but that impact is what we heard from the expert witnesses.

Let me return to my first point: This bill will have serious impact on the Charter and will be open to challenge in the courts.

As senators, it is one of our duties, when we are called upon to support the bill, to question its implications for the Charter. In the respected intervention of our esteemed colleague, Senator Wallace, neither yesterday nor today did he answer those issues that were raised by the witnesses, which the honourable senator well knows — as do Senator Nolin, Senator Angus and Senator Carignan, who sat during the long hours that we spent studying this bill.

Honourable senators, let me report what we heard from those experts. First, we heard from Michael Spratt of the Criminal Lawyers' Association that:

Bill C-25, if passed, will result in constitutional litigation. Bill C-25 offends the Charter. It will have the real effect of doing something that we do not seek to do in sentencing. In sentencing, we seek to treat like offenders who commit like offences in similar ways.

One can imagine a number of scenarios where like offenders who commit like offences and who have like personal circumstances are punished differently. One of those punishments is spending an inordinate amount of time in remand facilities with no programming and harsh conditions, much like the individuals who did not get their bail hearing today. They are not receiving programming. . . .

Pre-sentence detention is not lenient, it is cruel.

The impact of this bill is that it will treat people who are in remand differently than people who will be sentenced, having been freed once the charge is laid. That is one side effect of the bill as it is drafted.

Mark Lapowich, from the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, stated:

I do not think there will be any doubt . . . that there will be Charter challenges. In terms of specific challenges, we can envision challenges under section 7, deprivation of, life, liberty . . .; and a challenge under section 11(b), undue delay. We can see stay applications being brought; and, as was mentioned previously, for cruel and unusual, in terms of your specific point that you raised with respect to how horribly we have done in the past 50 years in relation to upholding treaties that we may be part of.

In other words, there will be Charter challenges on the basis that the sentence applied to one accused will be different from the one applied to another accused with exactly similar circumstances but in a totally different context. That situation offends the natural justice principle that people who are guilty of the same offence under the same circumstances should be given the same sentences and should bear the same consequences.

Let me quote, honourable senators, from another of those representatives from the objective groups that we normally hear from. The secretary of the national criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association, Eric Gottardi, said:

I think the prospects of constitutional challenges to the legislation are quite high. I think they could be many and varied. . . . I think the likelihood is quite high that that there will be constitutional challenges of different kinds.

That view is from the Canadian Bar Association.

We then heard testimony from the president of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Lucie Joncas, who said:

I am also concerned about whether such a practice would be considered constitutional. Given that, in 2000, the Supreme Court recognized that it was perfectly justified, and given that detention conditions at provincial level have deteriorated significantly, I do not see how the practice can be said to be no longer justified.

What are the court decisions that those experts refer to? They are essentially the unanimous court decisions of at least four appeal courts of provinces: the Court of Appeal of Quebec — from which I will quote immediately; the Court of Appeal of Alberta; the Court of Appeal of British Columbia; and the Supreme Court of Canada.

What does the Supreme Court of Canada rule on that principle of one for one — one day in pre-sentence custody versus one day once an offender is sentenced in regular prison?

I quote from the decision of R. v. Wust, a unanimous decision in 2000, at paragraph 45, which states:

In the past, many judges have given more or less two months credit for each month spent in pre-sentencing detention. . . . The often applied ratio of 2:1 reflects not only the harshness of the detention due to the absence of programs, which may be more severe in some cases than in others, but reflects also the fact that none of the remission mechanisms contained in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act apply to that period of detention. "Dead time" is "real" time.

In lay terms, what does that paragraph mean? It means that when someone is in remand custody, that person has no access to rehabilitation programs. The time that person is kept in pre-sentence custody cannot be counted as time toward conditional release — parole release. The person does not benefit from any of those programs that exist once an offender is in prison serving a sentence. The person experiences harsher conditions in pre-sentence custody than if that person is in jail once the sentence has been imposed by the judge. This is an important element and one that the Canadian Bar Association, under the signature of its chair, responded to on September 15, indicating that unjustified disparity in sentencing could result from the passage of Bill C-25.

The Canadian courts have upheld the principle that judges must take into account the different time and the quality of that time when prisoners are held under pre-sentence conditions as opposed to being held in jail. Let me quote the decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec of 2005, a decision for which appeal was sought in the Supreme Court of Canada, which appeal was denied. In other words, that decision of the Court of Appeal is seen by the Supreme Court of Canada as being definitive. I quote from paragraph 40.

Thus, there are two primary reasons for this practice: the harsher conditions of interim detention and the impossibility of being granted parole during this time. That is why interim detention has become known as "dead time."

One of the most eloquent conclusions of that decision is found at paragraph 42.

Furthermore, the 2 to 1 ratio cannot be considered an advantage for the accused.

This is very important. Some people have the perception that the two-for-one or the one-for-one-and-a-half is a benefit, a premium. With that option comes the perception that it can be stretched, but this is not what the court has ruled. The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled on a similar matter last year with regard to a decision in August 2008 on the case of R. v. Orr. I quote from paragraph 20 of the decision.

A lesser credit, generally in the ratio amount of one and a half-to-one seems more appropriate where the offender has been held for the pre-sentence period in an institution where post-sentence type programs are available. A refusal by a sentencing judge to allow any credits seems to me an erroneous approach having regard to the majority of existing authorities in Canadian appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada.

That is the most recent decision.

In other words, it has been established quite clearly that you have to maintain a balance between the time served in pre-sentence custody and the time served in prison. This bill equates the one-to-one challenges that form the fundamental principle of Canadian courts — the Supreme Court of Canada and all the provincial appellate courts — to rulings to maintain a relationship to the one-for-one principle.

It is easy for public opinion to support the one-for-one principle, but it violates one essential principle: Those in pre-sentence custody do not have the benefit of programs available for rehabilitation to reintroduce them into society. We want released prisoners on the streets to behave like good Canadian citizens.

Honourable senators, that is my first point. There are two other sections of the bill for which the constitutionality has been raised. One was raised by Senator Baker yesterday, the proposed section of the bill that allows the judge, in imposing that kind of sentence, to withhold the reasons. We all know that a sentence is appealable. It is a fundamental principle just as you can appeal the principle that you are found guilty. Those are the fundamental principles of our common-law criminal system. This bill takes away the obligation of judges to justify and explain the reasons for the sentence. That would go against that fundamental principle of our system, and there is no doubt that could be challenged in the court. I will not elaborate by quoting cases in the Supreme Court of Canada because the jurisprudence is clear.

There is another aspect of the bill that could be open to a court challenge, and that is a point Senator Nolin raised with one of the expert witnesses, namely, the arguments as to why a person should be detained in pre-sentence custody. The testimony we received from Mr. Munson on this is clear. If it was interpreted differently than what we were told it could be interpreted as, that could be open to challenge.

There are at least three aspects of this bill that raise important fundamental constitutional issues. That is my first point.

My second point, honourable senators, is that this bill will create more dangerous conditions in Canadian prisons, endangering the health and life of the inmate population as much as the personnel charged with the responsibility of operating the prisons. I am not inventing this situation. We had the benefit of hearing from the Canadian prison ombudsman, a person who is neutral and is there to look into the prison system, receive complaints, evaluate the context into which the prisons operate and make recommendations.

We heard from Mr. Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, on September 30. Here is what Mr. Sapers testified during the study of this bill. He said:

. . . Bill C-25 will likely lead to a significant increase in the offender population managed by the Correctional Service of Canada.

I underline "a significant increase in the offender." He continues:

A significant increase in the federal inmate population will affect the safety and security of that population, as well as individual inmates' ability to receive programs and services that will assist their timely and safe reintegration into their home communities.

Listen to this aspect of his testimony.

. . . the current level of tension and violence within Canada's penitentiaries is already excessive. For example, for the first quarter of this fiscal year, the most recent data available, the correctional service reported a staggering total of 2231 security incidents and 577 reported physical injuries to inmates. During this three-month period, the security incidents included assaults on inmates, disciplinary issues, inmate fights, medical emergencies, self-inflicted injuries and three deaths.

That was in three months. Multiply that by four and you will have at least 12 deaths, at least 10,000 security incidents and at least 2,000 reported physical injuries to inmates. Why? Because this bill, when it is implemented, will bring, according to the statistics we received from Statistics Canada justice division, 10 to 12 per cent more inmates into the prison population.

Again, I refer you to the testimony of the ombudsman. "A significant increase in the federal inmate population will affect the safety and security of that population, as well as individual inmates' ability. . . ."

I questioned Mr. Don Head, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service. I have his testimony here. I tried to get from him the percentage of the so-called increase in the Correctional Service of Canada budget that will be devoted to dealing with that influx of 10 per cent more inmates and the consequences that it will have on the safety and the health of inmates and personnel. Here is what I got. Mr. Head answered:

In terms of disclosing the numbers, at this point I cannot disclose them because they are considered to be cabinet confidence.

In other words, honourable senators, we were told that this information was out of our reach in order to determine if this bill would have a severe impact on the health and life of the inmate population, with the proper balance of budgetary investment to maintain the current level of safety, which is critical according to the ombudsman who reported to us.

This is important because it deals with the kind of approach we should have regarding the inmate population. It would be easy, honourable senators, to mount public opinion against the inmate population. "Let us keep them in prison. Let us lock them somewhere and we do not want to hear about it." However, we need to try to understand who those people are. Are they all the Clifford Olsons of this world? Are they all criminals who are beyond the reach of rehabilitation or are there different kinds of citizens among them who are victims themselves, in a way, as a result of the circumstances of family, education, birth and so on?

I want to draw to honourable senators' attention that this bill will have a disproportionately severe effect on the vulnerable populations in the prisons. Who are they? It will be surprising for you, honourable senators, to understand that it will be the offenders suffering from mental disorders.

The population of our prisons is composed mainly of Aboriginal people. About 20 per cent of Canadian inmates are of Aboriginal origin. They form 3 per cent of the Canadian population and yet they form 20 per cent of the inmate population. In Saskatchewan, it is as high as 80 per cent and above 50 per in Manitoba.

In other words, we are dealing with offenders with significant social backgrounds. One cannot just say, "We will lock them up and forget the key and, when they get out, everything will be fine."

Again, I quote from Mr. Sapers, the ombudsman, who reported that:

This is of importance to the study of Bill C-25 because offenders with mental illnesses and cognitive difficulties are often held in pre-trial custody. We know that the prevalence of offenders with significant mental health issues upon admission has doubled in the past five years.

In fact, another witness stated that the ". . . Aboriginal adults admitted to remand custody increased by 23 per cent compared to a 14 per cent increase in the total remand admission rate over that same period."

In other words, we are putting more Aboriginal population in prison and remand. This is a serious problem, honourable senators, if we add that to the people suffering with mental disorders. The problem with people who are affected by mental disorders is that, as Mr. Sapers stated, "Federal prisons are now housing the largest psychiatric population in the country. . . ." It has doubled in the past five years. If one was to ask where are the majority of the Canadians who suffer from psychiatric problems, the answer would be that they are in prisons. They are not in psychiatric institutions or under the kind of care that one would like to have if someone in their family suffered from a psychiatric disorder.

Mr. Sapers also stated:

. . . despite the need, the capacity of the federal correctional system to respond to and treat mental illness is largely reserved for the most acute or seriously chronic cases — those receiving psychiatric treatment in one of the five regional treatment centres. Most other mental health problems receive limited clinical attention, at best.

This means that, when those people have served their time, they are released onto the street with no real capacity to reintegrate into a normal course of life. It is so much so that the accessibility to rehabilitation has been severely cut by the lack of funds.

Let me quote from Mr. Zinger, the Executive Director and General Counsel of the Office of the Correctional Investigator. He testified at the committee:

The Correctional Service allocates only two per cent, under $41 million of a $2.1 billion total annual budget, to offender programming.

For now, offenders have to contend with long waiting lists for programs and with cancelled programs because of insufficient funding or lack of trained facilitators.

They also have to deal with delayed conditional release because of the service's inability to provide the timely programs they require.

They must therefore serve longer time before parole consideration.

In other words, there is not enough capacity to offer the programs that would help those inmates to reintegrate into normal life.

Honourable senators, you will understand those aspects of Bill C-25, outside the hoopla of the political game of name-calling and trying to address emotion rather than the substance of this bill, is very serious.

I will conclude by referring to another witness whom we hear from very rarely at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I have been serving on that committee for 12 years now and we have never heard a representative of the Crown counsel. Why? Of course, the Crown counsel is the Department of Justice, either provincial or federal. It is the government. This time, we heard from the President of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel, Mr. Jamie Chaffe. It was extraordinary to have him testify. He said that, from his association's perspective, it was certain that there would be an increase in the workload in the bail system. That could only be reasonably expected since part of the sentencing process would be imported into the bail hearing itself, which would likely be fully litigated by defence counsel and the Crown. In other words, by trying to alleviate the condition in the remand centre, we will be clogging the bail court.

Mr. Chaffe was questioned by all of us around the table because it was such an important element to consider before supporting this bill. We thought this information had to be shared with all senators in this chamber before voting on this bill.

I do not doubt that the intention of the government to try to frame the discretion of the judges is a legitimate objective.

However, when it is framed in a way that there are unintended consequences in the system, either in the courts by clogging the bail courts or in the prisons by creating more dangerous conditions, and by putting the weight on those who are the most vulnerable, the result might not be the one contemplated at the beginning. There has to be the proper commitment of budget and human resources, and the proper capacity of monitoring such that this initiative will be sound, humane and will serve the objective, which, as Senator Wallace has said, is to increase safety and security in Canada.

Honourable senators, that might be a different tone than what you have heard in the hoopla surrounding the debate on this bill. However, those are the serious considerations that I thought were useful to bring to your consideration before you vote on this bill later today or this week.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, if Senator Watt is to enter the debate, I want to ask some questions.

Thank you, Senator Joyal for that presentation. This topic is not new to this chamber or the committee.

In 1994, the Minister of Justice Allan Rock — I see a senator on the other side nodding in agreement — who came from Toronto, raised the issue for the first time because of the overcrowding of the court system in terms of bail, remands and prisons. The rationale for that decision taken by the Minister of Justice was that the court system and jails in Toronto were overcrowded. It was going from bad to worse. There was agreement on both sides at the time that this bill needed remediation.

Having said that, it is my understanding that the court system in Ontario — the province I represent — is worse today than it was then. I look at other members from Ontario. They should take a look at this question before they opine on this bill. I think they will come to the same conclusion. The court system in Ontario is worse today in terms of clogging the courts, reasonable remands and bail. Prisons are also more crowded today than they were 14 years ago.

Did this evidence come forward to the committee as to whether there were budgets available at the provincial, municipal and federal levels to expand space availability in prisons that will be required if this bill goes into effect?

Senator Joyal: Honourable senators, I will quote Ken Crawford, corrections staff representative from the Winnipeg Free Press on the sixth of this month:

All provincial jails within this province are presently overcrowded. . . . Our institutions are at the breaking point.

The honourable senator was talking of Ontario; this article is from Manitoba. The newspaper was reporting about a mutiny in the correctional centre in Brandon. The article continued:

They'd like to see trailers to house at least 200 people in order to ease overcrowding. The trailers can house 20 to 60 people, said the union

The article goes on to quote Peter Olfert, Manitoba Government and General Employees Union president:

(The province) are looking as moving as quickly as they can to provide portable units.

In other words, this problem is not peculiar to Ontario. It is the same in Manitoba, according to what I read. I would say it is the same in Quebec.

If I remember correctly, in June, a front page article in La Presse described conditions in the provincial prisons. Although some provinces might have announced budgetary initiatives, construction will not keep up with the increase of population we will experience by adopting minimum sentences, or by the fact that remand population will increase. This increase is not because people want to stay in prisons, but because cases are more complex. That is the witness testimony we heard. Cases are more complex, hearings are longer and personnel in the courts are not always available. A clogging of the court system exists generally, and it needs a massive injection of funds.

We have to take into account that element of reality with all the bills we are requested to vote on. We continue to add to a system that is already cracking all over the place. At a point in time, we must understand that what we do may have an unintended adverse effect because we are creating additional pressure in the whole system.

Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, I have another question relating to Toronto and my province of Ontario. It is my understanding that the urban Aboriginal population in Toronto is the largest in Canada in absolute numbers. While there is a problem in Regina, Winnipeg and other places in the West, the largest problem in quantitative terms is in Toronto.

Senators from Toronto will know the statistics well when we talk about the homeless. At least two thirds of the homeless on the streets in Toronto are Aboriginal. Of the Aboriginal community on the streets, about two thirds of them — maybe more — are on the streets because of psychiatric or emotional problems. This information is confirmed in a report.

Again, we have a more intense problem in Toronto. I assume the committee sorted this problem out as well. When we come to the question of bail, remand or incarceration, Toronto now has probably the largest proportion of Aboriginals convicted in Canada without any remediation.

Did this issue arise in the committee study? Have you any comments about that issue?

Senator Joyal: We did not hear any witnesses from the Aboriginal community. I want to put that information on the record. We did not hear representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, other national groups that represent Aboriginal people or provincial groups like the Cree or Innu of Quebec.

The issue came to us as a side issue. As I mentioned earlier, we will create additional pressure on the system. Our colleague, Senator Watt, who intends to speak this afternoon on this issue, is a member of the committee. He has raised this issue regularly with the witnesses. At a point in time, that problem must be addressed. It cannot be ignored. It is the major problem of the Canadian inmate population.

At this stage, we could not study more than the purpose of this bill and the reference we received from the Senate, which was to study the scope of the legislation.

Senator Grafstein: Finally, we have been confronted in the past — I look at new senators in regard to this problem — with a situation in the criminal justice system and other places where a bill is not in sync with the economic reality. I suspect and assume this bill is not.

Did the committee — all members of the committee — give any consideration to suggesting an amendment that will allow the bill not to come into effect if it is passed until such time as Her Majesty the Queen and cabinet can be satisfied that there are adequate facilities both at the court level and in the prison system to accommodate the increase in prisoners incarcerated?

Senator Joyal: The answer is no, honourable senators.

I mentioned earlier, Don Head, Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada appeared as a witness. He is the "big boss" of the prison system in Canada. We tried to obtain the figures and statistics on how much of the budget will go for bricks and mortar and how much will go to rehabilitation programs, training, personnel, et cetera. We could not obtain proper detail on those figures. Mr. Head told us those figures were deemed confidential documents. To answer your question, yes, the figures exist somewhere, but they were not made available to us.

Please click here to read the full text of this debate

Hey Canada! It's Important to Save Our Farms!

2010-05-26T17:19:00.034-04:00

While this post doesn't discuss prohibition specifically, I feel it is a very important topic for Canadians to be aware of so I've decided to include it here on my blog as it speaks to the benefits of rehabilitation programs as opposed to the Conservative punish happy ideology.

"The decision to shut down this successful rehabilitation program symbolizes our government's lack of understanding of what actually makes the public safe, and their failure to recognize the value of a restorative approach to justice and a sustainable, local approach to the future of farming and food." ~ Save Our Prison Farms National Campaign

Photo from NUPGE article Major campaign launched to save prison farms - "Dating back to the 1880s, the program includes two operations in the Kingston, Ont. area, and others near Dorchester, N.B., Stony Mountain, Man., Prince Albert, Sask. and Innisfail, Alta."

~SAVE OUR FARMS! - The ‘Save Our Farms’ campaign was launched by the men and women who oversee, instruct and work with inmates in federal prison farm programs, members of the Union of Solicitor General Employees (USGE-PSAC). They welcome the support of national, regional and local organizations that have an interest in a safe, secure and sustainable food supply. Also read "THE FUTURE OF PRISON FARMS II" and III which also includes great audio interviews. Please be sure to take notice of all the awesome links in the sidebar as well.

According to one retired Corrections employee, it would seem that the farm program has a proven track record for its rehabilitative impact. Of the 50-plus inmates that were released during his employment at Frontenac Institution, not one reoffended. Perhaps there is something to be said for a program that promotes accountability through work that heals and helps one along the path to become a better human being.

The Conservatives don't blink an eye at spending at least 1.1 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money on the G8/G20 Summits - but $4.1 million for a program that helps inmates develop valuable life skills that they can use upon release into the community while at the same time providing food for correctional centers gets wiped out - "When they start buying that food (after the program ends) it will cost them at least 50 per cent more on top of what they’re spending." (Tony Abreau, relief instructor for Corcan). And a dairy farmer asked if they planned to import that produce from the US. No officials could answer that question.

"The Conservative government said that it will sell off the prize dairy herd at Frontenac Institution this June, effectively putting an end to the 50-year-old facility. The Frontenac farm supplies milk and eggs to federal prisons in Ontario and Quebec. " - Sludge issue could be costly for prison farm closure, memo indicates

Keep prison farms open, Liberals urge By Rick McGee
SooToday.com
Tuesday, May 11, 2010

NEWS RELEASE

OTTAWA – Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is warning against the Harper government’s decision to cut Canada’s federal prison farms, and is calling for an immediate independent review of the program before prison farms are permanently closed.

“Prison farms benefit everyone involved in them: farmers, corrections workers, and inmates,” Mr. Ignatieff said. “Because Liberals recognize the necessity of rehabilitation programming for preventing repeat offenses, we are demanding an immediate review, in the hopes of preventing the Conservatives from closing these farms.”

Last year, the Harper government announced their plan to phase out six prison farms that currently employ 300 federal prisoners. Last month, the House of Commons Public Safety Committee asked the government to release the strategic review of prison farms from the Department of Correctional Services.

Liberals are calling on the government to wait for the independent review to be completed before moving forward with the closure of any prison farms. The Conservative decision to close prison farms would likely be irreversible, as land and equipment will be sold for other uses.

“The Harper government only cares about locking more people up and throwing away the key in their planned super prisons,” said Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland. “They’ve ignored the fact that inmates working on prison farms develop critical life and employability skills that reduce their risk of re-offending after release – helping to prevent crime and protect our communities.”

There are six prison farms in Canada -- two within the city limits of Kingston, and one each in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The prison farm program is considered an extremely effective rehabilitation and training program that contributes to public safety and that also provides food for federal and provincial inmates.

Mr. Ignatieff is calling for the Harper government to wait for an open and transparent independent review of the prison farm programs operated by the Correctional Service of Canada that will consider:

• The value of farm employment and training of inmates;

• The impact of the closure on rehabilitation programs;

• The influence that employment in the farm environment has on recidivism;

• The impact that farm closures have had on local agriculture economies; and

• The increase in the cost of operating prisons which are no longer able to purchase food products from prison farms.

“Local farmers appreciate the benefits of these productive prison farms for stimulating the local economy,” said Liberal Agriculture Critic Wayne Easter. “Unlike the Conservatives, our party recognizes the importance of these farms to helping offenders get back on the right track, and for supporting the communities where prisons are located.” - Fin

Sadly, Liberal MP Mark Holland was even denied in the House of Commons today when he requested an emergency debate to discuss the tragedy of the closure of the Prison Farms Program.

While I can report on the views of politicians regarding the closures, here's a great citizen "Letter to the Editor" from the Kingston Whig Standard worth a reprint:

Prison farms promote accountability

Recently, I attended a public meeting in Kingston that addressed the current issue of prison farm closures.

Of particular interest was the impending closures of farms at Pittsburgh and Frontenac institutions.

This forum was an opportunity to hear MPs Wayne Easter, Liberal agriculture critic, and Mark Holland, Liberal critic for public safety, reflect on their recent tour of four of Canada's prison farm facilities.

Both were impressed with these operations; especially the two in Kingston. When they had an opportunity to speak with some inmates who worked on these farms, they noted their strong work ethic and sense of pride.

They also noted the broad skill set they were acquiring through such work.

According to one retired Corrections employee, it would seem that the farm program has a proven track record for its rehabilitative impact. Of the 50-plus inmates that were released during his employment at Frontenac Institution, not one reoffended. Perhaps there is something to be said for a program that promotes accountability through work that heals and helps one along the path to become a better human being.

Working the land, being responsible for the livelihood of animals, and broadening one's skill set, is a meaningful way to reach this end. The rehabilitation of inmates is crucial, as most will at some point be released into society. What kind of neighbour would you like?

The government has claimed that $4 million is lost annually by keeping these facilities open. What evidence is there of this? Perhaps we could speculate how much more might be lost if they were to tender food -- currently produced by the prisons -- to other providers (perhaps not even Canadian). Not only do these farms feed all of the inmates from these prisons and others, but they also donate a few hundred dozen eggs annually to the food bank. Uniquely, Pittsburgh Institution boasts an abbatoir as well; whose services are relied on by approximately 150 businesses in the Kingston area.

If a super prison -- which would house inmates from all levels of incarceration -- were to be built in place of these prison farms, the rehabilitative benefit of inmates would be significantly reduced. This style of institution has been tried in the U.S. and was unsuccessful. They now recognize the wrong-headedness of this direction. Why then would we want to follow in failed footsteps?

Finally, how can we, in clear conscience, sacrifice land, classed as prime agricultural, when fertile ground is being eaten up by development on a daily basis? Can we really afford to keep relying on other countries to feed us? This seems unconscienable, given the issue of food security and the ongoing oil crisis. Does this really make financial sense? Are we that removed from our roots? ~ By Sue Peters Inverary

From the Save Our Prison Farms National Campaign (*PLEASE* visit the site):

This new Save Our Prison Farms website has been set up by the national campaign team to respond to growing public concern over the immanent shut down of Canada's six prison farms. We believe that our government will reverse its misguided policy decision as it continues to discover that the vast majority of Canadians of all political stripes support this productive, cost effective, rehabilitative farm-based program.

Opportunities for you and/or your organization to get involved are listed on the You Can Take Action page.

This campaign is a lightening rod for addressing the Conservative Party's generally short-sighted policies on farming, food and justice. The decision to shut down this successful rehabilitation program symbolizes our government's lack of understanding of what actually makes the public safe, and their failure to recognize the value of a restorative approach to justice and a sustainable, local approach to the future of farming and food.

Save Our Prison Farms Information and Action Meeting

Thursday, May 27th, 7:30pm - Perth, Ontario

Perth Lions Hall, Perth Fair Grounds

Speaker include: Mark Holland, Liberal Public Safety Critic; Mike Schreiner, Leader of the Green Party of Ontario; Dianne Dowling, National Farmers Union, Local 316 President; John Williamson, Frontenac Federation of Agriculture, Past-president.

May 17, 2010 - Telegraph-Journal, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, story: New Brunswick's only prison farm still fully operational

May 12, 2010 - CKWS Television, Kingston, Ontario, video news report: Spin offs from prison farms - food bank, farm supply businesses

May 11, 2010 - CKWS Television, Kingston, Ontario, video news report: On recent campaign events in Athens and Napanee, Ontario

May 11, 2010 - Liberal Party of Canada, Press Release: Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff denounces the planned prison farm closures and calls for a public inquiry

May 6, 2010 - Kingston Whig Standard, Kingston, Ontario, story: Ex-inmate makes personal plea to keep farms

May 5, 2010 - The Globe and Mail, story: Critics claim closing prison farms would create $1-million milk bill

Please contact Members of Parliament and let them know you support the continuation of the Prison Farm Program in Canada. Thanks, MaryJane

.

Side Effects May Include...Coma or Death?!

2010-05-08T18:53:00.026-04:00

Side effects for Big Pharma drugs highlight the hypocrisy of Cannabis prohibition - if drugs with side effects like the ones in these videos can be sold legally then every health/harm arguement for keeping natural non-toxic Cannabis illegal is moot in my books.

"No one knows exactly how Depakote works" - Wait, what?

Side effect of blue or yellow skin...

And this drug is for.... thicker eyelashes?

Also read:
Big $$$, Big Pharma , Gossip Folks and
CONTROLLED PRESCRIPTION DRUGS VERSUS MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Bill S-10 ~ New Name For Bad Law

2010-05-06T13:13:00.045-04:00

"Under the Conservatives "mandatory minimums" law, making pot brownies in your own home will get you a
MINIMUM 18 MONTHS IN PRISON!" ~ Dana Larsen, ENDProhibition

The Conservative Government has reintroduced Bill C-15 - but wait! It has a shiny new number! Ladies and gentleman, courtesy of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, here comes Bill S-10!

Bill S-10: Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Marijuana

GOVERNMENT RE-INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO CRACK DOWN ON ORGANIZED DRUG CRIME

Even though... Study of Studies: Drug Prohibition Key Source of Violence and Crime

At first, the press warned us it was coming: Tories may revive minimum pot sentences as part of tough-on-crime agenda

"Justice Minister Rob Nicholson dropped broad hints Sunday that the new legislation would revive a controversial provision — a mandatory six-month sentence for people convicted of growing as few as five pot plants."

I repost from a commenter:

Re: Tories may revive minimum pot sentences as part of tough-on-crime agenda, May 2

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says that Bill S-10 is aimed at gangs and organized crime. Why then, does he support this bill that will give more power and profits to gangs and organized criminals, while targeting people who grow more than five cannabis plants? Small growers should be regulated, licensed and taxed — not jailed — so that people with chronic pain, HIV, AIDS, MS and cancer aren’t forced to buy cannabis from street gangs. At a time when the rest of the world is moving forward to legalize cannabis, our government is moving backward. Our politicians’ inability to distinguish between cannabis and dangerous drugs like cocaine will be a costly mistake — in dollars and human lives.

Janice Barton, Scarborough

....."Our politicians’ inability to distinguish between cannabis and dangerous drugs like cocaine will be a costly mistake — in dollars and human lives."

It already has Janice, it all ready has.

More regarding Bill S-10 (C-15)

Time to rethink Canada's Drug Strategy - Libby's letter to the Minister of Justice

March 25, 2009

Ontario says feds should pay for any extra jail costs due to sentencing law

Drug bill fills gang coffers

Google Search for all past month results for Bill S-10.

Number of women going to prison jumps 50% - and if Bill S-10 passes, expect that number to rise higher!

Canada: Conservatives Push For Stiffer Pot Penalties For Renters

Again, I ask Canadians to become familiar with Bill S-10 and contact your MP and Canadian Senators with your concerns and objection to the Bill. The last thing the Tories want is informed voters, this "Tough On Crime!" Bill will have a direct negative impact on your lives, neighbourhoods, and your bank accounts. Become actively involved in fighting prohibition, the best thing you can do (outside of overgrowing the government) is to get involved politically by writing and voicing your opinion to those MP's who support the draconian law of prohibition. Please visit cannabisfacts.ca and whyprohibition.ca for all the info on Bill S-10 along with convenient pre-written letters to email and send your Senators and MP's.

Please also revisit my main post regarding Bill C-15, as it also applies to Bill S-10: Calling the Tories Out on Bill C-15 - "The Politics of Fear" and Why Did Liberal MPs Support Bill C-15? - yes, they unfortunately passed it through the House of Commons before and they too need to be questioned about their support for the Bill. Read House passes billions of dollars in crime bills, doesn't know full costs about their reaction to S-10 so far.

I'd also like to add that this is what happens when the War on Drugs (People) gets nasty, American style. So be prepared Canadians, Bill S-10 will put us right smack dab where this poor Missouri family has been, all over a small amount of Cannabis.

Addendum - Duffy's the real Dope, I'll stick with Craig Jones, thank you very much. And by the way, our neighbours to the south who have literally 4 more decades of harsher drug laws and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing experience than us have figured out that the: "Drug War Continues to Fail Spectacularly - AP: IMPACT: After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War on Drugs has failed to meet any of its goals. I've said it before, Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It.

The Global Marijuana March - Tomorrow!!!

2010-04-30T16:20:00.005-04:00

I had such a great time at last years Freedom Festival and Global Marijuana March. I hope everyone who has the chance can attend this awesome celebration - the Global/Worldwide Marijuana March is in over 300 cities this year! (Dates may vary, please confirm here for your area)

For all the info on Toronto's event, please visit torontofreedomfestival.com and globalmarijuanamarch.ca.

Pass It to The Left!

Video I made with pictures I took at the 2009 Global Marijuana March & Freedom Festival.

Vote For Hemp, My American Friends

2010-04-05T16:50:00.007-04:00

National Farmers Union Adopts New Policy on Industrial Hemp
Majority of Leading Farming Organizations Now Support Hemp Farming in the U.S.

"Grown commercially in Canada since 1998, hemp has become one of the most profitable crops for farmers north of the U.S. border. While American farmers often net less than $50 per acre for soy and corn, Canadian hemp farmers just across the border net an average of $250 per acre." Hat Tip to Hemp & Company for the link. You can also Fan them on Facebook.

May 17-23, 2010 is Hemp History Week!

A joint project of Vote Hemp and the Hemp Industries Association, Hemp History Week is looking for patriotic Americans to anchor and organize events in their hometown as part of a national grassroots, media and public education campaign.

More posts about Hemp on my blog here and I've also come across this wonderful site that you just can't pass up: Hemp: What The World Needs Now .

Update: Read about the awesome discovery: 100-Year-Old Government Hemp Farm Diaries To Be Revealed
... "So in addition to the already-known intertwining of the noble hemp plant and U.S. history, now it is revealed that the very location of the Pentagon itself was once covered with verdant fields of cannabis."

Damaging the CALM

2010-04-03T17:38:00.039-04:00

Cannabis As Living Medicine (CALM) is a Compassion Club and has been operating out in the open in Toronto for 14 years now. It serves Medical Cannabis Patients who are sick, in pain and those with terminal illnesses. Their website states ~

C.A.L.M. is committed to:

Providing access and education on all aspects of cannabis to those with verifiable medical need
Ensure members receive access to safe, clean cannabis products, information, peer counseling and research
Empirically monitor the reliability and quality of the strains of cannabis being administered to clients
Use proven methodologies to convert basic cannabis into alternative medicinal compounds
Helping members achieve self-sustainability and independence by providing young plants

On March 31st. 2010, right before the Easter long weekend Metropolititan Toronto Police decided to raid the club, along with handing out a concussion to the unfortunate soul by the door when the plainclothes police officers stormed in. Read the story in the Toronto Star: Nine charged after Queen St. pot compassion club raided

I am so saddened by this, words cannot express how this makes me feel. Again I say, this is not a "War On Drugs" but a "War on People Who Use Certain Drugs".

Here you go, taxpayers, this is your money at work, MTPD arresting and charging sick people (who are licensed to use cannabis by Health Canada) for using a natural plant, receiving quality medication from a place that is safe from dealers on the street, a place that actually has the word/mandate COMPASSION. Find full length videos from the raid on the CALMToronto YouTube Channel.

"The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.

We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community." ~ The Charter for Compassion

More on the raid here in the Globe and Mail (why does this headline have the word "Compassion" in quotes?) and here on Cannabis Culture Magazine: Toronto Police Used Violent Force in Compassion Club Raid.

You can also let your voice be heard to the police responsible for the raid, much like Jennifer Pixie has in a Note posted on Facebook:

To the Officers of 51 Division, Toronto Police Services

Det. Jim Brons at 51 Division 416-808-5100

I would like to make a complaint against this division in protest of the March 31st raid on Cannabis As Living Medicine. CALM is medicinal resource & support centre – well respected in the community for helping to meet the needs of thousands of chronically & terminally ill Canadians. I was appalled to learn that officers used deceit & force to enter an institution that has repeatedly invited law enforcement with open arms to discuss their situation in the current legal grey area. Through this action the Toronto Police have forced many seriously ill people to actually rely on the criminal elements – purchasing questionable medicine from even more dubious sources. Or even worse – go without their meds.

Health Canada’s MMAR program is under persistent scrutiny from all across the country – due to its failure to meet constitutional requirements – which is why organizations like CALM need to exist and have operated for more than a decade to provide relief from the suffering caused by chronic illness

I am disappointed that time and money went into an investigation that does not in any way benefit the communities you are sworn to serve & protect, especially in an area so plagued by crack-cocaine, prostitution & violence.

You have not been truthful or open nor have you acted with integrity or respect as your ‘core values’ dictate. I also feel that by not identifying themselves immediately the officers put all those present at greater risk. The officers involved in this incident acted disproportionately - and were rude and belligerent towards club members.

Persecuting sick people is wrong and as a taxpayer, I am very disappointed in the Toronto Police and do not condone the action taken against CALM.

As a medical marijuana patient I feel that my rights have been violated and the judicial system is putting my health in jeopardy.

“As a public service organization, it is imperative for the Toronto Police Service to effectively communicate with the community we serve, especially in relation to providing information that could be useful to victims of crime and others wishing to engage our services.” - Toronto Police Service Website

*****

A rally in support of CALM "KEEP CALM and CARRY ON" has been announced:

Date:	Sunday, April 11, 2010
Time:	1:00pm - 4:20pm
Location:	POLICE CHIEFS HEADQUARTERS - 40 COLLEGE Street

Protest the RAID by 51 DIVISION against CALM Medical Cannabis Club

At approximately 3 p.m. on Thursday March 31st, twelve 51 Division officers raided a medical cannabis resource and support centre. C.A.L.M. has provided support for patients with debilitating illnesses that range from AIDS,cancer, glaucoma and MS for years. The police arrested 9 individuals found on site and confiscated their medication. The Queen St. location was targeted despite the fact that all individuals in question had federal licenses to possess, store and/or cultivate medical cannabis. ~

Please join in the peaceful protest, whether you are a member of the club or not, showing support for this wonderful organization is a blessing to the Medical Cannabis community. On the Event page someone has also posted on the wall: Anyone living in Guelph, Cambridge, or Kitchener, the Medical Cannabis Club of Guelph is renting a bus that is free to anyone that needs a ride to the protest. Please read it for more info.

Hope to see you there!

Update 04/5/10 - News from Neev at CALM and more press coverage: EYE Weekly.com , CITYNews Excessive Force Used In Raid On Medical Marijuana Club, Lawyer Says and healthzone.ca reports: Medical marijuana compassion clubs face new scrutiny

Please read what CALM Members have posted on their message board to the question "How Has This Raid Affected YOU?"
and I pose this question to the police who conducted the raid and all politicians who support Prohibition... "Are we safer now?"

Gossip Folks

2010-03-20T13:20:00.010-04:00

A Blog that is definitely worth checking out is "Pharma Gossip", it's got the lowdown on all the info that Big Pharma wants to keep on the downlow. I've been reading it for many months now and the blog is worth sharing with all of you.

A favourite *video, highlighting Big Pharma drugs and the hypocrisy of "Drug Free". *Note -some swearing in this video.

Calling All My Fellow Mamas! WalMart Boycott in Effect!

2010-03-13T12:46:00.037-05:00

My baby is due in July.... guess where I WON'T be buying a stroller, furniture, onesies, sleepers, diapers, etc! You lose, WalMart!

WalMart Fires Associate Of Year, Cancer Patient For Medical Marijuana

"Despite medical marijuana being legal in Michigan, WalMart has fired a cancer patient and former employee of the year who tested positive for the drug, which was recommended by his doctor." Read the whole story on Toke of the Town.

I hope my fellow Mamas will join me, please pass the message on and let's teach WalMart a lesson about the proper way to respect employees battling Cancer and Medical Cannabis!!!

UPDATE: There is now a Facebook Group, please feel free to join and share an invite with your friends. BOYCOTT: WalMart Fires Cancer Patient For Medical Marijuana

UPDATE 2: The Marijuana Policy Project gives us the latest information regarding WalMart and Joe Casius. I'd also like to highlight great comments by a poster named "Darth Nole" who emailed Walmart about the firing:

DarthNole: { 03.18.10 at 10:57 am }

Here was my response to their email:

Chris,

I understand that your position oversees Wal-Mart’s Global Ethics division, but I would like to point out that first and foremost this incident is occurring in the State of Michigan and there are laws in Michigan that you are bound to uphold. Wal-Mart should pay close attention to the language that is included within the recent Medical Marijuana law that has been implemented:

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

Please consider the impact as to what has occurred in this situation, and remember that the State Laws of Michigan are clear that Medical Marijuana patients…. “shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act…”

The firing of this employee is in direct opposition to the laws in Michigan and should be reversed immediately. Had this situation occurred in a State without this specific reference in the law then Wal-Mart would be justified in their actions. I hope that you can effectively review all of the circumstances surrounding this incident and come to the correct decision. I, like many others, will not be shopping in your stores until a change is made.

Darth Nole
____________________

I’ll post their response if I get one.
DarthNole: { 03.18.10 at 11:09 am }: An excerpt from the Wal-Mart Statement of Ethics:

“If any part of this Statement of Ethics goes against local policies or laws, then the local policy or law must always be followed. It’s
our responsibility to know all of the local laws and policies that might affect our area of business.”

I would gather that they should then follow the Michigan State Medical Marijuana Laws!!!

Will you take part in the WalMart Boycott?

Note to readers, I've gone and somehow really done a number on the H T M L when all I was trying to do was add a link before the poll. :-p We can chalk my first foray into adding a Poll to one of my blog posts as "successful until I thought I could figure out code."

Thank you to all who voted, the results by Midnight Sunday night (when I finally gave up after trying to fix it for an hour) were 14 YES's and 1 NO.

.

Love From The Nurse Nut

2010-03-05T16:20:00.008-05:00

This is very exciting for me! I received an email letting me know that The Nurse Nut has chosen my l'il Awkward Blog as one of the "Top 50 Blogs on the Medicinal Marijuana Controversy". Awesome! Reading the other websites listed, I am in amazing company!

I've been sharing my thoughts, views, opinions and yes, sometimes rants, on here for just about a year now and am very happy that people have supported me and joined me for the ride. I started writing about cannabis because lives literally depend on it, and sometimes, some things, are just too important to not speak out about.

Thank You Nurses, I'm honoured with the recognition! And Thank You to everyone who has visited my little corner of the internets over the past year, I really appreciate it and hope you'll continue on this journey with me.

One day, our miracle plant won't be so "Awkward" to talk about. Until then, the crusade for true freedom will soldier on.

Education, Regulation, Legalization. Pass It to The Left.

~Love, MaryJane

Read more HERE.

Ronnie's Grandson Voted Off The Island

2010-03-02T13:32:00.010-05:00

Apparently, an H-bomb blast went off in Cameron Reagan's head.

“I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast.” ~ Ronald Reagan

I'm just sayin'...

Green Baby

2010-02-28T20:23:00.014-05:00

Regular readers of my l'il blog here know that I'm all about being green. I extole the virtues of Hemp and all around being kind to our planet because of the wonderful gifts it gives us, and I'd like it to continue doing so for future generations.

You also know that my darling DH and I are expecting Baby #5 this Summer - It's A Boy!!! - and being the Eco-Friendly Mama that I am I've got my eye on these organicKidz Baby Bottles that I'll be using for water and any time I'm not breastfeeding.

For a chance to score a few, check out Mommy Blogger "My Organized Chaos" who just so happens to be having a contest to win two of these awesome stainless steel, recyclable, BPA Free "Baba's", as my other boys always called them when they were still wee babes. Good Luck! Bonne Chance!

BTW, I soooooo want one of these.

Conflict of Interest Much?

2010-02-04T22:28:00.005-05:00

"Last October, the Harper government appointed Bernard Prigent to the governing council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the federal agency that distributes about a billion dollars annually for health research. That appointment was met with near-universal condemnation from medical ethicists, because..."

Best. Fan Page. Ever.

2010-02-03T23:46:00.009-05:00

I "Became a Fan" of this Facebook Page at about 2 p.m. this afternoon and was the 350th. member to join.

As of 11:45 p.m. tonight it's up to 5, 881 Fans. I've been having a hoot reading the comments.... and I'm suddenly craving some deep fried goodness.

One Ring to rule them all!

Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;-)

Oh the fun things we can make on the Internets!

Look! Over There! A Shiny Thing!!!"

2010-01-30T13:01:00.047-05:00

My Comment addressing: MinisterialSpinWatch: Justice Delayed? Don't blame the Senate. "Justice" Minister Rob Nicholson, spin master extraordinaire, once again trumpets the old "Tough on Crime!" roar the Conservatives love oh-so-much! We all know the Senate didn't *stall or "gut the bill" . (Read here and here about the amendments made to Bill C-15, this is not gutting, this is trying to fix what is already supremely flawed!) And we also know that the biggest roadblock to Conservative crime bills has been TWO Tory prorogations and one election. Nice try Rob, but we ain't fooled. Your attempt at distraction = FAIL. And if you have to depend on a stacked Conservative Senate to pass your crime bills, well, that certainly is a dangerous agenda for all Canadians.

Comment by MaryJCannabian

Bill C-15 is a terrible piece of garbage that never should have made it to the point it did in the first place. Because it's a "crime" bill, the Liberals do not want to fight it because the Tories will accuse them of being "soft on crime". It's all quite ridiculous really, because it is not being soft on crime, fighting the bill is being "Smart about Crime". Unfortunately, The "Tough on Crime" Conservative Mantra resonates with the sheeple that would compare someone who grows two cannabis plants with a child abductor.

I've read Bill C-15, and watched the Senate Committee hearings and read the transcripts when I missed a meeting or two. For any sane and at least half educated person who heard all of the testimony you'd shake your head in disbelief that the Tories even had the audacity to draft such idiotic, draconian, failure inducing legislation.

I wonder how Canadian parents are going to feel when Under Bill C-15 their 18 year olds are sentenced to TWO YEARS in jail for passing a joint (Trafficking) to a 17 year old friend. Bill C-15 takes away all discretion from judges and your precious little Johnny will be in the slammer for a Mandatory Minimum Sentence thanks to Stephen Harper and his punish happy "Justice" while at the same time Steve can sing about gettin' HIGH with his friends at an arts gala, the same thing Johnny did.

From: Calling the Tories Out on Bill C-15 - "The Politics of Fear"

"the Conservatives are intent to supply more "criminals" to fill all the new prisons they plan to build, and the only "evidence", which they failed to produce after repeated requests, is Canadians (all of us?) supposedly asked for Bill C-15. That's it."

FYI, right on the StatsCan Website you will find that crime in Canada has declined over the last 2 decades after its highest level in 1991. I feel that whenever the Tories have the heat on them they love to preach they're "Tough on Crime!" it's like Rudy Giuliani's "9-Eleven!".... The Tories are creating fear among the political apathetic - "Vote for us or you'll be a victim!"... "We're the only party who cares about crime!" .... Yeah, like other parties & people aren't concerned about crime... whatever Steve.

Look! Over there! A shiny thing!

"Incarcerex" - Harper and Nicholson love a good distraction. I'm sure Richard Colvin would agree.

*****

Bill C-15 is not dead - it's on life-support during the Harper prorogue. The Conservatives will be trying to revive this beastly legislation when parliament resumes, do your part to Kill Bill C-15 and put it out of its misery for good. Write your MP's and Canadian Senators to politely ask them to not pass Bill C-15. WhyProhibition.ca has a handy dandy e-mail form pre-addressed to all the Senators in each province for your convenience. Pass It to the Left.

*****

*STALL (from above)
The week of June 25th. senators voted to delay their decision regarding Bill C-15 by a 38-33 vote. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson ranted, accusing Liberal senators of blocking the Conservatives agenda. The following is an excerpt from a June 22nd. feature article from Cannabis Culture magazine:

Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson lashed out at the Senate today, accusing them of blocking the Conservatives so called “law and order' agenda.

Nicholson specifically targeted the Senate for failing to act fast enough on C-15, the Conservatives' bill that includes mandatory minimum prison terms for drug offenses and has been almost universally criticized by criminal justice experts. The bill, which took more than 14 weeks to pass the House of Commons, has been in the Senate for less than two weeks and has already passed First Reading.

Despite the passing of the bill by Liberals in the house, Senate Liberals seem to be standing up to the Conservative bullying.

“They want to appear to be tough on crime,” Senate Opposition Leader James Cowan said. “If they were really serious about this, they would have introduced these bills at the beginning of the session and processed them through the House and gotten them to us before the end of the session.”

Cowan said other bills have taken several months to pass the House, but Nicholson is demanding they pass the Senate in only two or three days.

“We’re not going to be pushed into doing that,” Cowan said, suggesting the Conservatives are trying to distract attention away from the economy and the isotope shortage.

Critics of the bill say evidence overwhelming shows mandatory minimums simply don't work, can be extremely expensive to enforce, and cause more harm than good.

“Rob Nicholson has ignored the preponderance of scientific evidence and international experience, and now he is ignoring the Constitution”, said Kirk Tousaw, Executive Director of the Beyond Prohibition Foundation. “C-15 has profound implications for our criminal justice system and provincial budgets, the Senate has a constitutional obligation to study the implications of this bill, especially considering that the Conservatives did not.”

“For Rob Nicholson to attempt to push through a bill he could not produce a single piece of evidence to support is absurd”, (Marc) Emery said, “The Conservative Party may take it's cues from the Republicans, but thankfully, the Senate does not”. ~ Read the whole article here.

***

Of the 16 experts called to testify on C-15, 13 called for the outright dismissal of the bill. When prompted, the Conservatives declined to provide evidence for the bill, and instead accused the opposition of being soft on crime.

***

Update 2/2/2010: Well, well now, what's this we hear about Mr. Nicholson?

"Geneviève Breton, Mr. Nicholson's (Niagara Falls, Ont.) director of communications, said in an email to The Hill Times that the justice system and the drug world are different than they were 22 years ago, and therefore the government's response has also changed."

Hmmm.... but what about this? Just sayin'....

UPDATE #2, May 2010: Bill C-15 has been reintroduced as Bill S-10 by the HarperCONS, please read up on the new incarnation of this disastrous bill.

I also encourage you to read and bookmark this awesome blog, "Tracking the Politics of 'Crime' and Punishment in Canada - Commentary that aims to make sense of recent developments in the politics of 'crime' and punishment in the Canadian context", it really is top notch when it comes to the Tories and their favourite law n' order distractions.

A phenomenal informational post is "Crime' and Punishment Bills Represent 32% of Government Legislation Tabled This Parliamentary Session". It reads in part:

"The current minority Government of Canada has an ideological addiction to incarceration. Despite the known harms - economic, political and social - they turn to punishment in their time of need. The Conservative legislative agenda does not serve Canadians, it serves themselves."

And again, don't forget to stay updated at whyprohibition.ca and cannabisfacts.ca

Question Answered - Cannabis Fights Cancer

2010-01-21T14:18:00.024-05:00

.

I responded in the comment section following the Baltimore Sun article: Not enough evidence that Cannabis has medical benefits?:

Well, of course there is always truth number 1 - the US blocks major studies wherever it can....

Read for yourself, and ask yourself how you feel about a possible cancer fighter being denied to us. Even if you have never lost someone to cancer, chances are you will, don't you want every option available to battle this insidious disease?

Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74

"In 1974 researchers learned that THC, the active chemical in marijuana, shrank or destroyed brain tumors in test mice. But the DEA quickly shut down the study and destroyed its results, which were never replicated -- until now."

".....The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia."

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research..."

Marijuana cures cancer – US government has known since 1974
"The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February 2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain cancer tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis."

"The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects."

Unlocking a Cure for Cancer - With Pot
Who could imagine that cannabis might one day offer hope as a cure for cancer? The United States government, that’s who.

For the past 30 years, U.S. officials have willfully ignored clinical research indicating that marijuana can inhibit the growth of certain type of malignant tumors. However, the recent publication of a trio of clinical studies and a pair of scientific reviews have effectively blown the lid off "Cancergate," and revealed that pot’s medical value may be far greater than ever presumed.

THE EMERGING EVIDENCE

Last year, five scientific journals published prominent articles trumpeting cannabinoids (compounds in marijuana) as potential anti-cancer agents.

These include:

Clinical trial data published in January 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Society of Clinical Investigation that found cannabinoids significantly inhibit skin tumor growth in mice. Investigators of the study concluded, "The present data indicate that local cannabinoids administration may constitute an alternative therapeutic approach for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancer."
Clinical trial data published in the March 2003 issue of The FASEB Journal that found that the "local administration of a non-psychoactive cannabinoid inhibits angiogenesis (tissue growth) of malignant gliomas (brain tumors)."
A clinical review in the October 2003 issue of the prestigious journal Nature Reviews Cancer that concluded that cannabinoids’ "favorable drug safety profile" and proven ability to inhibit tumor growth make them desirable agents in the treatment of cancer. According to the review’s author, tumors inhibited by cannabinoids include: lung carcinoma, glioma, thyroid epithelioma, lymphoma/leukemia, skin carcinoma, uterus carcinoma, breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, and neuroblastoma (a malignant tumor originating in the autonomic nervous system or the adrenal medulla and occurring chiefly in infants and young children).
Clinical trial data published in the November 2003 issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics that found the administration of the cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the growth of human glioma cells both in vitro (e.g., a petri dish) and in animals in a dose-dependent manner. Investigators concluded, "Non-psychoactive CBD produce[s] a significant antitumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent (something which prevents the growth of malignant cells.)"
And finally, a clinical review in the December 2003 issue of the journal Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets that summarized "the demonstrated antitumor actions of cannabinoids," and elaborated on "possible avenues for the future development of cannabinoids as antitumor agents."

AND SUBSEQUENT MEDIA BLACKOUT

Despite these stunning findings, media coverage of them in North America has been virtually non-existent. As noted by Richard Cowan, editor of the website MarijuanaNews.com, "The New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored this story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors."

Why the media blackout? For starters, all of these studies were conducted overseas. And secondly, not one of them has been acknowledged by the U.S. government.

U.S. KNEW IN ’74... AND AGAIN IN ’96!

This wasn’t always the case. In fact, the first ever experiment documenting pot’s anti-tumor effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest of the U.S. government. The results of that study, immortalized in an August 18, 1974 Washington Post newspaper feature, were that "THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

Despite these favorable preliminary findings, U.S. government officials banished the study, and refused to fund any follow up research until conducting a similar – though secret – study in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls. However, rather than publicize their findings, government researchers shelved the results – which only became public one year later after a draft copy of its findings were leaked in 1997 to the journal AIDS Treatment News, which in turn forwarded the story to the national media.

Nevertheless, in the nearly eight years since the completion of the National Toxicology trial, the U.S. government has yet to fund a single additional study examining pot’s potential as an anti-cancer agent.

SCIENCE IGNORED NO MORE

Fortunately, researchers at Madrid, Spain’s Complutense University, School of Biology have generously picked up where U.S. researchers so abruptly left off. In 1998, the research team – led by investigator Manuel Guzman – discovered that THC can selectively induce program cell death in brain tumor cells without negatively impacting the surrounding healthy cells. Then in 2000, Guzman’s team reported in the journal Nature Medicine that injections of synthetic THC eradicated malignant gliomas (brain tumors) in one-third of treated rats, and prolonged life in another third by six weeks. A commentary to the study noted that the results were the first to convincingly demonstrate that cannabis-based treatments may successfully combat cancer. Read the whole article by Paul Armentano on Lew Rockwell. ~

Cannabis is the only medicine that needs special permission from the DEA to study in the US (Law Enforcement making medical decisions?). Read about the fight Dr. Lyle Craker has had to go through with the DEA.

For tonnes more proof that Cannabis is indeed medicinal, please read the articles: "International Researchers Reveal Medical Cannabis Breakthroughs!" (October 12, 2009) which actually ends with "I can only hope the mainstream media picks up on these scientific breakthroughs and lets the public know." and "The Miracle of Cannabis".

I have a stake in this fight, my Mother is battling Cancer, it started in her lung and has now travelled to her brain. I am furious and heart broken that her life, as well as the lives of millions of others are deemed worthless by our governments, all so they can continue the lies started in the 20' and 30's that "Marijuana (Anslinger's term - not mine, the proper medical term for the plant is Cannabis sativa L) is bad".

Yesterday I mentioned Medical Cannabis to someone, who immediately stated that she didn't agree with it because "it puts holes in your head". It saddened me that the prohibition propaganda machine is indeed working, but I will continue to write and rally and petition for the legalization of Cannabis, because someone I LOVE more than life itself deserves to have her life SAVED. She deserves to have every medicine, even if it is not a Big Pharma synthetic in her arsenal, and if a natural plant can help her then whatever ignorant words and laws politicians say and enact is non-existent in my consciousness.

"The Holy Grail of Cancer Research"

Addendum: Read more, educate yourself about cannabis research and also how to spot propaganda when you see and hear it.

To learn more about Cannabis fighting Cancer check out:

Google search "Cannabis inhibits cancer"

Published Study Shows How Cannabis Inhibits Brain Cancer

Medicinal Cannabis, Cancer and Rick Simpson by Jeffrey Dach MD

Cannabis Use with Cancer - : "... The real excitement comes with the growing evidence that cannabis may actually treat cancer by acting as a perfect chemotherapy medication which kills the cancer cells but not the healthy ones. Back in 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond inadvertently found the THC slowed the growth of cancer cells in mice with cancer of the lung, breast and a virus-induced leukemia. Their funding ended since the original goal was to determine its harmful effects to the immune system. In 2000 Guzman and his research team in Madrid, Spain demonstrated that injected THC could shrink or destroy brain cell tumors (Glioma) in rats. The 1974 studies were never published and in recent years there has been little coverage in the U.S. about Guzman's work."...

Inhibition of Breast Cancer Aggressiveness by Cannabidiol

Marijuana and Lung Cancer: Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up in Smoke
Epidemiological data presented last May at the International Conference of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) concluding that smoking marijuana, even long-term, is not positively associated with increased incidence of lung-cancer, is just the latest in a long line of government claims regarding the alleged dangers of pot to go – pardon the pun – up in smoke.

Cannabis chemicals stop prostate cancer growth

Active Ingredient in Marijuana Kills Brain Cancer Cells

Pot Shows Promise as Cancer Cure

"Not familiar with clinical research about marijuana's potential anti-cancer properties? You're not alone."

Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
"Researchers in Spain have discovered that a cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink by halting the growth of blood vessels that supply the tumors with life. Cannabis has chemicals called cannabinoids, these are the chemicals that could effectively starve tumors to death, say the researchers. "

Cannabis Cures Cancer - "Run From The Cure" The Rick Simpson Story

Post Updated March 12th, 2010.

Jumping Back In

2010-01-10T15:30:00.008-05:00

A Happy New Year to all my Awkward readers out there! I know I've been M.I.A. these past couple of months so here's a little rundown of the crazy end to 2009:

1. My Mom had her cancer surgery in November, she was a trooper and walked out of the hospital a week to the day after having half her lung removed. At 76 years old, the Doctors and Nurses were amazed with her recovery. Tough old Irish gals are hard to keep down! I spent 3 weeks with her while she recovered, I was due to spend some time in the home I grew up in. I hadn't been back so much since my Dad died 3 years ago as it had just felt too hard to be there without him, but for my Mom I'd do anything. My wonderful Husband did an awesome job holding things down on the homefront while I was gone and it was heartwarming to hear my kids tell me they missed me while I was away at Gramma's.

While the surgery went amazing, upon post-op testing we have now found out the cancer may have spread. She is now seeing 2 more specialists and will be commencing radiation treatments this week. I pray she can conquer cancer, maybe you can say a little prayer for her too. Her primary cancer doctor has also given her the go ahead to apply for a Medical Marijuana Card - he believes in it - Hallelujah! She's never tried Cannabis in her life but is willing to give the edibles a go - she wants to be around for her grandkids she says. *sigh...* ...cancer really is an evil bitch.

2. I had been so worried to distraction that I hadn't realized that the reason I was so extremely exhausted and was craving orange juice so bad was not because my blood sugar was out of whack, (which happens because of my PCOS) but because I was knocked up! Yes, my darling Hubby and I are blessed to be having another baby this July. We're all very excited and my Sons can't wait to find out if they are getting a sister or a brother. My 5 year old said he wonders if it will be a boy, girl, or madam. My 7 yr. old is hoping the baby is born on his birthday as my due date is only 4 days prior. I'm starting to feel better, but I gotta say November, December and nausea really kicked my ass!

3. My computer crashed. I only hope I will never have to deal with Dell Tech again! I'm back online now after about a month and minus the dollars I had to spend on a new hard drive. Give me a bit - I've got alot to catch up on - but I will be jumping back in.

I've decided to not do a 2009 review as right now I'm just thankful to be getting back into the swing of things. Life - its got its ups and downs and all arounds - but I guess that's what makes it interesting!

All the best to everyone in 2010, may it be Happy, Healthy and Hempy!

Pass It to The Left,

MaryJane

Why I Love Ethan Nadelmann

2009-11-16T01:56:00.025-05:00

Back in July I wrote a post featuring Ethan Nadelmann's moving speech from the last NAACP Conference: Ethan Nadelmann Delivers the Truth: Human Rights, Racial Justice and the War on Drugs. Last week at the opening of the 2009 Drug Reform Conference Mr. Nadelmann once again gave a rousing speech, proving he is a true leader in the movement to reform our draconian drug laws. One of my favourite parts of the speech? Calling out Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for following down the failed path of US Mandatory Minimum Sentencing.

The video is a little over half an hour, but well worth the time! I think all politicians should listen to it, so they know that we are here raising our voice and we will never, ever stop fighting to end prohibition!

Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance at the 2009 Drug Reform Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico: "Right now the wind is at our back" from Hungarian Civil Liberties Union. Thank you to the HCLU for filming, please visit their link for more pictures and info about the conference.

UPDATE: And even more awesomeness from Ethan Nadelmann, I really just can't say enough about how much I respect and admire all of the work Mr. Nadelmann puts forth towards reforming our drug laws and ending prohibition.

Leading drug reformer from U.S. visits injection site

Mexican Drug Policy Reform Movement Takes Shape

Update #2 - My Testimony to Congress on the War on Drugs By Ethan Nadelmann

"The U.S. House Domestic Policy Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), held a hearing Wednesday April 14th. on the White House's drug war budget and forthcoming 2010 National Drug Control Strategy...." Read Mr. Nadelmann's testimony, as always, he's brilliant.

You can also "Follow" Ethan Nadelmann on Twitter.

I Got A Little Snarky...

2009-11-10T14:39:00.000-05:00

Reading such ignorance I had no choice but to tell how I really feel.

Read the Letter: No such thing as 'medical marijuana'

I'm not sure the comment moderator will post my reply or not, so here it is:

I suppose all the scientists and doctors are wrong then Joe? http://maryjanecannabian.blogspot.com/2009/10/international-researchers-reveal.html

Next you'll be saying all this medical marijuana is going to cause black men to step on the shadows of white men - oh wait, that's how Anslinger got cannabis prohibited back in 1937.

Cannabis has been used by humans for medicine since before we even started to record our history, it's only been in the last hundred years that POLITICIANS have outlawed it, not doctors.

Cannabis saved my life - it's not about getting high, it's about trying to live our lives in less pain with fewer side effects - I personally don't want to take meds where the side effect is DEATH.

Cannabis isn't for everybody, but there is no way that it should be outlawed from people who it will help. If you don't believe in it, don't use it. Alcohol is legal but I probably have a drink once a year. Freedom of choice cannot be denied when people's lives are at stake.

Government prohibiting people from ingesting a substance means they own your body. Ownership is slavery. Just the very fact that people are thrown in jail for using it proves that. Prohibition laws are draconian and that is why more and more people are fighting to change these laws, in spite of people like you.

I'd rather go to jail for using cannabis than to merely exist bedridden in pain. I usually pride myself on being a very polite Lady, but from the bottom of my heart, screw you, Joe.

"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law" ~ Martin Luther King

Addendum
This is relevant to my post: Breaking News

AMA Calls for Review of Medical Marijuana's Legal Status

New Policy Marks Historic Shift From Prior Stance

(HOUSTON, TEXAS) - In a move considered historic by supporters of medical marijuana, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates today adopted a new policy position calling for the review of marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug in the federal Controlled Substances Act. (Read the whole article on Salem News)

How Hemp Seed Oil Can Help Your Arthritis

2009-11-10T14:09:00.003-05:00

Great article: How Hemp Seed Oil Can Help Your Arthritis

Posted using ShareThis

Stoner Etiquette - Code of Ethics for a Cannabis Vaporizer Party

2009-11-10T04:20:00.002-05:00

Brilliant. :-)

(Yes, I just put a smiley-face on my usually serious blog)

vaporizerexpert - Code of Ethics for a Cannabis Vaporizer Party

The Sky Didn't Fall

2009-11-09T16:20:00.002-05:00

Reuters reports that the Dutch are among the lowest cannabis users in Europe. "The policy on soft drugs in the Netherlands, one of the most liberal in Europe, allows for the sale of marijuana at "coffee shops", which the Dutch have allowed to operate for decades, and possession of less than 5 grams (0.18 oz)."

Judge Jim Gray writes in a blog post Treating pot like alcohol:

"For example, in Holland, where anyone 16 or older can use marijuana and hashish, the minister of health reported that his country has only half the marijuana usage per capita than we do here — both for adults and for teenagers." "Then he went on to explain why, when he said that “We have succeeded in making pot boring.”

Also interesting to note, the Netherlands are closing prisons due to lack of criminals.

In 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs and the results are in. Excerpts from The Economist article Portugal's drug policy Treating, not punishing reports:

"The evidence from Portugal since 2001 is that decriminalisation of drug use and possession has benefits and no harmful side-effects."

“none of the nightmare scenarios” initially painted, “from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for ‘drug tourists’, has occurred.”

"the incidence of other drug-related problems, including sexually transmitted diseases and deaths from drug overdoses, has “decreased dramatically”.

"...offenders in Portugal are sent to specialist “dissuasion commissions” run by the government, rather than into the judicial system. “In Portugal,” he says, “the health aspect [of the government’s response to drugs] has gone mainstream.”

"The aim of the dissuasion commissions, which are made up of panels of two or three psychiatrists, social workers and legal advisers, is to encourage addicts to undergo treatment and to stop recreational users falling into addiction. They have the power to impose community work and even fines, but punishment is not their main aim. The police turn some 7,500 people a year over to the commissions. But nobody carrying anything considered to be less than a ten-day personal supply of drugs can be arrested, sentenced to jail or given a criminal record."

"Officials believe that, by lifting fears of prosecution, the policy has encouraged addicts to seek treatment. This bears out their view that criminal sanctions are not the best answer. “Before decriminalisation, addicts were afraid to seek treatment because they feared they would be denounced to the police and arrested,” says Manuel Cardoso, deputy director of the Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Portugal’s main drugs-prevention and drugs-policy agency. “Now they know they will be treated as patients with a problem and not stigmatised as criminals.”

"Portugal has one of Europe’s lowest lifetime usage rates for cannabis. And most notably, heroin and other drug abuse has decreased among vulnerable younger age-groups."

Read the Cato Institute Report “Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies.” By Glenn Greenwald.

Since August of this year, in an attempt to lower drug use and prohibition related crime, Mexico (Mexico’s Drug Decriminalization Law Effective Today) and Argentina (Argentina Decriminalizes Personal Drug Consumption) are also giving decriminalization a go. According to some reports, Brazil and Ecuador are considering similar steps.

The Netherlands and Portugal have been approaching drug policy realistically and with compassion .... Canada should indeed take a closer look at what is working for them, instead of following down the same doomed path of the U.S.

"The United States, with 5 percent of the world's population, houses nearly 25 percent of the world's prisoners. As Webb explained it,

"Either we're the most evil people on earth, or we're doing something wrong."

We incarcerate 756 inmates per 100,000 residents, nearly five times the world average. At this point, approximately one in every 31 adults in the United States is in prison, jail, or on supervised release. Local, state, and federal spending on corrections now amounts to about $70 billion per year and has increased 40 percent over the past 20 years."
~Senator Jim Webb

Canada meanwhile, ignores such important experience and is trying to fall deeper into the Drug War Abyss.

Science Trumps Ideology

2009-11-06T06:30:00.019-05:00

The comment I left after the article:

Mental health fears over cannabis may be ‘misguided’

From: International Researchers Reveal Medical Cannabis Breakthroughs!

Excerpts from:

International Association for Cannabis as Medicine
IACM 5th Conference on Cannabinoids in Medicine
2-3 October 2009, Cologne
Program and Abstracts Copyright by
International Association for Cannabis as Medicine
Am Mildenweg 659602 Rüthen Germany
www.cannabis-med.org

METABOLIC ABNORMALITIES, ABNORMAL STRESS RESPONSE AND CHRONIC
INFLAMMATION IN SCHIZOPHRENIA – POTENTIAL TARGETS FOR
CANNABINOID MEDICINES?

In recent years much concern has arisen over the possibility that cannabis smoking in adolescence may be a risk factor for schizophrenia in adult life, although this remains a controversial issue. In contrast, considerable interest in the potential role of the non-psychoactive naturally occurring cannabinoid cannabidiol (CBD) as an anti-psychotic medicine has also developed. The anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of both THC and CBD are well established. A systematic literature review has suggested the intriguing possibility that habitual cannabis use may protect cognitive function in schizophrenia patients, and CBD has been shown to improve a marker of this in healthy subjects.

There are preliminary data to suggest that cannabinoids may have beneficial effects on abnormal stress reaction, metabolic dysfunction and dyslipidaemia. Since the mechanism of action for the anti-psychotic effects of CBD and other cannabinoids almost certainly differs from all existing agents, synergistic combinations withboth typical and atypical antipsychotics are a possibility. Taken overall, these observations lead to the hypothesis that an appropriately formulated medicine containing a combination of selected cannabinoids may have the potential to target all the major components of the schizophrenia syndrome and thereby significantly reduce the need for polypharmacy. (Read More: http://maryjanecannabian.blogspot.com/2009/10/international-researchers-reveal.html)

In Layman's terms, Cannabis can help the symptoms of schizophrenia and cuts down the number of prescription drugs a person has to take.

As much as politicians love to use the "Tough on Crime/War On Drugs" platform because it resonates with the sheeple, the unmistakable reality is that drug policy will only be its most successful if we let those experts most knowledgeable about drugs guide our drug policy. Science, along with addressing the root causes of addiction (such as poverty, mental illnesses, lack of education and health services and being a victim of sexual abuse) are the pillars of successful solutions to reduce drug abuse (because all users are not abusers, we don't call people alcoholics because they like to have a few beers on a Friday night) and the crime that results from prohibition.

Illegality automatically inflates prices for drugs which of course attracts organized crime and causes violence in a black market. We learned this valuable lesson during the prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition will never be the answer. Taking drugs is a personal decision and people will use them regardless of law. Most people regulate their behavior due to personal belief, we don't steal or murder not because it is against the law, but because we personally think its wrong. If drugs were legal it would be the same, those who want to experiment will, and those who don't, won't. Regulation will also make it harder for kids to get because proof of age will be required to buy - news flash parents - drug dealers don't ask your kids for ID!

And just imagine, all those police officers that must waste their time, energy and resources chasing down plants will now be able to focus on preventing and solving violent crime. Taxpayers should also be happy to know that it costs less for rehab programs than it does to maintain overflowing prisons. And people who beat addiction will contribute to the economy through employment, whereas released convicts can't get a job easily with a criminal record leading to increasing rates of recidivism.

Thank You, Professor Nutt, for being brave and speaking the truth, you are right, the people are on your side and support you. We need science and compassion based drug policy and governments around the world must put their ideology aside and recognize that prohibition is unrealistic and harms society more than actual drugs ever could. Education and regulation is the key.

Update ~ CBC aired a "Let's Scare the Bejeezus out of Parents"" documentary about "super strong pot" and schizophrenia. Here's my response as well as additional valuable info:

I went right to the RCMP website to find that THC content really isn't as high, pardon the pun, as many people would like us to believe. According to the RCMP the the average levels of THC in cannabis grown in Canada is 9.96-10.25 per cent. (2005/06) I also read the 4 studies that were used as evidence for the documentary. The recurring theme in all research was that they were not all "Cannabis only users" - many people also used amphetamines, alcohol, nicotine, etc. and many had a predetermined genetic link to schizophrenia (psychosis liability) a history of childhood trauma and/or other environmental factors.

What I honest to goodness took away from these studies is that the cannabis/schizophrenia link is the genetic predisposition and the subjects were going to possibly develop schizophrenia regardless of cannabis use. While some surmise that cannabis may trigger symptoms of schizophrenia I conclude that if anything what this proves is that if we regulate the sale to adults like we do for alcohol then less young people would have access to it at too early an age, thus delaying a possible eventual onset of schizophrenia.

THC-content in Dutch Cannabis. (aka the "Killer Dutch Bud" Frenzy...)

One of the latest prohibitionist scare tactics is to claim that the THC of Cannabis has increased 10 to 30 times. Some people, (including Australian parliamentarians) were even claiming Cannabis now had 45% THC!! The sub text of this was a desperate appeal to baby-boomer parents who may themselves have smoked Cannabis: "Cannabis isn't the harmless old drug you may have smoked in the sixties at university, oh no, its now mutated into an evil-killer- insanity causing drug that turns good kids bad, splits families and ruins lives... etc, etc".

Into the middle of this debate comes the cold hard light of day... at last.

The following communication was originally posted to the ADCA Update list on Wed, 5 Jul 2000.

Dear reader,

There has been a lot of anecdotal information about the THC-content in Dutch Cannabis products sold in coffee shops. A colleague of mine at the Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Dr Raymond Niessink (the renown alcohol and drugs toxicologist and writer of the book 'Drugs of Abuse and Addiction: Neurobehavioural Toxicology') just finished a study about the THC-content in cannabis products sold in Dutch coffee shops.

This is the abstract of his study:

"The policy on cannabis use in The Netherlands is substantially different from that in many other countries. It is based on the idea that separating the markets for hard drugs and soft drugs prevents soft drug users to resort to hard drug use. Over the years so-called coffee shops emerged. Coffee shops are alcohol free establishments where the selling and using of soft drugs is not prosecuted, provided certain conditions are met. Many of the cannabis products sold in these coffee shops originate from Dutch-grown grass called nederwiet.

A number of critics of the Dutch drug policy have recently claimed that the THC content of nederwiet has increased between 10 and 30 times over the last decade. However, the THC content of cannabis products as sold in coffee shops has not systematically been tested. On request of the Ministries of Health and Justice, the potency of cannabis products as sold in coffee shops in The Netherlands was investigated.

The aim of this study was to investigate the concentration of D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in marihuana and hash as sold in Dutch coffee shops. In addition we wanted to know whether there are differences between the cannabis products originating from Dutch grown hemp (nederwiet) and those derived from foreign hemp. The names and addresses of 50 coffee shops were randomly selected from a list of 845 Dutch coffee shops. For the purpose of this study, 126 samples of nederwiet, 56 samples of foreign marihuana, 18 samples of Dutch hash and 90 samples of hash prepared from foreign hemp were anonymously bought in the selected coffee shops. As a rule samples of 1 gram were bought.

The average THC content of the marihuana samples was 7,5% and that of the hash-samples 12,6%. The average THC content of nederwiet (8,6%) was significantly higher than that of foreign marihuana (5,0%). Hash derived from Dutch hemp contained more THC (20,7%) than hash originating from foreign hemp (11,0%). These THC percentages do not deviate much from the percentages that have been reported by the Dutch Forensic Institute in the middle of the nineties about confiscated marihuana and hash samples.

The prices that had to be paid for nederwiet and Dutch hash were higher than the prices for foreign marihuana and hash. The price for nederwiet in Amsterdam was higher than in the rest of the country. There is a significant correlation between price and THC content of the cannabis products. When the THC concentrations in nederwiet are compared with the THC concentrations in marihuana from foreign studies we must conclude that the concentrations in nederwiet are nothing out of the way.

The THC-content of nederwiet is comparable with the THC content of sinsemilla samples as measured in the US between 1980 and 1997.

Continuation of the systematic collection of data on the THC content of samples of cannabis consumed by regular users should have a high priority. Apart from that, it is necessary to have factual information about the relation between high THC content of cannabis products and the actual body-burden as well as scientific information on acute and chronic toxicity from regular high THC-blood concentrations."

From: Jaap Toet
Trimbos-institute (Netherlands Institute for Mental Health and Addiction)
Dept. of Monitoring and Epidemiology Postbus 725 3500 AS Utrecht The Netherlands

And from Essays & Articles, Dr. John Jiggens

Does Cannabis Use Cause Schizophrenia? ~

This study shows that incidence of schizophrenia has not increased with increased numbers of Cannabis users:

"The evidence that schizophrenia levels have remained constant is overwhelming, not just in Australia, but right throughout the world.

People Living with Psychotic Illness: An Australian Study 1997-98, published as part of the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, found that the prevalence for schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorders in urban Australia was about 3 per 1000 in 1998. This was in the middle range of a world-wide prevalence of 2 to 5 per 1000.

The report commented:

"Epidemiological studies estimating the prevalence of schizophrenic and related psychotic disorders have been conducted since the early decade of this century [i.e.Twentieth Century]. The results of studies carried out at different times and different parts of the world ... suggest that, notwithstanding cultural and biological differences between populations, and the different methods used to ascertain morbidity, the prevalence of schizophrenia is remarkably similar around the world (in the range between 2 and 5 per 1000 according to the majority of studies) and stable over time."

This conclusion—that schizophrenia levels have been stable over place and time for as long as they have been measured—was based on an examination of 28 surveys into the incidence of schizophrenia conducted throughout the world over several decades. One of these surveys was a 1993 World Health Organisation study on the incidence of schizophrenia in which standardised methods of case detection, interviewing and diagnosis were applied simultaneously in 7 countries. Like the other surveys, this found little variation in the incidence rates of schizophrenia across the different populations and cultures.

Countries which had extremely high cannabis use (Jamaica in 1995] had the same schizophrenia rates per 1000 as countries with zero cannabis use (Norway in 1926-1935).

Q: Does cannabis use cause schizophrenia?

A: No. Over the past four decades most countries in the Western world have experienced rapidly increasing cannabis use. None of these countries has experienced any accompanying “Madness” plague. Countries like Australia and Jamaica which have the highest levels of cannabis use have levels of schizophrenia similar to the rest of the world.

We’ve smoked the “Reefer” for four decades, and “Madness” levels have remained steady, not just in Australia, but all over the world. Where does that leave the “Reefer Madness” theory?? --- http://drjiggens.com/does_cannabis_use_cause_schizophrenia.html ~

*****

Along with Science, let's just throw in "Life" too.

While I know Anslinger's "Marijuana drives you insane!" arguement will more than likely continue on as it's literally been embedded into the minds of multiple generations now, I'll leave you with this: I believe correlation does not mean causation. Just because some people may not handle Cannabis well does not mean everyone should be punished for using it. In regards to any and all substances, Cannabis isn't for everyone, and perhaps those with a genetic predispostion for Schizophrenia should not induldge - just like diabetics shouldn't dive into the dessert bar at a buffet, or maybe the children of alcoholics should avoid booze. Heck, people with balance problems probably shouldn't attempt gymnastics either.

So many things in life come down to people making personal decisions for themselves. We don't always make the best choices, but such is life, and each experience - great or small, right or wrong, happy or sad - shapes the person we become. Everyone has regrets and can question their actions (did I really wear that top to that party back in grade 11? What was I thinking??!!??) and hindsight is 20/20. But that is the beauty of life, it's a journey, sometimes it's bumpy and sometimes it's smooth sailing and in the end each of us owns the road we've travelled down. There are different views of "The Meaning of Life", and no two people have the exact same philosophies and I think that's wonderful, otherwise this would be one really boring existence. What would be the point of a life with no individuality and no personal autonomy? The geek in me rejoyces that we are not living in Hives of "The *Borg" - I subscribe to a more "Browncoat/Independent/Resist The *Alliance" way o' life.

"The road of life twists and turns and no two directions are ever the same. Yet our lessons come from the journey, not the destination." ~ Don Williams, Jr

*The Borg is a collective, meaning that they—or it—possess a single mind. That Borg mind has the single intent of “assimilating” all organic species into the collective. The Borg are utterly without mercy or compassion. In a collective society only the needs of the group as a whole are considered, and in this utilitarian calculation the needs of the unrivaled number of Borg will nearly always override any other considerations.

*The Alliance (from Firefly/Serenity)

A scene at an Alliance school, where a teacher sadly muses that it's hard to understand why the benighted Independents, the secessionists, have resisted the attempt to bring them the gifts of civilization. River Tam speaks the truth:

"We meddle... People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads, and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."