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.
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
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/
"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
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
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--->)
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.
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.
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:
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."
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?"
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.
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.
"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."
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
"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.
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 MILLIONS 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?
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.
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!
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.
"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 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 prisonsand please visit CannabisFacts.cato 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."
"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.
Update 3/2013: Sadly, the Omnibus Bill is now law in Canada. *While Steve didn't say exactly the words in this meme, he didn't have to; pushing the bill so vehemently proves to us that he supports Canadians serving jail time for baking pot brownies (cannabis edibles).
*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
Mama, Wife, Writer, Political Junkie, Legalizer, Freedom Fighter, Student of Life, Atheist, Lover of Music & Written Word.
#420Friendly #Spoonie
****************************
"I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the Customs Agent. I am the Coast Guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable." ~ Alexander Shulgin PhD, Chemist and author
Posts
