scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
"Just Say No To Tories" would be my favourite campaign slogan since "Not This Time, Ernie."
|
|
|
- Thread starter unimaginative2
- Start date
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
If there was ever a reason to vote the Liberals back into power this would be it. It is regressive, insane and completely backwards to pursue this course of action. It is even more f*cked up considering how this tactic has been proven, time and time again, to be a bad move.
Lone Primate
Active Member
Tony... you're fired. You're entirely out of touch with the shareholders and their wishes. I'm afraid you and the rest of the board have just made that clear, yet again. Perhaps you could find more suitable employment in Canada1960 Ltd.... Although even there, your tenure would be temporary.
Or have you considered relocating to Washington? Big money for someone like you there.
Lone Primate
Active Member
Let's be clear about something... to ourselves, and to them. They're not buying stuff from us because they're doing us some favour. They buy stuff from us because they NEED it. We supply what they NEED. We're a big part of why they live so well and so cheap. They ain't shuttin' down f***-all, because they can't. Besides, Asia and Europe also need what we have, and they've more than been picking up the slack in the last seven years in the lesser trade we've had with the US. It's time to be who we are, and stop pretending to be someone we're not just so the nosy neighbours won't sneer at us while they're scarfing all the pies we can bake as fast as their flabby hands can shovel it in.
Time to export Tony and Stevie, I think.
MisterF
Senior Member
Well put. Not only do we supply what they need, but we buy what they sell. Even something as relatively minor as the lumber tariff was controversial in the US and it caused ripples in their economy.
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
The whole idea of rolling this argument into a health issue or a trade issue is nonsense…. especially when the government refuses to be tough on real harmful determinants of health like pollution, saturated fats and sodium. And given the amount of tariffs and protectionist like policies for so many of our largest industries it is down right hypocritical for anyone to claim this is a trade related move. This is a criminal justice issue. Furthermore, this is a values move pure and simple.
And while I personally don't share these values I know that if I was anti-pot I would still think this is the WORST move. Why? Because the cost to the criminal justice system in volume of cases vs. severity of crime is downright criminal itself! Truly, law enforcement officers have more important things to worry about then petty charges like pot possession. Second, the long-term negative consequences on our economy and productivity will be felt if these charges are held as criminal and not as misdemeanours. Real lives will be ruined for what the government is calling a 'party'. Ok, given that it is a bad choice the punishment surely doesn't fit the crime. Their logic holds no weight especially when polluters and food producers do much worse and are given tax exemptions. (foreign food producers and polluters are also welcome to cross our border and poison our population and inflict massive healthcare costs on our system with no recourse or second thought)
And while I personally don't share these values I know that if I was anti-pot I would still think this is the WORST move. Why? Because the cost to the criminal justice system in volume of cases vs. severity of crime is downright criminal itself! Truly, law enforcement officers have more important things to worry about then petty charges like pot possession. Second, the long-term negative consequences on our economy and productivity will be felt if these charges are held as criminal and not as misdemeanours. Real lives will be ruined for what the government is calling a 'party'. Ok, given that it is a bad choice the punishment surely doesn't fit the crime. Their logic holds no weight especially when polluters and food producers do much worse and are given tax exemptions. (foreign food producers and polluters are also welcome to cross our border and poison our population and inflict massive healthcare costs on our system with no recourse or second thought)
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Whoa there, fella.
First, if you don't like the government rolling this subject into unrelated issues, then don't answer this charge by doing the same thing. Saturated fats, sodium and "pollution" are not of the same category. One can easily poison one's self with nice healthy vitamins; and the supposed pure and clean world is full of nasty, deadly things. That being said, somewhere in this topic concerning access to "drugs" are some real issues. It's worth taking the time to clarify them.
As for access to "drugs" for recreational use being a criminal justice issue, I would think that your post suggests that you don't think it is a criminal justice issue. But if possessing pot is against the law, then it is the job of law-enforcement to seize it - regardless of how much time you think is being wasted by this action. Law enforcement is not making the rules, they are acting on them.
Second, as for concerns over productivity, a number of employers have expressed concerns that productivity is reduced by alcohol or drug abuse. So the concerns over issues of productivity cut two ways. And while alcohol is quite legal and accessible, its abuse is still a significant source of problems to many users - and to society at large (do remember that drunk driving is against the law, but still causes considerable injury and death). Decriminalization and even legalization is not some automatic correct-all - no matter how much people want it.
As for personal responsibility and carrying things like pot (or other substances) over the border, people who do this are idiots. One may not like the attitudes found in many jurisdictions of the United States, but no one is forcing anyone to go there with drugs on their person. So if a someone decides to knowingly transport or import illegal substances into the U.S., they should not be surprised if they are arrested.
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
^^ You're right, saturated fats are completely unrelated to illicit drugs. I was trying to make the point that fats and other manufactured poisons are serious health threats. Since this drug strategy is being framed by Health Canada as a strategy to combat a threat to health I have to scream out loud in my best Gob voice, C'mon. From a risk-management perspective, marijuana is less of a health issue then 80% of other things in our society, saturated fats are near the top.
I should also clarify that I am not a pot advocate. Actually, I am a very indifferent to the use of it. But we read everyday how government has waged war on trans-fat and we don’t read that it has been replaced by more harmful of saturated fats. In my opinion it is inefficient to spend resources on a values-based political program and not on a real health threat. It is a lie to call this war on drugs a health strategy and that was my reason ranting off the mark.
Marijuana issue is a criminal justice policy. The issue of making possession of small amounts a criminal charge rather than a misdemeanour is a regressive step back into the stone ages. In 2003, the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs adopted a position (and lobbied the Federal Government) to allow police to issue a ticket to someone caught with 30 grams or less, or require community service, instead of a planting a criminal charge. In effect, this strategy is two fold: 1) it fails to bog the system with so that major efforts can be reallocated to stopping the supply chain (grow-ups, major distributors, etc), and 2) it clearly demonstrates this behaviour is not acceptable but stops short of ruining ones life and job prospects.
Canadians rely on the criminal justice system to deal with drug abuse and related crimes. What is needed is a strategic, sophisticated drug policy. There needs to be a great deal more effort with respect to education, getting at young people and treating people who want to be treated. It frees up law-enforcement officials to concentrate on other illicit drugs and targeting big grow-ops, cross boarder trafficking and the sale and distribution of other drugs. It has been documented that the major marijuana distributors are usually tied to other illegal activities such as weapons and other illicit drugs.
And I understand that law-enforcement is not making the rules. But I'm saying that this rule is wholly wrong. I'm also calling it backwards, regressive, insane, idiotic, moronic, and values-based.
I do not believe that decriminalization is a correct-all to anything. But my productivity stance is less about a worker’s problems while in the workplace due to substance addiction. Rather, my argument is about barriers to workforce entry. If this policy is upheld, an offender is forbidden from getting a job (most standard jobs and upwardly mobile jobs require you to disclose any criminal record) because of a (dumb) decision to possess small amounts. Doesn't that seem a bit harsh? And just because someone has a bit of it on them at one point in their life doesn't mean that they are subject to addiction and related problems. It just means that they are f*cked from that point on.... I apologize for belabouring this.
*edited to add: the fact that the government is using irresponsible language like "the party is over" demonstrates -to me - they do not appreciate the full conplexity of this issue. It shows a lack of due dilligence and that sends a shiver down my spine.
I should also clarify that I am not a pot advocate. Actually, I am a very indifferent to the use of it. But we read everyday how government has waged war on trans-fat and we don’t read that it has been replaced by more harmful of saturated fats. In my opinion it is inefficient to spend resources on a values-based political program and not on a real health threat. It is a lie to call this war on drugs a health strategy and that was my reason ranting off the mark.
Marijuana issue is a criminal justice policy. The issue of making possession of small amounts a criminal charge rather than a misdemeanour is a regressive step back into the stone ages. In 2003, the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs adopted a position (and lobbied the Federal Government) to allow police to issue a ticket to someone caught with 30 grams or less, or require community service, instead of a planting a criminal charge. In effect, this strategy is two fold: 1) it fails to bog the system with so that major efforts can be reallocated to stopping the supply chain (grow-ups, major distributors, etc), and 2) it clearly demonstrates this behaviour is not acceptable but stops short of ruining ones life and job prospects.
Canadians rely on the criminal justice system to deal with drug abuse and related crimes. What is needed is a strategic, sophisticated drug policy. There needs to be a great deal more effort with respect to education, getting at young people and treating people who want to be treated. It frees up law-enforcement officials to concentrate on other illicit drugs and targeting big grow-ops, cross boarder trafficking and the sale and distribution of other drugs. It has been documented that the major marijuana distributors are usually tied to other illegal activities such as weapons and other illicit drugs.
And I understand that law-enforcement is not making the rules. But I'm saying that this rule is wholly wrong. I'm also calling it backwards, regressive, insane, idiotic, moronic, and values-based.
I do not believe that decriminalization is a correct-all to anything. But my productivity stance is less about a worker’s problems while in the workplace due to substance addiction. Rather, my argument is about barriers to workforce entry. If this policy is upheld, an offender is forbidden from getting a job (most standard jobs and upwardly mobile jobs require you to disclose any criminal record) because of a (dumb) decision to possess small amounts. Doesn't that seem a bit harsh? And just because someone has a bit of it on them at one point in their life doesn't mean that they are subject to addiction and related problems. It just means that they are f*cked from that point on.... I apologize for belabouring this.
*edited to add: the fact that the government is using irresponsible language like "the party is over" demonstrates -to me - they do not appreciate the full conplexity of this issue. It shows a lack of due dilligence and that sends a shiver down my spine.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
You're under arrest... for possession of Abbey Road
Harper takes aim at drug culture
GLORIA GALLOWAY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
October 4, 2007 at 9:55 PM EDT
Canada has become too drug-friendly and it's time for a culture change, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday as he laid out his government's get-tough strategy for reducing the use of illegal substances.
Police and others fighting the battle against drug abuse are up against a culture that "since the 1960s" has done little to discourage drug abuse and "often romanticized it — romanticized it or made it cool, made it acceptable," Mr. Harper said.
"As a father I don't say all these things blamelessly. My son is listening to my Beatles records and asking me what all these lyrics mean. It's just there, it's out there. I love these records and I'm not putting them away. But, that said, there has been a culture that has not fought drug use and that's what we're all up against."
Mr. Harper, flanked by Health Minister Tony Clement and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, announced his new two-year, $64-million anti-drug strategy at a Salvation Army building in Winnipeg.
Two-thirds of that money will go to prevention and treatment programs and the rest will be used to beef up enforcement, including the introduction of new mandatory minimum sentences for an unspecified slate of drug crimes.
The Conservatives say they will create an awareness campaign targeted at young people and their parents, fund new treatment services and launch a national youth intervention program to divert young drug users into assessment and treatment programs instead of detention.
On the enforcement side, they plan to direct resources at identifying and closing down grow-ops, pay for more enforcement measures at the border and ramp up the RCMP's Proceeds of Crime Program.
Gone are any musings, such as those of the previous Liberal government, about decriminalization of so-called softer drugs such as marijuana.
Critics have ripped apart the government's strategy on many fronts, especially Mr. Harper's unwillingness to embrace harm-reduction measures such as those offered at Insite, Vancouver's safe-injection site. It allows addicts to safely inject illegal dugs and connect with health professionals who can direct them toward treatment.
The government this week extended funding to that program but only for six months so it can be further studied.
"I remain a skeptic that you can tell people that we won't stop the drug trade, we won't get you off drugs, we won't even send messages to discourage drug use but somehow we will keep you addicted but reduce the harm just the same," Mr. Harper said of the Insite program. "If you remain a drug addict, I don't care how much harm you reduce, you are going to have a short and miserable life."
But Thomas Kerr, a professor in the University of British Columbia's Department of Medicine who has studied Insite and its effect on the prevention of the spread of HIV-AIDS, said Mr. Harper is ignoring the facts.
"The government continues to misrepresent the science around harm reduction. In the case of Insite we have shown that there has been a 33-per-cent increase in the rate of entry into detox programs," Dr. Kerr said. "In no way is the facility perpetuating addiction. In fact, it's helping people quit drug use."
Leon Mar of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network said education programs, such as the one proposed by the government, have previously proved ineffective. Health Canada's own review of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program implemented widely across Canada, he said, has shown that the program does not prevent or delay drug use.
Harper takes aim at drug culture
GLORIA GALLOWAY
From Friday's Globe and Mail
October 4, 2007 at 9:55 PM EDT
Canada has become too drug-friendly and it's time for a culture change, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday as he laid out his government's get-tough strategy for reducing the use of illegal substances.
Police and others fighting the battle against drug abuse are up against a culture that "since the 1960s" has done little to discourage drug abuse and "often romanticized it — romanticized it or made it cool, made it acceptable," Mr. Harper said.
"As a father I don't say all these things blamelessly. My son is listening to my Beatles records and asking me what all these lyrics mean. It's just there, it's out there. I love these records and I'm not putting them away. But, that said, there has been a culture that has not fought drug use and that's what we're all up against."
Mr. Harper, flanked by Health Minister Tony Clement and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, announced his new two-year, $64-million anti-drug strategy at a Salvation Army building in Winnipeg.
Two-thirds of that money will go to prevention and treatment programs and the rest will be used to beef up enforcement, including the introduction of new mandatory minimum sentences for an unspecified slate of drug crimes.
The Conservatives say they will create an awareness campaign targeted at young people and their parents, fund new treatment services and launch a national youth intervention program to divert young drug users into assessment and treatment programs instead of detention.
On the enforcement side, they plan to direct resources at identifying and closing down grow-ops, pay for more enforcement measures at the border and ramp up the RCMP's Proceeds of Crime Program.
Gone are any musings, such as those of the previous Liberal government, about decriminalization of so-called softer drugs such as marijuana.
Critics have ripped apart the government's strategy on many fronts, especially Mr. Harper's unwillingness to embrace harm-reduction measures such as those offered at Insite, Vancouver's safe-injection site. It allows addicts to safely inject illegal dugs and connect with health professionals who can direct them toward treatment.
The government this week extended funding to that program but only for six months so it can be further studied.
"I remain a skeptic that you can tell people that we won't stop the drug trade, we won't get you off drugs, we won't even send messages to discourage drug use but somehow we will keep you addicted but reduce the harm just the same," Mr. Harper said of the Insite program. "If you remain a drug addict, I don't care how much harm you reduce, you are going to have a short and miserable life."
But Thomas Kerr, a professor in the University of British Columbia's Department of Medicine who has studied Insite and its effect on the prevention of the spread of HIV-AIDS, said Mr. Harper is ignoring the facts.
"The government continues to misrepresent the science around harm reduction. In the case of Insite we have shown that there has been a 33-per-cent increase in the rate of entry into detox programs," Dr. Kerr said. "In no way is the facility perpetuating addiction. In fact, it's helping people quit drug use."
Leon Mar of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network said education programs, such as the one proposed by the government, have previously proved ineffective. Health Canada's own review of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program implemented widely across Canada, he said, has shown that the program does not prevent or delay drug use.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Not a surprise. If you are going to be a conservative then I guess you have to be conservative about something.
I have not read the details of the plan, but it is interesting to see a greater emphasis on prevention and treatment rather than just enforcement. I'm a little surprised by Leon Mar's remarks, since there always has been a push on emphasising education as one means to reducing potential drug use. Maybe the problem is the content of the message rather than the idea of messaging.
I have not read the details of the plan, but it is interesting to see a greater emphasis on prevention and treatment rather than just enforcement. I'm a little surprised by Leon Mar's remarks, since there always has been a push on emphasising education as one means to reducing potential drug use. Maybe the problem is the content of the message rather than the idea of messaging.
What an exercise my eyeballs got while reading this. Pretty incredulous that we're still ruled by people who rely on their own blinkered hunches instead of on the advice of qualified experts.
Painful.
42
H
Hydrogen
Guest
I wonder what Steve tells little Ben about Lucy, the sky and her diamonds?
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Tory anti-drug strategy panned
TERRI THEODORE
THE CANADIAN PRESS
October 5, 2007 at 6:42 PM EDT
Critics of the Conservative government's new anti-drug plan are calling it everything from naive to politically opportunistic and a threat to the civil liberties of Canadians.
A coalition of Vancouver health and social groups says prison terms and attempts to scare users straight won't solve Canada's illegal drug problem.
“You just can't incarcerate your way out of this,†former Vancouver mayor Philip Owen, a member of the Beyond Prohibition Coalition, said Friday. “The United States locks down 2.3 million people every night.â€
Mr. Owen, an architect of Vancouver's drug safe-injection site, told a news conference the Tory government's adoption of policies similar to the failed war on drugs in the United States is “uninformed.â€
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has been skeptical of the safe-injection site's claimed harm-reduction benefits, promised Thursday to put more drug dealers behind bars and help drug users kick their habits in the $64-million anti-drug plan.
Another coalition member, former B.C. provincial court judge Jerry Paradis, said illegal drugs have been used as a political gimmick by prime ministers for decades.
“Stephen Harper has just discovered the political usefulness of drugs finally and that all of this is posturing leading up to a federal election,†said Mr. Paradis.
The issue is personal for drug addict Dean Wilson, who showed up late and dishevelled to speak to the media.
He said he's still trying to comprehend what the government is attempting to do.
“If he came down here and saw what was going on, I think he would change his mind,†Mr. Wilson said, pointing out the window to Vancouver's gritty Downtown Eastside, Ground Zero of the West Coast's drug problem.
“Dead people don't detox. We've got to keep them alive long enough to make the right decision.â€
Mr. Harper noted during his announcement that two-thirds of the funding will go to prevention and treatment for addicts and to promotional campaigns to keep people away from drugs.
The coalition said harm reduction should be the centre of a government strategy that includes not only treatment but social housing and employment.
On the eve of Mr. Harper's announcement, the government announced another extension of the safe-injection site's special Health Canada licence to operate, which expires at the end of the year. Supporters had been worried Ottawa would not renew it.
Ann Livingston from the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users said the government needs to stop criminalizing drug users.
“Unless Canadians move forward and change our drug policy and our drugs laws, I think that we're going to be feeling like we're trying to move a mountain with a teaspoon,†she said
Mr. Paradis, a provincial judge for 28 years, agreed crime and drugs can be related but prohibition and not the drugs themselves are at the root of the crime.
“I've never had a case of a kid who smoked too much marijuana taking a pickaxe to somebody else's head at a party,†he said referring to what's believed to have been an alcohol-fuelled fight at a Calgary house party where a 17-year-old man was killed last weekend.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association opposes the new approach for mandatory minimum sentences for serious drug crimes, calling it a “significant threat to civil liberties.â€
In a news release, the association said the same approach in the United States resulted in unjust prison sentences while it failed to reduce the supply or demand for drugs.
“If this government believes that a drug strategy primarily relying on enforcement will work, then it should be willing to prove that to taxpayers,†said association spokesman Kirk Tousaw.
“We call on the auditor general to conduct a comprehensive review of the economic and social costs of drug prohibition in Canada.â€
Mr. Owen said believes he already knows the results.
“My message to Mr Harper and the Conservative government is we win — you lose, we're right — you're wrong and it's just a matter of time that they'll have to reverse their position or somebody else will be running the country.â€
The head of the Canadian Professional Police Association endorsed the government's plan, calling it a strong message to drug dealers.
TERRI THEODORE
THE CANADIAN PRESS
October 5, 2007 at 6:42 PM EDT
Critics of the Conservative government's new anti-drug plan are calling it everything from naive to politically opportunistic and a threat to the civil liberties of Canadians.
A coalition of Vancouver health and social groups says prison terms and attempts to scare users straight won't solve Canada's illegal drug problem.
“You just can't incarcerate your way out of this,†former Vancouver mayor Philip Owen, a member of the Beyond Prohibition Coalition, said Friday. “The United States locks down 2.3 million people every night.â€
Mr. Owen, an architect of Vancouver's drug safe-injection site, told a news conference the Tory government's adoption of policies similar to the failed war on drugs in the United States is “uninformed.â€
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has been skeptical of the safe-injection site's claimed harm-reduction benefits, promised Thursday to put more drug dealers behind bars and help drug users kick their habits in the $64-million anti-drug plan.
Another coalition member, former B.C. provincial court judge Jerry Paradis, said illegal drugs have been used as a political gimmick by prime ministers for decades.
“Stephen Harper has just discovered the political usefulness of drugs finally and that all of this is posturing leading up to a federal election,†said Mr. Paradis.
The issue is personal for drug addict Dean Wilson, who showed up late and dishevelled to speak to the media.
He said he's still trying to comprehend what the government is attempting to do.
“If he came down here and saw what was going on, I think he would change his mind,†Mr. Wilson said, pointing out the window to Vancouver's gritty Downtown Eastside, Ground Zero of the West Coast's drug problem.
“Dead people don't detox. We've got to keep them alive long enough to make the right decision.â€
Mr. Harper noted during his announcement that two-thirds of the funding will go to prevention and treatment for addicts and to promotional campaigns to keep people away from drugs.
The coalition said harm reduction should be the centre of a government strategy that includes not only treatment but social housing and employment.
On the eve of Mr. Harper's announcement, the government announced another extension of the safe-injection site's special Health Canada licence to operate, which expires at the end of the year. Supporters had been worried Ottawa would not renew it.
Ann Livingston from the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users said the government needs to stop criminalizing drug users.
“Unless Canadians move forward and change our drug policy and our drugs laws, I think that we're going to be feeling like we're trying to move a mountain with a teaspoon,†she said
Mr. Paradis, a provincial judge for 28 years, agreed crime and drugs can be related but prohibition and not the drugs themselves are at the root of the crime.
“I've never had a case of a kid who smoked too much marijuana taking a pickaxe to somebody else's head at a party,†he said referring to what's believed to have been an alcohol-fuelled fight at a Calgary house party where a 17-year-old man was killed last weekend.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association opposes the new approach for mandatory minimum sentences for serious drug crimes, calling it a “significant threat to civil liberties.â€
In a news release, the association said the same approach in the United States resulted in unjust prison sentences while it failed to reduce the supply or demand for drugs.
“If this government believes that a drug strategy primarily relying on enforcement will work, then it should be willing to prove that to taxpayers,†said association spokesman Kirk Tousaw.
“We call on the auditor general to conduct a comprehensive review of the economic and social costs of drug prohibition in Canada.â€
Mr. Owen said believes he already knows the results.
“My message to Mr Harper and the Conservative government is we win — you lose, we're right — you're wrong and it's just a matter of time that they'll have to reverse their position or somebody else will be running the country.â€
The head of the Canadian Professional Police Association endorsed the government's plan, calling it a strong message to drug dealers.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
While I don't see much useful coming from this plan (which will disappear from the legislative agenda and become a sound-bite election issue), it is always interesting to see how the many people calling for decriminalization not speaking to the fact that decriminalization will not actually solve the problems caused by drug abuse - individually or societally.
Hypnotoad
Senior Member
Decriminalization will not solve drug use problems. That is not the purpose of the policy. The police don't say that. Recent parliamentary committees didn't say that. The push for decriminalization is two fold: 1) reallocate police resources away from charging offenders with small amounts in their possession and target the bigger issues of distribution and smuggling (and education), and 2) erase a law whose consequences/punishment far exceed its severity. From a law and order side it is much more effective and efficient. Also, it has been documented that many of the largest pot distributors in Canada are connected to other criminal activities like hardcore drugs, weapons, arson and organized crime. Surely those parts of the problem are bigger then a single person with a joint rolled in his pocket (who, if charged, is f*cked over for life)
Decimalization is not a policy that says it is ok to smoke pot. But it strengthens the punishment for dealers and other distributors and puts pressure on the supply side (instead of demand). One way or another, it is far more complex then Prime Minister Harper (seems to) understand.