The Shotgun Blog

« Armageddon Factor good for Harper? | Main | Globe & Mail bias on Greek crisis? »

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Spineless Liberals on Mandatory Minimums

The Liberal Party is contemplating reversing their position on mandatory minimums for growing a small amount of marijuana. Last year they supported the government’s bill to bring in such mandatory minimums, but now they are being more cautious and considering their position carefully. This is good news since neither the NDP nor the BQ supported the bill the first time, and without Liberal support this fundamentally flawed public policy will not see the light of day.

One question that comes to mind is why has the Liberal’s appeared to change their mind?

Perhaps a better question would be why did they support the mandatory minimums in the first place?

For 13 years of government the Liberals had resisted exactly this sort of policy move. In fact under the previous government, marijuana laws were heading in the opposite direction of the current government. The mandatory minimums bill is exactly the sort of law that Liberal Party members, in general, would oppose. So what was behind the Liberal leader’s support for the government? Was Michael Ignatieff taking a bold stand against his own party’s traditional views for an issue he truly believes in?

Nope.

He was bullied into it.

Mr. Ignatieff was afraid that Mr. Harper would call an election and spend a month accusing the Liberals of being “soft on crime.” The Liberal leader abandoned the long stand views of his party not out of principle but out of fear that he could not win the argument.

So what changed? Well there has been an increase in the public scrutiny of not just the cost of the Conservative government’s crime bills but the effectiveness as well. So now the Liberal Party has the political coverage to attack the bill without seeming to be on the side of drug kingpins.

But hang on, isn’t the Liberal Party suppose to be the official opposition? Are they not exactly the people that are supposed to bring questions like cost and effectiveness into the public debate? Isn’t that their constitutional role in our Parliamentary democracy? Aren’t they supposed to be the leaders of opposing government policy rather than the followers?

It isn’t like they didn’t know the arguments against mandatory minimums. All those MPs and MP staff that have spent their lives in politics must have had this debate at least once before. So why couldn’t they muster up the will to oppose the government from the very beginning?

It is because the Liberal Party of Canada, the most successful political party in the history of representative democracy, is completely spineless.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on May 20, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

Iggy is a fop

Posted by: Russell Barth | 2010-05-20 5:50:03 AM

I wouldn't be surprised to see Iggy back down again. On a more general note, if this craven collection of opportunists is the most successful political party in democratic history, what does that say about us as Canadians?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 6:18:29 AM

Spineless they may be - okay, spineless they ARE, but if the Libs kill this idiotic play by the Tories to their more rightwing supporters, they will have done at least one thing right. Gawd, it hurts to say that...

Posted by: Leigh Patrick Sullivan | 2010-05-20 6:57:35 AM



Mandatory Minimums?

We understand Wipeheads call that

" Systemetic Oppression of their Culture "

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-20 7:36:05 AM

419: you're correct, as usual. However, I think that the Wipeheads call anything less than complete acceptance of their way of thinking by all members of society as "oppression." They want to replace democracy, religion, and even the economy with their drugs. And they wonder why they're so frustrated. No one cares about them.

Now who would stand to profit from this? Yup, you guessed it: Marc "5 Years" Emery.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-20 8:06:27 AM

The Liberals have no actual values. They're only concern is to get elected. They'll change their positions as much as required to get elected. That's why the engage in division politics and make mountains out of molehills instead of focusing on the issues.

They're not interested in what is best for the country, only what is best for getting them more votes.

Posted by: Don | 2010-05-20 9:07:21 AM

Im less worried about one party or another being "spineless" vs the actual implications of this bill. How many billions it would cost, how much effect it would actually have **cough-zero**. What are the implications for the youth of our country... And unfortunately conservatives in the house havn't done any sort of due diligence. The senate however is a different story.. :)

S-10

Hon. Senator Pierre Claude Nolin-

"Senator Wallace gave us a clear explanation of the purpose of the bill, which is mainly to crack down on major traffickers and organized crime. The theory whereby we must deter small time traffickers and work our way up to major traffickers may look good on paper.

[English]

The theory was quite simple: If you looked after the various traffickers and if you are smart enough and have invested enough money in the police and enforcement, you will be able to climb up the ladder. That is the theory, but it does not work that way in reality.

[Translation]

The problem goes much deeper than that and the solution is much more complex. In reality, even if we incarcerate a trafficker, the drugs will still be available. We are simply creating a job for another trafficker.

(1440)

Someone else will step in and take over the clientele of the jailed trafficker and will even go so far as to provide information to the police in order to take control of the market that is now available.

Unfortunately, this thriving market is responsible — and not just in Canada — for the majority of homicides, and controlling it is fundamentally different from controlling other markets. The participants in this trade, and this is why this market is so unique, cannot turn to the police or the courts when there are arrears on payments or a breach of contract. Everyone has to enforce their own laws in order to protect their rights, and therein lies the danger. It is survival of the fittest.

How can anyone believe that those targeted by the bill, the big traffickers and organized crime, will be deterred from continuing in the drug trade by minimum sentences? These people already accept the risk of being caught. Even worse, they know they could be killed by new competitors! Today, there are more drugs on the market than in the 1970s, even in proportion to the population.

Prohibition has left its mark. Banning a substance only raises its price. That is the very simple dynamic of this market. In order for you to fully understand this, I will give you a very simple example: Coca-Cola. Everyone is familiar with this product. Imagine for a moment, for the purposes of this demonstration, that it would be possible for us to ban it, that is, to ban the production, sale and, therefore, the trafficking of Coca-Cola in Canada. What would happen? Do you think that those who like Coca-Cola would stop drinking it? Not at all. They would try to find a supply of it to satisfy their needs. What would happen? A black market would emerge. Clients would not stop trying to obtain the product, which would probably be of a lower quality.

You can see where I am going. The problem is not the substance. When you listen to speeches, stop being blinded by worry. Ah, drugs! You picture heroin addicts lying on the ground. Yes, drugs are dangerous, and yes, drug use has horrible consequences, but do not cloud the issue. That is why it is so important that we be thorough in the work we are asked to do. Do not confuse the effects of the substances with the effects of prohibiting those substances."

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-20 9:33:00 AM

"I think that the Wipeheads call anything less than complete acceptance of their way of thinking by all members of society as "oppression.""

Are you a satirist ZP? How is throwing someone in a cage for smoking pot not oppression? On the other hand, it's "law and order" cons such as yourself, 419, and SM that demand complete acceptance to your way of thinking with the threat of gov't violence as backup. All pot smokers ask is to be left alone. Which is apparently too much to ask for from you people.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-05-20 12:10:42 PM

"...Do you think that those who like Coca-Cola would stop drinking it? Not at all. They would try to find a supply of it to satisfy their needs. What would happen?..."

One word answer : PEPSI

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-20 12:22:10 PM

Zebulon quotes democracy as a reason for prohibition, if the majority likes slavery does that make it ok, if the majority is muslim is it ok to abuse non muslims, sorry but democracy is nothing more than tyranny of the majority.

But dont worry prohibition wont go away , to much money involved , instead of closing elementary schools the government would be closing prisons, imagine all those high paying jobs going away, not likely, want crime all you do is make laws , a justice system that serves itself, beautiful isnt it

Posted by: don | 2010-05-20 12:29:58 PM

"One word answer : PEPSI"

How about we change the example to all softdrinks? Or alcohol? Do you think if we banned alcohol that demand would go away? Or would gangs simply start selling it at inflated prices? Of course, at that point, you'd have to accuse every single person who still drank booze of being a criminal and of encouraging death and mayhem. I'm sure by having read your "arguments" over the past year, that you'd use the fact that these people are "criminals" to support the ban of alcohol.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-05-20 12:35:55 PM

"...demand complete acceptance to your way of thinking with the threat of gov't violence as backup...."

** works for me



" All pot smokers ask is to be left alone. Which is apparently too much to ask for from you people.."

** ya it is a bit too much to ask,

especially since this Saturday., there might be a worldwide Wipehead protest in a vain attempt to thwart the extradition of repeat offender druglord > "The Duke o' Five" Marc Emery formally known as the Prince of Pot- to the US for sentencing after confessing to a series of international drug crimes..

Oh yeah so if anyone wants to see a huge gaggle of cam whore angry intoxicated dope goons this is where they will be-- On the streets in everybody elses way..setting fire to overpriced weeds and huffing it in.. Yup that outta do it

so much for, as you put it

" just wanting to be left alone "

When Wipeheads actually do mind their own business they do actually get left alone:

but when they participate in a multi billion dollar black market or swarm our public places demanding the law be ignored so stoner whim can prevail over the rights of the majority and thwart the duties of our democratically elected governing agents --

well, then its a little different



If you don't believe us

-ask Marc Emery

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-20 12:40:59 PM

Don,

The cons on this site have pretty much indicated that only standard of law should be the will of the majority. So if the majority wishes for blonde haired women to be slaves, then so be it!

Posted by: Charles | 2010-05-20 12:52:22 PM

To our usual suspects,

I will once again ask you: if alcohol were to be prohibited would:

1) those who still drink alcohol be "criminals"?

2) would the fact that these consumers of alcohol are now considered "criminals" be a legitimate argument in favour of alcohol prohibition?

Posted by: Charles | 2010-05-20 12:56:54 PM

I tend to support the Conservative position, but am absolutely opposed to the War on Drugs. Turning what is a social and medical problem into criminal behaviour has resulted in spending obscene amounts of money to fill jails and foster violent crimes without actually having any effect on the original social and medical problems.

I am deeply disappointed that the Conservatives have refused to look at the economic costs of this misguided policy.

Posted by: J Story | 2010-05-20 1:12:19 PM

"...So if the majority wishes for blonde haired women to be slaves, then so be it!..."

doth say Charles

I was unaware there is such legislation pending or that the blond slave lobby was so powerful

- hey! is this just another Reid Angus poll you superstars are getting worked up about again?



Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-20 1:22:52 PM

419,

How about addressing the issue? Can any of you actually debate this logically? I'm waiting ...

Posted by: Charles | 2010-05-20 1:25:24 PM

if alcohol were to be prohibited would:

1) those who still drink alcohol be "criminals"?

** yup with battering rams into doors to break down pirate production, sales and distribution- drinkers would be punished as prescribed by law- detox and rehab- or whatever future generations think is most effective to dry up the human alcohol experience.

2) would the fact that these consumers of alcohol are now considered "criminals" be a legitimate argument in favour of alcohol prohibition?

** yup as well- and alcoholic retards can apply for medical exemption cards to ferment and distill generous quantities of beverage alcohol..maybe even wheel in barrels of their strong medical grade drink into MP offices to protest- use the MPs desk as a wet bar-- raise up a Prince of Plonk if they want-- who cares he will just fail & get hauled off to the drunk tank like every other weiner who ever wanted to Overbrew the Government



The Industrial alcohol business would be able to carry on, and expand considerably to serve legitimate purpose. Ethyl alcohol can replace every fuel food and fiber in the world - make green jobs- Alcohol was only prohibited because the DuPonts wanted to force Red Bull power drinks on everybody and feared the many attractive features of beverage alcohol and gasoline.

George Washington drank alcohol- first drafts of the American constitution were written with ink that had been diluted with alcohol

---even Jesus drank alcohol-so did Willy Nelson

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-20 2:44:14 PM

419: please don't feed the trolls. They have this 'millenialist' belief that victory is just around the corner. Somehow, they have deluded themselves into thinking that society will accept them if they knew the truth about their drug culture. The problem is that society already knows about it, which is why such little progress has been made. Drugs attract the worst elements out there. What home owner wants a drug house on their street, with druggies coming day and night for their fix? None. This explains why the druggies celebrate every little thing as a victory when in fact, on closer inspection, they amount to very little. But, I guess that when your cause has nothing going for it, you take what you can get. Government and popular opposition is not their biggest enemy - apathy is.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-20 3:05:22 PM

"Mr. Ignatieff was afraid that Mr. Harper would call an election and spend a month accusing the Liberals of being “soft on crime.” The Liberal leader abandoned the long stand views of his party not out of principle but out of fear that he could not win the argument."



Bullshit!

Both persue the same objectives: Less freedom, less liberties, a more powerfull government, a more divisive governement, much more agresive policies, a fucked up foreign policy lobbied by fucked up people...

Ignatieff/Harper...same shit.

Obama/Bush...same shit.

There's not one once of honnor or any kind of pride in any of those four sacs of shit.

Vive le Bloc, Vive le Québec Libre!

Broke, but proud and free...for REAL!

Posted by: Marc | 2010-05-20 3:40:19 PM

Zebulon my god your so stupid , drug houses wouldnt exist without prohibition , if your going to post stupid comments at least show some signs that your concious> Theres all kinds of people addicted to prescription pills they not going to drug houses there going to there doctors, michael jackson and elvis presley arnt the only ones , there lucky, they didnt have to die on the streets thanks to a unbelievably self serving justive system we live under...

Posted by: don | 2010-05-20 4:29:20 PM

No, grow ops exist because druggies want to camouflage their activities among the decent hard working people. Their presence attracts the criminal element to neighborhoods, menacing children, lower property values, and endanger the community as a whole. They must be stopped at once - even to the point of destroying the house. The drug culture has no place in society.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-20 5:35:15 PM

If for no other reason, drug ops should be kept out of my neighborhood for the safety of the perps. Imagine me sitting on the porch with my Remington 700 ready to pop some druggies. Their corpses lying in the street serve as a warning to others: stay away.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-20 5:41:35 PM

Zebulon: Decent hard working people want to put an end to the violence and the availability of drugs to children. That is what prohibition does. Regulation is the answer.

You sit on your porch and be as crazy as you like. Very far away from everyone.

Posted by: Curtman | 2010-05-20 7:41:42 PM

Proceeding from the usual list of false assumptions, I see, Baker.

1. If you’re worried about incarceration costs, there’s always the death penalty. Because doing nothing is not an option and you say jail doesn’t work, so that really only leaves one alternative.

2. We are not simply creating a job for another trafficker; this sentiment assumes that the pool of potential criminals is bottomless. It isn’t. Only a tiny minority of people are attracted to the trafficking lifestyle, specifically reckless and immature people who do are “here for a good time, not a long time.”

3. Finally, we agree on something—the market created by drug users is what drives the majority of the homicides. All they have to do is stop using. But for some reason, if you point out the fact that they are responsible for bankrolling the killings, they get all defensive and start blaming The Man.

4. The “unique” considerations you describe are common to all criminal enterprise, whether drug-related or otherwise. The Mafia in particular for years did not touch drugs, and after 1933 they made little money in alcohol, but that didn’t stop them from having gang wars.

5. Whether they’re deterred or not is not the issue. The minimum sentences will allow us to put them in jail, and keep them there, where they can no longer deal. Deterrence works best on those who have not yet entered the criminal lifestyle. For chronic offenders, there’s always the gallows.

6. I’d like to see some proof that there are more drugs available per capita today than in the 1970s. If there is, there’s a lot of unused product lying around, because actual use is down significantly since the 1970s. Once again, you quote impressive-sounding numbers that do not bear up under scrutiny.

7. If banning a substance raises its price, doesn’t that mean fewer people will use it? How many people out there drive Porsches, compared to Chevys? Once price gets past a certain point, most people begin to ask themselves if it’s really worth the expense. Furthermore, you once again assume that everyone has as criminal a mentality as you, and that a majority of the population would actually resort to crime to drink Coca-Cola—unlikely. If alcohol and drug prohibition is any indication, at least half if not most would stop.

8. No, the problem is not the substance, at least not so much, in the case of marijuana. The problem is criminals—and I’m not talking about the pushers. I know this is something you simply cannot accept, Baker, but it’s true—not everyone has a criminal mentality.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:03:13 PM

Are you a satirist ZP? How is throwing someone in a cage for smoking pot not oppression?

Not the way it works, Charles. You are the one claiming oppression; it’s for you to prove the affirmative, not Zeb the negative.

On the other hand, it's "law and order" cons such as yourself, 419, and SM that demand complete acceptance to your way of thinking with the threat of gov't violence as backup.

No, that is your interpretation of our motives, because you can’t understand why anyone would pass a law restricting objectionable behaviour unless he’s a fucking Nazi. Perhaps that’s because you plain don’t like being told what to do. The problem is with you, not us.

All pot smokers ask is to be left alone. Which is apparently too much to ask for from you people.

I doubt burglars and pedophiles are eager for company, either. Sorry, that’s not an excuse. And you can spare us the “life, liberty, property” chorus round; all that tired chant does is demonstrate your one-dimensional (and self-serving) notion of law and order.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:07:50 PM

One word answer : PEPSI

Bite your tongue, 419!!!

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:08:29 PM

Zebulon quotes democracy as a reason for prohibition, if the majority likes slavery does that make it ok, if the majority is muslim is it ok to abuse non muslims, sorry but democracy is nothing more than tyranny of the majority.

And tyranny of the minority is an improvement how?

But dont worry prohibition wont go away , to much money involved , instead of closing elementary schools the government would be closing prisons, imagine all those high paying jobs going away, not likely, want crime all you do is make laws , a justice system that serves itself, beautiful isnt it.

Spoken like a true crook, Don. Is it written down somewhere that every pot smoker must be an embittered scofflaw?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:12:40 PM

How about we change the example to all softdrinks? Or alcohol? Do you think if we banned alcohol that demand would go away?

According to the history books, demand would drop by between half to two-thirds, and thousands fewer people per year would die of alcohol-related causes. Would it vanish? No, but no preventative measure is ever 100% effective. That doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Of course, at that point, you'd have to accuse every single person who still drank booze of being a criminal and of encouraging death and mayhem.

The truth must be told, Charles, even if some people don't have the guts to face it. Even if the law itself is unjust, how does bankrolling murders in order to avoid it any more just? And whose motives are pure?

You're not going to win this one, Charles. It requires an ethical system and a moral compass, two things which libertarians in general, and you in particular, seem to lack.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:16:32 PM

(( psst! Zeb ))

_we're the trolls, remember?? that's what these drug apologists keep saying when they aren't telling us we are one and the same person plus Shane

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-20 8:21:06 PM

The cons on this site have pretty much indicated that only standard of law should be the will of the majority. So if the majority wishes for blonde haired women to be slaves, then so be it!

And the libertarians on this site have pretty much indicated that the only standard of law should be that there should be no law. To such an extent as they are prepared to tolerate it, they demand that it conform to "natural rights" (which they can't prove exist), or "life, liberty, and property" (which would seem to indicate that hunting species to extinction and setting forest fires is legal, since these things are not property).

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:21:21 PM

To our usual suspects...I will once again ask you...

Objection: Asked and answered. Counsel's badgering the witness.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:22:12 PM

Vive le Bloc, Vive le Québec Libre! Broke, but proud and free...for REAL!

Sorry, Marc, but you can't really count yourself as free until you can stand independent of the cash support of others. La Belle Province is shackled to Canada with money, the most adamantine of chains. Let Québec renounce all equalization payments and we’ll take another look at it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:24:44 PM

Zebulon my god your so stupid , drug houses wouldnt exist without prohibition...

Right. People never party.

...if your going to post stupid comments at least show some signs that your concious>...

Like the fact that he can spell and you can’t?

Theres all kinds of people addicted to prescription pills they not going to drug houses there going to there doctors, michael jackson and elvis presley arnt the only ones , there lucky, they didnt have to die on the streets thanks to a unbelievably self serving justive system we live under...

No, but they did die. And doctors don’t generally write open-ended prescriptions, so people hooked to such drugs usually end up breaking the law to get them anyway. By the way, you should be careful who you call stupid, when your beef-brained efforts at writing make it look like your neocortex is short-circuited. This is why pot is still illegal, Don. Smokers insist it doesn’t affect them but it’s quite obvious that it does...at least, it’s obvious to anyone who doesn’t smoke it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:28:51 PM

I tend to support the Conservative position, but am absolutely opposed to the War on Drugs. Turning what is a social and medical problem into criminal behaviour has resulted in spending obscene amounts of money to fill jails and foster violent crimes without actually having any effect on the original social and medical problems.

I do not call a 50-percent reduction from historical addiction levels in the early 1900s “no effect,” Story. And the fact is that in a civilized society governed by the rule of law, anti-social behaviour is usually criminalized. That’s because WE DON’T WANT PEOPLE DOING IT.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:30:53 PM

Imagine me sitting on the porch with my Remington 700 ready to pop some druggies.

Actually, Zeb, I prefer a buffalo rifle in .45-70 Government for such work, but then I'm a rifle man. On the other hand, there's no disputing the intimidation factor of a .729-calibre, back-bored shotgun barrel. The sound of a pump shotgun being racked commands everyone's instant attention. The average number of shots fired in a handgun battle is 17. The average number of shots fired in a shotgun battle is one.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:33:03 PM

Decent hard working people want to put an end to the violence and the availability of drugs to children. That is what prohibition does. Regulation is the answer.

Then please explain why nearly half of school-age teenagers smoke contraband cigarettes, despite the availability of legal ones.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-20 8:35:47 PM

The Liberals obviously realize that the majority of Canadians are for cannabis decriminalization. It is abundantly clear to those who want to look that the prohibition of cannabis (and all drugs) does more harm than the plant itself (We know the willfully ignorant holdovers from the "reefer madness" era won't accept that of course). Politicians know this. It's a good societal control mechanism which is focused on the poor and minorities. The "dangerous" ones. That's why the Senate exempted native people from Bill C-15 the last time around. The jails are already filled with a disproportionate number of them now. If they are further criminalized we may as well start building prisons right on the reserves. Out of the womb into the slammer. If the Harper Cons would criminalize alcohol, tobacco, and gambling I would vote for them just to see the "cigar smok'in" "gin swilling" "pill popp'in" "slot play'in" hypocritical old Con farts twist in the wind. If we are legislating morality then let's go all the way. LMAO!

Milton Friedman summed up the stupidity of prohibition very well. See Youtube "Friedman on drug prohibiton". Bright guy.

"It's not that they don't want us to use drugs, they just want us to use THEIR drugs." Bill Maher

Posted by: Tony_42 | 2010-05-20 9:21:42 PM

Decriminalizing the growing of cannabis for personal use would eliminate many of the problems created by the black market. The we could criminalize alcohol and then as cannabis spreads so would peace and happiness for mankind.

Posted by: Tony_42 | 2010-05-20 9:32:49 PM

Anyone else notice how FAT Harper is getting. This does not bode well for his future both personally and in politics. We should have six month mandatory minimums for gluttony. After it is a sin.

Posted by: Tony_42 | 2010-05-20 9:34:38 PM

Boy, you guys are really waving the guns around today. And you don't see that that's why you lose. You can't debate, you just pull the gun and act all crazy. Do I need any more proof than these statements?

419 responds to Bakers question

-- demand complete acceptance to your way of thinking with the threat of gov't violence as backup...."

** works for me --

Zeb said

--If for no other reason, drug ops should be kept out of my neighborhood for the safety of the perps. Imagine me sitting on the porch with my Remington 700 ready to pop some druggies. Their corpses lying in the street serve as a warning to others: stay away--

And SM was really stroking his ... gun, when he says gems like this.

--If you’re worried about incarceration costs, there’s always the death penalty. Because doing nothing is not an option and you say jail doesn’t work, so that really only leaves one alternative.--

yeah, END PROHIBITION. Sorry, I had to insert that comment.To continue.

Here he really strokes his ...gun. While fantasizing about shooting people.

--Actually, Zeb, I prefer a buffalo rifle in .45-70 Government for such work, but then I'm a rifle man. On the other hand, there's no disputing the intimidation factor of a .729-calibre, back-bored shotgun barrel. The sound of a pump shotgun being racked commands everyone's instant attention. The average number of shots fired in a handgun battle is 17. The average number of shots fired in a shotgun battle is one.--

Hes all worried about the people dieing in the Drug War, but wants to keep it going. So he can keep stroking his ...gun. Are you guys for real? Do you think you have a shred of respectability?

You guys are fucking sick. Were you spanked lots as children? Does the sound of a pump shotgun being racked give you a woody Matthews? Is it because in real life your a pathetic loser with no friends outside the church? Someone who would need a gun in a fight? Your just itching to shoot someone. Guess you didn't get your chance when you where in the military. Did you even see a body? You know, really shot up. And if you did, how did it make you feel? Did it give you a woody?

You guys can't be for real. Your just trolls.





Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-20 11:01:50 PM

And now to comment on the post. Good one by the way.

Here's how I see, if you care. Iggy has seen the potential votes by the outcry from C-15 and the cost of Harpers policies on maintaining his drug war. Iggy sees that the future is not bright, and knows that he can work the money angle for votes. Do we all agree the economy is not likely to get better anytime soon, if ever? Even Harpers 2 Billion estimate is way too much, and how many of us think they will come in under budget? Maybe Iggy will get some backbone yet. Not that i would vote for him, unless he came right out and said "Legalize!'

None of them care one way or the other. Its just a stump to get on and curry votes. I hope S-10 dies in the house.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-20 11:20:15 PM

The Liberals obviously realize that the majority of Canadians are for cannabis decriminalization.

More likely, they realize that enough swing voters to make a difference in an election might be for cannabis decriminalization. Don’t use “obviously” in your arguments. It weakens them. If something is obvious, it doesn’t need to be pointed out.

It is abundantly clear to those who want to look that the prohibition of cannabis (and all drugs) does more harm than the plant itself (We know the willfully ignorant holdovers from the "reefer madness" era won't accept that of course).

The restriction itself does no harm. The harm comes from the harm is the lengths to which some people will go rather than give up a completely useless product. Seriously—paying off violent criminals for something you totally do not need? Are you guys crazy? Or just murderously self-serving?

It's a good societal control mechanism which is focused on the poor and minorities. The "dangerous" ones.

What is? The laws against marijuana, or the mandatory minimums? Be specific.

That's why the Senate exempted native people from Bill C-15 the last time around. The jails are already filled with a disproportionate number of them now. If they are further criminalized we may as well start building prisons right on the reserves.

Then natives should stop committing more crimes. Did you know that the violent crime rate of a given province is driven largely by the percentage of First Nations in the total population? Prairie provinces and Nunavut, with the highest First Nations populations, have the highest per-capita violent crime rates.

Out of the womb into the slammer.

Fetal alcohol syndrome is rampant in First Nations communities, too.

If the Harper Cons would criminalize alcohol, tobacco, and gambling I would vote for them just to see the "cigar smok'in" "gin swilling" "pill popp'in" "slot play'in" hypocritical old Con farts twist in the wind. If we are legislating morality then let's go all the way. LMAO!

There’s something incredibly sad and pathetic about watching a middle-aged father mooning The Man like a petulant adolescent. One wonders if his kids haven’t already surpassed him in emotional development.

Decriminalizing the growing of cannabis for personal use would eliminate many of the problems created by the black market. The we could criminalize alcohol and then as cannabis spreads so would peace and happiness for mankind.

Are you high right now, Tony? Will you next discover the secrets of stellar fusion, as BudOracle did, while hang-gliding stoned? Or, as Steve Bottrell suggests, will you found a major new religion?

Anyone else notice how FAT Harper is getting. This does not bode well for his future both personally and in politics. We should have six month mandatory minimums for gluttony. After it is a sin.

Anyone else notice any parallels between this irrational hate based on Harper’s waistline—something totally irrelevant to his abilities as a statesman—and Bush Derangement Syndrome? If Harper wins a majority in the next election, will Tony require psychiatric care, as many Democrats did after Bush won a second term? Or will he simply start looking for hanging chads?

Tony, you’re such a fucking child, it’s pitiful. Harper’s twice the man you’ll ever be—not least because he’s progressed emotionally beyond the age of fifteen.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-21 12:12:03 AM

Boy, you guys are really waving the guns around today. And you don't see that that's why you lose.

Mandatory minimums are likely to become law, the gun registry is likely to be dismantled, and your side of the argument invariably dissolves into screeching anti-Catholic rants or personal potshots by embittered miscreants, while we hold fast our integrity. Who’s losing?

You can't debate, you just pull the gun and act all crazy. Do I need any more proof than these statements?

Proof of what? That we like banter? Need I remind you of your numerous anti-Christian meltdowns accusing priests of murdering infants in the confessionals?

** works for me --

Too bad; you still have to earn it.

And SM was really stroking his ... gun, when he says gems like this.

Have you been peeking?

yeah, END PROHIBITION. Sorry, I had to insert that comment.

You going to end all laws against other crimes too? The principle stands for all types of criminals, not just drug ones.

Here he really strokes his ...gun. While fantasizing about shooting people.

And you’re obsessed on the topic. Are you a closet Columbine wannabe?

Hes all worried about the people dieing in the Drug War, but wants to keep it going. So he can keep stroking his ...gun. Are you guys for real? Do you think you have a shred of respectability?

Kvetched the lifelong criminal. Unlike you, Steve, our conduct records are good enough to actually own firearms.

You guys are fucking sick.

Screeched the miscreant who floats his product to himself across lakes of blood and blames The Man for not building a bridge.

Were you spanked lots as children?

Were you spanked at all? Because middle-aged teenagers usually haven’t been. We have Benjamin Spock to thank for that.

Does the sound of a pump shotgun being racked give you a woody Matthews?

Why? Are you looking for a nice hard ramrod to have inserted in you? Do you like it slow and hard and deep in the ass, especially when the jism comes so hard and fast that it dribbles out of the corners of your mouth?

Is it because in real life your a pathetic loser with no friends outside the church?

Were you diddled in the confessional or in the sacristy, Steve?

Someone who would need a gun in a fight?

I suppose that makes all cops assholes, too?

Your just itching to shoot someone.

Why do you care? Are you afraid it might be you?

Guess you didn't get your chance when you where in the military.

At least I was deemed worthy to serve, dirtbag.

Did you even see a body? You know, really shot up.

Did you?

And if you did, how did it make you feel? Did it give you a woody? You guys can't be for real. Your just trolls.

Go back and read what you wrote and ask yourself who’s the troll. You spent that entire post whacking off into your hat and cramming it on our heads. The bitterness, the petulance, the hostility, the screaming outrage born of a lifetime of being a social misfit come through quite plainly. Remember what I said about atheists being sad, pathetic losers? Review your tone, review mine, and ask yourself who’s happier. Hint: It ain’t you.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-21 12:23:43 AM

Here's how I see, if you care.

We don’t. We only care about what you can prove. So far you have proven your virulent hatred for Christians and your general bitterness but not much else.

Iggy has seen the potential votes by the outcry from C-15 and the cost of Harpers policies on maintaining his drug war.

Outcry? What outcry? Had the Liberal-led coalition taken over last year, they would have spent at least as much, and everyone knows it. If Iggy can’t wrest power from Harper’s hands during a recession like this, there’s no hope for him when things inevitably get better, as they already are.

Iggy sees that the future is not bright, and knows that he can work the money angle for votes. Do we all agree the economy is not likely to get better anytime soon, if ever? Even Harpers 2 Billion estimate is way too much, and how many of us think they will come in under budget?

You assume that voters actually put logic into their choice of candidate, Steve. They don’t. They vote with their hearts for the party whose leader they dislike the least. And poll after poll puts Harper way out in front as the best leader.

Maybe Iggy will get some backbone yet.

And maybe Stevie Wonder will get his sight back.

Not that i would vote for him, unless he came right out and said "Legalize!'

Based on just that one issue, huh? Never mind the fact that he’s spent the last year sabotaging Parliament, never mind the fact that he’s even more unpopular than Stephane Dion. As long as he gives you weed, that’s it? Remember what I said about how selfish pot smokers were?

None of them care one way or the other. Its just a stump to get on and curry votes. I hope S-10 dies in the house.

I hope it passes and that our prisons are stuffed with petulant potheads long overdue for some time in the real world. I hope that drug dealers are hung up by the heels and flayed alive, the skin pulled off their backs in long, thin strips. Oh, and I hope that you spend ten years in the slammer taking it slow and hard and deep in the ass from some seven-footer named Bubba. And given your vitriolic hate for the Church, I’m wondering if you don’t have previous experience.

Hate's attractive, isn't it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-21 12:30:55 AM

As usual, when the potheads can't win by logic, they resort to chucking mud. This is why they're losing and their hero Marc Emery is going to spend the next five years breaking rocks. People are finally getting tired of their antics.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-21 12:31:47 AM

Having more "bad days," Steve-O? I understand bitter atheists get them a lot.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-21 12:36:30 AM

SHANE-

". If you’re worried about incarceration costs, there’s always the death penalty. Because doing nothing is not an option and you say jail doesn’t work, so that really only leaves one alternative."

Yea that makes lots of sense.. Ur a problem solver eh?

"We are not simply creating a job for another trafficker; this sentiment assumes that the pool of potential criminals is bottomless. It isn’t."

Hasnt bottomed out it 70 years. How much longer and how much money will it take to finally see the bottom?

"Finally, we agree on something—the market created by drug users is what drives the majority of the homicides."

Wrong, the market was fine until prohibition came along.

"The “unique” considerations you describe are common to all criminal enterprise, whether drug-related or otherwise. The Mafia in particular for years did not touch drugs, and after 1933 they made little money in alcohol"

A LITTLE MONEY? Are you that bat shit crazy?

". Whether they’re deterred or not is not the issue. "

YES it is. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Ever hear this? Its called harm reduction.

"I’d like to see some proof that there are more drugs available per capita today than in the 1970s. If there is, there’s a lot of unused product lying around, because actual use is down significantly since the 1970s."

The Report of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs - 1972

"While most media, social research and law enforcement attention has been focused on the use of drugs by young persons, there is increasing evidence that otherwise conventional North American adults are also smoking marijuana or hashish. Their numbers are certainly increasing (particularly as persons with high school or college cannabis experience mature), and although only 3.4% of those inter-viewed in the national household survey reported that they had used the drug by April of 1970 this still represents approximately half a million persons."

Today, Just under 9% of the population has used cannabis in the last 30 days... Use has increased and therefor the amount of cannabis on the street must have increased as they have to have cannabis to use cannabis.

"If banning a substance raises its price, doesn’t that mean fewer people will use it? How many people out there drive Porsches, compared to Chevys? Once price gets past a certain point, most people begin to ask themselves if it’s really worth the expense."

Think Porshe still makes a lot of money? I bet they do... Seeing as its become a custom to buy cannabis at 10 dollars a gram, i would bet people would still buy it with a moderate increase, plus you can get deals for the more you buy, the industry would continue.. Or decide to go a different route like growing their own. Look at smokes, the price goes up and people still pay it, it is only a small percent whom look to different alternatives, the easiest one being contraband smokes.

"Furthermore, you once again assume that everyone has as criminal a mentality as you, and that a majority of the population would actually resort to crime to drink Coca-Cola—unlikely"

SEAMS TO ME YOU WERE UNABLE TO COMPREHEND THAT WAS A QUOTE OF A CONSERVATIVE SENATOR ON BILL s-10. Dumbass... WOW.



"No, the problem is not the substance, at least not so much, in the case of marijuana. The problem is criminals—and I’m not talking about the pushers."

LMAO, yea, the guy using the safest recreational drug on the planet is the real problem here...

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-21 7:33:24 AM

Man, it's fun to provoke weak minded, racist, easily manipulated fools. Particularly the religious ones who have been indoctrinated from birth. You know, the very malleable Harper faithful. LMAO!

Harper will never get a majority despite the worst opposition in Canadian history. He's too extreme as evidenced by his followers. Cannabis will be legalized, it's just a matter of time. It's God's will.

Posted by: Tony_42 | 2010-05-21 7:36:25 AM

"Finally, we agree on something—the market created by drug users is what drives the majority of the homicides. All they have to do is stop using. But for some reason, if you point out the fact that they are responsible for bankrolling the killings, they get all defensive and start blaming The Man"

It is not the market that drives the homicides. The market can exist without the gangsters if the laws change. The gangsters are simply taking advantage of quick and easy profit that prohibition provides for them.

Further, when you take non-violent offenders such as marijuana users and put them in violent prisons, you are creating more violent criminals. There is absolutely no evidence to show that mandatory minimum sentencing will do anything but increase crime and violence. There is plenty of evidence that says it will do exactly that.

http://www.cfenet.ubc.ca/news/releases/new-report-finds-drug-prohibition-stricter-law-enforcement-key-sources-violence-and-gu

The systematic review identified 15 international studies examining the impact of drug-law enforcement on violence. Contrary to the prevailing belief that drug-law enforcement reduces violence, 87% of the studies (13 studies) observed that drug law enforcement was associated with increasing levels of drug-market violence.

Posted by: Curtman | 2010-05-21 7:37:58 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.