The Shotgun Blog

« UK voters take note of the Greek crisis | Main | No new dawn for the Liberal Democrats »

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Mandatory minimums and a lack of basic common sense

The government is reintroducing its mandatory minimum sentencing for cannabis growers. NDP Libby Davis hits the nail on the head:

New Democratic Party MP Libby Davies, a vocal opponent of mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes, warned Wednesday that mandatory terms for drug crimes will cost billions because they will "clog up" the prison system.

Moreover, Nicholson has refused to supply any evidence that mandatory minimums deter crime, she said.

"He could not offer anything," said Davies. "This approach that they're running with is based on this U.S. experience that has been a colossal failure both politically, economically, and from a justice point of view. Why would we be crazy enough to repeat that in Canada?"

Two studies prepared for the Justice Department, one in 2002 and the other in 2005, say that mandatory minimums do not work.

In my graduate program at the University of Edinburgh they talk a lot about the importance of policy learning. This is the process by which politicians or officials take ideas that are of interest in other jurisdictions, study it, discern its successes and failures, then try and apply its lessons to their own jurisdiction. It is a method that is full of potential and pitfalls, but it is something that anyone who is interested in public policy should be active in.

This appears to be what the federal government has done: Looked at a policy in another jurisdiction, discovered that it did not work, and then decided to apply it anyway. It doesn’t matter if you are pro legalization of pot or not. This is something that goes beyond the issue of drugs and society. This is about basic common sense.

This policy does not work; all data show that it does not work. And the government has provided no evidence to the contrary. So why in the name of whatever you find holy is the government going ahead with this plan?

Minister Nicholson says that this policy will "send a message" that "if you sell or produce drugs, you'll pay with jail time."

Personally I think it sends the message that government policy and basic logic is not on speaking terms.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on May 6, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

It's almost as if there is political opportunity in introducing this.

Posted by: TM | 2010-05-06 9:46:57 AM

There should be mandatory maximums instead - first offense, 5 years at hard labor. Second, 15. Third, Life. The drug culture must be crushed brutally.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-06 10:02:43 AM

"This is the process by which politicians or officials take ideas that are of interest in other jurisdictions, study it, discern its successes and failures, then try and apply its lessons to their own jurisdiction."

Hugh, if legislators followed this process honestly, they would discover that their time would be better spent prorogued. It becomes quite clear when you realize that virtually everything that government touches turns to shit, a sort of negative Midas touch. Always bet on vote-buying.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2010-05-06 10:37:15 AM

"He could not offer anything."

How about the simple, inescapable fact that people who are in prison are not elsewhere at the same time committing crimes? I have NEVER heard anyone even attempt to address that point, probably because it's incontestable. The pool of potential criminals is not bottomless; eventually you will run out of angry young men with criminals tendencies. Moreover, it's well known, and any policeman will tell you, that 90% of crimes are committed by 10% of the offenders.

Oh, and that "colossal failure" in America? Their crime rate is the lowest in 30 years and lower than the average for the entire 20th century. If this is failure, I'll take some, please. And if you argue that it will cost too much to keep them locked up, I'll simply counter that hanging them costs next to nothing.

P.S. Drug users and basic logic are not exactly on speaking terms either, Hugh. How can you ask a government to be rational if the people won't?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-06 11:18:46 AM

"The pool of potential criminals is not bottomless; eventually you will run out of angry young men with criminals tendencies."

Depending on what gets classified as a "crime", we could easily generate a bottomless supply of criminals to fill our shiny new jails.

"Moreover, it's well known, and any policeman will tell you, that 90% of crimes are committed by 10% of the offenders."

So let's come down hard on that 10% who are repeatedly causing problems. For the remaining 90% of cases, who by your own admission are not causing nearly as much trouble, let's look at the circumstances and come up with an appropriate punishment. Oh, wait. . . that is the opposite of mandatory minimum sentences. Are you sure that stat supports your position?

"[America's] crime rate is the lowest in 30 years and lower than the average for the entire 20th century. If this is failure, I'll take some, please."

Canadian crime rates are also the lowest they have been in 25 years, and the rate of violent crimes per capita is significantly less than in the US. Our property crime rates per capita are very similar I think.

Most importantly though, we don't have thousands of people rotting in jail for a victimless crime (I'm referring to growing pot for personal use). A quick google search brings up the stat that 55% of incarcerated Americans are locked up for drug crime. Maybe that has something to do with California being ordered to reduce its prison population by 27% due to overcrowding?

Posted by: MJ | 2010-05-06 12:18:32 PM

Some crime stats for those interested:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070718/dq070718b-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/090721/dq090721a-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm

Posted by: MJ | 2010-05-06 12:24:15 PM

Poor zebulon pike must be on some wild drug to believe that,or must be severely mentally ill, poor sap

Posted by: don | 2010-05-06 1:07:01 PM

Beating druggies is rather too easy, since they defeated themselves by becoming addicts and a drain on society. Oh well. Its their fault.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-06 1:38:32 PM

Depending on what gets classified as a "crime", we could easily generate a bottomless supply of criminals to fill our shiny new jails.

Marijuana has been illegal in Canada for 85 years. We're not generating anything. Criminals generate themselves, and no one but the criminals are responsible for their choices.

So let's come down hard on that 10% who are repeatedly causing problems.

People who grow and distribute drugs tend to be repeat offenders. Actually, they tend to be career offenders--the very type we want to come down hard on.

Actually, Canada's property crime rate is significantly higher. "Hot" burglaries (with the owner at home) are much rarer in the U.S., where the burglar runs a significant risk of getting shot. But if the focus of your objection is that Canada policy substantially apes U.S. policy, and U.S. policy has resulted in a crime drop, and Canadian policy also has resulted in a crime drop, what is your objection again???

Most importantly though, we don't have thousands of people rotting in jail for a victimless crime (I'm referring to growing pot for personal use).

How many thousand? And can you actually back this up? Because real penalties for simple possession in the U.S., as opposed to theoretical maximums, tend to be not much harsher than Canada's. The pot lobby's lurid fantasies of millions of "peaceful, law-abiding" people breaking rocks in chain gangs for simple possession are just that--fantasies.

A quick google search brings up the stat that 55% of incarcerated Americans are locked up for drug crime.

Really? Because according to the Justice Department statistics I read, over 50% of incarcerated Americans are locked up for violent crime. Drug offenders contribute only 19% to the total, and as noted above, these are hardline pushers who frequently have violence and weapons charges to go along with their trafficking charges.

Maybe that has something to do with California being ordered to reduce its prison population by 27% due to overcrowding?

No, that has to do with hippie judges who think that convicted felons should get better housing than some taxpayers. That decision is being appealed, by the way.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-06 2:12:12 PM

"Personally I think it sends the message that government policy and basic logic is not on speaking terms."

Agreed Hugh. This is just grandstanding for votes. The Harperites are hoping there are enough stupid people out there to buy that tripe. I hope it blows up in their faces. They lost my vote a long time ago.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-06 4:47:50 PM

You druggie people think that your cause actually matters? That's a laugh. You're persecuting yourselves. The NDP only cares about you because they repeatedly fall for all kinds of loony causes, like global warming. You're the perfect example of a not even having a leg to stand on.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-06 5:49:03 PM

Who the hell are you talking to Zeb? Who is "you druggie people"? You get more hysterical with every post. Go hug your bible, and calm down.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-06 6:38:03 PM

As mexico and the united states has shown, increasing enforcement does nothing to reduced violence and crime as shane likes to think, and in most cases intensifies it.

"A systematic review published Tuesday of more than 300 international studies dating back 20 years found that when police crack down on drug users and dealers, the result is almost always an increase in violence, say researchers at the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, a nonprofit group based in Britain and Canada."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guOEw7_J3ArANWgM4t1QiLG_6jnAD9FB7R0G3

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-06 7:18:03 PM

You mean, when they refused to legalize marijuana? Well, that puts you on the out with every government since 1925. Even the Liberals planned only to decriminalize pot, not legalize it.

This will probably be distasteful for you to face, Steve, but most people want criminals punished, not coddled. Except, of course, the criminals themselves—and guess which category you fall into.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-06 7:20:33 PM

This is the legislation every Wipehead has been asking for begging for crying for for years...

if a nice otherwise law abiding Wipehead gets caught growing _fewer than six pot plants its considered non commercial- pay a fine and its back home to start again. No jail time.
" I have a dream " etc

Grow _more than five plants and that's crossing the line into commercial and yes, its six months of macaroni and bad TV in the close company of a bunch of dead boring petty criminals..six months off the planet: lose your job, your apartment, your dog, your girlfriend, your bad attitiude and your peace of mind. That was your choice

Libby Davis is the MPP in the most drug infested riding in the Dominion of Canada if not all of North America. Her concerns that the new mandatory minimum laws will "clog up the prison system" is very true- her Wipehead constituents will, for the most part, end up behind bars in short order and normal people won't vote for her.

Libby Davis is one of Marc Emery, the Prince of Pots' greatest supporters.. it was she who delivered the petition-in-vain a few weeks ago in parliment asking for his non extradition to the USA. That went nowhere fast..

So a drug criminal apologist NDP politician doesn;'t like legislation a democratically elected government passes- what else is new?

*********** advertisement **************

Wipehead T Shirts for Sale-
pop culture legislation is happening !
wear the law till you understand the rules

Clever slogan reminds even the densest Wipehead that the times they are a changin'- have actually changed..and look what these changes are !!

** GROW UP TO FIVE // SMOKE AND THRIVE **
** GROW MORE THAN SIX // IN JAIL WITH DICKS **

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-06 7:50:55 PM

As mexico and the united states has shown, increasing enforcement does nothing to reduced violence and crime as shane likes to think, and in most cases intensifies it.

Violence has dropped in the United States, you airhead. Granted it's gone up in Mexico, but that's because half the authorities there are on the take. The U.S. at one time was not much different; significant dents against the Mafia and other criminal organizations came about with federal task forces and reduced corruption.

A quote from a drug-lobby think-tank. Well, wow. Kind of like how all the "peer-reviewed evidence" from the efficacy of Insite, Vancouver's "safe-injection site," comes from the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. I have to admit, that's a powerful argument, listening to people tell me that they're right.

Cracking down on any criminal organization or industry will initially produce more bloodshed, as it repeatedly attempts to consolidate and regroup. That doesn't mean we fire the cops, empty all the jails, and rip up all the laws.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-06 8:07:01 PM

I got you figured out Matthews. Its the "devils weed" isn't it? All the rest of your non-sense is just to cover that up, isn't it. Its that dumbass, child raping, child killing, common sense lacking, submissive religion of yours that directs your vitriol on this subject. Well you can call me a criminal all you want, but the culture of pot smokers has never caused as much human misery as your religion. Or are you like those preachers who rail against homosexuality, then go out and get a boy from Rentboy.com to have sex with? Do you really just want to smoke a fattie Shane?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYDlXfaivD4&playnext_from=TL&videos=Dm-VRs2eaWk

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-06 8:25:36 PM

That's what I admire about you Steve- you are brave enough to talk shit even when you know better and won't back down, even when confronted with a superior argument.

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-06 8:55:38 PM

I got you figured out Matthews.

With what? The same scintillating intellect that tells you it’s okay to be an accessory to murder as long as everyone else is doing it?

Its the "devils weed" isn't it?

Actually, no. I don’t like criminals of any stripe. But from the start, I could tell by its tone that MJ’s post was going to focus on pot. You guys are so predictable it’s tragic.

All the rest of your non-sense is just to cover that up, isn't it.

There’s no hyphen in “nonsense.”

Its that dumbass, child raping, child killing, common sense lacking, submissive religion of yours that directs your vitriol on this subject.

Actually, Christianity specifically forbids murder, rape, and incest. What it does not forbid is smoking pot. In Christian countries, that was a decision taken by secular authorities, for health and order reasons. How can you not know this? Or will your emotional investment in your identity as a permanent victim of mainstream society not permit you to process the data?

Well you can call me a criminal all you want, but the culture of pot smokers has never caused as much human misery as your religion.

The culture of pot smokers is directly responsible for the bloodshed in Mexico. They provide the market that the cartels ruthlessly satisfy. If you all stopped buying, they’d stop selling. But you prefer the bloodshed to doing that, don’t you?

Or are you like those preachers who rail against homosexuality, then go out and get a boy from Rentboy.com to have sex with? Do you really just want to smoke a fattie Shane?

Do you have any hard statistics as to what percentage of the clergy are homosexual, Steve? Or do you just rail against stereotypical talking points because you have nothing of substance? Despicable and base though taking sexual liberties with children is, it’s less despicable and base than lining the pockets of Murder Incorporated. Moreover, the Catholic Church can point to centuries of charitable works, including hospitals, orphanages, feeding the poor and educating the illiterate. The Church’s influence on society has been, in the main, positive. What can petty criminals like you point to that offsets the damage you do?

[crickets chirping]

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-06 9:05:20 PM

The subject is a mute point since California will make pot legal before the year is out. They need the tax revenue and where California goes , we usually follow. Bets anyone??.

Posted by: peterj | 2010-05-06 9:52:01 PM

sure my $50 says no adult in California will smoke a legal recreational joint of Cannabis before Dec 31- 2010 11:59 PM EST-
key word is " Legal "

we will look in on Jan 01 and see who prevailed - swap email addies - cash no cheques.. do you accept these terms Wipehead Citizen Peterj ?

fair warning !
- Marc Emery himself declined betting on this

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-06 10:29:05 PM

do you accept these terms Wipehead Citizen Peterj ?
Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-06 10:29:05 PM

If that is the bet , you have already lost, as pot can be purchased for "medicinal reasons" in hundreds of stores now. Very legal.

Wipehead Citizen Peterj ?
I did not say I was for or against it. Simply stating a opinion. Unlike your lowbrow reply I did not feel the need to insult anyone because a difference of opinion.
Let us revisit this on Jan 1/11. I usually delete dead posts but will save this one.

Posted by: peterj | 2010-05-06 11:28:06 PM

You are such an extremist Shane. Pot smokers are no more an accessory to murder than you are. And if we are, its your fault douche bag. You have no right to tell me what to do with my body. That's it, that's all. So when assholes who think they know better start telling me what I can or can't do, they can kiss my ass. And I'll break the damn law. And that's why prohibitions fail. Because lots of people think like me. Lock em all up Shane? Shoot em? These are the same assholes who profess to love their children, and send them to war. The same assholes who cry "what about the children?" every time the word "drugs" comes up, then creates the black market that gives them easy access to it. The drug war will never be won. And your an asshole to be promoting it.

"Actually, Christianity specifically forbids murder, rape, and incest. What it does not forbid is smoking pot. In Christian countries, that was a decision taken by secular authorities, for health and order reasons. How can you not know this? Or will your emotional investment in your identity as a permanent victim of mainstream society not permit you to process the data?"

And don't forget homosexuality, infidelity, greed, and your wonderful views on contraception.
So all your brethren that are guilty of all these crimes should be what? Shot? Imprisoned forever?
And what Christian country would that be? You mean Canada? The US? If you mean Christians came over and took it, using violence, force and robbery, well then I guess its a Christian country right? I don't think so. Anyway, you don't think religion has anything to do with policy in a "Christian country"? Then what was the turban uproar about? The kirpan? The burka? And dare I say it, the drug war? It is widely known religion is against the use of drugs dimbulb, how can you even deny that?

"The culture of pot smokers is directly responsible for the bloodshed in Mexico. They provide the market that the cartels ruthlessly satisfy. If you all stopped buying, they’d stop selling. But you prefer the bloodshed to doing that, don’t you?"

Trotting that out again? For one thing, Mexican pot does not come here. And you provide the market by making something that is desired by a large segment of the population, that is relatively harmless, prohibited. The drug war is nothing but a make work project for politicians and law enforcement. They are the ones responsible for the bloodshed. So don't try and blame that on others. Its my body, I'm not harming anyone, so fuck off. If pigs had wings, they could fly, whats your point? And you are the one promoting bloodshed, not I.

"Despicable and base though taking sexual liberties with children is, it’s less despicable and base than lining the pockets of Murder Incorporated"

Oh really? So you think sexually abusing children is less damaging than giving some guy some paper in exchange for weed? How fucked up are you?
You are hilarious. Murder Incorporated.... LOL. Look around you dolt. Government and religion dwarf the body count of the drug war. Always to the extreme, ay buddy?

"Moreover, the Catholic Church can point to centuries of charitable works, including hospitals, orphanages, feeding the poor and educating the illiterate. The Church’s influence on society has been, in the main, positive. What can petty criminals like you point to that offsets the damage you do?"

Who the fuck cares what the Catholic Church has done? They are just fleecing the flock and trying to increase the herd. The Church's influence on society has been, in the main, negative. What delusion do you suffer that makes you see it otherwise? If mankind knew all that we know now, and will know in the future, 1 month after arriving, how ever we got here, there would be no religion. Nor nationalism, money, or any of the other baggage we carry around now. Religion of all creeds have done their best to stifle science and progression that did not see eye to eye with some religious hypocrites view. Think of all the people who have died in the name of religion, in one way or another. Do I think the world would be a better place without your churches? HELL YA.

So my point to all this is, you are influenced by your church. Your behavior is defined by your beliefs. So because your religion controls you, you project your desire to control others. That's how religion works. So your tireless argument against marijuana stems from your religious beliefs. All the rest of your BS is just a smoke screen. The Catholic Church is very much against the use of pot Shane, and you know it. So don't try dancing out of that one. So is this waste of your time penance for something? Well that was fun.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-05-07 12:45:10 AM

It may be bad form, but I'm going to republish part of a comment I made elsewhere on a blog post nearly identical to this one.

My basic point is that this law clearly distinguishes between the "innocent" stoners who want to puff their lives away and the gangsters who control far more of the industry than the pro-pot idealists care to admit.

"Marijuana has become deeply entwined with criminal culture. You will never successfully legalize the stuff until you can deal a simultaneous blow to the illegal criminal element.

This is the sort of law that marijuana activists should be PUSHING. Are they too stoned to realize that they're working at cross purposes to their own cause? (Yea, cheapshot, I know. But seriously, put down the bongs.)"

Posted by: Tim | 2010-05-07 3:17:48 AM

"even when confronted with a superior argument."
Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-06 8:55:38 PM

lol.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-05-07 6:42:39 AM

The subject is a mute point since California will make pot legal before the year is out. They need the tax revenue and where California goes , we usually follow. Bets anyone??.

The word is "moot," Peter. It's also unwise to count your chickens before they're hatched. And where has California led that Canada has followed?

California has a three-strikes law; do we? California has the death penalty; do we? California said "no" to same-sex marriage; did we? California has a hostile Federal government to contend with on the pot issue; do we?

In other words, don't get your hopes up. If the most success you can point to is a likely victory in one or two states out of fifty, that's hardly a watershed event. And if their only reason for doing so is a cynical money grab, you can't even claim a moral victory. Will California open whorehouses next?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 6:50:45 AM

If that is the bet , you have already lost, as pot can be purchased for "medicinal reasons" in hundreds of stores now. Very legal.

"Hundreds"? Are we talking California or Canada? Because in this country you need permission from the federal government to smoke pot. That itself is a highly questionable practice since pot has not been approved as safe by Health Canada and judges certainly should not be deciding on the merits of potential medicines.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 6:52:27 AM

Very astutely put, Tim.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 6:53:49 AM

Yo peterj

the bet was clearly "legal recreational"
" Wipehead " is a tern of endearment..
you take offense way too easily from a "lowbrow"
so if you can spare a moment from your busy schedule of deleting, please respond with a "yes" or "no" to the posted challenge-- $50 on status legal recreational pot in California by the end of this pear 2010. I say no you say whatever

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-07 7:24:11 AM

You are such an extremist Shane. Pot smokers are no more an accessory to murder than you are.

Extremist? You’re a lying sack of shit. You know the statement you just made is bullshit. Pot smokers pay the expenses of murderers and fuel the violence. That sounds like accessory to murder to me.

And if we are, its your fault douche bag.

Of course. No one is responsible for what you do except everybody else.

You have no right to tell me what to do with my body. That's it, that's all.

That doesn’t erase the fact that you are an accessory to murder. That’s just what you tell yourself to convince yourself it’s okay.

So when assholes who think they know better start telling me what I can or can't do, they can kiss my ass. And I'll break the damn law.

Bold words, outlaw. Do you need any further proof that you have a criminal mentality, and would have even if there were no laws at all? The flaw is not in the law; it’s in you.

And that's why prohibitions fail.

And by “failure,” you mean “reducing addiction rates by 50%,” am I right?

Because lots of people think like me.

Lots of people, like you, do not think at all. It’s all about fuh-fuh-feelings and how the world needs to get off your nuts.

Lock em all up Shane? Shoot em?

Don’t tempt me. Would we even notice they were gone?

These are the same assholes who profess to love their children, and send them to war.

Our armies are composed of volunteers, the great majority of whom will tell you they believe in what they’re doing.

The same assholes who cry "what about the children?" every time the word "drugs" comes up, then creates the black market that gives them easy access to it.

Of course! It’s always MUCH easier to find a product when the supply is restricted.

The drug war will never be won.

Nor will the war against crime. It’s a balancing act. Of course, you’d like to see that war fail too, wouldn’t you?

And your an asshole to be promoting it.

Screamed the blood-spattered dope fiend.

And don't forget homosexuality, infidelity, greed, and your wonderful views on contraception.

Are you arguing those are good things? Man, you are messed up, aren’t you?

So all your brethren that are guilty of all these crimes should be what? Shot? Imprisoned forever?

Actually, part of the Christian faith is penance and absolution. All sin, including priests, but a difference is recognized between the remorseful and the flippantly provocative.

And what Christian country would that be? You mean Canada? The US?

Pretty much the whole Christian world, including places as far apart as Russia and South America. Did Aslinger and Company have them all on speed dial?

If you mean Christians came over and took it, using violence, force and robbery, well then I guess its a Christian country right?

Actually, the Christianization of Europe was accomplished largely through missionaries and was mostly peaceful. In fact, early Christians braved fierce persecution.

Anyway, you don't think religion has anything to do with policy in a "Christian country"?

Can you PROVE that this was the result of Christian values? Because up to now you’ve been parroting the common view that this was the result of racism and xenophobia.

Then what was the turban uproar about? The kirpan? The burka?

Are religious reasons given for opposing these things? Or do they stem from more practical considerations (occupational safety regulations, safe schools, and the occasional need to identify a citizen)? Babble, babble, thrash and scrabble.

And dare I say it, the drug war? It is widely known religion is against the use of drugs dimbulb, how can you even deny that?

Then it should be no problem for you to produce that piece of Church policy that forbids it.

Trotting that out again?

I know; it sucks to be reminded you’re a blood-soaked scumbag, doesn’t it?

For one thing, Mexican pot does not come here.

How do you know? This is an unregulated, undocumented industry. Do Mexican growers embed a unique identifier code in their marijuana’s DNA that makes it easy to trace? Do drug dealers normally invite such traces? Babble, babble, thrash and scrabble.

And you provide the market by making something that is desired by a large segment of the population, that is relatively harmless, prohibited.

No, the users and their desire provide the market. Sorry, but you can’t escape that reality. It’s all you, baby.

The drug war is nothing but a make work project for politicians and law enforcement.

What, no mention of priests that time? I thought it was a Christian initiative. No wait, it isn’t. Hold up, yes it is. No, wait…

They are the ones responsible for the bloodshed. So don't try and blame that on others.

Uh huh. And the laws against stealing are responsible for the deaths of anyone who’s murdered by a mugger. Babble, babble, thrash and scrabble.

Its my body, I'm not harming anyone, so fuck off.

IT’S MY BODY, AND I’LL TOKE IF I WANT TO! TOKE IF I WANT TO!!! Dude, that is so 1960s. Like squaresville, man. Grow the fuck up, would you?

If pigs had wings, they could fly, whats your point?

But they don’t, so they can’t, and the guilt is still yours.

And you are the one promoting bloodshed, not I.

This is a recording…CLICK

Oh really? So you think sexually abusing children is less damaging than giving some guy some paper in exchange for weed? How fucked up are you?

When that money is used by armed criminals to wage campaigns of violence that often snare innocent bystanders, yeah.

You are hilarious. Murder Incorporated.... LOL. Look around you dolt. Government and religion dwarf the body count of the drug war. Always to the extreme, ay buddy?

So by all means, let’s add more, huh? Do you even think before you post this piffle? Your last synapse died of loneliness, didn’t it?

Who the fuck cares what the Catholic Church has done?

Apparently you do, because you never stop yapping about it. Just part of your endless quest for people to blame for your own criminality.

They are just fleecing the flock and trying to increase the herd.

And you and other stoners alone know better, huh?

The Church's influence on society has been, in the main, negative. What delusion do you suffer that makes you see it otherwise?

I thought you said you didn’t care what the Church had done. I’ve already listed the good works they’ve done. Noticeably absent in your reply is anything worthwhile you have done.

If mankind knew all that we know now, and will know in the future, 1 month after arriving, how ever we got here, there would be no religion. Nor nationalism, money, or any of the other baggage we carry around now.

Of course! We’d all be living in a Venus Project Shangri-La; thus saith the stoner. (And the blood-soaked murderer.)

Religion of all creeds have done their best to stifle science and progression that did not see eye to eye with some religious hypocrites view.

Really? I was under the impression that great strides in science were made under the auspices of Islam in the Middle Ages. The Buddhist Chinese did pretty good too. And despite dropping the ball in a number of cases (notably Galileo’s), once the Renaissance was in full swing the Church offered little resistance. It even made some contributions, notably the discovery of modern genetics by the monk Mendel.

Think of all the people who have died in the name of religion, in one way or another.

It’s never about religion. Religion was just the hook on which a few murderous individuals hung their causes to give them a sheen of respectability. Sort of how like old potheads are cloaking their cause in the flag of libertarianism. You know the drill.

Do I think the world would be a better place without your churches? HELL YA.

You think the world would be a better place without all the things that define it. Perhaps it is the world that would be better off without you.

So my point to all this is, you are influenced by your church.

But can you prove as much in this case? No. That proof would be on the table, otherwise. Instead you just talk round and round in circles, reading off again and again the time-honoured Leftist malcontent litany.

Your behavior is defined by your beliefs.

Well, duh.

So because your religion controls you, you project your desire to control others.

Spare us the “no prisons inside imaginary borders; rhythm of Nature as our guide” shtick, Steve. Life is not a Figgy Duff album, or for that matter, a Joni Mitchell album.

That's how religion works. So your tireless argument against marijuana stems from your religious beliefs.

A as proof of B is a logical fallacy, boyo.

All the rest of your BS is just a smoke screen.

Of course, unlike that incredibly tedious and circumlocutious screed above, in which you try to blame everyone but yourself for your being a blood-soaked scumbag.

The Catholic Church is very much against the use of pot Shane, and you know it. So don't try dancing out of that one.

Then you shouldn’t have any trouble producing proof.

So is this waste of your time penance for something? Well that was fun.

Yes, you do enjoy ranting, don’t you? It probably takes your mind off the guilt of being a blood-soaked scumbag. Babble, babble, thrash and scrabble.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 7:28:54 AM

To say that a policy "works" is to say nothing at all.

Let me give you an example:

"Round-up works". That statement is false, if you are pouring Round-up on your lawn in the hope of thereby growing grass. The statement is true, if you're trying to kill every living bit of plant life on your lawn.

So it is with statements that "This policy works".

If your aim is to create more jobs in the police force and in the prison system; or if your job is to prop-up the manufacturers of guns, helicopters, cars, bullet proof vests, and doughnuts; if your aim is to prevent people from ceasing to buy millions or billions of dollars worth of patented pain killers and mood elevators each month; if your aim is to ensure that lots of folks can make money via violence, and pay some of those ill-gotten gains into party coffers; if your aim is to get financial support from middle-class families who are buying houses across the country and turning them into moderately-well-earning grow houses; or if your aim is to secure the loyalty of "deliver us from evil" children in adult bodies, then: Bill S-10 will "work".

In contrast, if you want a government that defends your life, liberty, and property; that uses force to ensure that nobody stops you from making choices concerning your own life, body, and property; if you want the laws concerning the production, sale, purchase and smoking of marijuana to be the same as the laws concerning the production, sale, purchase and drinking of gasoline (i.e., if you want PRINCIPLED, OBJECTIVE law) then: Bill S-10 does not "work".

The problem is, however, for every such violation of life, liberty and property committed by the Conservatives, there is another in the minds of each of the other parties in Parliament right now, each of whom is desperate to prevent individual adults from making peaceful choices for themselves. All of them have forgotten that they are not our lords and masters, but our neighbours and servants.

Posted by: Paul McKeever | 2010-05-07 7:55:29 AM

Your examples are rather simplistic, Paul. To grow a good lawn, it is sometimes necessary to kill off the old one if it is too infested with foreign grasses and weeds to be otherwise salvaged. Then good grass can be sown. So Round-Up can "work," in fact, as a step on the road to success, if only as a step. And so it is with this law. History has shown that unfettered access to these substances is intensely destructive; reasonable regulation is prudent.

By the way, has it occurred to you that marijuana might not get such a rough ride if its chief proponents didn't come across as such lawless malcontents? That gravely undesirable image is a part of pot culture, and so long as this persists, pot users will never achieve the legitimacy they seem to crave.

Your arguments also reveal another trait: extreme egoism, the idea that anything you do affects only you. But you don't exist in a vacuum, and what you do does affect other people. But, like so many other pot smokers/libertarians/anti-establishment types, you simply do not care. You are essentially an anti-social creature. That's another reason pot users lack legitimacy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 9:04:14 AM

@shane

"Violence has dropped in the United States, you airhead. Granted it's gone up in Mexico, but that's because half the authorities there are on the take."

So lets see, the USA currently has the most open cannabis laws in the past 30 years, mexico is cracking down more then ever.. The violence levels you claim and in check with what im saying shane and out of check with your own claims. Furthermore why is it the USA has the lowest violence in recent times yet any tom dick and harry can get a MM card for anything, and smoke till their hearts content, i thought open use according to you causes violence.

"A quote from a drug-lobby think-tank."

Think tank yes, drug lobby tho? How? They have financial interests in getting cannabis legal? I dont think so buddy. Try again.

"Well, wow. Kind of like how all the "peer-reviewed evidence" from the efficacy of Insite, Vancouver's "safe-injection site," comes from the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS."

Why wouldnt it come from there, insite is in BC, and its aim is at reducing transfer of blood born deseases like HIV. Whats the issue? Thats like saying the Canadian Cancer Society should shut up about things that cause cancer. Ur dumb.

"Cracking down on any criminal organization or industry will initially produce more bloodshed, as it repeatedly attempts to consolidate and regroup."

Then what? Then we will be rid of drugs? Dont think so, its never going to happen. If the USA cant throw money at the problem, then we in Canada dont have a chance in hell of it working.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 9:12:27 AM

fact is, cannabis use cant possibly hurt anyone but the user. Any other issue is caused by the prohibition. Criminalizing people for the use of a drug less addictive then caffeine does NOTHING to crack down on crime, NOTHING. There is no reason for the prohibition that in turn enriches organized crime which is the real issue with this whole cannabis debate.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 9:29:14 AM

What about the social and economic effects on families - i.e. lost jobs, poverty, educational shortcomings, domestic violence. The current prohibition regime offers redemption for most drug abusers, and retribution only on the most extreme, irresponsible cases. Drugs are a serious social issue. "Legalization" will not resolve it one bit.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2010-05-07 9:34:14 AM

“So lets see, the USA currently has the most open cannabis laws in the past 30 years…”

It does? What about the “drug war” that sees “75% of all new inmates imprisoned for drug offenses” and “millions of peaceful, law-abiding citizens rotting in prison for smoking a joint”? Facts are certainly flexible commodities when you’re around, aren’t they, Baker?

mexico is cracking down more then ever.

Since all the pusbags from Colombia were driven out and took up residence there, they had little choice. Now they’re going to go through the same agonies Colombia did until she got her justice system and police whipped into shape.

The violence levels you claim and in check with what im saying shane and out of check with your own claims.

Read that sentence again and see if you can hash any sense out of it. I couldn’t.

Furthermore why is it the USA has the lowest violence in recent times yet any tom dick and harry can get a MM card for anything, and smoke till their hearts content, i thought open use according to you causes violence.

I never said that. I said that paying criminal enterprises causes violence. America is simply more effective at suppressing it. That sky-high incarceration rate everybody loves to whine about? That’s what keeps violence levels down. News flash: ALL THOSE AMERICANS IN PRISON HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES. THEY BELONG IN JAIL. America is more efficient at catching crooks than most people, and for this, the world scorns her?

Think tank yes, drug lobby tho? How? They have financial interests in getting cannabis legal? I dont think so buddy. Try again.

The organization’s very NAME states their position on drugs, and you deny they are part of the drug lobby, just because they stand to make no apparent profit? Maybe you should look up “lobby.”

Why wouldnt it come from there, insite is in BC, and its aim is at reducing transfer of blood born deseases like HIV. Whats the issue?

The fact that it’s an activist organization and that ALL the information is coming ONLY from there. The source is biased and pushing its own agenda in the guise of science. Science that contains surprisingly few hard numbers; actual statistics on InSite are pretty much impossible to come by, and such as exist seem only to confirm their contention that “at least it hasn’t made things worse.” Some achievement.

Thats like saying the Canadian Cancer Society should shut up about things that cause cancer. Ur dumb.

I’m saying that it is imprudent to rely on information from a single source, particularly if that source has a vested interest. Fortunately, much of the data from CCS is verified by other organizations, researchers, doctors, and professional organizations. InSite has none of this.

Then what? Then we will be rid of drugs? Dont think so, its never going to happen. If the USA cant throw money at the problem, then we in Canada dont have a chance in hell of it working.

You’re a moron, Baker. You’re a walking example of what pot does to the brain. I have always maintained drugs would never disappear entirely. What I said was that we could shift the balance in our favour by helping to minimize drug use as much as possible. But your brain is a like a burned-out computer down to its last transistor, capable of holding a 0 or a 1 but not both, either on or off, like the idiot lights on a car dash. Either drugs are gone or not, and therefore things are either good or bad, with nothing in between.

Of course, that also saves you from having to prove anything or think at all, so perhaps it’s simply a ruse to avoid work. Pot users are noted for being lazy idle little loafers.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 9:51:36 AM

"What about the social and economic effects on families - i.e. lost jobs, poverty, educational shortcomings, domestic violence."

If someone is dumb enough to loose their job, its not because of cannabis use, not only do cannabis users easily hold jobs, but there is a large number whom have been extremely successful in big business. These people arent loosing their jobs due to cannabis, and im not claiming it makes people successful in the job market, only that it is an independent factor. Take marc emery for instance, VERY SUCCESSFUL IN BUSINESS, likely more successful then you could ever be.

If their poor, cannabis didn't steal their money (cannabis doesnt have hands/pockets and is less addictive then caffeine).

cannabis hasnt stopped anyone for getting the education they want, 2 friends of mine, who smoke more then any others i know, including me, both now have university degrees, one in anthropology, and the other for teaching English as a second language, and just the other day headed off to Uruguay to start his new career.

and finally cannabis use is basically devoid of domestic violence, known to mitigate violence unlike alcohol which incites it. Note the lack of violence during cannabis rallies vs that found at a neighborhood bar, compare the number of people at each. If we could switch the wife beaters off alcohol onto cannabis i would bet we would see a reduction in domestic violence.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 9:52:51 AM

Yo Citizen McKeever

how is your epic Marc Emery movie doing?
we saw it here on WS.TV and it was actually pretty good,Smart move keeping Jodies scenes to a minimium and adding the Biblical spin for your Wipehead pagan audience

We bet if you were polite you could cut a deal with the producers of that hit TV show
" Intervention "
they are always looking for "Crime does not pay" clips..

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-07 9:56:00 AM

"...fact is, cannabis use cant possibly hurt anyone but the user...."

thanks Baker for that observation
We knew you'd get it right at some point

Posted by: 419 | 2010-05-07 9:59:08 AM

"It does? What about the “drug war” that sees “75% of all new inmates imprisoned for drug offenses” and “millions of peaceful, law-abiding citizens rotting in prison for smoking a joint”? Facts are certainly flexible commodities when you’re around, aren’t they, Baker?"

First ive never said anything about the amount of prisoners in jail for drug crimes, but after the policy's of the past, it will take time for all those people to finish their sentences, not many states lock people up for 20 years for a joint anymore, but it was longer then 20 years ago that these laws were in place... BUT in the past FEW years, states have enacted MM laws that are extremely open, decriminalized all over the place, and a few states are directly looking at legalization. They are the most progressive then ever and according to you, lowest crime in past 30 years with these new laws. Wheres all the crime to go along with all these open cannabis smokers?

"Since all the pusbags from Colombia were driven out and took up residence there, they had little choice. Now they’re going to go through the same agonies Colombia did until she got her justice system and police whipped into shape."

So we do not get rid of them, they just relocate their trade routes... How many police will it take to cover every route every possible avenue? How much money will that take? Will it cost more then the actual cost of the drugs on society, you bet cha. And where does it leave us, with drugs coming in from another direction. Why is it that drugs are more available then ever if things are supposedly working? Why hasnt the cocaine stopped or even slowed despite your claim of success in Colombia? Is it really successful if it misses its main and only goal of reducing supply?

I said-

"So lets see, the USA currently has the most open cannabis laws in the past 30 years, mexico is cracking down more then ever.. The violence levels you claim and in check with what im saying shane and out of check with your own claims."

You said-
"Read that sentence again and see if you can hash any sense out of it. I couldn’t."

Ohs noes i accidentally hit "d" instead of "e" which are right beside each other. My bad shane, funny you could not use your superior logic to deduce this.

"I never said that. I said that paying criminal enterprises causes violence."

Ok so we should cut the criminal enterprises out then, that means regulation shane.

"America is simply more effective at suppressing it. That sky-high incarceration rate everybody loves to whine about? That’s what keeps violence levels down."

BHAHAH If high incarceration rates actually worked at reducing crime the USA would be the safest place on earth.. This is not the case,you know this...you loose.

"News flash: ALL THOSE AMERICANS IN PRISON HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES. THEY BELONG IN JAIL."

News flash: locking someone up because they want to partake in a substance safer then caffeine is not a good use of tax payer funds.

"America is more efficient at catching crooks than most people, and for this, the world scorns her?"

No, the world scorns her because it doesnt work. Its you against the world shane.

"The organization’s very NAME states their position on drugs"

Hmm, really eh?
"International Centre for Science in Drug Policy"

That does not state a stance buddy. Only a way to arrive at a stance, which is in all actuality the best way... What do you have against science besides it not agreeing with you?

"and you deny they are part of the drug lobby, just because they stand to make no apparent profit? Maybe you should look up “lobby.”"

Wiki - Lobbying (also Lobby) is a form of advocacy with the intention of influencing decisions made by legislators and officials in the government by individuals, other legislators, constituents, or advocacy groups...In the United States the Internal Revenue Service makes a clear distinction for nonprofit organizations between lobbying and advocacy limiting the former to "asking policymakers to take a specific position on a specific piece of legislation,

I do not believe their goal is to specifically influence people, rather use science to find truths. Our opinion may differ, but research and publishing studies is not lobbying. Otherwise i guess all science based studies are lobbying efforts right shane?

"The fact that it’s an activist organization and that ALL the information is coming ONLY from there."

No the fact is this is a peer reviewed research study done by qualified researchers whom arent profiting from drug reform, so whats it matter if the group is an activist organization when proper research is on their side?

"I’m saying that it is imprudent to rely on information from a single source, particularly if that source has a vested interest."

Funny, because i have posted many sources in the past supporting my position. Where are your sources from? DEA? RCMP?

"You’re a moron, Baker. You’re a walking example of what pot does to the brain. I have always maintained drugs would never disappear entirely."

Ok so when will they be reduced, the past 80 years of prohibition has only seen an increase when will we break even smart guy? How much money will that take?

"But your brain is a like a burned-out computer down to its last transistor, capable of holding a 0 or a 1 but not both, either on or off, like the idiot lights on a car dash. Either drugs are gone or not, and therefore things are either good or bad, with nothing in between."

Umm, computers dont "burn out" like that.. sry. Should have said "your brain is like a corrupted ram sector causing your mind to continually attempt to boot... PS, the shit in between, that we have been doing for the past 80 years, only has seen increased use, increased availability and purity. Prohibition even in its hayday in the USA did not create any middle ground, and infact only made things worse.. Now we have cartels worth billions of dollars whom just buy off officials. How much money will it take, and when will prohibition make a dent?

"Of course, that also saves you from having to prove anything or think at all, so perhaps it’s simply a ruse to avoid work."

Dude your the one repping a system that absolutely does not work without any reasoning other then "when their in jail their not committing crime". Your right, their not out in public committing crime, rather in school with thousands of violent criminals getting an education and making contacts in crime.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 10:41:23 AM

If someone is dumb enough to loose their job…

Or misspell the word “lose”…

its not because of cannabis use, not only do cannabis users easily hold jobs, but there is a large number whom have been extremely successful in big business.

Define “large.” And do these “extremely successful” people currently smoke pot, or did they just try it when they were in college? Do you even acknowledge the difference, Baker? Or, in your one-bit mind, is it “once a toker, always a toker, welcome to the club, and by the way, can I use your name”?

These people arent loosing their jobs due to cannabis, and im not claiming it makes people successful in the job market, only that it is an independent factor.

Substance abuse is a huge productivity killer, and it’s quite as possible to abuse cannabis as any other mood alterer.

Take marc emery for instance, VERY SUCCESSFUL IN BUSINESS, likely more successful then you could ever be.

Ah! So your idea of a successful businessman is a drug smuggler? Well, if your sights really are that low…

If their poor, cannabis didn't steal their money (cannabis doesnt have hands/pockets and is less addictive then caffeine).

Recycling the same old boilerplate, huh? By the way, caffeine doesn’t bake your brain cells.

Yes, we know how prevalent pot use is among university faculty (along with now-legendary intolerance, unbelievable pettiness, and brains that magically stopped evolving in 1968). And isn’t it funny how most pot users tend to be found in the Humanities, which can’t be quantified, measured, or objective evaluated?

and finally cannabis use is basically devoid of domestic violence, known to mitigate violence unlike alcohol which incites it.

Alcohol can’t make you do anything you would normally disapprove of, Baker. It just removes the self-preserving foresight that keeps some assholes out of jail while they’re sober.

Note the lack of violence during cannabis rallies vs that found at a neighborhood bar, compare the number of people at each.

Note the incredible levels of violence in countries where that cannabis is produced. Violence pot smokers suborn. Also note the violence at anti-poverty rallies, anti-globalization rallies, and protests in general. Pot use is far more common among this rabble than among the general population. Tim is right—pot use is deeply intertwined with criminal culture.

If we could switch the wife beaters off alcohol onto cannabis i would bet we would see a reduction in domestic violence.

If we get all tokers in Canada and the US to stop toking I’ll bet the drug violence in Mexico would drop to almost zero.

Game. Set. Match.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 10:43:28 AM

"...fact is, cannabis use cant possibly hurt anyone but the user...."

thanks Baker for that observation
We knew you'd get it right at some point

If you agree then whats your dmg buddy? Why do we keep prohibition in place that places harm onto others when you agree that the specific use of the drug is not hurting others.. Why do you want to place harm on innocent people shane?

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 10:43:33 AM

Isn't the Minister's decision due on Monday?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 10:44:24 AM

Baker, marijuana and narcotics are not prohibited. They are restricted. There's a difference, you know.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 10:48:31 AM

Why do you want to place harm on innocent people shane?

Don't ask me. The money that funds the violence is yours. As is the decision to break the law for no reason better than personal enjoyment.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 10:49:47 AM

"Define “large.” And do these “extremely successful” people currently smoke pot, or did they just try it when they were in college? Do you even acknowledge the difference, Baker? Or, in your one-bit mind, is it “once a toker, always a toker, welcome to the club, and by the way, can I use your name”?"

Easily hundreds likely thousands, and im speaking only of those whom have some sort of celebrity there are thousands more who are not in the public eye. You have seen lists dont act ignorant all of a sudden shane. How do you feel being less successful then many many stoners shane? PS, look up a special called "stiletto stoners". Educate yourself.

"Substance abuse is a huge productivity killer, and it’s quite as possible to abuse cannabis as any other mood alterer."

Yea when someone is high/drunk at work. Im not saying people should be high at work, and have said many times it should be regulated just like alcohol. People using it on their own time has nothing to do with their performance at work just like people whom drink a beer or two after work.

"Ah! So your idea of a successful businessman is a drug smuggler? Well, if your sights really are that low…"

The product doesnt matter, and even tho it was cannabis seeds, he paid income tax's like a regulate business, everything. And it was very successful, more successful then any business you have ever created most likely. Business is business, and the fact smoking cannabis, even large amounts, does not take away ones ability to be successful.

"Recycling the same old boilerplate, huh? By the way, caffeine doesn’t bake your brain cells."

Cannabis doesnt either, infact has been shown to stimulate brain cell growth and to mitigate damage cause by other things. This is why the US government has patients on Cannabinoids as nuroprotectants.

"Yes, we know how prevalent pot use is among university faculty (along with now-legendary intolerance, unbelievable pettiness, and brains that magically stopped evolving in 1968). And isn’t it funny how most pot users tend to be found in the Humanities, which can’t be quantified, measured, or objective evaluated?"

Does that change the fact they still have completed university degrees? The fact is stoners get educated, and cannabis doesnt stop them.

"Alcohol can’t make you do anything you would normally disapprove of, Baker. It just removes the self-preserving foresight that keeps some assholes out of jail while they’re sober."

Are you retarded? How about all the women whom say "dam i shouldnt have fucked that guy last night". You are arguing against the very properties of being drunk, people black out all the time and cant remember entire nights. Cannabis however does not cause blackouts, does not cause people to do things they normally wouldnt (ie. the classic lamp shade on head). You obviously kno nothing about the legal drugs, why are you attempting to argue about the illegal ones?

"Note the incredible levels of violence in countries where that cannabis is produced."

PRODUCED, important word shane. Like you have said the use cant possibly hurt anyone but the end user. So why do you advocate to keep the production a very violent industry?

"Also note the violence at anti-poverty rallies, anti-globalization rallies, and protests in general. Pot use is far more common among this rabble than among the general population"

How about we just look at cannabis rallies lol, would be a better indicator of cannabis users deminor then random rallies of your choosing lol. FAIL SHANE, PURE FAIL.

"If we get all tokers in Canada and the US to stop toking I’ll bet the drug violence in Mexico would drop to almost zero."

So you believe the violence in mexico would be almost 0 if the illegal production stopped? WELL THATS CALLED REGULATION YOU IDIOT.

"Game. Set. Match."

LOL yes with that last comment you set me up ftw. TY!!

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 11:06:17 AM

It was NEVER that these laws were in place. If you know of a single case where someone was given ten to twenty for a simple possession, let’s hear it.

BUT in the past FEW years, states have enacted MM laws that are extremely open, decriminalized all over the place, and a few states are directly looking at legalization.

“All over the place”? How many states is “all over the place”? Two? Three? Got a list? And did not Barack Obama, the great liberal hope, pledge to keep pot illegal, citing a poll that 61% of Americans support doing so?

They are the most progressive then ever and according to you, lowest crime in past 30 years with these new laws.

Actually, those trends began long before current developments in marijuana law. And “the most progressive than ever” doesn’t make sense, does it?

Wheres all the crime to go along with all these open cannabis smokers?

Smoking cannabis openly or in secret is a crime. Think about what you’re saying.

So we do not get rid of them, they just relocate their trade routes... How many police will it take to cover every route every possible avenue? How much money will that take?

The one-bit brain again. The idiot light never stops blinking.

Will it cost more then the actual cost of the drugs on society, you bet cha.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, Baker. You have no idea how much drugs would cost society if access to them were unrestricted, because it hasn’t been unrestricted in 80 years. I do know that drug use was minimal before the 1960s, despite regulation, so clearly the mere presence of the law was not a catalyst for increased use.

And where does it leave us, with drugs coming in from another direction. Why is it that drugs are more available then ever if things are supposedly working?

We have only your word that they’re more available than ever, don’t we? Another piece of boilerplate you keep coughing up. Where’s the proof? And it better not be anecdotal.

Ohs noes i accidentally hit "d" instead of "e" which are right beside each other. My bad shane, funny you could not use your superior logic to deduce this.

“Ohs noes”? Why should I waste my time trying to hash out the thrashings of an overgrown third-grader?

Ok so we should cut the criminal enterprises out then, that means regulation shane.

Drugs are regulated. And the way to strangle a criminal enterprise is to starve it. We do that by not sending them money. I’ve done my bit; I currently send them nothing. How about you and other pot smokers?

News flash: locking someone up because they want to partake in a substance safer then caffeine is not a good use of tax payer funds.

News flash—it’s not safer than caffeine, and the taxpayers will decide how best to spend their money, not you.

No, the world scorns her because it doesnt work. Its you against the world shane.

Crime is dropping in America and rising in many other places. “Doesn’t work, doesn’t work, doesn’t work.” You say that in the face of all proof, reason, and logic. The idiot light just blinks and blinks and blinks.

"International Centre for Science in Drug Policy” That does not state a stance buddy. Only a way to arrive at a stance, which is in all actuality the best way... What do you have against science besides it not agreeing with you?

If it says “drug policy,” it almost certainly means “drug reform,” as is the case here. Granted, it’s not quite as laughable as “Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS.” Is there an excellent way to get or have AIDS? Is there a contest to see who can die faster, or rack up the most symptoms? All quite laughable.

Notice the word “profit” does not appear anywhere in there. It simply defines it as advocacy with an aim to change public policy. Which is no more than what I said, but definitely not what YOU said.

I do not believe their goal is to specifically influence people, rather use science to find truths. Our opinion may differ, but research and publishing studies is not lobbying.

Attempting to use those studies to change public policy, however, IS lobbying. And who asked you what you believed? Since when does what you believe matter?

Otherwise i guess all science based studies are lobbying efforts right shane?

Once again, the idiot light blinks. You’re going to burn it out if you’re not careful, and you need what little brain you have left.

How do we know it’s peer-reviewed? As I said, hard stats, as well as the details of this study, are impossible to come by. InSite is notoriously cagey about providing any hard data, preferring to fight its battles on the Charter front. It owes its very existence to a highly questionable decision by a single judge that was based on some very shaky logic. Judges in this country need to face the facts that they aren’t doctors, or pharmacists.

Funny, because i have posted many sources in the past supporting my position. Where are your sources from? DEA? RCMP?

Many of them from pro-marijuana sites, among others. Oh yes, and also the history books. You can’t offer anything to match that, so you truck out unprovable conspiracies, arguing that the very lack of evidence of a coverup proves there was a coverup.

Ok so when will they be reduced, the past 80 years of prohibition has only seen an increase when will we break even smart guy?

Again the idiot light blinks. How many times have I told you that even today, post-1960s, addiction is about half of what it was in 1900? Pre-1960s it was even lower. You just keep repeating this lie over and over again as if that will eventually cause it to be true.

Umm, computers dont "burn out" like that.. sry. Should have said "your brain is like a corrupted ram sector causing your mind to continually attempt to boot...

Excuse me, transistors in an integrated circuit can fail, reducing the chip’s capacity. What is the most common cause of transistor failure? HEAT. You’re a moron. Again.

PS, the shit in between, that we have been doing for the past 80 years…Prohibition even in its hayday…when will prohibition make a dent… [repeat ad nauseum]

Baker, you won’t prove anything by recycling the same old lies again and again. You’ve raised these points at least three points in a single post; that’s how bad it is. (Without any proof of any of it even once, mind you.) You’re caught in an endless loop—another sure sign of a failing logic board. The disk drive’s busted, the OCR is toast, the keyboard is knackered, and the mouse is hosed. All sources of input from the outside world trashed, terminated, oblivionized. Just cycling the same stale bits again and again, eternally, a stoner's rosary with no beginning and no end.

So you’re saying we should put them all to death then? Because that’s the only other way to keep them away from the public they love to victimize. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to blame the public for being victims and that they should just accept it so as not to make it worse. However, you take a very different view of your own “victimization”; you want to blame the public for that, too. Nothing is ever your fault, is it? Funny how common that attitude is among pot smokers...

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 11:24:03 AM

"So you’re saying we should put them all to death then? Because that’s the only other way to keep them away from the public they love to victimize."

LOL no. What i am saying is, Both you and i agree the only harm possibly caused by the USE of cannabis is to the user. You agree the only violence caused is assosiated with the illegal production. What i am saying is we should focus on harm reduction, regulate the production and take it away from the violent criminals whom profit immensely from having a monopoly on the industry, thus stopping the violence associated with illegal production AND place the same standards found in the alcohol industry upon legal cannabis production. This should have your full support given your admitted beliefs that, the only harm from use is to the end user, and that much violence is caused because cannabis is produced illegal in mexico and would be reduced if we could stop the illegal production there.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 11:43:35 AM

oh yea, you also agree cannabis will never go away under prohibition as well. So you should be in full support of regulation...

If not, i would love to finally hear some of your solutions...

Posted by: Baker | 2010-05-07 11:46:43 AM

LOL no. What i am saying is, Both you and i agree the only harm possibly caused by the USE of cannabis is to the user.

a) That’s not what you said, or what was even being discussed; the subject under discussion was the efficacy of imprisonment; and b) We do not, and have never, agreed on that. I have always maintained that substance abuse affects others in addition to the abuser. And you might have actually heard it if you hadn’t auditioned for the part of the V’Ger entity, and short-circuited all your inputs.

You agree the only violence caused is assosiated with the illegal production.

Actually, marijuana does provoke psychotic breaks and associated violence. Granted, this is rare, but more common than among those whose only drug is the more “dangerous” caffeine.

What i am saying is we should focus on harm reduction, regulate the production and take it away from the violent criminals whom profit immensely from having a monopoly on the industry, thus stopping the violence associated with illegal production AND place the same standards found in the alcohol industry upon legal cannabis production.

Harm reduction shifts the responsibility away from the user and onto society. It’s like someone walking up to you and saying, “I fucked up my life. Now you fix it for me.” And it is possible to stop the cartels in their tracks without ANY change to the law. But you simply won’t do it, arguing once again that it is up to others to reduce the harm you do.

This should have your full support given your admitted beliefs that, the only harm from use is to the end user, and that much violence is caused because cannabis is produced illegal in mexico and would be reduced if we could stop the illegal production there.

Again, nothing but opinion and bald lies. I never said the things you said I said. Where did I ever? And why do pot smokers display such a pervasive allergy to personal responsibility? Did they have too many chores as children, or what?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-05-07 11:59:13 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Mandatory minimums and a lack of basic common sense

Comments