The Shotgun Blog
« Lady Humphrey on the census reform | Main | The Redeeming Social Benefits of the Sunshine Girls »
Sunday, August 08, 2010
The government’s crime strategy makes no sense
Terrence Corcoran at the National Post is making a point that we at the Western Standard have been making for a while. The sorts of crimes that the Harper government are targeting are victimless crimes. Gambling, prostitution, and drugs are all voluntary exchanges that do not require the use of force. So people who decide to engage in such activity do not need the protection of the state.
The only victim that proponents can point to here is society as an abstract victim of what they consider to be crass behaviour. I would be happy to engage in that debate, but even if you agree with the society as victim idea, shouldn’t victims of assault and rape be the highest priority of the police? Shouldn’t you be concerned that resources are being shifted over to lower priority crimes?
Mr. Corcoran also makes the point that the new government proposal to upgrade these victimless crimes targets the low end providers of drugs, gambling, and prostitution. These people will spend at least 5 years in jail and come out doing what? Really, after more than 5 years being locked up with other criminals they are going to come out and be what?
They are going to be criminals, except worse criminals because they have no other option in life. In the United States this created a permanent underclass of criminals and it is certain to do the same here. In the long run, these tough on crime proposals will institutionalize violence on the street. This is not mere speculation; it is evident by the ever worsening ghettos of the United States.
The truly bizarre thing is that there is no clear reason for why the government is doing this. Polling data shows that Canadians on a whole are not really worried about crime. Bringing out more and more crime legislation is doing nothing to increase the support of the Conservative Party.
So what is the political gain? Why is the government doing this?
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on August 8, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
Because they are intellectually bankrupt and have no idea how to remain in power. Having compromised whatever principles they had, the Conservatives are holding onto power for power's sake. It is a cynical and calculated move to shore up their base in the event of a fall or spring election. The question is, will the base keep buying these American hand-me-downs?
Posted by: Publius | 2010-08-08 9:03:36 AM
The government has created a monster with the war on drugs, and it just growing and getting worse, this government is morally bankrupt.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-08 9:18:24 AM
So, I lawfully should be able to purchase a handgun on the street from anyone willing to sell me one, no questions asked, and go into my back garden and practise target shooting. So the practice makes a little noise; the neighbours should be able to tolerate a few gunshots once a day. Don't get me wrong: I am in favour of doing that because I am a responsible person. The others are the ones who would cause problems.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2010-08-08 10:17:38 AM
I agree. This government is a disgrace. That said, I doubt any other government would be much better.
Posted by: Menso | 2010-08-08 11:50:08 AM
The justice system served Pickton well ,when the investigation stalled , he killed approximately 12 women, somehow the police have tons of money to hunt down grow ops ,but trying to catch a killer of marginalized women just not a high enough priority.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-08 12:01:56 PM
Two comments:
1. Has Terry been reading the Shotgun recently? Until his article, the only googlable entry I could find connecting "unreported crimes" to the "serious crimes" regulation was my own article here on The Western Standards blog (and on my own blog). Either way, Bravo Terry!
2. To see just how brutal may be the effect of making "trafficking under 3 kg of cannabis" a "serious crime", consider that Marc Emery was changed (in Saskatoon) for trafficking because he *passed a joint* to someone. He got three months (and served 2/3rds of that sentence in a Saskatoon prison): they were making an example out of him, presumably because, one year prior - when it appeared Canada had no law prohibiting the possession of 30g or less of marijuana - he held smoke-ins on the steps of police stations across the country, and all charges were dropped because they were all unconstitutional, at the time the charges were laid.
In Canada, there are a large number of mass smoke-in demonstrations held every year (April 20th, May 1st, July 1st, etc.)...large. Hundreds of people at places like Vancouver's art gallery, or Queens Park. Now, a person passing a joint at one of those demonstrations could be facing 5 years imprisonment.
It's possible that the purpose of making de minimus amounts of pot under the "serious crimes" umbrella is to facilitate Harper's stated war against the pot "culture" (which he announced in his 2007 National Anti-drug Strategy launch). Specifically: police can now wield a more threatening and painful club at such smoke-ins. Without smoke-ins, normalization of recreational cannabis use is dealt a blow.
Posted by: Paul McKeever | 2010-08-08 1:23:33 PM
All previous governments have also targeted those crimes, Hugh, so perhaps the issue is less one of conservative versus liberal ideology than one of a citizenry that really doesn't have time for the seedier aspects of human existence. The credo of the “victimless crime” is a popular one in libertarian circles, but it’s a lot less cut and dried than you let on.
If your garden-variety libertarian does something, and doesn’t see a corpse hit the floor that instant, he acknowledges no victim. If it hits the floor later, out of his sight, he acknowledges no victim. If no one dies or suffers grievous bodily harm, but suffers professional, emotional, financial, or social devastation, he acknowledges no victim. It is “out of sight, out of mind” taken to the extreme.
In real life, it’s not that simple, of course. A person with a substance abuse issue affects his family, his friends, his colleagues, and in the case of impaired drivers, even complete strangers. Gambling can put an entire family in the poorhouse (where they will require government services), and prostitution spreads disease (which further strains an already strained health care system and, in the case of Canada, also requires government services).
Once again, the crass egoism of the libertarian philosophy comes to the fore. It acknowledges neither “us” nor “them.” It acknowledges only “I.” Not only is this brand of libertarianism anti-government, it is anti-social, and until this changes, libertarians should get used to defeats at the ballot box. Because selfish though people are, most are not that selfish.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-08 2:05:04 PM
Without smoke-ins, normalization of recreational cannabis use is dealt a blow.
And if you had a Charter right to break the law en masse, Paul, someone who matters might care. Should the government establish a fund for to help fledgling burglars buy their first set of burglary tools too?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-08 2:07:33 PM
"A person with a substance abuse issue affects his family, his friends, his colleagues, and in the case of impaired drivers, even complete strangers."
-Again, the Butterfly Affect is a pathetic argument at best.
-Also, you type 'ego' and 'selfish' as if they are bad things. I don't understand.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-08-08 2:22:28 PM
Paul McKeever is right that Harper could create even more political cleavage. Marijuana should be re-legalized of course. Logic, science and reason must prevail. Un-Canadian prohibition is still with us I suspect due to so many unreported agents of influence working The Hill and letting strangers in The House. This radical war on marijuana is a danger to Canadian society because adult marijuana use crosses all political and economic boundaries. We need a two year moratorium on arrests while we work towards a legalization plan. We've got to break this habit of putting intellectuals like Marc Emery in jail and thugs in power.
Posted by: Spanner McNeil | 2010-08-08 2:26:34 PM
A Report to Stakeholders in the Organized Crime Business
Satire By Stephen J. Gray
It has been another eventful year in our business, and even though there is a so-called recession we have escaped unscathed. In fact, we were able to do some good deeds and help out some financial institutions. We were hoping that these good works of ours would remain anonymous, but it was reported in a newspaper that, our drug money saved some banks during the financial crisis. Still, one good deed begets another and some banks have been laundering our drug money for us. This was reported in some media, but hey, nobody went to jail and we should be thankful for that.
There are some worrying things happening though. We used to have the numbers rackets all to ourselves, now governments are into gambling in a big way with lotteries of all kinds. And some of these governments are into online computer gambling as well, and there have been reports that some government casinos were being used to launder money. What’s an honest crook to do when the government muscles in on their territory? Perhaps, we will have to try running for public office and get ourselves the reins of power.
...
Read the rest of the article at:
http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2010/07/report-to-stakeholders-in-organized.html
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2010-08-08 8:45:37 PM
-Again, the Butterfly Affect is a pathetic argument at best.
The word is "effect," smart guy. Nor does being flip help you. The evidence to support the assertion that drug abuse extends beyond the abuser is overwhelming, and not all the sneering in the world is going to erase it.
Also, you type 'ego' and 'selfish' as if they are bad things. I don't understand.
No, I don't expect you would.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-09 12:02:55 AM
I hate to say it but probably the best thing to happen to Canada is the country go completely broke, so we cant afford this insanity.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-09 9:55:18 AM
Anyone who desires any further proof that pot smokers are selfish beyond redemption need look no further than that remark, Don. Why don't you wish for the end of the world while you're at it.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-09 11:02:10 AM
Shane your a dope again, selfish is imposing yourself on other people, using tax dollars to put in jail people you dont like.
Ill explain it to you, its not that i want the country to go broke its that we may need to go broke to save ourselves from ourselves, its very sad but true.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-09 12:13:16 PM
No, Don, selfish is wishing for the world to go to hell, because it won't let you smoke your reefer. You said it was the best thing that could happen. Sounds like wishing to me.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-09 12:20:39 PM
Shane you must be off your medication, once again i dont wish any thing to go to hell.
Hey dum dum when the U S is completely bankrupt by insane government policies , who are the real criminals?
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-09 12:50:16 PM
The US is bankrupt? That'll come as news to the US. Their debt totals 53 percent of their GDP, whereas Canada's totals 75 percent.
Wakey, wakey, Don. I'm not on your medication, which is precisely the reason I come across as lucid and intelligent and you come across as a sleepy stoner.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-09 1:38:48 PM
Shane your definitely off your medication....
But i like your analysis the U S isnt going bankrupt, well just have to wait and see..
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-09 2:00:26 PM
"The evidence to support the assertion that drug abuse extends beyond the abuser is overwhelming, and not all the sneering in the world is going to erase it."
Prohibition is making sure that drug abuse extends beyond the abuser.
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/drugs/studies/doc/report_short_10_03_09_en.pdf
Even Costa acknowledges the nasty side-effects.
Posted by: Martin | 2010-08-09 2:03:00 PM
Shane,
Where did you get the 53% number? Even if you only include public debt, the number seems about 1000 basis points too low. But the public debt number is largely irrelevant as it does not include unfunded liabilities. And trust me, no politician can touch social security or healthcare in the U.S. When you include unfunded liabilities, the number is more like 95% and growing fast.
You do have a point regarding Canada. The only fair comparison is to add debt at both the federal and provincial level when comparing ourselves to the U.S.
But in the end, when you include unfunded liabilities, most industrialized nations (including Canada and the U.S.) are essentially screwed.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-08-09 2:22:37 PM
"The evidence to support the assertion that drug abuse extends beyond the abuser is overwhelming, and not all the sneering in the world is going to erase it."
Ditto alcohol. But why? The RC church is not going to change the Eucharist any time soon 'cause that's the way Jesus wanted it and Jesus is God. ;)
Posted by: DJ | 2010-08-09 3:40:02 PM
Those are the public debt stats from the CIA Factbook (2010), Charles. It might be true that no politician could touch Social Security or Medicare in the U.S. and get reelected, but sometimes a politician decides to blow all his political capital at one go, for whatever reason.
In any case, if most industrialized nations are screwed, then the whole world is screwed, because the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are not doing so well either, and China and Russia are far too dependent on exports to prosper if the rest of the world tanks. But I doubt the situation is as grim as you say; seldom is the smart money on the doomsayer.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-09 4:07:24 PM
Ditto alcohol. But why? The RC church is not going to change the Eucharist any time soon 'cause that's the way Jesus wanted it and Jesus is God. ;)
Yes, and ideally, alcohol would also be restricted. The only trouble is it has been part of our culture for so long that the only way to truly reduce consumption would be a policy of cultural assassination, similar to what is happening for tobacco. The same’s not true of pot and other drugs, no matter what the Emeryites say. Drug consumption is strongly trend-driven and, as the boomers die out, is likely to go down on its own. It’s only because the first generation to use pot in quantity is now pulling the strings that we hear this talk of legalization in the first place.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-09 4:10:52 PM
Shane you hear of talk on legalization, its not about pot its about liberty ,its about human rights ,
its about government staying uot of peoples private business not unless there is a victim (as an example rape murder)
Im still waiting for you to tell what your interest is, were you once in law enforcement?
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-09 4:16:41 PM
Sorry i know you cant comprehend Shane , but to explain it further, who gives a shit about pot, people will use it irregardless of the law, in fact when its illegal people seem to use it more . Its about liberty , its about who owns us , ourselves or the government.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-09 4:20:25 PM
"...who gives a shit about pot, people will use it irregardless of the law, in fact when its illegal people seem to use it more...."
doth say To Do Wrong Don
We finally got you to admit it Donnie, that peeing in the public pool is a major turn on for you. The bigger the signs up requesting that you _don't pee in the pool, the more you seem to like the feeling of trailing warm ammonia in the shallow end. When you get caught, you'll just blame the concession stand that sold you the drinks.
Your Mom can;t come and get you: she washing your sheets from last nights nigthtmares
Posted by: 419 | 2010-08-09 4:40:59 PM
Shane,
Your number is for 2009. The latest number is approx. 60%. I will be much higher by year end if the current administration follows through with its spending plans.
Any politician attempting to touch the unfunded liabilities will get canned by the boomers. Welcome to the realities of uncontrolled democracy (i.e. tyranny of the majority).
And yes, most industrialized nations are in big trouble. We don't have the productive resources to pay for our debt and liabilities. The only politically feasible alternative is to inflate.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-08-10 6:23:40 AM
$19 you dont make any sense, is that you do pee in pools?
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-10 8:26:03 AM
Sorry 419 , you must be on some state sanctioned drug, dont worry, im sure there will be a class action lawsuit.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-10 8:30:04 AM
We see donnie you are two days late on the snappy comebacks , but still... sharp as a marshmallow
how do you _do it? you're amazing
Posted by: 419 | 2010-08-10 8:43:43 AM
Great comeback 419 , im impressed
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-10 10:04:29 AM
Shane you hear of talk on legalization, its not about pot its about liberty ,its about human rights
There's no inherent natural right to possess anything you desire. Where'd you get that bunkum?
its about government staying uot of peoples private business not unless there is a victim (as an example rape murder)
Forget it, Don. Using libertarian logic, AIDS patients having unprotected sex is victimless because only a small percentage become infected and even then it takes years for the infectee to even get sick, let alone die.
Im still waiting for you to tell what your interest is, were you once in law enforcement?
Pay attention, boys and girls. What you are seeing here is classic stoner memory loss. I've told you I don't have an interest three times. But you simply can't wrap your head around that, can you, Don?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-10 10:38:47 AM
Sorry i know you cant comprehend Shane , but to explain it further, who gives a shit about pot, people will use it irregardless of the law, in fact when its illegal people seem to use it more . Its about liberty , its about who owns us , ourselves or the government.
And once again, boys and girls, stoner memory loss rears its ugly head; Don can't remember that he posted here four minutes ago, saying essentially the same thing. He also cannot discern between ownership of self and ownership of pot.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-10 10:40:38 AM
Great comeback 419 , im impressed
you spelled "repressed" wrong
Posted by: 419 | 2010-08-10 10:41:18 AM
We'll wait and see, Charles; I prefer to avoid hedging the numbers, which is what you do when you start musing about unfunded liabilities and future trends and policies. And some politicians have proven quite adept at falling on their swords over what they perceive to be good policy; witness Gordon Campbell of the BC Liberals and the HST. Back in the 80s, people predicted Japan would own us by now, because we already owed them so much money. Didn't turn out that way, did it?
Just remember: Land and resources are the only true capital. Money and debts are merely paper.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-10 10:44:19 AM
No Shane you have an interest, or are you saying that your a sadist , you love seeing people abused by government and the police , come on face yourself.
( no natural right to posess anything i desire ) so if im cutting my grass and a police officer likes my lawnmower, he can just take it, im mean he has the gun. The government decides people are getting sick from eating red meat, they have a right to just take it, yours is a very scary world.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-10 11:05:17 AM
Shane if you really have no interest, you should learn to mind your own business. You can go play with yourself in the corner, but be careful it might be illegal.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-10 11:20:48 AM
"...so if im cutting my grass and a police officer likes my lawnmower, he can just take it, im mean he has the gun. The government decides people are getting sick from eating red meat, they have a right to just take it, yours is a very scary world. .."
Thus sayeth don b
there we have it- Govt crime strategy reduced to Donnie cutting his lawn fearing the police will take his lawnmower at gunpoint,, and the federal government seizing his hamburger.. and begging Shane to explain
I'd say this thread is about done don
maybe drink some extra water and lay down during the hottest part of the day- but def stay out of the pool for health and safety reasons..
your Conservative govt- the evil lifeguard looking for swimmers with inadequate bathroom skills, always looking for lawnmowers, always looking for hamburger-- & at gunpoint if necessary
Will you have a fun summer honourable don b in spite of all these attacks on your liberty ?
.. I guess that all depends on depends
Posted by: 419 | 2010-08-10 12:00:02 PM
No Shane you have an interest, or are you saying that your a sadist , you love seeing people abused by government and the police , come on face yourself.
Why do I have to have an interest, Don? Do you assume that everyone is as narcissistic and bereft of altruism as you?
so if im cutting my grass and a police officer likes my lawnmower, he can just take it, im mean he has the gun.
"Im" mean? Why is it so many pot hucksters write like they've never gone beyond the third grade? It would be a trope if it wasn't so dependably true. And by "no natural right to possess," I mean you have no innate right to whatever you want, whenever you want. This fact, like all facts, neither condemns nor condones any action, including armed robbery.
The government decides people are getting sick from eating red meat, they have a right to just take it, yours is a very scary world.
No, SCARY is a world where the airliners and fighter jets are flown by people like you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-10 1:03:51 PM
Shane if you really have no interest, you should learn to mind your own business.
On the contrary. The fact that I have no interest makes me a more objective judge of the matter. I prefer inquisitorial justice to adversarial justice.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-10 1:05:22 PM
Shane i hope you wash your fruits and veggies , the government could get upset, i mean its a health risk , right, they could send the police after you, risking your health, this is not acceptable .
I worry about alcoholics like you flying airplanes,
Really it must be happening alcohol is legal right.
Posted by: don b | 2010-08-10 1:27:37 PM
Actually, Don, the government doesn't mind so much if you risk your own health or welfare. It's risking the health or welfare of others with no say in the matter that gets their feckles up. Mine too, actually. But I know; concept of altruism simply baffles you, right? Right?? RIGHT????
Odd how one so wrong can be so "right."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-08-10 2:18:10 PM
Shane, the only recourse left for don is to print out the Oxford definition of " Altruism" and then say you have it wrong.. But he won't, because that in itself would be an altruistic act/
Let's we just close this thread off and leave don to cut his lawn in peace and altruism
Posted by: 419 | 2010-08-10 5:18:11 PM
Toronto City Council are indeed Brave and Bold and made of the right stuff, headed in the right direction. They recently stated that the marijuana laws should be weakened. That marijuana provides pain relief is well known to many geriatric baby boomers and well proven in the historical record. However in certain Eastern Ontario Ridings we have further to go. This month in SD & G country, an Eastern Ontario Riding, several families had their children kidnapped by child services because one or more parent smoke marijuana. This month in SD & G County Conservative MP Lauzon announced billions of dollars worth of prisons for the unreported crime of using marijuana. If you use marijuana your children will be taken from you and sold to strangers. If you use marijuana you will lose your job and your business followed by your house cause you will be serving minimum mandatory jail time and your business and house will be sold to strangers under Bill S-10. Will old baby boomers be allowed to bring walkers and canes into prison, will their wheel chairs be denied because it is considered a weapon? I wonder if all the people who use marijuana will be sent to a Warsaw ghetto by members of Parliament who follow orders without question? How many marijuana users will stop feeling guilty for who they are and their innocent behaviour behind closed doors that is of no consequence to anyone else? How important is it for the oldest generation in this country to hunt down young people like dogs? Why is it most Police Chiefs in Canada publicly and privately state that marijuana should be legalized? Why did 30 thousand police officers join ‘Law Enforcement Against Prohibition’? The answer is there isn’t anything even a little bit wrong with marijuana. Marijuana can however reveal those who are not fit to govern and have lost all moral right to authority because of their unbalanced hostile reaction to those who do use it. We must be concerned with Members of Parliament who have little access to science, logic and reason because they will ferment great and vast wrongs in other areas of our adult Canadian lives.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/739996–judge-slapped-for-bias-in-pot-case
Posted by: Spanner McNeil | 2010-08-31 10:50:34 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.