Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Vote: How do you feel about crime in Canada?


Recommended Posts

I wish people would understand that pot is a dangerous drug.

I dont care if its pot or heroin. If a person is of age and wants to use it its their body and their choice. They can deal with the consequences to their health. The government should have no right in telling people what they can and can't put into their bodies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care if its pot or heroin. If a person is of age and wants to use it its their body and their choice. They can deal with the consequences to their health. The government should have no right in telling people what they can and can't put into their bodies.

To a large extent I agree but the government ought to insure that misinformation, or and acts like sales fraud, and faulty product are prevented.

Likewise the public risk to things like second hand pot smoke, or "forgotten drugs" much like facilitiating access for minors to things like alcohol and cigarettes presents an issue with potentially lethal items such as heroine.

There should be a "safe" amount set aside which does not pose a risk of misuse by minors in the case of loss of a given drug.

I have seen pot just laying on the street before, I've also seen needles abandoned, resin abandoned, much like I've seen alchohol or cigarettes lost/abandoned.

I think however products need to be sold with health risks known... this would apply to drugs put to sale also. Because people can be victimized by alcohol, cigarettes and other drugs without their knowledge of the effects, it is only fair to let people know the negative consequences of their actions.

You would perhaps be suprised how little some drug users actually know about the drug they are using, especially when they use it for occasional recreational purposes. A lot of people do drugs for the first time via inadvertent pushing by others, not them going out and actively buying it in a store, that clearly explains the negative consequences of the taking the drug. On the contrary often drugs are marketted based upon their "interesting effects" such a hallucinations or euphoria.

I agree individuals should be able to administer their own bodies, but we do have an obligation to insure people are not victimized by the actions of others.

Even with it illegal, I'm someone who has encountered a hell of a lot of second hand pot smoke in my life, and I am a non smoker. it is out there even without it legalized, but the whole approach is wrong, it should be a focus on protecting individuals who would be victims not on preventing people from making their own informed choices.

Drugs are everywhere and things like omnibus arn't going to stop that, on the contrary it will spread it, as the price of drugs might increase, making it more lucrative to get into the business.

If you want to stop illegal drugs you need to turn them into a product sold in stores, with superior safety and quality and pricing that will put street labs out of business, any other approach is just talk.

Keeping people in jail longer ain't taking more people off the street. It is more so networking more people together.

Selling to minors should be a consideration though, that would hold life in prison.

Edited by MACKER
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont care if its pot or heroin. If a person is of age and wants to use it its their body and their choice. They can deal with the consequences to their health. The government should have no right in telling people what they can and can't put into their bodies.

I don't care about pot, but heroin addiction threatens more than the user as many turn to theft to feed the need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about pot, but heroin addiction threatens more than the user as many turn to theft to feed the need.

And in that case you charge them with theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about pot, but heroin addiction threatens more than the user as many turn to theft to feed the need.

The problem is that people don't really have anywhere to turn when they're addicted either, as it's illegal. They don't want to admit to breaking the law and the stigma associated with the addiction is quite high. Decriminalizing it would allow us to turn the focus to recovery and healthcare for addicts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that people don't really have anywhere to turn when they're addicted either, as it's illegal. They don't want to admit to breaking the law and the stigma associated with the addiction is quite high. Decriminalizing it would allow us to turn the focus to recovery and healthcare for addicts.

Google "heroin addition help Canada" without quotation marks. There is no shortage of places to turn in Canada.

The message that it's illegal does stop many kids from trying it. It's not a good drug to send out mixed messages on as it's not very forgiving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google "heroin addition help Canada" without quotation marks. There is no shortage of places to turn in Canada.

The message that it's illegal does stop many kids from trying it. It's not a good drug to send out mixed messages on as it's not very forgiving.

I know there are plenty of places. What I meant is that people don't seek help because the drug is illegal. They don't want to be arrested or stigmatized, so they perceive their situation as though they have nowhere to turn for help.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since almost every argument becomes a reductio ad prohibitionum, I must point out that it should be looked upon in exactly the same was as alcohol prohibition was almost a century ago. We all know what happened back then and we all know what the only solution was. Remove prohibition to eliminate gang violence and death. Because the criminals made the bad hooch and some used improper methods or put in additives that killed the user. Therefor the only sensible resolution to the drug problem today is to legalize, not just decriminalize. Full legalization of all drugs. And if the government is really interested in protecting the health of Canadians, they should do what was done with alcohol, not allow production without a special license. Other than soft substances, your weed and your hashise. And teach people about the potential dangers of drug abuse. Teach the general public that drug users are not criminals in and of themselves, just people who've made a mistake and have a mental problem. And also allow it for medicinal purposes. That's right, legalize, regulate, educate, medicate!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since almost every argument becomes a reductio ad prohibitionum, I must point out that it should be looked upon in exactly the same was as alcohol prohibition was almost a century ago. We all know what happened back then and we all know what the only solution was. Remove prohibition to eliminate gang violence and death. Because the criminals made the bad hooch and some used improper methods or put in additives that killed the user. Therefor the only sensible resolution to the drug problem today is to legalize, not just decriminalize. Full legalization of all drugs. And if the government is really interested in protecting the health of Canadians, they should do what was done with alcohol, not allow production without a special license. Other than soft substances, your weed and your hashise. And teach people about the potential dangers of drug abuse. Teach the general public that drug users are not criminals in and of themselves, just people who've made a mistake and have a mental problem. And also allow it for medicinal purposes. That's right, legalize, regulate, educate, medicate!

Teach the general public that drug users are not criminals in and of themselves, just people who've made a mistake and have a mental problem.
(add this to the sentence)-----and to support their 500 dollar a day habit must turn to prostitution, burglary, armed robbery or car theft to support it. but remember,
drug users are not criminals in and of themselves.
Link to post
Share on other sites

rug users are not criminals in and of themselves.

unless they have a prohibited substance on their person.

Just like people with machine guns arn't criminals except for the fact they possess machine guns.

Or just cause someone has explosives in their undies doesn't make them a terrorist, much like someone with a key of cocaine up their front isn't a drug traffiker, as an alternative chastity belt. Maybe they are just kinky with more money than they know what to do, or are cocerned with safety. Right..

The issue thought that many drugusers are casual users or recreational users not addicts. The term addict is thrown around a lot but very few are actual addicts. Lots for instance college kids are experimental, by the time they turn 30 they will have moved on to booze and the odd joint perhaps. It is pervasive not a special case. just because someone does drugs it does not mean they are an addict, an addict is someone who is too weak to quit, it is a psychological weapon, no one is truely an addict, they just have different priorities

Very few people do not do some form of drug from coffee, to alchohol to pot, to others.

Edited by MACKER
Link to post
Share on other sites

(add this to the sentence)-----and to support their 500 dollar a day habit must turn to prostitution, burglary, armed robbery or car theft to support it. but remember,

Those are separate crimes. It's like with alcohol, again. A person can drink alcohol all they want, drink as much as they want but they can't get behind the wheel of a car. Then their action becomes a crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many believe that the criminalization of substance use is an improper legal definition.

This is because a criminal act is defined as an act against another person/their well being/property.And substance use by an individual does not fall under any of these so therefore can not be a criminal act!

Impaired driving clearly falls under the definition of criminality.But consuming alcohol/substance use in a recreational setting such as at a bar or private residence does not.

I thought we went over this like several times here and clealry established this fact?

WWWTT

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I thought we went over this like several times here and clealry established this fact?

Kinda...sorta. It is illegal for Canadian Forces personnel to use illegal drugs or legal drugs in a way not prescribed by a doctor or regulating authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1147810--known-to-police-chief-bill-blair-releases-crime-hot-spot-maps-used-to-focus-toronto-policing-efforts?bn=1#comments

generationofswine Mar 18, 2012 6:27 PM

"Only those that have been in trouble or want to create a impression of being cool and anti cop will object" I have never been arrested in my life and I object to Canada being turned into a "Show me your papers" society instead of a democracy. How do you explain that one. The police are above the law in Canada, have no respect for the citizens who pay their huge salaries, and behave like a gang of criminal thugs because they know there are no consequences when they get caught. They do their job poorly, if at all, and seem to focus on minor drug crimes like marijuana possession instead of things that really matter. As a result, I would not help them because I do not respect them. Ask anyone who has been a victim of crime and they will tell you that the cops re-victimized them and did absolutely nothing to catch the perpetrator. We have to re-examine how we approach the issue of crime and punishment in Canada and change the system so that it works for the public. Of course the cops want us to follow the American system like we have been up until now: giant police budgets and no questions asked or permitted. Works great, eh? I can't think of anything more insane than looking to the US for solutions, when their problems with crime are far worse than ours. They have the largest prison population on earth and ridiculous sentences for minor, non-violent crimes, the death penalty, gigantic police budgets when their streets are filled with the homeless, etc. The conservative approach to crime has failed miserably and made them much less safe. The only ones who support this approach are the ones who stand to profit directly from it. They couldn't care less whether Canadians are safer or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many believe that the criminalization of substance use is an improper legal definition.

This is because a criminal act is defined as an act against another person/their well being/property.And substance use by an individual does not fall under any of these so therefore can not be a criminal act!

Impaired driving clearly falls under the definition of criminality.But consuming alcohol/substance use in a recreational setting such as at a bar or private residence does not.

I thought we went over this like several times here and clealry established this fact?

WWWTT

I agree with this. Perhaps the middle ground might be for personal possession and use of these substances to be fully up to the individual user, while keeping if not stiffening penalties for producing and/or distributing them--especially to minors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this. Perhaps the middle ground might be for personal possession and use of these substances to be fully up to the individual user, while keeping if not stiffening penalties for producing and/or distributing them--especially to minors.

So you're saying people who do things like growing grapes and making wine should be penalized but not the people who drink it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one like crime, so why not start at the top with the governments of Canada, at the three levels, Feds, provincial and municipality. I would think those kind of crime hurt more people then the crime on the street, something like the silent killer, what we don't know won't hurts us. Do you think more severe punishment should apply to politicians who commit crimes, and not a slap on the hand or a fine?? It seems like a farce for politicians to bring forth rules against crime when in the background they are doing it themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying people who do things like growing grapes and making wine should be penalized but not the people who drink it?

I believe only those who drink and drive need to need to be punished.

Those who drink and destroy other's property, drink and hurt others should be punished for destroy/hurt.

Those who drink and hurt themselves should pay the medical cost themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe only those who drink and drive need to need to be punished.

Those who drink and destroy other's property, drink and hurt others should be punished for destroy/hurt.

Those who drink and hurt themselves should pay the medical cost themselves.

Have you ever watched the senate committee hearings on this topic? It very interesting. Repeat offenders, have a health problem, mental problem, and shouldn't be put in jail but to go to rehab until they are able to stay away from the alcohol or drugs that change their behaviour and do damaging things. Half the people in jails are under this category, it cost taxpayers and they person doesn't get the help they need in jail, all this said by every expert, who went before the senators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say more than half the people in jail are there because they have problems with substances and can't control their behaviour when they're intoxicated. That's why the first thing judges do when they issue parole, suspended sentences, or conditional sentences is ban the offender from drinking or doing drugs and usually force them into a rehab program. If that fails, then they end up in prison. Conservatives don't like that though. They want them to be imprisoned for years the first time without any understanding of how many people actually turn themselves around with the "warning" conviction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...