Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Federal Platforms on Crime

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Federal Platforms on Crime

    Discuss and debate the various platforms on Crime.

    I will split this thread into others should there be discussions on specific issues surrounding the over-arching topic of Crime (i.e. legalizing pot).
    Ow

  • #2
    re: Legalizing Pot. The big question is... Why not? The government is going to be looking for a new tax & regulate source soon. Why not?

    Only the Greens have made it an official platform promise. The NDP gives half assed support. In theory support.

    The party which pushes legalization as an economic issue will be given the most attention.
    youtube.com/BrothersGrim
    facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm sure most feel we're soft on crime occasionally. I hear stories about crook "X", who's been in and out of jail dozens of times, and has a history of extreme violence, and I wonder why he/she isn't locked up for good, for our own good.

      And I'm sure most have little or no sympathy for some of the really bad ones, especially repeat criminals, violent ones, or those that prey on the vulnerable.

      So, yeah, tough on (serious/repeat) crime sounds good. Depending on what's a serious crime.

      I fundamentally disagree with some laws or what I understand to be proposed laws. So I have a fundamental problem with this "tough on crime" direction It'll be tough on many fellow Canadians, including good friends, who aren't, in my view, criminals. I'd go so far as to say locking them up should be criminal, because the ones I know are fine Canadians and decent people.

      A "tough on crime" platform should be a winner, for me. But this one isn't, mostly due to what's considered a serious crime.

      God bless our court system, which balances out the government to guard each of us from the "tyranny of the majority". And the charter (though there's parts of that I'd like changed). Our court system is where the individual's case is heard. A person, maybe you or I ("yeah, right buddy, everybody says they didn't do anything wrong), standing before a judge.

      That's where the judgement is done. In the courtroom. Not from a distance. Setting high minimum sentences takes a reasonable judgement out of the judges hands. Though I understand the temptation, that's a mistake.

      More prisons? Maybe. Lots more prisons? Probably not.

      A lot depends on the how many, and what kind of prison. I'm not as much into the punishment as into the rehab. I'm not talking about a country club. But as far as "making it hurt, making them suffer" goes, that's an emotional thing on my part. I appreciate that others feel this is the "fair and just" part of the justice system, and it's a valid view. I just don't feel that way.

      I might be into supporting more prisons if most of them more resembled hospitals or halfway houses where it's less about punishment and more about treatment, but there's still bars on the doors.

      So "Tough on crime", "Build more prisons", approach isn't something I agree with in this case, and it's a deal breaker because it scares me.
      aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Komrade View Post
        re: Legalizing Pot. The big question is... Why not? The government is going to be looking for a new tax & regulate source soon. Why not?

        Only the Greens have made it an official platform promise. The NDP gives half assed support. In theory support.

        The party which pushes legalization as an economic issue will be given the most attention.
        I think the "why not" largely has to do with an irrational fear. Many people, especially advanced seniors, have no idea what it's like, and it scares them. Other just don't like it.

        I'm certain you know some people who just shouldn't smoke pot. It can make some people psychotic. Not in a good way. I know lots of people who don't smoke pot because it makes them crazy and paranoid. Like me, for example.

        Some people think it makes everyone crazy and paranoid. They can't understand why anyone else would want to feel that way, so they want it stopped, for our own good. And some who've never tried it just think it's morally wrong. God save us from the righteous.

        Many others are fine with it, to an extent. Personally I don't want my bus driver to be stoned. But I don't care if the dishwasher at the restaurant needs a phatty to get through his shift.

        I'm with the others who say we should license it, control it, and tax it. It seems so glaringly obvious to me that I can barely believe we've been having this debate for so long. Most people understand we'd be putting a lot more money in the coffers, taking the business away from organized crime, and saving money on enforcement, the court system, and jails, through controlling and taxing pot.

        But my fundamental issue isn't an economic one. It's a libertarian one.

        I think the real reason is that our neighbours to the South don't want us to legalize it. I'm all for being a good neighbour. But it's going too far to put people in jail mostly because the US thinks we should. Even if it means more searches at the border.
        Last edited by Jimbo; 13-04-2011, 01:06 PM.
        aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

        Comment


        • #5
          Jimbo, I have the utmost respect for you for so many reasons but do not blame "advanced seniors" for the non-decriminalization of pot. I am 70 years old, Alberta-born, raised, educated, and a successful professional very much a part of the "hippie" generation. Believe me, most of my contemporaries support the controlled decriminalization of marijuana. A friend of mine happily completed his Ph.D smoking pot. So much for dead brain cells.
          We would much rather have young people smoking a bit of weed than using crystal meth or crack cocaine, which are one-way paths to self-destruction. It is no more harmful than alcohol and should be treated in the same manner.
          The reason it has not been decriminalized in Canada is not because of "advanced seniors" who "have no idea what it is like and are afraid" of it. It is because the United States goverment threatened the Canadian government with economic sanctions if it proceeded with decriminalization; pure and simple! As always, the Canadian government capitulated. End of story!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Rebar View Post
            The reason it has not been decriminalized in Canada is not because of "advanced seniors" who "have no idea what it is like and are afraid" of it. It is because the United States goverment threatened the Canadian government with economic sanctions if it proceeded with decriminalization; pure and simple! As always, the Canadian government capitulated. End of story!
            ^QFT

            I'm not sure about economic sanctions but I'm sure the "war on drugs" south of the 49th and their hard-line stance has something to do with what goes on here in the Great White North.

            Yes, seniors of today were the hippy generation of the '60's. It amazes me (being a child of the '60's) how the utopia that was desired in that decade never really materialized once the hippies grew up and became people of power and influence in the '80's and '90's. Where and when did the dream jump the tracks? Do I have to read Douglas Copland to find my answer? Hello, Abby Hoffman?

            The stigma and fearmongering (of pot) that was created back in the 1920's still is prevalant today. Gateway drug, my arse. Booze does more damage to society than pot does. Yeah, I'm rambling....time to slip outside for a bit.....
            Nobody knows where you are, how near or how far / shine on you crazy diamond

            Comment


            • #7
              The US wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on in terms of finger wagging at Canada if we changed the laws restricting pot, whether that's full legalization or something in between. Numerous American states have taken similar steps.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'd like to see some real change on how we deal with crime and criminals. In fact this is the number one issue for me in the election, and their position is the main reason I can't vote Tory. Ironic, because in many ways I'm comletely in favour of being "tough on crime".

                My position on pot is clear - legalize it, control it, and tax it. That should save/make us a billion or so right there, while cutting the legs out from under organized crime, and not making criminals out of many decent people.

                I believe our entire approach to drugs needs to be changed. It's not working, and it's the root of many, if not most, of our crime here. In fact our approach creates crime. How many windows get smashed, cars and houses get broken into, people and businesses get robbed, how much stuff gets stolen, etc, just to feed a junky's habit?

                It's far more involved than I could go into, or that I could even understand, but just looking at it from a financial standpoint - if we set up sites like Insite in each city where addicts could shoot up in a safe environment, and could even get free drugs (!), we could save millions of dollars.

                I know it's simplistic. And I hate the thought of giving drugs to loser addicts. But those two approaches, towards pot and towards drugs, could save us billions and keep many from being criminals and prostitutes, etc.

                Regarding jails - how many currently incarcerated are suffering from a serious mental illness? I don't think we're very well set up to deal with it, from what I've been hearing. I'd like to see some of the proposed new prisons set up with a focus on treating andor managing serious mental illnesses, like depression, bi-polar, fetal-alcohol syndrome, schizophrenia, etc.

                We need a treatment centre for alcoholics. Badly.

                I think we do those four things and we have a much better system, and we should save billions overall.

                There are those who are just, frankly, bad people. Some people need to be locked up. I have no problem being tough on repeat criminals. Lock them up for good if need be. Put them on work gangs cleaning up the highways. I have little sympathy for those who repeatedly steal from or assault others.

                And, of course, nobody has any sympathy for the Clifford Olsen's and Paul Brenardo's. Personally I'd like to see a bullet in the head. I'd even do it myself. There's no doubt they did it. But I am afraid some innocent person might be convicted down the road. So lock them up permanently.

                Just a start. I'm interested in hearing any input or observations on this topic.
                aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Rebar View Post
                  Jimbo, I have the utmost respect for you for so many reasons but do not blame "advanced seniors" for the non-decriminalization of pot. I am 70 years old, Alberta-born, raised, educated, and a successful professional very much a part of the "hippie" generation. Believe me, most of my contemporaries support the controlled decriminalization of marijuana. A friend of mine happily completed his Ph.D smoking pot. So much for dead brain cells.
                  We would much rather have young people smoking a bit of weed than using crystal meth or crack cocaine, which are one-way paths to self-destruction. It is no more harmful than alcohol and should be treated in the same manner.
                  The reason it has not been decriminalized in Canada is not because of "advanced seniors" who "have no idea what it is like and are afraid" of it. It is because the United States goverment threatened the Canadian government with economic sanctions if it proceeded with decriminalization; pure and simple! As always, the Canadian government capitulated. End of story!
                  Agreed. I take it back about the seniors. But by "advanced seniors", I mostly meant those who grew up prior to the summer of love. Not youngsters like yourself.

                  So, instead, I'll just say "squares" and "fuddy duddy's".

                  I couldn't agree more that we have to chart our own path determined by what works for Canadians, not by what is proving not to work for the US. If they want to impose sanctions, it could be very painful, but eventually they'll find themselves isolated by their own doing. And there's the little matter of oil.
                  aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by soycd View Post
                    ... The stigma and fearmongering (of pot) that was created back in the 1920's still is prevalant today. Gateway drug, my arse. Booze does more damage to society than pot does. Yeah, I'm rambling....time to slip outside for a bit.....
                    Milk is a gateway drug to beer.
                    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      tough on crime just simply won't work because I have see that evil is increasing every year and is about to get worse. The more we have evil out there, the more police is being overworked and understaffed right now. take a look at Edmonton Police service and they are having their work overloaded and lots of overtime because of that we got too many murders since first day of January.
                      Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Right you are.

                        If we take the pot criminalization away and make it so addicts don't have to steal to supprt their habit, then we may have more police available to solve these crimes. And there's always the possibility some of those murders were linked to the criminality of drugs.
                        aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jagators63 View Post
                          tough on crime just simply won't work because I have see that evil is increasing every year and is about to get worse. The more we have evil out there, the more police is being overworked and understaffed right now. take a look at Edmonton Police service and they are having their work overloaded and lots of overtime because of that we got too many murders since first day of January.
                          "Because of that we got too many murders..." ??

                          Yes they have no shortage of work but I don't see how that makes them responsible for someone killing someone else in cold blood. Bit of a stretch wouldn't you say?

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X