Funny, but I've seen the same intellectual diminishment happen when perfectly intelligent people are granted tenure, or an editorship at a newspaper.

Try the educational system. It's amazing what a secure, well-paid, great-benefits job will do to your brain and any common sense you may have gone into the classroom with.

There's an unspoken rule that you discuss controversial issues only in euphamisms, if at all. If you're new to the system and don't have a nepotistic helper who knows the lingo, you either shut up totally and carry on, greatly handicapped, or say what you see in plain English and get glared at and, to some extent, shunned. You figure out pretty fast that you've got a choice: Use euphamisms or say nothing and keep getting a pay cheque or continue to communicate in the Queen's English and start looking elsewhere for a job.

I suspect in the case of Judge Doug's case, the sentence wasn't just about "But Bruce, it's only marijuana." The FOUR TONS of marijuana would bring along with it a lot of heavy thugs. It could be that if Judge Doug had thrown the book at the guy which, obviously, he should have, Judge Doug's life expectancy might have been drastically shortened.

This is how the bullies are winning everywhere. It's scary.

Where are our leaders? Leaders don't bow to this kind of pressure?

Maybe Judge Doug is big pothead himself & has been toking a few too many in his chambers.

MSNBC - Nov. 23 -2006
"90 alleged mobsters arrested in Montreal
Mountie raid deals major blow to organized crime in Canada, officials say"

The trials and outcomes in Montreal should be of great interest to Canadians.

I suspect those accused would appreciate bing tried by a Judge Doug.

Time will tell, eh?

I have a similar story. It involves a private in the airforce who was arrested by the OPP for posession with the intent of distribution. THis young person went to court in Barrie Ontario and the judge essentially slapped him on the wrist. 6 months probation because it was only marihuana. This little shit laughed all the way out of the court house, right into the arms of the Military Police. You see, members of the CF are also subject to the National Defence Act, and using marihuana is an offence under the NDA.

I sat in on his summary trial and I could not believe his defence. He actually stated that the Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chretien stated that Marihauna was not that bad and he was going to decriminalize it, and based on the sentence already handed down in civilian court the judge could not possibly find him guilty. This delussional young man was informed that first, The Governor General is the head of the CF not the PM, second, just because something is decriminalized does not necessarily make it legal, third, the civilian court had nothing to do with these proceedings as this was a military matter which fell under the NDA. He was sentence to 60 days in the Detention Barracks.....that is the equivelent of a couple of years in a civvy prison...believe me.

The point here is there seems to be a growing view that Marihauna is not that bad and we should not be too harsh on those who are using or selling it. Bull....it is still illegal and possession and distribution should be punished accordingly.

I know as conservatives the expectation is that we are all anti-any kind of drug. The truth is I have a difficult time getting my knickers in a knot over pot in any amount. In my province, if the OPP spent as much money going after crack and cocaine traffic as it does in flying around and wiping out pot crops every year; the resulting impact on society would be more positive. And I don't buy into the "pot-is-a-gateway-to-coke" argument. If that's the case then mother's milk is the gateway to alcoholism.

NeoCon, lame argumen, milk is food, pot is well a gateway to;
bronchitis
emphysema
lung cancer
brain cancer
i.e. no healthy outcome

We note that the "gated communuty" which romanticized the illicit pot dealer and ignores the more criminal elements of this occupation is also the same "community" inclined towards oppressive enforcement of onerous regulatory laws as they apply to compliant civilians...like slapping duck hunters, antique collectors and target shooters with huge fines, confiscations and criminal records for paperwork misdemeanors....ot throwing a grain farmer in jail for selling wheat privately...while at the same time never using the current draconian civilian gun laws to leverage a few extra years into the sentance of an armed thug.

We further note that in this particular case where Mr. pot dealer had threatened cops and put contracts out ( obviously he had illegal guns for his line of work) was neither charged with illegal firearms possession crime nor given a bench issued prohibition for ever possessing one again upon his conviction......but woe befall you if you are a duck hunter who lets your registration lapse on your duck gun....the full weight of the criminal code will come to bear on you "gun nuts" as the "gated community" is guarding the nation's "gates" against you "gun nuts" and contriband farmers who may want to sell your wheat to a private source...can't have contriband wheat to unauthorized dealers....can't have unregistered wheat sales or duck hunters about...what's the country coming to?

"...but I've seen the same intellectual diminishment happen when perfectly intelligent people are granted tenure..."

I'll say it again. Strange things start happening when you isolate the decisions themselves from the consequences that accompany them.

The punishment certainly does not fit the crime. WL you make a good point on the disparity of sentences handed down by the courts. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps Doug is just a mindless lefty, but maybe Doug had some things explained to him regarding his or his families safety.

I think that is the primary reason we need to have term limits and an elected judiciary. Term limits would ensure that a judge does not simply become a tool of a criminal organization.

Elected judges mean that they would have to define themselves and their values to voters to get their job, and defend their actions to keep it.

A result of this kind of sentencing for hardened criminals is an outcry for tougher sentencing, which Liberal governments and their appointed comrades in the judiciary then apply to the citizens at the duck hunter end of the spectrum.

If I was more paranoid it would almost seem like a plan to give the state the tools with which to subjegate the masses at (what would be spun as) the masses own request.

Its an inconvenient truth that they are paid way to much. They, like politicians have set there own wages & featherbedded themselves into the top 2% of wage earners in the Country. This ought to be a civic duty, not a lottery for loot. Nor does it produce any nerve.

If a judge is anxious for his life , than he should relinquish the job. Being yellow only baits these guys into even more atrocious crimes. If one can't stand doing the right thing because of spinelessness, they have NO right adjudicate anything.

When cop killers roam the streets after 5 years , its pretty palpable these fellows have given into the criminals & polity that supports them. The leftists. With the poverty Industry allied with the youth offender act, both bowing before a ripped legal system mired in moral relevancy..

Run for & by Lawyers, clerks, paralegals & whatnot. All designed to perpetuate the myth of the criminal as victim. Disgusting in my view.

Now we have these black robed Imams of Humanism , proclaiming fatwas like some Jihadits. Over & above our legislators or the law as it stood till their interference. It has even come down to imaginary clauses in the Constitution that they visualize, but no one else.

Electing lower court Judges while vetting supreme court ones would go some way to alleviate this. As well, stop the obscene wages that segregate them from the normal population, to only than have camaraderie with the Elite, & their Leftist Dogma.

Have powers to an agency with nothing to do with Justice or the legal scheme, to remove incompetent or crooked Judges.

After all this its truly staggering we still have sane ones who do there job. Hobbled for sure by 30 years of social liberalism. At least they try, & don't think they are infallible by usurping the legislative branch of this Nation.

I might add in Edmonton we had a short poll, asking how many thought the Justices system was broke. A whopping 93% said yes. Though polls mean little, it should scare the government silly. There losing the war for public confidence.

Any loss in our monetary or legal department would mean absolute collapse. Barter & vigilantism will become the order of their day. It always does historically. These are the fundamentals responsibilities by any political body. Why should we pay taxes for nothing to rich fools & cowards? Who side with evil against the very populations they take an oath to serve?

Because one poster put it, & pretty much sums it all up. There is never a reprieve for fines or monetary demands in any case. Which makes one wonder if this is only another tax scam , married to the illusion of punishment for violent or elitist criminals?

I feel for the police trying to do their jobs while these goats of greed, turn our life’s peacefulness or sanctuary, into a tragedy of expediency. Theft in the guise of justice. For these adjudicators with no scruples. Communal conscience twisted by ideology, or social fads of the day. Turned into law that demeans us all ,by those who think they can do no wrong if not some preplanning this for disreputable purpose. God help the honest ones. Their outnumbered these days. The peer pressure must be crushing, to conform to this Ideology of criminal victim hood.

Just my opinion

To Neocon,

You may not choose to see the link between Marijuana and other drugs, but I'm willing to bet if you took a quick poll of addicts as well as currently incarcerated criminals, you would find nearly 100% would respond "Yes, I have used Marijuana".

On judges, they are a huge part of the problem. Their tolerance leads to increased use, leads to increased problems across-the-board.

Judges decisions should be reviewed and they should be published in local papers for the citizens to assess for themselves.

The frightening thing is that as the population becomes more urbanized and less rural, the more people will lose their sense of what it takes to survive.

The fact that Doug the Judge can’t instinctively judge between a casual pot smoker and a dealer with 4 tons is a reflection of the defining down of society that we see in large urban areas. Jobs have become rote, like the way BA’s are taught on campus, simply regurgitate back to the Prof what his latest book pontitifacates about and you are guaranteed to pass.

That’s one of the reasons it seems to me that Toronto votes Liberal. While north of Toronto, in say cottage country, they vote Conservative. In the more rural areas people are still entrepreneurial. They can still think. They have to think to make a living. Whereas most jobs in Toronto are simply a process of dealing with an in-basket and an out-basket.

Big corporations give everybody an online manual instructing them how to move problems from the in-basket to the out-basket. Therefore many are simply employees with a BA in gender studies who need to do no more thinking than a Wal-Mart greeter. They just smile and point to the shelves. No thinking required.

Doug the Judge has become a Wal-Mart greeter with robes and tenure.

Because the vast majority of the Canadian electorate lives in about 6 mega-cities that vote Liberal, we have a real challenge as conservatives to appeal to the in-out basket crowd. That crowd is about as engaged with the real world as a Stepford Wife.

The judiciary should be part of and subject to the community they serve. Kaye hjas enunciated the isolationism of the appointed civil servant class as "the gated community"..an apt descrition that denotes the privilege and wealth these parasites enjoy in their class isolation from the rest of us who suffer under their poor/myopin decision making.

The one part of American history I am absolutely in line with is the ideal of the community choosing a man to sit behind the bench who best represents the community...and is entierly accountable to that community for any decisions he makes as a judge which may negatively impact its citizenry....as America got further away from this ideal by getting the state and feds involved in appointing candidates, the populist nature of the rule of law degenerated to a point where American justice is just as insulated from public input as ours is with the appointment system.

It seems obvious to me that we now have a jurocracy which exists aside and apart from the people that sit in judgement of...this is dangerous...there is no emapthy in a person is such an insular privileged unaccountable posistion....it is why we see the "gated community" enunciating and engorcing dystopian socuial engineering or their personal agendas instead of the rule of law as written.

The elites of Canada insulated from the everyday reality - well you could have knocked me over with a feather.

Actually it should become a job requirement for all judges to spend at least 1 week per year making patrols in a police car. At night. In the streets. In a vice squad car.

Then they can see the real damage that their asinine decisions and sentences are inflicting on society.

Starting with the SCOC judges of course.
Hear the evil, see the evil, deal with the evil.

As mentioned above, electing judges would be an improvement. We could also outsource them… to say Singapore. As soon as you get off the plane in Singapore there are real big signs that tell you what happens to you if you are carrying drugs.

Let’s outsource the judges.

Really everything can be outsourced except the trades .. carpenters, plumbers and of course … motorcycle painters.

To Neocon,

You may not choose to see the link between Marijuana and other drugs, but I'm willing to bet if you took a quick poll of addicts as well as currently incarcerated criminals, you would find nearly 100% would respond "Yes, I have used Marijuana".

So what? Where is the cause and effect? There isn't one that can be proven. They would also probably respond that they've drank beer, or eaten popcorn, or whatever. You could also ask all the marijuana users in this country "Have you tried harder drugs?" and get a majority that would answer in the negative. I know folks through every social strata and from cops to trades people to you name it who use pot recreationally and who have never tried harder drugs. The cause and effect just isn't there in my opinion. Of all the things that we conservatives worry about, pot ain't one of them, for me at least.

I agree with electing judges. To those who are concerned that electing a judge would mean that they are compromised to give lenient/non-lenient sentences or face non-election - I'd like to ask:

If a judge gives sentences that are, in the public eye, too lenient - would he be re-elected?
If a judge gives sentences that are, in the public eye, too harsh - would he be re-elected?

In Canada, if a judge gives sentences that are, in the public eye, either too lenient or too harsh, what can be done about it?

Therefore, since justice must be seen, by the public, as just - then, judges should be accountable to the public. They should be elected.

IMO, in the case cited, I don't see why the Crown would not appeal the light sentence handed down to the drug thug? Especially if the Police officer could repeat what Judge Doug had to say about the case, to the Crown Attorney. Also, it seems to me that a judicial review by his (Judge Dougs') peers would be in order here.

To clarify, the Crown did successfully appeal the sentence. The main point of my posting was not the resolution of the case, but the fuzzy logic employed in the first instance.

The same people who get their panties in a twist over any move to curtail smoking get outraged over anyone smoking a joint. Most of us filed someone else's pot us under "we don't care, that's their business" a long time ago.

The most dangerous substance in a joint health wise is the tobacco.

"but I'm willing to bet if you took a quick poll of addicts as well as currently incarcerated criminals, you would find nearly 100% would respond "Yes, I have used Marijuana"."

Why look up something in Google when you can just make it up yourself?

neocon: I think you've missed the main point here. It's really not about the pros and cons of pot.

It's about a judge who with the facts in front of him, which is 4 tons of pot and its market potential on the street--and everyone knows that drug dealing is mixed up with gangs, territory, criminal activity, etc.--chose not to take seriously the peripheral, but more important, consequences to society of selling this amount of drugs.

I've often wondered why "the war on drugs" has usually been such a failure in the U.S. and in Canada. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that there must be too many people in the elites of both countries--the judiciary, law enforcement, medical professions, academia, politicians, the MSM, etc.--who are getting rich off the illicit drug trade for there to be a united will on their parts to rid our streets of drugs, gangs, and criminal activity, which is the ruin of many too-young lives.

Judge Doug should have taken a much longer view of the consequences of the street sale of 4 tons of pot. A lot of destruction and mayhem he didn't prevent. A real indictment of the judge in this case.

A lawyer friend said this to me: "Son, if you ever become a lawyer, ALWAYS ALWAYS, go to a jury whenever possible for a case."
Me: "Why?"
LF: "Because I went to law school with these clowns, they figure out the way they want the facts to work in their heads and then they deliver judgment."

I say we introduce more judicial competition - make every trial and sentence a jury-led affair.

In light of these comments does anyone know the rest of the story behind the dad that killed the dealer that was ruining his daughter's life? Was the dealer getting slaps on the wrist?
rockyt...great idea!...nothing can be more frustrating for the police than for them to risk their lives to bring in the creeps, spend hours going over their 'paperwork', then have the judge let the perverts back on the streets.Put the judges and the lawyers in the patrol cars for a year before graduating!

The bigger issue here is not the evils of marihauna use, it is the sentence handed down for something that is illegal in this country. 4 tons is not for personal consumption...if it is this guy is in serious need of re-hab. Bottom line, it is illegal, he did intend to sell it, not pay taxes, the defendant has a history of violence etc. To brush all this off because it is just marihauna is bloody stupid!

The lienency of Judge Doug is only part of the story. There is another side to the judiciary at play which is enough to make one's blood run cold.
A recent story in the MSM tells of a Father who murdered his Daughter's boyfriend. It seems the boyfriend was a drug dealer who had the daughter on drugs, most likely as a sex slave.
The Judge gave the Father 10 years without parole, the MSM story said. The Daughter has since recovered and is doing very well.
So these Judges have no qualms in dealing out harsh punishment.
The real story of the Judiciary here; is are they motivated by a jaundiced attitude toward the peasantry?

I've seen lives ruined by alcohol and other lives sidetracked and seconded by Pot. In my limited experience with the people involved, by far the greater destroyer was alcohol. And Pot comes up a rather distant second in terms of destruction.

My opinion, fwiw: Alcohol should be the illegal substance, and Pot the closely controlled regulated substance. But no matter what the majority do or what our recreational substances will be, there will be people who overindulge, become addicted, and ruin their own and other peoples' lives as a result.

Gunney99 posted "It seems the boyfriend was a drug dealer who had the daughter on drugs, most likely as a sex slave."

I don't recall any such indications being made in the evidence reported during the trial. It may or may not be so, but speculation of such a manner about a then-16 and now 20-year-old woman is certainly a disserve to her. Better to be sure of what you speak, than to make ill-advised speculations in a public forum.

Joe: "I've seen lives ruined by alcohol and other lives sidetracked and seconded by Pot."

A few monthe ago I attended a seminar given by my city Police Dept. on crystal meth. There is no doubt of the link between marijuana and "heavy" drugs. It is the gateway drug say the police. There are several studies which back this up.
What is more interesting is the method of getting young people "hooked" and how important marijuana is in this process.
The process starts with "binge parties" which will go on for a whole weekend. Initially, alcohol may be the only substance involved. Marijuana, because it is socially accepted is easily introduced to the participants. Weeks later, when inhibitions are down, crack, crystal, etc., are introduced.

The recent case of the father who shot the dealer who was providing the drugs to his daughter and the past case of Robert Latimer euthanizing his severly disabled daughter are very different criminally and ethically.

They do however share one outcome. Both individuals (fathers in this case) were delivered very long jail sentences.

The apparent reason for this would be that the judiciary wanted to send a very strong message to the public that these kinds of actions are outside the law and will not be tolerated.

Making an example of these two men, by giving them lengthly sentences, is supposed to disuade others from carrying out the same actions.

Why they have eliminated this approach in dealing with hardened criminals and repeat offenders certainly begs some questioning.

As Sean noted strange things start happening when you isolate the decisions themselves from the consequences that accompany them.

A lack of consequences for their actions does not encourage criminals to change their ways, and the same dynamic appears to hold true for the unelected judiciary.

Something stinks here. As much as I find many of our court decisions to be odious - particularly in drug cases - I think it's a bit of a stretch to believe a judge would be having dinner with a policeman, presumably in a public restaurant, talking about a criminal case with the judge explaining his rationale for sentencing. Friendship or no friendship, it just doesn't compute. At least, not with me. Or is it just me?

The morale of the story? If you're going to murder a drug dealer, learn to hide the body. You don't even have to do an exceptionally good job - I promise the cops won't look for him TOO hard.

The case of the guy who shot his daughter's drug dealer is going to become more commonplace as the "justice" system fails to address the needs of society. For this father, there was no other choice, and I'd love to hear some courageous person in the Justice system admit that. Never happen, they're too busy nurturing their careers.

Pot as a gateway drug, is a misnomer. Sure, all drug addicts tried pot, so have probably half the people in this country. Persons with addictive personalities will continue on the downhill road to heavier drugs, and the casual pot users, whom we all know, and deal with in our everyday lives, will carry on being the useful citizens they are.

One of the biggest mistakes the anti-drug movement has made, going right back to the 1960's, is that anyone who uses drugs is a criminal type. This same mentality is what caused alcohol prohibition to fail.

When you call the ordinary citizen a criminal for doing something he sees as his own business, and of dubious harm, you will have lost public sympathy, and any chance of winning the war. It's called "hearts and minds", and yes, I have a copy of that old "Soldier of Fortune" T-shirt.

I am no apologist for the drug abusing community, and am very much for stiffer sentencing of the traffickers. The sentence judge "Doug" handed out brings the Law into disrepute, a phrase judges love to use when it suits their (usually liberal)purpose.

Legalizing marijuana would probably be the best solution, then the system could really concentrate on the Crack, Coke, and heroin dealers and importers, and throw away the key.

But as long as the casual pot user is considered a criminal by the justice system the "war on drugs" will never gain popular support, and we will continue to see this kind of misguided sentencing.

As for judges lives being threatened by organized crime, I doubt that is a very real threat, as criminals know who their friends are, and if they offed a judge, these "gated" members of the community would turn on them in the full rage of fear.

And, of course, there is Dr.Robert Hare's theory, as he outlines in his book "Snakes in Suits".

Maybe the judge was not in fear for his life but for his job. Maybe he was being blackmailed because he hired pot heads to build a deck on his summer place and he paid them cash under the table. Is he a dipper? Hehe. I do not know anything about it but I do read John Grisham and I think this could be the start of a good book/movie. /sarc

I fully agree with all that say judges should be elected. Look at what has happened to the supreme court of this country, the choices are the ideological parrots of the ruling party for most of the last 50 years. They continue to spew out decisions that lack any common sense or good. My only concern is once again, the numbers, when you are still out voted by the idiot central core of this country would electing judges make any difference? This country is already Balkanized so why not give each area a veto in the Supreme Court? Maybe in Parliament as well? Wishful thinking.

Neo Con: The lasiaz-faire attitude towards marijuana in this country (particularly here in BC) has not lead to a benign usage of the drug by responsible adults.

It has resulted in aggressive breeding and cultivation of marijuana in to an ever more potent drug that is finding its way into the hands of an ever younger first user.

The difference in potency between the pot of the 60 and 70s is like the difference between the alchohol content of beer and whisky.

The same groups and individuals who deal in more destructive drugs also control (and have violent turf wars for that control) the lucrative marijuana trade.

You can no longer seperate marijuana from other drugs with the specious argument that marijuana does not lead to other drugs. The arguement is not about the effect of the drug on the individual, but of the effect of the criminal industry the drugs support on society. It is all part of the illicit drug trade.

Marijuana is no longer fairly represented by the harmless feel good potheads portrayed by Cheech and Chong, or as a benign drug that will help us all live in peace and harmony.

Those who promote it as such, like judge Doug in this case, minimize the tremendous social costs and do far more to enable the hard core criminals behind marijuanas cultivation and sale to continue to grow their crops and markets (and criminal influence) with a minimum of interference.

How can anyone pretend that the sentences being delivered in case like the above represent a "War on Drugs".

What is the difference of a casual drug user being labeled a criminal, from the casual gun user who hunts gophers and ducks.

Personally I think all drugs should be legal for adults. The government has no business telling me what I can and cannot put in my body. Having said that, drugs are currently illegal in Canada. It is up to me to change the law if I don't like it. Its not up to some judge imposing his own personal opinions on a case. If the judge doesn't like the law he/she should campaign to have it changed like the rest of have to.

Everyone is saying the damage that 4 tonnes of pot would cause, but you're forgetting about the economic effects of pot.

Firstly, keeping it illegal at any amount will encourage more organised crime (bikers, Yakuza etc.) which will lead to higher federal policing costs.

Legalizing the drug will make it safer because it will no longer be grown in basements and attics. Legalizing it will keep away the gangs. Legalizing it will create a tax revenue that can be used to provide care for all the (unproven) negative health effects of pot.

Anyone who drinks or smokes cigarettes and thinks pot should be illegal is a hypocrite. Why is your drug better or safer?

Like dmorris says:
Legalizing marijuana would probably be the best solution, then the system could really concentrate on the Crack, Coke, and heroin dealers and importers, and throw away the key.

If you don't like it, don't do it (like abortion).
If you don't like gangs WTF are you going to do?

mary T:

The Casual drug user is inflicting no harm on anyone (except himself and possibly our healthcare system) a gun owner who kills animals is infliction VIOLENT harm.

Without a permit the gun owner is illegally and negatively affecting those (even the animals) around him.

Someone who causes ILLEGAL HARM should be a criminal. Someone who breaks a crime that effects their personal freedom is a patriot.

It's interesting the discussion on which is the most harmful, pot or tobacco, and I suppose that tobacco certainly kills more people than pot.

When I think of major pot shipments, I think of the money involved, and it's not in any way trivial, seeing as it's sold by the fraction of an ounce. When ever there is that much money to be made or needed to purchase it, you've got people that will do anything, including murder people, to get it.

From what I understand, lots of the "it's only pot" folks are thinking that it's like the pot that addled their brains back in the '60's.

NOT!!! This bears no resemblance, either physically or effect wise. This is a very, very powerful drug and to treat it lightly is sticking your head in the sand. Major use does nothing good for society, nothing what so ever.

It have to agree with several of the folks that spoke of judges being bought or intimidated or led down the current social trend path. Electing judges allows for installation of a juciciary that reflects the views of the citizenry on the judge being voted on and also allows for removals of the "rogue" judge, for lack of better words.

Pat

Some partaking in this discussion appear to feel 4 tons makes a nice private stash with a little to front to some friends. To me, and I could be wrong, it happened once before, ~3600 kilos would appear to have an intent to distribute for personal gain, which begs the questions are you mentally retarded? Or is there a part of the law, which was written and passed for the benefit of society as a whole, you too stupid to understand?

The 10 years without parole for the guy who, very understandably, euthenized his daughter's dealer, wasn't the judge's choice. With second degree murder, that's the minimum tariff. We conservatives have long sought, and are still seeking, minimum sentences for violent crimes. Sometimes, as in the present case, that comes back to bite us in the ass.

BCer,

On what basis do you question Bruce's integrity? Judges and cops (active or former) have friends, families and lives just like everyone else. Your snide inference reflects badly on you, not on Bruce.

One of Scotland Yard's most senior officers, Chief Superintendent Anthony Wills, the borough commander of Hammersmith and Fulham in London, has called for hard drugs - including crack cocaine and heroin - to be decriminalized, saying that police cannot win the war against dealers.

Superintendent Wills said that as the state can not control the criminal trade in drugs, it should take it over instead. "I would have no problems with decriminalizing drugs full stop," said Mr Wills. "There have to be very stringent measures over the production and supply of drugs and we have got to remove the drug market from criminals. I do not want people to take drugs but if they are going to, I want them to take them safely, with a degree of purity and in a controlled way." Mr Wills, who heads more than 2,000 officers, said that draconian anti-drugs measures have always failed. "There are some places where people are beheaded if they sell drugs but even this does not stop the trade," he noted.

Joseph D. McNamara, a retired police chief from San Jose, California (who spent more than half his life as a police officer) and research fellow at the Hoover Institution (arguably the top conservative think tank in the world) has said that: "I regret that my country, when it comes to drugs, resembles Nazi Germany. Everyone is a potential enemy. Schoolchildren are trained to turn in their friends and parents, neighbors report on one another, and lawyers, doctors and clergy have become informants, often causing mandatory sentences more representative of a totalitarian government than a democracy. Drug cartels, dealers, corrupt governments, judges, politicians and cops have profited. It is inevitable that by trying to control through criminal law which chemicals free citizens put into their bloodstreams, the sacrosanct relationship between doctor and patient is also jeopardized."

A year ago November a study, headed up by Xia Zhang, an associate professor with the Neuropsychiatry Research Unit at the University of Saskatchewan, was published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The findings suggest controlled marijuana treatments can increase brain cell growth in the hippocampus area of the brain. The region is associated with learning and memory, as well as anxiety and depression.

The U of S study was performed on rats. They were injected with HU-210, a synthetic "cannabinoid" similar to a group of components found in marijuana, known as THC, but about 100 times the strength. THC is the compound of marijuana that produces the 'high' sensation in users. Zhang found that rats treated regularly with HU-210 experienced neurogenesis -- they grew new brain cells in the hippocampus area.

Zhang's team believes depression and anxiety may be caused by a lack of brain cell growth in the hippocampal region. If that is true, marijuana, or at least HU-210, could offer a treatment for both depression and anxiety disorders by stimulating the growth of new brain cells.

The fulcrum on which the lever of the debate over matters relating to the consumption by adult humans of various neuropsychopharmicological compounds pivots is the edge between collective utilitarian considerations, on the one hand, and considerations of individual freedom of experience and expression, on the other. On one end of the lever, we have authoritarian utilitarians like Mr. Bentham. On the other end, we have silly anarchists. At the fulcrum we have people like Mr. Bentham's nephew, Mr. Mill.

Now I must admit, I have a preference for Mr. Mill's opinion that "Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. All errors he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to do what they deem his good."

Certainly any study of the legacy of oppressive authoritarianism would agree.

Nevertheless, it remains that case that some people commit errors against good advice and warning. The question then becomes, is the problem the input, the process, or the output? If X abuses Y, is it Y's fault, or X's? And if someone else, Z, uses but doesn't abuse Y, is X Z's fault?

Look, I'm a pragmatic libertarian, not an ideological utopian. I think an argument can be made, for example, in favour of laws against trafficking in, say, PCP. Nasty stuff, as I understand it, though I've never tried it, because as I understand it, it's nasty stuff. As I understand it, only someone who a priori needs help would want to do such a thing. Better to get them help (though the degree to which that tends to work or not is beyond the scope of this comment). I could rate the cost-benefit value of other "recreational" drugs, from PCP on down to caffeine, in my opinion, but I won't bore you.

On the other hand, lots of smart, productive people also engage to some degree of indulgence in some things that some others don't. Indeed, some of the most historically creative people have been known to overindulge in some things. Who exactly is to decide? Are you, Mr. Big Shot?

Do you know what balance of substances is appropriate for me? Do you have any idea how much butterfat I eat and yet per blood assays I have no problem with? That's right, these are my genetics, this is my neurology, it's not yours. Are you willing to stand up to me and say, Vitruvius, never mind how valuable and successful you've been in your life, you must stop behaving in manner Y because some other people X are losers?

A lot of you people are clearly afraid of things like ethanol and tetrahydrocannabinol. Maybe you're right to be -- maybe you can't handle them. But a lot of people are afraid of mathematics, and logic, because they can't handle them. Should I then be prohibited from being logical?

Some people clearly need help. Have we no poor-houses? Have we no asylums? Why are you bothering me, son? I've certainly been responsible enough to earn enough to pay enough taxes to cover the costs of such facilities. What, exactly, do you want from me?

In 1887, Roger Q. Mills wrote that: "Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud. It is wrapped in the livery of Heaven, but it comes to serve the devil. It comes to regulate by law our appetites and our daily lives. It comes to tear down liberty and build up fanaticism, hypocrisy, and intolerance. It comes to confiscate by legislative decree the property of many of our fellow citizens. It comes to send spies, detectives, and informers into our homes; to have us arrested and carried before courts and condemned to fines and imprisonments. It comes to dissipate the sunlight of happiness, peace, and prosperity in which we are now living and to fill our land with alienations, estrangements, and bitterness. It comes to bring us evil -- only evil -- and that continually. Let us rise in our might as one and overwhelm it with such indignation that we shall never hear of it again as long as grass grows and water runs."

It somewhat surprises and saddens me that to this day, now in the third millennium, there are otherwise intelligent people, including SDA commenters who I otherwise respect, who remain prohibitionists, as if this is some sort of moral issue. It is not. The putative "war on drugs" is one of the biggest mistakes you are making.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson

Some great comments on this topic. The fly in the ointment, so to speak on the legalization of drugs is that unless they are legalized to the point that the users have unlimited access to the given drug, then you are going to have an illegal market place, one that will grow as the addicts grow in numbers from the freely available drugs.

It didn't work in England and a trip through Needle Park in Switzerland, was a horror story. Historically, legal drugs led to abuse and an increase in addicts. Why would it be any different now? Even the Insite safe injections site in Vancouver is being blamed for an increase in addicts and certainly an increase in crime in the neighborhood. Nay sayers, talk to the locals!

Just by saying that it should be legalized, which certainly has some merit, does not eliminate or more than likely, even decrease the illegal drug market. There's never enough heroin or what ever.

Pat

One might similarly make the comment in response to terrorists:

"But Doug, it was only 4 TONS of FERTILIZER!"

There's never enough whatever? If your conjecture were true, Pat, would that not imply that we should be seeing a significant market for illicit ethanol? We have essentially unlimited access to beverage ethanol, yet by far the vast majority of people aren't slain by it. Why do you conclude that, if, say, heroin were made legal, significantly more people would consume it than now do? I know I wouldn't.

vitruvius - is that really you? The original, the sacrosanctus, the...?

Yes, we are all in favour of the freedom of the individual, but, but, what happens when that individual freedom infringes on someone else's freedom?

Drugs are not the same as logic and mathematics. The thing about drugs is that, as you damn well know, they are chemicals; they do chemical things. Yes, I know, one can get 'high' on logic and math and even addicted to logic and math...but...

Now, the body can rapidly become corrupted by these chemical things going on. And, the brain can turn to mush. So- the individual with this corrupted body requires, from me and others, a lot of money, to take care of him. And the individual with this mushy brain does bad things to other individuals....like attacking and killing them.

I have a problem with ultimate freedom of the individual that involves other individuals' rights and freedoms. I'd rather use my money on whatever I want - not caring for a diseased, brain-addled addict. I'd rather use my emotions on whatever I want, not in grief over the violence caused by a brain-addled addict.

In Texas, it is legal to shoot anyone you catch in bed with your wife.

Maybe we need a law that allows any parent to shoot anyone that he/she catches dealing drugs to their kids.

It is really, really dumb that the law says that kids are not responsible for their actions until they are 18, and then turns around and throws a parent in jail for PROTECTING his children from evil when they are under 18.

What part of this idiocy does the Liberal Justice system not understand?

I don't see the argument being about the effects of marijuana, or for that matter, whether it should be legalised. This particularly activist judge gave a overly lenient sentence to a hardcore criminal, who had commited murder and put out contracts on police officers lives.

The judge seems to have soft filtered that information through a new Liberal attitude towards pot - perhaps in his opinion he feels that it should be legalised. Regardless of the judges opinion on marijuana, it should not have affected his judgement towards this criminal and his duty to society.

Activist judges need to be held accountable for their actions. For example, if this same criminal is charged and convicted of a crime again within a reasonable time - the judge should be charged as well. Afterall, it's entirely the judges fault that the criminal was on the street so quickly again - having not been given the proper sentence. So much more if the criminal commits murder. The judge whether intentionally or not, is an accomplice - or at the very least, an enabler.

"Historically, legal drugs led to abuse and an increase in addicts."

The Dutch have legalized pot and they smoke less of it than their neighbors. Alochol consumption in the US also trended down after prohobition ended.

"Yes, we are all in favour of the freedom of the individual, but, but, what happens when that individual freedom infringes on someone else's freedom?"

Not sure how this applies in this case. More like "I'm all in favour of the rights that I personaly want to use myself and screw the rest".

So, how many suicide vests did that 4 tons provide for. Or how many homes have been destroyed because of the grow ops in them.
Drugs, like prostitution have been around for eons and will even be here after global warming is solved. It would be interesting to know how many doctors, lawyers, accountants, civil servants politicians etc have made stupid errors while under the influence. If they don't have any affect on you, why use them.

this from the front page of the vancouver Sun august 29 2005:

"accused drug smuggler doesnt have to file late tax returns: court"

describes the goofball decision by the federal court of canukistan on the grounds that forcing the suspect to file taxes would create evidence that the rcmp could get a warrant on, ergo the canukistan version of 'fifth amendment' applies.

corollary?

if you have something to hide in your taxes, dont file them, and then do something to get you just *suspected* of drug smuggling.

ta da !!!

welcome to da great white nort' !!!

un freakin believable, er, unbelievaBULL.

batb:

"if Judge Doug had thrown the book at the guy which, obviously, he should have, Judge Doug's life expectancy might have been drastically shortened.

This is how the bullies are winning everywhere"

if this is the explanation, then any and all judgey judges who fear for their safety should resign and create a vacancy for someone else more gutsy and responsible.

This was a very bad example to use. 4 tons of cannabis can be dangerous if improperly stored; if stored high up on a shelf without proper safeguards it could potentially crush someone to death if it fell and the person was standing underneath.

I'm curious if the prohibitionist group on this thread don't use cannabis because:
(a) it is illegal or
(b) they have made a personal choice not to use it.
Interestingly, use of cannabis among young people in Holland, where it is decriminalized, is significantly lower than in N. America where it is illegal. I'm not sure what the prohibitionists are afraid of. The only effects of decriminalization I can see is that fewer people would be having their lives destroyed by the legal system, many criminals would be out of work, and a large number of politicians and police would have to look elsewhere for funding than from their friends in the illegal drug business.

The primary health hazards of cannabis are legal and it is significantly less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.

Prohibitionist drug laws are inherently evil and about the only good thing I can say about Bill C68 is that it made a large number of gun owners suddenly understand the logic of the anti-prohibitionist crowd. In BC, an absolute majority of the population are either pot smokers or gun owners and having laws which make the majority of the population of a portion of the country into criminals does very little to engender respect for the law. Nearly every gun owner I know is a criminal on paper since none of the people I shoot with have registered all of their guns; it ranges from a couple of rifles they use to hunt or take routinely to the range to none of their firearms.

Bad laws are made to be broken and I'm glad to see that people in Vancouver give prohibition the respect it deserves by smoking openly in the streets.

The criminal aspect of prohibition is entirely separate from the effects of drugs such as cannabis. Remove the totalitarian laws and the criminals will move on to something else.

I agree that that the only truly effective way to combat the drug trade is to completely legalize all drug use but given that this concept is politically impractical much more severe levels of incarceration for trafficing should be implemented.

Yes, ET, it's me, Vitruvius. So now there are two things we disagree about. As I explained above, I think that on this matter there are valid utilitarian arguments to be made, and there are valid individualism arguments to be made. I also think that there are ways to deal with losers, without excessively penalizing those who are not.

Ergo, I think what we are dealing with here are issues of pragmatism, not matters of absolutist ideology. I do not worship at the altar of Benthamite utility, though I admire its flying buttresses. The biggest enemies of reasonable pragmatism are the absolutist prohibitionists. Look at the Wahabbis. That's never worked, in 10,000 years; why should it start working now? We don't even absolutely prohibit homicide -- not if it's in self defense.

Drugs are chemicals. They do chemical things. There are very many chemical things I very much like. Polyvinyl chloride, say, or penicillin, for example. Of course, even penicillin can kill people who react poorly to it, nearly took my sister out once. But I still don't think that chemicals should be prohibited -- what would I make my cheese out of?

My body has not been rapidly corrupted, and my brain has not turned to mush, even though I've not been a teetotaler for soon to be four decades. My doctors tell me that there's a significant chance I may die slightly earlier as a result of the side-effects of my behaviour, with a Gaussian probability of a foreshortening of my life by about three to five years, unless of course I get hit by a bus first. They have not mentioned that my brain will turn to mush, and so then that I will do bad things to others. I have stashed away a few hundred thousand extra dollars to look after any medical mediation I may decide to seek in the end game, without burdening others on that matter, while still contributing millions of dollars of taxes to the supposed benefit of all.

Therefore, as I see it, on this matter, my behaviour is my business, not yours. If you want to go after bad guys, based on their behaviour toward others, independent of their inputs, then fine, I'm with you. But if you want to go after good guys solely based on their inputs, then I'm against you.

I realize that tyranny can drive good people underground. I understand Metropolis. I don't think it's a good thing. I would rather deal with losers dieing in the streets than see a good man persecuted by totalitarian absolutists.

''It somewhat surprises and saddens me that to this day, now in the third millennium, there are otherwise intelligent people, including SDA commenters who I otherwise respect, who remain prohibitionists....''

So, vitruvius, how would you explain this contradiction from those who want our military to fight for freedom on foreign soil, yet don't believe in freedom here at home?

''Something stinks here''
I agree, BCer, to high heaven.

I would explain it as good honest people who want to try to make the world a better place but who, in my opinion, are wrong on this matter. Just remember, it's only my opinion, it's not that important. There are over six billion people who don't care what I think.

Maryjane - what a silly statement; kindly define 'freedom'. Do you mean the freedom to live and get an education versus being beheaded for going to school?

Vitruvius - what's the other thing on which we disagree?

Agreed - against the absolutists - of any stripe, Wahhabists or...

Penicillin, to my knowledge, is not addictive. Now, doesn't the whole crux of your argument rest on your ability to control yourself? This would remove any connections to addictive substances, wouldn't it?

I'm going to overlook the various argumentative tactics you've used (references to Dr. X and Dr. Y) - after all, I could readily find Dr. Non-X and Dr. Non-Y. I'll focus around your key argument, which is the right of the individual to choose their activities and, the ability to be in control of these choices.

I think this is a basic epistemological argument and there is no final answer.
Does an individual with a terminal disease have the right to choose to die - in a manner without pain? ( My own view is 'yes').

Does an individual have the right to choose a mode of life that will remove from them the ability to make choices? Addictive drugs such as heroin, cocaine, do that. The drug then does indeed, turn the brain 'to mush'. (My own view is 'no').

Does an individual have the right to choose behaviour that enriches them but harms others (as a drug runner, as an extortionist, as a, an, um, er..a lawyer?)

And so on. I don't think that the infrastructure based solely around the 'will of the individual' can take us far. How far does an individual extend? I'm sure you know Duncan Watts 'Six Degrees'.

It is only your opinion, but you do, however strive for some measure of intellectual/philisophical consistency, while those good, honest people would appear to distain it. Some opinions have more value than others.

ET..In this context I mean the freedom from some busybody dictating what intoxicants one may or may not ingest, as well as from some Taliban proscribing music and public dancing.
This is not an epistemological argument. This is a basic legal, equality before the law issue with profound consequences for those whose tastes in intoxicants run counter to drugs that are socially sanctioned.

Well, penicillin itself may not be addictive, but I've had some cheeses with a live penicillin rind that could, I think, be addictive, but they were a little too stinky for me to find out.

I don't think, ET, that just because something can be addictive it should a priori be prohibited. I enjoy many addictive things, indeed, by some standards, I am addicted to some things. I don't see this as a problem, as long as I don't mismanage the situation; as the long as my "addiction" isn't of the sort that overwhelms my judgment. Controlling myself does not mean that there are no dangerous or euphoric signals in my systems, it means that I tune and damp them appropriately.

I don't see this as an epistemological problem, I see it as axiological. It is to me, as I see it, a matter of my aesthetics and our ethics. As I said, to me this a matter of pragmatism. I think people should be able to do just about whatever they aesthetically want, as long as they don't unethically bother other people. It's like Henny Youngman's grandmother, she was over eighty years old and still didn't need glasses -- she drank straight from the bottle.

I should note that in my opinion there's no need to overlook my argumentative tactics, ET, because I'm not arguing. I'm just thinking out loud about some of my ideas on this matter. I'm not in a Drug Policy 301 seminar, I'm just a commenter at SDA. My style is not designed to prove me correct, it's designed to make people think twice.

It is all well and good to drag out Watt's work, but if one pushes the network side of the model to the extent of ignoring its nodes, then one is guilty of the age old oppression of Kings that considers me to be just a cog in the wheel. I am not a cog -- I am Vitruvius.

Tho the topic was not the wisdom or idiocy of prohibition, Vitruvius has it right, I feel (and have felt for years).

Prohibition doesn't work, hasn't ever worked, will never work, can't be made to work. And even if it could be made to work in terms of producing certain desirable outcomes it would still be immoral, plain and simple. No one has the right to control what I do with my own body, period.

As to the argument that the state is on the hook for costs, that's a canard. The anti-tobacco lobby used that argument to confiscate the property of tobacco companies selling a legal highly taxed product. But as tobacco like drugs is personally destructive, there's a far higher likelihood that all in, on balance, the state SAVES money via shorter life spans.

maryjane has a point too. Freedom is freedom and there is a definite disconnect between our soldiers fighting and dying over there to preserve our freedomss if we so readily give these up to the busybodies.

And BTW, is anything dumber than destroying the main cash crop (poppies) of Afghani farmers who are therefore made more susceptible to recruitment by the Taliban.

Johnson's War on Poverty increased poverty. The booze prohibition increased violent crime and corruption. The War on Drugs creates millions of victimless "criminals" most black and of the lower socioeconomic order who thereby become much more prone to further crime and even recruitment into radical Islam.

Prohibition increases criminality.

"she was over eighty years old and still didn't need glasses -- she drank straight from the bottle."

Thanks for that. It's a good discussion with impressive posts on both sides, but there's always a place for Henny.

Vitruvius has made some of the best points so I won't repeat them. Where I would disagree with Vitruvius is which drugs should be banned. The only one I can think of now is MPTP. This is similar in structure to meperidine and was sold in the 1980's as synthetic meperidine. It has the unfortunate side effect that 90+% of people who try it a few times develop a rapidly progressive form of Parkinson's. Interestingly, it was freely available in the early 1980's as a photographic developer. This is the only drug that I would have no hesitation in labelling as dangerous.

PCP is a garbage drug and anyone who values rational thought usually stays far away from PCP. However, PCP is a valuable anesthetic and some people are quite fond of the stuff. Ketamine is quite similar to PCP and freely available. One can get stoned on ketamine, but it is a valuable adjunct in pain management when it is used in small doses as a nasal spray to augment opiate effects in chronic pain. Most recently, ketamine has been found to have the rather unique action of being able to alleviate severe depression in about an hour after being given by iv infusion. This effect lasts about a week and is as good as ECT. It's made me take another look at this whole family of drugs that I once, like Vitruvius, consigned to the garbage bin. One similar drug that is freely available is dextromethorphan (DXM) which is a cough suppressant. Taking a few hundred mg of DXM gives a stone which is very PCP-like but has it's own unique psychedelic features. Curious how we hear nothing about DXM use. This is not a new phenomenon and when I was in high school people used to eat large quantities of DXM tablets to get high (this was 35 years ago). It still seems to have a widespread cult following as googling DXM will show.

What has not entered into this discussion at all is the biochemical individuality that makes some people find drugs pleasurable and the "dangers" of drugs that are inferred from effects which may have nothing to do with the drug at all. People who have bipolar disorder are drawn to stimulants and this is one of the things I look for when taking a psychiatric history. Some of the bizarre and violent behavior that methamphetamine is said to cause is likely more related to the underlying neurobiology of a potential amphetamine user than the drug itself. No-one would be stupid enough to use a skid row drunk as an example of the dangers of alcohol as it pertains to 90%% of drinkers, but this is precisely the approach that is being taken to currently illegal drugs. The vast majority of people who use recreational drugs do so responsibly. And, while it should be obvious, but bears mentioning again, dose is crucial. EVERYTHING is poisonous in a high enough dose and pointing to a moron who used 100 times or more the usual dose of a drug as an example of "dangers" of a drug is ludicrous. By this logic we should all stop drinking water as there was recently a highly publicized water overdose death in California.

As far as addictive drugs, SSRI antidepressants are particularly bad for being addictive. Another phenomenon that gets very little attention. I have had an easier time in getting people off high doses of opiates than getting some patients off SSRI's as they can have weeks of horrendous withdrawal symptoms. A significant number of people have elected to remain on these drugs to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Again, very individual in that some people have absolutely no problem starting and stopping this class of drugs just as most people can use opiates for an injury and then stop them once they no longer have pain.

"The process starts with "binge parties" which will go on for a whole weekend. Initially, alcohol may be the only substance involved. Marijuana, because it is..."

Gunney 99; the police at the seminar you attended proved my point, alcohol is the gateway drug, and it is the best one, because it lowers inhibitions, whereas marijuana used by a novice, is likely to inspire paranoia, even nausea.

Funny, the police describe a tactic used by drug sellers, that are also used by "Time-share" condominium salesmen. The only difference is the condo salesmen are a lot more aggressive.

My Vote goes with both Vitruvius & Me No Dhimmi's able presentations.

From my view of the issue prohibition has only become a keystone cops comedy, without the humor . Surly our resources can go into investigating the source of trouble not its symptoms by amplification of the tentacles of organized crime?

We should have learned from Canada's three year trial with an alcohol ban. Not to mention the States for 13 years.

It only makes the Criminal element rich with power, than gangs to run their drugs. It erodes civil liberties by making the money gained illegally, a part of the police budget. Confiscatory powers are a vital issue. Judges are bribed, pilots, users, & many lives ruined because of jail time. Plus deaths threw unregulated overdoses. No tax money except to thugs. Who create an arena of misery to keep the addicts to do there bidding by prostitution, theft & other heinous acts for a high.

Drugs have always been with us & always will. So will people who cannot control their cravings. Before the 20th century heroin was considered a miracle drug. Opium was considered a gentleman’s form of relaxation. There is so much lies about addiction (it takes a year for heroin for instance) with scare stories attached .All well Intended (we know where they leds to ultimately) to frighten others from use is now a joke. Any credibility by adults has become forfeit with the spread of all this misinformation. The boy cried wolf factor kicks in.

Drug lords & show busts will never stop it, unless it s regulated or there is a inclusive death penalty for any found, for any purpose. Those that ignore Government conventions should be dealt with by the harshest means if made legal anyway. They sure do counterfeiters or stock market scams. Let alone tax evaders. As they should of course.

Spend the money from taxes on said drugs, to root out & find cures, or the reasons for people having no control to not use them.

Billions spent a year by law enforcement, for little gain , billions made by monsters. Thousands fined & imprisoned in jails that should house violent or other delinquents. Parts of whole governments bribed or suborned. This whole thing is a con. From both sides of the rule of law for different agendas.

By the way. I am not for drugs or there use, but this approach has made it worse with no results. Time for a new plan. Maybe several different ones or some in concert.

As for the reason I would entertain it regulated by a government body, is not because I love decrees. Its just their the biggest gang on the block to herd the more evil others out. While also, we have influence with them threw the vote.

Not so with the drug lords.

Just my opinion.

Personally I think it is a lot more sinister. Pot is directly linked to Coke in as much as it is traded for Cocaine.

It has always been a mystery to me how such vast amounts of the stuff can just arrive. Somebody is being paid off. Crack destroys lives.

Young lives that haven't done any living yet. Whatever your feelings on Pot it is a illegal substance that is every bit a drug like Cocaine.

How this guy walked away with 18 months please don't be so naive. Money talks.

This is not an intellectual discussion just walk out your door and go a mile in any direction you will probably find a crack house.

Men like this guy will are who run this country and have since Trudeau. Look past your noses at this issue. It runs far deeper and far more insidious than the conversations I have read here would suggest.

There is one proviso I would like to add to my comments above. As you may have noted, I've been talking so far solely about adults. When it comes to children, I think that elective adult drugs are inappropriate. I am in favour of having the law smack down adults who peddle such drugs to children. As we've been discussing on an adjacent thread, kids must be provided with the space-time to be kids, else they end up maladjusted adults.

That said, it's been a slice, folks, good night.

"Penicillin, to my knowledge, is not addictive"
ET, neither is pot, habit forming, yes,but not addictive. If I have pot I get high. However, if I have penicillin, I die. Not in ten or twenty or thirty years, but quicker than I can reach for an epipen. Which one of the two needs stricter controls? For me it would be penicillin.
As for pot being a gateway drug, 99.999% of pot is smoked, not consumed or injected. Most people begin by smoking cigarettes. So I would argue that tobacco is the gateway drug and should be illegal.
Having said that, four tons of pot is is not personal, it's organized production and smuggling , and since it is an illegal drug, then it is organized crime and the rules regarding organized crime should apply. But they should also apply to cigarette smuggling as well.
It is estimated that 25% of all cigarettes sold in Ontario, are sold illegally. And the dealers of illegal cigarettes don't ask the age of the buyer.
Now please excuse me, all this talk of smoking has produced a craving for a cigarette, I haven't had one in nine years, but every once in a while I want one, even after nine years.

dmorris: "Gunney 99; the police at the seminar you attended proved my point, alcohol is the gateway drug, and it is the best one, because it lowers inhibitions, whereas marijuana used by a novice, is likely to inspire paranoia, even nausea."

There are lots of binge parties where drugs never enter into; having experienced many in my younger days. The ones the Police were talking about were a pattern that went on for weeks. They had interviewed the "clients" who were hooked on crystal. The pattern was: alcohol, maryjane, crystal. But you're right, alcohol was as much a factor as maryjane.

For those who bring up the point that prohibition was a failure, please come on down to Vancouver and spend some time on Hastings from about Main down to Clark, then tell me that lax enforcement, soft sentences and enablement are the answer.

Given the choice I would rather see harsh sentences and strong enforcement.

I agree that drugs, like prostitution are going to be around regardless of the legislation against them. However that does not mean we should simple abandon the fight to make the use of them difficult and with consequence.

A strong stand against illicit drugs, and I'm not talking the namby pamby prentend "war" that Liberals like to cite as failing, will push the users and peddlars underground instead of on our street corners and in our schoolyards. There is a reason our streets are not safe and its not because we treat criminals and drug addict too harshly.

Winston Churchill is often quoted as saying "Democracy is the worst system, except for all the other systems". He was on to something there, and it also applies to the judges. Electing them couldn't be worse than the system we have now. Facing the electorate would get rid of the worst of them, which certainly isn't happening now.

I'm glad CJ's back on topic: the present day propensity for apparently intelligent adults in positions of authority--judges in this case--to let offenders off the hook.

Our school systems have bought into this big time. In my board, although there are "Safe School" rubrics, it seems they're rarely used, except to protect serious and serial offenders from appropriate consequences, via the boards' "mitigating circumstances" clauses, which, I suspect, are used on a regular basis: no school administrator wants a record of suspensions or weapons offences. So, the kids are often let off with a figurative slap on the wrist and the incident shoved under the carpet. (I believe that concerns about Charter challenges have a lot to do with such squeamishness on the part of administrators, though this doesn't exonerate them.)

I think the idea of electing judges is a good one. Most Canadians have not a clue about our new masters, who now use the Charter to end run democracy. (E.g., How many know that it was Rosalie Abella, now on Canada's Supreme Court, who discovered the "right" of 14 year olds to engage in sodomy? One of the results is that sexual predators are very partial to Canadian youth and pursue our kids with the full protection of the law. Did such an outcome ever occur to Abella? If we could elect our judges, she might well be on her way out. As it is, we're stuck with her until she's 75!)

Our judicial (sic) system's a mess. Justice rarely seems to occur there. Canadians need to wake up and start challenging the status quo.

jail time for letting your kids get liquored, drive a car, and kill someone ....zero
jail time for selling contraband native smokes to 14 yr olds .....zero
so why is anyone surprised that a pro gangster/scumbag get's so little time for $15,000,000 worth of pot????
on the other hand, living in the prison capital of Canada you hear these things, the man who murdered my uncle did less time than a man who was convicted of his 4th pot growing conviction....

btw....the contraband smoke problem in Ontario is getting truly out of control....according to my sources(I market to the convenience store industry), it is now closer to 30%, and trending higher....premier mcliar just keeps his head in the sand, and will not do a thing about it....meanwhile, younger and younger kids are getting hooked on this crap...and who are they buying these cigs from?????criminals....same guys selling crack, meth, guns, hookers...you know, the leaders of our community

Jose - The Dutch have NOT legalized pot. It is technically illegal to have and use it but they simply don't enforce the laws. I spent some time in Amsterdam - mostly in the downtown area. People smoke openly on the street. No one cares. I saw some individuals really strung out but there is no way it was pot. Had to be something much stronger. I've seen many more people stoned out their mind on the streets of downtown Vancouver than in Amsterdam.

I'm not for complete legalization of pot in Canada but I am also not in favor of hanging a criminal record on the neck of someone who is caught smoking a joint.

I don't know about Canada, but in America they have lost the Marijuana War. As long as the US/Mexico Border remains open and the hills of Tennesse stay moist America will have pot to smoke.

IMHO, we should legalize marijuana, place a Local, State and Federal Tax on it to subsidize the Baby-Boomers Social Security.

Works for me.

Let's see. Life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years for shooting a known drug dealer who was corrupting the life of your young daughter.

But only 5 years at most for building the bomb that brought down Air India, killing hundreds.

Yep. Must be Canada all right. My what a stellar justice system we have here!

Does it matter if the thug was dealing pot, heroin or tupperware?

If there is a law against it with a penalty, then there is a law against it with a penalty. On top of that, the thug has commited murder and put contracts out on police officers.

The real criminal here is the judge. And he should be held to account.

If indeed the judge is just trying to fit in with a more 'progressive' attitude, or gave a lenient sentence out of fear (as some have suggested), then he should not be a public servant, because the public is not being served.

If judges are held accountable for their decisions, then that may prove to be the best motivation for them to uphold the law and not so 'progressively' interpret it.

It stikes me that if judges continue to interpret the law so progressively, there will be no law. It will eventually be ruled unconstitutional.

I remember watching an article on the gang of thirteen. They were telling how this gang charge hot dog vendors protection money for doing buisness in their area. "or else"
I suppose this gang would tell you they see nothing wrong with what they are doing either.
Personally, i do see a problem, and if the law won't stop them then as far as i'm concerned they should have a bulls eye put on them and treated like bonnie and klyde!
To those who don't think drugs hurt anything, just watch an episode of cops some night and don't be puffin your pot while watching, you might miss something.
I was almost ran down crossing the steet in yorkton a while back. Car load of kids high on something thats for sure.
And i agree, this judge should be kicked off the bench...he's a coward!

Kingstonlad, don't blame the contraband biz on "criminals". It's government regulation that creates these criminals. When I was 17, I helped the cigarette smuggling biz get it's start in the Toronto area. Originally it started as just a way to get cheap smokes for me and my friends. We hated having to try 5 different stores for every one that would actually sell to us, and we hated having to pay such a large portion of our meagre earnings for cigarettes. So originally it was just three of us, jumping in the car, driving out to the reserve, picking up a carton or two each, and driving home. That would last us for a month or so, and then we'd go and repeat the process.

Ofcourse, eventually other people noticed that we were smoking strange cigarettes in unusual packs, and they got curious. So on each trip we'd take an order for an extra person. Only it wouldn't be fair to get them at-cost, right? The guy should at least pitch for the cost of gas. So he'd end up paying maybe $5-10 more per carton, and soon enough we were making enough money to cover the cost of gas, AND the cost of our own cigarettes. Eventually we were making the trip on a weekly basis just to keep up with demand, and were selling smokes per pack in addition to taking orders for cartons.

Were we criminals? Well....even at that point in my life I would never have considered committing a crime which actually produced victims. I would never have shoplifted, or robbed someone, or committed assault, or anything of the kind. I always remained a productive member of the society, and a decent student. A year later I joined the military and proudly stood in defence of my nation. So no, I don't consider myself a criminal, merely someone who once broke a law. And if I were in the same position, I'd gladly do it again.

You want to do something about it? Lower the legal age, and keep taxes reasonable. If we could have gotten our cigarettes legally and at a fair price, we would never have started buying them from the Indians, let alone selling them to others.

Too many posters have already made this into a thread about drug legalization. It has nothing to do with it. If you think drugs should be legalized, the forum for that argument is the legislature. Unless and until they are, prosecutors will rightly bring charges for violating the law as it currently stands, and judges will, or are supposed to, apply that law regardless of personal political opinions.

Can anyone explain in a general sense how sentencing works in Canada? I know you have one uniform federal criminal code (as opposed to our 50 state codes plus a federal one), but it sounds like judges have complete discretion in sentencing, which I suppose to me sounds like an insane degree of judicial unaccountability. Perhaps that's because I'm used to dealing with relative mathematical precision under Florida's sentencing guidelines, which weight the defendant's priors as well as the seriousness of the current offense.

Sorry about that, Dave, next time I'm considering posting some comment on some blog I'll be sure to contact you first to find out whether or not it's appropriate for me to discuss the topic outside the legislature. I'm sure all those above who mentioned that this was an excellent discussion will be glad to oblige you too.

Vitruvius, I meant the legislature as opposed to the courts, not the legislature as opposed to this blog: I'm sorry if that didn't come across as clearly as I might have hoped. I'm sure we probably agree more on the substance of the drug debate than you'd expect of me as prosecutor, but regardless of what your or my position might be, does it therefore follow that you believe judges should be lax in applying the law simply because you or they don't personally agree with it?

Well, I was being a bit snarky there Dave, I apologize.

I do not believe judges should be lax in applying the law. The question is, what was the range of penalties available? If the judge acted within the range, perhaps there are reasons we would understand if we knew the details of the case and the relevant precedents better. Given the quantity and the guy's record, it does sound suspicious to me, even if it is "just marijuana" as the judge called it, but I'm not an expert.

Meanwhile, by early afternoon yesterday the original discussion here had clearly split a few times, including the "elect judges" sequence and the "what do you mean 'just marijuana' -- it's the evil spawn of Satan" sequence, which produced some not entirely to be unexpected counter-arguments, if I understand blog-comment discussions correctly.

I agree that it is annoying when people go wildly off topic in the middle of a discussion, on the other hand, real discussions in forums like this do tend to diverge, and I'm not sure we would be better off if the discussion constratints were too strict. For the last few years, I think Kate has done an excellent job of managing the constraints she does apply to our discussions here, which I think is in part related to SDA's receiving the 2005 and 2006 Web Log Awards.

I just spent some time checking out your fine blog, Dave, and I see you've noticed the situation at Duke. I've been following it for a while at durhamwonderland.blogspot.com - now there's a travesty of justice. Regarding your blog's Franklin quote, there are a bunch more along those lines sprinkled in my collected aphorisms, available here: tinyurl.com/s4dlp