Reader Bruce shares his observations on the gated-community community in the comments;
I had a number of lawyers that I considered friends who subsequently became judges. Intelligent people, reasonable people (at least at the time). I have never, ever been able to figure out what exactly happened to some them after they were elevated to the bench.
One example, and this is after I left drug enforcement; I believe I was on homicide at the time. The RCMP arrested a notorious drug importer, and someone that I had been chasing (and had caught a few times) for years when I was still doing that type of work. He was a vicious, nasty guy who had become filthy rich by importing copious quantities of drugs, of all kinds, into Canada.
A judge, a friend of mine, presided over the trial. It was a slam-dunk case. He was convicted. All of the precedents called for a very lengthy prison term, especially considering the previous lengthy record of the accused. The judge ( I’ll call him Doug because, well, because that is his name) ignored the submissions of the Crown calling for a sentence of between 12 to 20 years) and sentenced the man to 18 months. This meant he would be out on day parole in 3 months. Needless to say, the druggie was led from the court, snickering – even HE thought the judge was an idiot..
A couple of weeks later I had occasion to have dinner with Doug, the judge. The issue of this case came up in conversation. I expressed my shock at the sentence, pointed out that this particular offender was one of the biggest dealers, at least in western Canada, that he had in the past actually put out contracts to kill police officers and that he had been responsible for killing several associates and/or competitors.
The response: “But Bruce, it was only marihuana”.
My response: “But Doug, it was FOUR TONS of marihuana.”.
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.