Saturday, March 28, 2009

Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!

New York will be repealing many of the Rockefeller drug laws implemented in the 1970s, including mandatory minimum sentencing for minor drug offenses. New York Governor David Paterson and state legislators say the laws have been discredited:
After 35 years of stuffing prisons with minor drug felons, state legislators have judged the law's mandatory sentencing provisions as expensive and ineffective.
It's part of a reassessment of "tough on crime and sentencing" laws taking place across the United States, which has the highest incarceration rate in the developed world. Canada, ironically, is bucking that trend.
"Canadian policy-makers have picked up the cudgel of minimum mandatory sentences at the same time as Americans are trying to extricate themselves from them because they have proven to be so destructive," says Craig Jones, director of the John Howard Society, which reintegrates inmates in the community.
So why is Canada starting to bringing in these very same "expensive and ineffective" policies?
Canada's Conservative government last year increased the minimum prison time judges must impose for gun crimes. Last month, it reintroduced a bill that imposed minimum sentences for a long list of drug crimes. It includes a six-month sentence for someone caught growing even one marijuana plant for trafficking.
The toughest minimum sentence under the proposed drug law is three years for anyone creating a public safety hazard in a residential area by producing Schedule 1 drugs – such as cocaine, heroine or methamphetamine.
Micheal Cust wrote some time ago about the fact that tougher enforcement of prohibition may actually lead to more violence in the drug war. At a time of national reassessment of a failed experiment in drug policy in the United States, it's baffling to see our government shutting its eyes, plugging its ears and shouting "tough on crime!" to convince Canadians it's doing something to make them safer.
Read the full article here.
Cross-posted to The Shotgun.

1 comment:

Blame Crash said...

What a target rich post !!

Time for some fun !!

What you call “state legislators”. I call a bunch of stinkin liberal politicians.

“Americans are trying to extricate themselves from them”. Which Americans is he referring to? Let me guess! The one’s he agrees with!

“because they have proven to be so destructive” Destructive to who? Let me guess! The crooks and dope heads! I’m right again!! Two for Two!

“says Craig Jones, director of the John Howard Society” Do I really need to say anything about this quote. It speaks volumes all on it’s own.

“Micheal Cust wrote some time ago about the fact that tougher enforcement of prohibition may actually lead to more violence in the drug war.” The “fact” !!!
You have to be kidding me !! He dress’s up his two bit opinion as “fact” and what, we’re all suppose to bite into it hook, line and sinker! I don’t think so!!

I and most people have no intentions on supporting these phony solutions hatched by a bunch of left wing quackademics who don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. I have no intentions on agreeing on letting crooks, thieves, murders and thugs have their way with innocent people.
And why do YOU?

Bernier's bad bet

Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press Maxime Bernier is taking a gamble. He believes that there is a large, disenfranchised voting bloc in Canada...