Senate takes aim at second Tory crime bill

What is it with these Liberal senators. Is it true they are all Rae supporters who will do anything to discredit their leader? If so, they are doing a good job.

Nope. This is the right thing to do. It is a grave mistake to have legislation that imposes automatic and/or minmum sentences for drug crimes. All we'll end up with is teens doing hard time because they sold their friends a gram of grass.

So they are blocking an entire crime bill because they want their teens to smoke grass?

No. They are blocking a bad law on its own accord. My example just highlights what will happen when poorly written laws are allowed to exist.

Time and time again it has been shown that minimum sentences and harsh laws when dealing with drugs have absolutely no impact whatsoever on crime and/or drug use. All it does is overflow the courts and jails and cost us a bitch load in taxpayer dollars especially since we end up paying for the defence as well.

MJ law has little effect on schools.

I like manditory and minimum sentences. In fact, I think we should have a formula that uses our rate of re-offending to titrate the manditory and minimum sentences to their optimum level.

That way, we all get to have our cake and eat it too. You get zero manditory and minimum sentences if they prove to be useless. And, I get a minimized re-offending rate.

Judges do this as a matter of course. That's their job and we only hear about the bonehead rulings because "everything is fine, justice system humming along" doesn't sell papers.

We do have minimum sentences and mandatory sentences but this bill deals with a specific offence, ie drug dealing, which is a "crime" that should never warrant such things.

At too often we hear about bonehead judges, I want a formula that calls the shots.

That all depends on whether the sentences will be effective at reducing the occurance of re-offending. And, if we value the advantage of criminals not re-offending.

I think this is one case where titrating would be better than following a politically biased judgement.

They do. In fact the law does have specific rules for sentencing. Its not like judges hand out sentences based entirely on their own discretion. The problems stems from things like what we all consider bonehead rulings but do so because we don't know all the details.

Sure I've thought "WTF" is wrong with them loads of times but its not as if Canada is rampant with crime and we are a helluva lot safer then many of those countries with just the kind of harsh penal laws some of the people on this forum want to bomb.

The place to block a "bad law" is in the Commons. If the Libs supported it before for political reasons and are using the Senate to block something they don't really like they are just being dishonest.

That all depends on whether the sentences will be effective at reducing the occurance of re-offending. And, if we value the advantage of criminals not re-offending.

I think this is one case where titrating would be better than following a politically biased judgement.

As Ihave said and pointed out many times before. Harsh sentences is simply no deterrent for most crimes let alone drug dealing/usage. That's why societies are simply abandoning such laws.

I also don't mean to stir your oatmeal but I don't think you are using the word "titrate" properly. As far as I know it only refers to a chemistry procedure.

The place to block a "bad law" is in the Commons. If the Libs supported it before for political reasons and are using the Senate to block something they don't really like they are just being dishonest.

NO. The place to block any law is either location. That's entirely what the senate is for. In this case it can justifiably be said they aren't doing it for political reasons but because they think its a bad bill.

Either the senate is being bitched at for being nothing more then a rubber stamp or they are being accused of unfair partisanship. In both recent cases in the news they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Judges do this as a matter of course. That's their job and we only hear about the bonehead rulings because "everything is fine, justice system humming along" doesn't sell papers.

We do have minimum sentences and mandatory sentences but this bill deals with a specific offence, ie drug dealing, which is a "crime" that should never warrant such things.


I guess your right dealing in Cocaine, Meth, heroin and the such, is drug dealing that doesn't warrant a minimum sentence.

Plus, they are not talking about jailing "teens" that deal in MJ. Read the damn piece! They are talking about jailing MJ offences that are linked to organized crime and/or us a weapon in the process.

I think civilian prisons should be like military prisons, and minimum sentences for almost all crime.

If a kid sells another kid grass, it doesn't matter how much, jail him. Though personally I think dope should be legalized. But until that happen jail the bastards. The one kid in my grad class who sold a gram here and there was the one who moved up to selling coke and meth, and now I've lost half my friends from high school to that shit.

Possession is one thing, and giving someone what you have is a part of it, but once you decide to start making dimes for dope, as far as I am concerned you should be off in the high arctic somewhere breaking your back so that some diamond mine can have a road to rive on and make money in a legal fashion.