freespirit
9th February 2012, 06:00 PM
this is insanity...
Senate hearings began last week over Bill C-10 and why its mandatory minimum sentences gives pot growers more jail time than pedophiles.
http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-talk/a_crime_bill_that_punishes_pot_growers_more_severe ly_than_pedophiles_is_getting_a_second_look/4a0891e1
from the article:
Last fall, a media report revealed that Bill C-10, an omnibus crime bill, would give pot growers harsher mandatory minimum sentences than it would give pedophiles. The report caught the attention of PM Harper, and recently the Canadian Press got ahold of an Oct. 11, 2011 "memorandum for the prime minister" regarding the issue. The memo, which is marked "secret," was largely blacked out and said that further analysis would be required for any amendment proposals, yet it gave no indication that the gov't was willing to change the these mandatory minimum sentences.
And it is specifically Bill C-10's mandatory minimum sentences that remain a source of controversy. Under the law, a person who grows as few as six marijuana plants for the purpose of trafficking gets a mandatory minimum sentence of six months, which is twice that as someone who lures a child to watch pornography or exposes himself on a playground. Someone who grows 201 pot plants in a rental unit gets a longer mandatory sentence than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a child to have sex with an animal.
You would think that these very strange provisions in the crime bill, which attracted so much negative attention, would have been amended, but it doesn't appear that Harper did anything about it, and instead, the bill was rushed through the Commons justice committee unchanged. The Conservative majority passed it in the House on Dec. 5, but just this last week, Senate hearings about Bill C-10 begun. Many Senators questioned why sexual offenses against children are not being weighed more heavily than offenses for growing pot.
At the hearings, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said that the legislature makes sure that child sexual abuse constitutes jail time, but he didn't address the discrepancy in mandatory minimum sentences. Instead, he said that drug traffickers are "in the business of destroying people's lives" and that the legislature sends "a very clear message that this will not be tolerated."
But to me, it seems that when the penalty for pot growing is more severe than the penalty for child sexual abuse, the gov't is, in fact, sending a very unclear message. What are we supposed to think when, according to the law, growing a mere six pot plants elicits a more severe penalty than a sexual offence against a child? What does it mean when the law views growing marijuana worse than raping a child?
There are many people who would argue that marijuana has medicinal purposes and can be used as responsibly as alcohol, and there are many who would disagree with this notion. Still, the issue is debatable. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is not debatable. It's a monstrous crime that leaves absolutely no room for discourse. We can all agree that there's no positive slant to child sexual abuse, so it's really difficult for me to understand why the government would rate it on a less punishable scale than marijuana.
And let's be clear, we are talking about marijuana here, not crystal meth and not heroin. I can understand a long minimum sentence for trafficking hard drugs, but marijuana doesn't go into communities and destroy families the way, let's say, crack cocaine does, and it's not necessarily addictive. I don't smoke pot, but there are many successful, intelligent, and contributive members of society that do, and maybe some of them even grow a few plants. Their act doesn't hurt anyone the way sexual abuse does so it's ridiculous to punish their crime more severely.
I would imagine that in an effort to thwart drug trafficking, the government is trying to scare people out of growing pot with these strict sentences, but what it doesn't realize is that it's doing the opposite to the pedophiles, and it's the pedophiles who need to be scared. They are the repeat offenders who destroy families and lives. They need to be kept off the streets as long as possible.
I hope that the Senate makes the necessary amendments to allow for a very clear message.
--imo everyone should be allowed to grow 6 plants for personal consumption, period. then they wouldn't have to "traffic"...hell, i bet i smoke more than 6 plants worth in a year, by myself. if you break that down, it's only 2 grams/day.
these ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences are a joke. i can't wait to get my card...
Senate hearings began last week over Bill C-10 and why its mandatory minimum sentences gives pot growers more jail time than pedophiles.
http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-talk/a_crime_bill_that_punishes_pot_growers_more_severe ly_than_pedophiles_is_getting_a_second_look/4a0891e1
from the article:
Last fall, a media report revealed that Bill C-10, an omnibus crime bill, would give pot growers harsher mandatory minimum sentences than it would give pedophiles. The report caught the attention of PM Harper, and recently the Canadian Press got ahold of an Oct. 11, 2011 "memorandum for the prime minister" regarding the issue. The memo, which is marked "secret," was largely blacked out and said that further analysis would be required for any amendment proposals, yet it gave no indication that the gov't was willing to change the these mandatory minimum sentences.
And it is specifically Bill C-10's mandatory minimum sentences that remain a source of controversy. Under the law, a person who grows as few as six marijuana plants for the purpose of trafficking gets a mandatory minimum sentence of six months, which is twice that as someone who lures a child to watch pornography or exposes himself on a playground. Someone who grows 201 pot plants in a rental unit gets a longer mandatory sentence than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a child to have sex with an animal.
You would think that these very strange provisions in the crime bill, which attracted so much negative attention, would have been amended, but it doesn't appear that Harper did anything about it, and instead, the bill was rushed through the Commons justice committee unchanged. The Conservative majority passed it in the House on Dec. 5, but just this last week, Senate hearings about Bill C-10 begun. Many Senators questioned why sexual offenses against children are not being weighed more heavily than offenses for growing pot.
At the hearings, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said that the legislature makes sure that child sexual abuse constitutes jail time, but he didn't address the discrepancy in mandatory minimum sentences. Instead, he said that drug traffickers are "in the business of destroying people's lives" and that the legislature sends "a very clear message that this will not be tolerated."
But to me, it seems that when the penalty for pot growing is more severe than the penalty for child sexual abuse, the gov't is, in fact, sending a very unclear message. What are we supposed to think when, according to the law, growing a mere six pot plants elicits a more severe penalty than a sexual offence against a child? What does it mean when the law views growing marijuana worse than raping a child?
There are many people who would argue that marijuana has medicinal purposes and can be used as responsibly as alcohol, and there are many who would disagree with this notion. Still, the issue is debatable. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is not debatable. It's a monstrous crime that leaves absolutely no room for discourse. We can all agree that there's no positive slant to child sexual abuse, so it's really difficult for me to understand why the government would rate it on a less punishable scale than marijuana.
And let's be clear, we are talking about marijuana here, not crystal meth and not heroin. I can understand a long minimum sentence for trafficking hard drugs, but marijuana doesn't go into communities and destroy families the way, let's say, crack cocaine does, and it's not necessarily addictive. I don't smoke pot, but there are many successful, intelligent, and contributive members of society that do, and maybe some of them even grow a few plants. Their act doesn't hurt anyone the way sexual abuse does so it's ridiculous to punish their crime more severely.
I would imagine that in an effort to thwart drug trafficking, the government is trying to scare people out of growing pot with these strict sentences, but what it doesn't realize is that it's doing the opposite to the pedophiles, and it's the pedophiles who need to be scared. They are the repeat offenders who destroy families and lives. They need to be kept off the streets as long as possible.
I hope that the Senate makes the necessary amendments to allow for a very clear message.
--imo everyone should be allowed to grow 6 plants for personal consumption, period. then they wouldn't have to "traffic"...hell, i bet i smoke more than 6 plants worth in a year, by myself. if you break that down, it's only 2 grams/day.
these ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences are a joke. i can't wait to get my card...