Comments on: Don’t Do Mandatory Drug Sentences

By: Omar Ha-Redeye

Omar Ha-Redeye — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:11:09 +0000

The official opposition actually supported the Bill despite the quotes above, which was part of the point.
See this for more context.

Their support was based on provisions in the Bill related to increases in treatment funding.

However, I disagree with the manner in which these services would be accessed, and I think the mandatory sentencing is too big an issue to concede in return.

By: Annon

Annon — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:10:32 +0000

Omar,
With all due respect, this piece reads like partisan drivel. Not that I disagree with what you are saying, but please don’t quote a bunch of MPs from the official opposition and pass it off as facts. This article would have been nicely complimented by some subject matter experts from the US (where, without a doubt, the “tough on crime” approach has failed).

By: Lawrence Gridin

Lawrence Gridin — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:19:01 +0000

The Conservative government’s approach to criminal justice has been nothing short of appalling.

Mandatory minimum sentences are just plain idiotic. I wish I could find a nicer way to say it, but I can’t. They make 0 sense from a criminological point of view and they are completely contrary to notions of justice.

If you don’t believe me, ask any judge on the bench what they think of mandatory minimums.

By: Omar Ha-Redeye

Omar Ha-Redeye — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:22:47 +0000

I’ve publicly supported harm reduction strategies many times, which are often consistent with decriminalization.
You’re assuming I have an adverse position on this, whereas I really haven’t taken one.

By: KC

KC — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:16:27 +0000

Sentencing presupposes an offense. A debate about the legitimacy of the prohibition and its efficacy in addressing the alleged harm is relevant to whether or not we should have mandatory minimums. It’s a debate over principles. Not a factum.

By: Omar Ha-Redeye

Omar Ha-Redeye — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:07:46 +0000

And it has nothing to do with sentencing. Take your comments to the Insite threads and we might have a conversation on this instead.

By: KC

KC — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:23:32 +0000

Its paternalistic to deny that at least some drug use is a valid exercise of individual free choice, and those people should be left to their own devices. I know you take an interest in the role of stereotypes, and one group that is endlessly stereotyped is the “drug user”. Not everyone who uses drugs is the down and out, “stereotypical”, Vancouver downtown eastside junkie. Many of them are educated, middle to upper class professionals who have made a choice to use various substances for recreation. Those folks don’t need jail OR treatment. They need to be left well enough alone to live their lives free from state coercion.

I’m all for giving treatment to those who really need it, and accept that some regulation (even to the point of prohibition) of certain drugs is necessary in the legitimate interest of public safety. But the functioning individual who likes to smoke a joint on his weekend off or even indulge in something a little heavier shouldnt be hounded by government for his “own good”. That is the defition of paternalism.

By: Omar Ha-Redeye

Omar Ha-Redeye — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:16:03 +0000

It’s a matter of perspective, isn’t it?
I see it more as a way to empower those who need a little help. Hardly paternalistic when speaking of sentencing.

By: KC

KC — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:07:49 +0000

So are you saying that you have no problem with policies rooted purely in paternalism?

By: Omar Ha-Redeye

Omar Ha-Redeye — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:38:41 +0000

The philosophical difference between our positions is probably best encapsulated by what I envision as the role of government.
Drug issues are best addressed by properly funded treatment programs that do not require a criminal conviction to access.
These minimum sentences do absolutely nothing to actually fight the cause of drug issues, or make it tougher on the hardest of criminals.