Showing posts with label Enforcement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Enforcement. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

War on Drugs



Last week the Vancouver Province printed an editorial about how the war on drugs has been a failure so we should give up. Right after an election that saw the Harper government get a majority. They also published a second editorial by Jon Ferry which made much more sense.

Sure enough, the next day they publish a letter from a guy who calls for the legalization of all drugs which would be insanity at best. Turns out that single author has had over 500 letters published calling for the legalization of all drugs. That's kind of disproportionate.

I wrote in and said we should draw the line at pot. Decriminalize pot is fine but legalizing crack or crystal meth is irresponsible. Someone else wrote in stating the claim that the war on drugs has been a total failure is puzzling and an insult to Singapore and Sweden. Two successful models where it has worked.

We all talk about the New York model. That model succeeded through enforcement which is one of the four pillars the drug dealing activists ignore. They just keep screaming harm reduction over and over again until we become complete enablers for the drug war. Oh but wait, we already are.

The war on drugs hasn't been a failure, the emphasis on harm reduction has. The New York model means arrest the drug dealers not the drug addicts. I support that model.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

California Courts order release of 46,000 inmates



This case is another example of bizarre. It resembles something out of the Twilight zone. It is a clear example of a prison system that is not working and a judicial system that completely oversteps it's jurisdiction.

We know the prisons in California are seriously over crowded. Three to a bunk is bizarre. We know that privatizing the prisons, which was a huge conflict of interest has miserably failed. Yet when the courts order the government to release over one quarter of the prison population in two years, that sweeps the pendulum of absurdity in the opposite direction.

Justice Antonin Scalia, called the decision "staggering" and "absurd." It "takes the federal courts wildly beyond their institutional capacity," he wrote. I completely agree. Yet there is a problem and doing nothing about it is negligent. The court said the state's prisons had "short of minimum constitutional requirements" and "needless suffering and death" have resulted.

A privatized prison is mandated to make a profit. Private corporations have no moral conscience. Prisoners dying or not able to get adequate medical attention do not concern them. In fact, despite the over crowding, we see the rise of salaries. Lifeguards get 200,000 a year. The lowest paid is 100,000. A deputy sheriff can retire at 55 with 100,000 a year for life.

The problem is a person who is in on child support, DUI or some other non violent offense like smoking or selling pot, gets lumped in with everyone else. So how are we going to execute the release of one quarter of the prison population? Jesus Barabbas or Jesus of Nazareth? Someone who has committed a nonviolent crime or a convicted murder? You tell me.

Is the judicial system going to become like a trip to Vegas? Right after the trial is over and the judge has made his decision, let's roll the dice to see if the criminal actually goes to jail or walks away free. Absurd as that may seem, that is where we could be heading.

The logical response would be to set the nonviolent criminals free first. Everyone hates deadbeat Dads but bloody hell, garnish their wages don't send them to jail. Sending them to jail makes the innocent children suffer. How are they going to pay child support in prison?

There is a huge difference between selling pot and selling crack. The judicial consequences need to reflect that. Decriminalizing pot not legalizing it would be a logical medium which would let us fiscally address violent crime without raising taxes and bankrupting the system. Statutory release should be done away with. Inmates should be given the option of working to qualify for early release.

And this just in: California Accidentally Released Violent Inmates To Reduce Prison Crowding. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that nonviolent offenders should be the ones released first. Yet somehow the privatized prisons have a hard time understanding that.

Monday, May 16, 2011

The Dark Side of Insite



There has been a lot of press about the joys of insite as we approach the supreme court's decision about the government's appeal to close it down. I will admit that saving lives is a good thing. Yet in all fairness we need to discuss the dark side of insite if we are going to fairly address the issue.

My personal problem with insite and needle exchanges isn't the fact that they exist. It's the social problems they create. Selling crack is against the law. Yet when we open up a needle exchange or safe injection site we then allow drug dealers to sell crack and everything under the sun openly and publicly. In fact the amount of drug trafficking goes up not down.

We want to help the addicts by reducing the risk of overdose yet in doing so we create more addicts. Sure a handful will enter a detox program but look at the huge number of more addicts we create by making the drug so accessible. Not to mention how hard we make it for addicts to quit when the drug is so accessible and everywhere they go dealers are pushing it in their face.

I will admit, cleaning the allies and having a nice clean place to inject heroin or inject cocaine looks nice. It almost looks compassionate. As long as you don't look at the dark side and deny it exists.

Anyone with a brain will agree that the huge exposure insite is getting, there is a huge amount of money to be made from the illegal drug trade it promotes. Extremists would then claim the next step is to legalize all drugs. Yet that would be irresponsible as would promoting an illegal drug trade.

So here we have a safe injection site in East Vancouver that has greatly increased not decreased the amount of drug trafficking in the area. Let's pause for a minute and ask ourselves who is profiting from all this misery? Who are the ones making the big bucks from supplying the drugs to be injected there? It is the Hells Angels. The Hells Angels control the drug trade in East Vancouver. They are so ruthlessly violent the people in East Van are too afraid to mention their name. The name Hells Angels is then replaced with the acronym the boys, the big boys or not even repeated out of fear.

Kind of like the fear Tony Terezakis instilled on behalf of the Hells Angels in the American hotel and the Cobalt. Kinda like the fear that Juel Stanton instilled for the Hells Angels in the Ivanhoe. Which was reinstilled when they even killed Juel Stanton which made the fear and uncertainly of their brutal ruthlessness skyrocket.

Kinda like the fear that would generate enough public outrage to hold demonstrations for Ashley Machiskinic's murder when the police tried to claim it was a suicide.

Kind of like the fear generated by the Surrey House of Horrors or the Prince George torture chambers. That is the dark side of Insite. If that kind of drug related torture exists in Surrey and Prince George, we know it exists in East Vancouver. The Pickton farm was just one example.

So there are clearly pros and cons of keeping Insite open. Preventing over doses is a good thing but increasing the number of addicts is not and supporting the kind of torture and abuse addicts are experiencing is socially irresponsible. The methadone program has good intentions. Yet when we refuse to reduce the dosage for people on the program those good intentions fail.

-----------------------------------------------------------

On the subject of Insite John Ferry from the Vancouver Province wrote a good editorial called: Addicts need more than a clean needle. "On the other hand, former longtime heroin addict Barry Joneson wants Insite shut down. He's saddened people don't seem to understand you have to confront addiction, not coddle it."

Which kinda brings me to my statement doctors don't prescribe alcohol to alcoholics. James Coulter said Clay had a very big heart. I will never forget how he helped me get out of addiction.

We don't want a safe injection site in Surrey.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Bad Vancouver Heroin Batch Kills 20 in 2011



B.C. Coroners Service has warned that a bad batch of heroin on the streets of Vancouver is twice as potent as normal and has resulted in more than 20 heroin overdoses in the first four months of 2011, double that of a year earlier.

The question I have is where is this heroin coming from? If most of the world's heroin comes from Afghanistan, does that mean this extra potent heroin is coming from the opium fields the US soldiers are helping to cultivate and harvest? I think that is a very relevant question.

We are told that Afghanistan regains its Title as World's biggest Heroin Dealer. Afghanistan is still the source of almost all of the heroin sold in London. Well isn't that ironic?

After the war, Britain assumed responsibility for coordinating the international effort to crush Afghanistan's opium trade. lol isn't that a joke. The US soldiers are openly cultivating and harvesting opium and England has assumed responsibility for crushing the opium trade in Afghanistan.

The BBC reports that Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin in 2002, after US-led forces overthrew the Taliban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies. The Americans tell us they have to cultivate the opium or the Taliban will, yet the Taliban banned opium when they were in power.

The head of Russia's Federal Service for Narcotics Control claims Heroin production in Afghanistan has grown by 40 times. Russia is asking NATO to stop cultivating opium in Afghanistan. Can you believe that?

Meanwhile back on the ranch, the conservatives are going to the Supreme Court to try and get Insite shut down. So which is it? Get paid to have the military profit from the production of opium in Afghanistan or get heroin off the streets? It's all so conflicted.

I have mixed feelings about Insite. Cleaning up the allies is a good thing. Preventing death is a good thing too. Yet giving alcoholics alcohol is not in their best interest.

The problem with needle exchanges and with insite is that as soon as you hand out free needles or have a safe injection site, drug dealers sell drugs outside. The police can't really arrest them for selling drugs when we are handing out free needles or providing safe injection sites. This is how a social program changes the democratic laws in society.

I still say we should target the drug dealers not the drug addicts. If a prolific offender repeatedly commits crime to pay for their addiction then lock them up for three months. If a drug dealer is selling crack on the street, look him up for a year. It's that simple. Enforcement is one of the Four Pillars. Harm reduction without prevention, treatment and enforcement is simply a one legged horse that goes nowhere.

Even if Insite continues, the police can still arrest drug dealers for selling drugs. Enforcement is one of the Four Pillars.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Public Vigilance



I must say the turn in the tide with the Canadian election is refreshing. However, the key thing to remember is whoever gets elected the public still needs to be vigilant and involved in the ongoing democratic process.

The Reform party used to talk about holding referendums on political issues and poling the public to make decisions. That would be the ultimate in democratic government. Harper does the opposite. He spends huge amounts of tax dollars to brain wash the public trying to convince them how they should vote on an issue. Just like Gordon Campbell did. I do believe that if the public expressed a concern about an issue the NDP would listen to them if they were elected. Unlike Harper or Mulroney who would railroad right over them.

The stereotypes are starting to become less believable. Everyone preaches hell fire and claims the sky will fall if the NDP get elected because they will spend recklessly and raise taxes. Yet that is exactly what Stephen Harper did. Bush added trillions to their debt in the states because he was a supporter of large corporations not small business including the business of war.

It shatters our stereotypes when we hear the NDP speaking out against human rights violations in Communist China. Yet that is exactly what they did. It shatters out stereotypes when we hear the NDP speaking out against crime and in support of law and order. Yet that is exactly what they did. It shatters our stereotypes when we hear the NDP talk about promoting small business yet that is exactly what they did.

Obama has raised a good point. There seems to be an ongoing controversy over Obama's place of birth. He joked about how significant that issue has become on the Internet when they are trying to make some pretty important steps for the American people in their budget debates. He pointed out that despite the fact that they posted his real birth certificate on the Internet as well as sworn affidavits from people who state they saw the real birth certificate confirming he was born in Hawaii, malicious minds still perpetuate the false rumor that he was born somewhere else.

Obama pointed out that in the spirit of bipartisan politics healthy debates on the issues should be encouraged. He then pointed out that degenerating healthy debate into perpetuating false statements isn't going to help the country move forward. The same applies to us. We need to look at the issues and debate the issues and leave the false stereotypes aside.

There are legitimate concerns about letting ourselves be controlled and governed by large corporations who restrict our sovereignty and reduce our democracy while they loudly preach about freedom in the process. Free trade is fine but signing trade agreements that give up our democratic rights is not and is clearly what's on the table.

Applying the concept of public vigilance to addressing crime and the Vancouver gang war we need to realize whoever gets elected and whatever laws are in place, we need to report crime or else nothing will change.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Conservatives would bungle crime bills



Stephen Harper said a Conservative majority government would bundle unpassed crime legislation into one bill and push it through Parliament within 100 days. And after that, he'll cram the HST through. He'll bungle the crime bills alright. In fact he already did. It's a bungle in the jungle and that's not alright by me.

There is no question that Stephen Harper intentionally screwed BC with the tough on crime bills. The bill as it stands is over reaching. The Liberals tried to amend the bill in the Senate to fix it but because Harper broke his promise to create an elected senate and exploited every opportunity to stack the Senate, they refused to accept the amendment to the bill fixing it.

So now he tells us he's still refusing to fix the bill and insists he will railroad it through without thinking through the necessary amendments. Which isn't surprising since Stephen Harper refuses to listen. He exploited our misfortune for his own personal gain. He doesn't care about us or our problem. If he did he would have fixed it but he didn't. He purposely didn't take the amendment because he wanted the public to get angry at the Liberals for voting down his over reaching crime bills and give him a majority so he can govern.

Stephen Harper does have a hidden agenda. It's not about abortion or same sex marriage, he won't touch those time bombs with a ten foot pole. He wants to privatize everything under the sun and completely remove public accountability from every possible social program from pensions to medical. His first target on his list is doing away with medical and the Canada Health Act.

So, I've said it before, Stephen Harper has lost my vote on the crime bills. Jack Layton on the other hand, like Penny Priddy, Adrian Dix, Mike Farnworth and Bruce Ralston, is putting forth his own suggestions to deal with crime and gangs. Throwing everyone in jail for minor offenses is counter productive and too costly. Mandatory minimum sentences for prolific offenders who commit an insane number of property crimes. They should spend three months in jail. Period. That is not excessive. Not doing so is irresponsible.

Larger sentences for violent crime and for hard drugs would be helpful. But it's all counter productive when Stephen Harper turns around and appoints a lawyer for the Hells Angels to be a judge in the Quebec Supreme Court.