|
On April 15 2011 04:26 Albrithe wrote:
Based on Wikipedia's rate of drug related crime, 295 per 100000 people, 295/100 000 * ~33 million people is 97 350, or approximately 100 000 drug related charges in that year. While you're right, not all are jailed, the Conservatives are suggesting harsher sentencing along with mandatory minimum sentences for drug related charges. This means that a higher % of that 100 000 will be incarcerated for longer, or at all.
Anyone wanna help me out here if you know more about this?
My understanding is that they are proposing mandatory jail for trafficking in schedule 1 drugs (not marijuana) for repeat offenders. So if you get caught and convicted of selling crack, and then you go out and get caught and convicted of selling crack again, then you get a minimum 1 year in jail.
This doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me...
|
On April 15 2011 04:34 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 04:26 Albrithe wrote:
Based on Wikipedia's rate of drug related crime, 295 per 100000 people, 295/100 000 * ~33 million people is 97 350, or approximately 100 000 drug related charges in that year. While you're right, not all are jailed, the Conservatives are suggesting harsher sentencing along with mandatory minimum sentences for drug related charges. This means that a higher % of that 100 000 will be incarcerated for longer, or at all.
Anyone wanna help me out here if you know more about this? My understanding is that they are proposing mandatory jail for trafficking in schedule 1 drugs (not marijuana) for repeat offenders. So if you get caught and convicted of selling crack, and then you go out and get caught and convicted of selling crack again, then you get a minimum 1 year in jail. This doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me...
The years in prison may not seem unreasonable to you, but you have to think of the other things involved. Like I said in a previous post, there's all the business with judiciary procedures, police wasting their time handling those cases while they're being paid by me...
As for the potential jail time itself, I still think it's completely unnecessary to put people in jail for that. But I'm a freedom nut so eh - I'd only put people in jail if they're a (REAL) and direct danger to other people.
|
What I hope to see is the legalization and regulation of marijuana. You could go down the street to buy your recreational drug, not dissimilar to alcohol that has medical benefits and has less of an impact on the health system through liver damage/car accidents, we not only save money on not having to try to catch people doing illegal things AND we get revenue from the taxes and sale. But conservatives are "tough on crime". Duh! Nobody wants rapists, drug dealers and murderers walking around. Nobody is "soft on crime" just because they arent getting ready to build super jails. We need to rethink what is really a crime here, because way too much money is tied up in our judicial system with unnecessary trials and prison sentences. Every person who is sent to jail is a person who cannot contribute to society and drains a significant amount of resources from it for their upkeep. Education and rehabilitation are what we should be focusing on, not this "tough on crime" bullshit.
|
I actually can't find any literature online... Anyone know of good websites to stay updated on bills going through parliament? All I can find is news articles that don't provide the full scope of the bills =\
|
On April 15 2011 04:39 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 04:34 ziggurat wrote:On April 15 2011 04:26 Albrithe wrote:
Based on Wikipedia's rate of drug related crime, 295 per 100000 people, 295/100 000 * ~33 million people is 97 350, or approximately 100 000 drug related charges in that year. While you're right, not all are jailed, the Conservatives are suggesting harsher sentencing along with mandatory minimum sentences for drug related charges. This means that a higher % of that 100 000 will be incarcerated for longer, or at all.
Anyone wanna help me out here if you know more about this? My understanding is that they are proposing mandatory jail for trafficking in schedule 1 drugs (not marijuana) for repeat offenders. So if you get caught and convicted of selling crack, and then you go out and get caught and convicted of selling crack again, then you get a minimum 1 year in jail. This doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me... The years in prison may not seem unreasonable to you, but you have to think of the other things involved. Like I said in a previous post, there's all the business with judiciary procedures. As for the potential jail time itself, I still think it's completely unnecessary to put people in jail for that. But I'm a freedom nut so eh - I'd only put people in jail if they're a (REAL) and direct danger to other people.
I kind of agree with this. Generally speaking, tougher sentences for drug dealers are something that isn't that important to me. Like I said, the most important issues to me are the economy and taxation.
Here is a link to the text of the bill, FYI. It's a bit more complicated than I realized. One of the exceptions does say that you can get mandatory minimum jail for trafficking in Marijuana, if the amount is over 3 kilograms.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4497977&file=4
You can read this in conjuction with the CDSA as it presently reads:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/
|
On April 15 2011 04:46 ziggurat wrote:I kind of agree with this. Generally speaking, tougher sentences for drug dealers are something that isn't that important to me. Like I said, the most important issues to me are the economy and taxation. Here is a link to the text of the bill, FYI. It's a bit more complicated than I realized. One of the exceptions does say that you can get mandatory minimum jail for trafficking in Marijuana, if the amount is over 3 kilograms. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4497977&file=4You can read this in conjuction with the CDSA as it presently reads: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-38.8/
There's a section in the first document that says that a minimum sentence of 6 months is issued if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than 5. That's a pretty wide range. So... you get the same jail time if you grow 10 for personal/medical use and the dude who has 200 to sell to his whole neighbourhood? It's so arbitrary.
|
Jesus christ, time to spend my night deciphering that xD
|
On April 15 2011 05:00 Krytha wrote:There's a section in the first document that says that a minimum sentence of 6 months is issued if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than 5. That's a pretty wide range. So... you get the same jail time if you grow 10 for personal/medical use and the dude who has 200 to sell to his whole neighbourhood? It's so arbitrary.
The section you're referring to also says that the growing of plants has to be for trafficking. So growing them for personal use doesn't qualify. However your larger point is pretty valid in my opinion.
|
On April 15 2011 00:47 Albrithe wrote:
This "election BS" happened because our elected Members of Parliament are doing their jobs. They're keeping the party that formed government in check so they don't continue to get away with the tricks they pull, like using the Senate to override legislature. Or sending money to ridings, have the ridings send them back, only to doctor invoices as though they had spent that money (and get a 60% return on that non-spent money they claim they spent). Or the jets that no one can provide a comprehensive cost analysis for. Or the increase in prison spending when it's been shown that crime rates have been dropping in the past 10 years.
I don't know how anyone can continue to support a government that lost power due to a non-confidence motion passed based on them withholding information from Parliament after that government was elected based on promises of transparency. It doesn't make any sense to me.
It was not a non-confidence vote. It was a contempt of parliament vote.
Also, if what you say is true, we should have elections every budget, as the other parties always disagree. What happens is the opposition tries to wait for a time where it will be possible to get as many votes as possible due to social or economical conditions, and then vote down the government.
The only reason we havent had even more elections than we do already, is the opposition know the Canadian people would flip out and finally give someone a majority.
|
I sent out emails to the candidates regarding ubb. First response is from Paul Szabo, the Liberal MP in one of the Mississauga seats:
+ Show Spoiler +The Liberal caucus is with you 100%. There is a position statement on www.liberal.ca<http://www.liberal.ca/>. The vast majority of communications I have received oppose the per-byte charge and have express a strong view of lack of confidence in the CRTC. I will be promoting a review of decisions and mandate to determine whether a wholesale shakeup of the CRTC is warranted. The Conservatives have sat back and not taken any initiative to step in. They have the executive privilege to address the CRTC but the let things go until the public reaction is unbearable. I will pass on your email to our critic on this file. Thank you for sharing your concerns. Sincerely, Paul Szabo MP
I will give credit where credit is due. Being the first and only response, I am impressed with this Liberal candidate.
Although the Conservatives DID at least stop and delay the decision to allow UBB 60 days and told the CRTC to go over it more. So they DID block it, if only for a short while.
Still waiting on Conservative and NDP
About what Szabo said... So basically he wants to shake up the CRTC. Yet he didn't come out and say they would do what they could to prevent UBB. They will "see if a shakeup is warranted"
|
B00ts, correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding was that the speaker found the Harper Government in contempt of Parliament based on a committees recommendation, and then Parliament passed a motion of non-confidence based on that contempt charge. So I don't think it's correct to say it wasn't a non-confidence vote but was a contempt charge; it was both.
I did over-simplify the budget, but what you said is only true for a minority government.
As far as I'm concern the CRTC has to go. Half of the directors touch dicks daily with the big cable companies and internet companies that bill us through the roof for internet usage.
|
Well the issue was Harper claims that Canada will be able to buy the F-35s for tens of millions less per plane than the US will even be able to buy them for. That's clearly a lie.
|
On April 15 2011 07:47 Zzoram wrote:
Well the issue was Harper claims that Canada will be able to buy the F-35s for tens of millions less per plane than the US will even be able to buy them for. That's clearly a lie.
Source?
|
On April 15 2011 07:46 Albrithe wrote:
B00ts, correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding was that the speaker found the Harper Government in contempt of Parliament based on a committees recommendation, and then Parliament passed a motion of non-confidence based on that contempt charge. So I don't think it's correct to say it wasn't a non-confidence vote but was a contempt charge; it was both.
I did over-simplify the budget, but what you said is only true for a minority government.
As far as I'm concern the CRTC has to go. Half of the directors touch dicks daily with the big cable companies and internet companies that bill us through the roof for internet usage.
Well technically yes, however the committee was mostly non-Conservative. Why I said it wasn't a non-confidence, was because of the origination within the committee.
My point was though, that in either case it just party politics and that they can just decide to topple the government whenever they wish.
|
On April 15 2011 08:06 B00ts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 07:47 Zzoram wrote:
Well the issue was Harper claims that Canada will be able to buy the F-35s for tens of millions less per plane than the US will even be able to buy them for. That's clearly a lie. Source?
Yes source please, This is interesting.
|
On April 15 2011 08:12 TadH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2011 08:06 B00ts wrote:On April 15 2011 07:47 Zzoram wrote:
Well the issue was Harper claims that Canada will be able to buy the F-35s for tens of millions less per plane than the US will even be able to buy them for. That's clearly a lie. Source? Yes source please, This is interesting.
Maclean's has had pretty good coverage of this, here is a pretty good article about what's going on.
The point is that there have been big concerns in the US about cost overruns related to research and development costs, and reports suggesting that the F-35s are going to cost a lot more for the US. Harper is claiming that Canada is insulated from these costs somehow, but there's a law in the US that says that no American arms manufacturer can sell military material to a foreign government for cheaper than the US gov't pays. It's tricky to figure things out, and its possible that because we're mostly only purchasing the cheaper model F-35s (still expensive though) we are insulated from the cost overruns that *might* only apply to the more fancy versions.
In the end the problem is that Harper is saying that "well, we have a deal, so we're OK" without providing any of the documentation or eveidence. It's yet another 'just shut up and trust me' moment.
|
|
|
On April 15 2011 11:18 Krytha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 15:00 B00ts wrote:
First of all, every government has to run a deficit sometimes. To think otherwise is to be misinformed.
Shit happens, war happens, recessions happen (and bailouts are needed). How do you think EVERY company in the world operates? By only spending profit and cash on hand? Never going into debt? No organization would ever generate growth or jobs that way. The same goes for nations. You cannot get anything done without debt. This is why pretty every major economist in the US is saying the banks need to start lending again.
Yes our economy is something to write home about. Everything is relative.
The point that the F-35's are underperforming is based off one test of a pre-mass produced version. Its like saying no one should ever buy the next Windows OS because the alpha version is sooo bugggyyy gawwwd.
Should we not upgrade our military equipment so we're not easier shot down in theatres of war? Whether you think Canada should play a role in peacekeeping is of course of to you, however if you are, I don't see how anyone could make an argument against these planes. By saying they are too much you put a price on our troops lives.
Lower tax rates invite investors and companies to do business in canada, causing larger tax revenue. Not only that, but they create jobs. I mean, the liberal government had a balanced budget because they taxed so much, and that shitharpersaid website would have you believe they didn't spend like the conservatives do. Like I said. Epic Troll.
And why is having a lower tax rate than other G8 countries so bad? (we dont really btw, because you have to include provincial taxes, and when you do, we are above the US's tax rate). We are doing better in this recovery than all of them...... So you want to be like them?... what???
So here we are again, I never said that no country should ever have a deficit, I made a specific point about this government claiming fiscal responsibility and yet having the largest deficit in the history of Canada. It also makes no signs of getting it under control, certainly not with the kinds of expenditures they have lined up. So there goes your first "point". The F-35s are well... not the plane that we need and not at that price. There you are putting words in my mouth about how Im willing to throw the lives of our troops away if we DONT buy these planes. Well, read this. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/973799--f-35-a-poor-fit-for-canadaOh and if you want to write that one off as "left wing socialist commie propaganda that hates our troops" maybe you would want to read one from an Australian soldier's point of view? http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated-02681/If we need new planes, we need them. But how about the proven CF-18 super hornets? They can be had brand new for way cheaper and perform very well. Why does it have to be the F35s which are priced by the US at 151 million each while Harper says we're going to get them for 75 million? And why so many? Canada doesn't need a massive airforce. We need enough for the rare peacekeeping that requires air support, which is usually a NATO or UN mandated situation which means we have other partner countries, not enough to fight a war? Harper is like a used car salesman here telling us that these planes are going to do great for Canada when we A) don't really need them and B) can't really afford them C) don't even know how much they will cost us in the end. So, there goes that "point". As far as your last point goes, I already linked a study that shows the trends of companies and how tax breaks do not lead to economic growth. It will be very nice for companies who are here, but they will not be reinvesting that money in the way you think they will be. Sorry. They also certainly won't pick up and move if we return the rate to 18% which is STILL very very low. The only difference being that we will gain an additional 6 billion in revenue which you can immediately squander again on those shiny fighter planes if you so wish.
|
Tomorrow is the big day to vote ... blue!
|
On May 02 2011 11:37 LonelyIslands wrote:
Tomorrow is the big day to vote ... blue!
![[image loading]](http://www3.images.coolspotters.com/photos/235963/bloc-quebecois-profile.jpg)
I know right ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
