Prime Minister Stephen Harper is getting tougher on pot growers than he is on rapists of children. Under the Tories’ omnibus crime legislation tabled in September, a person growing 201 pot plants in a rental unit would receive a longer mandatory sentence than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a five-year-old to have sex with an animal.

Producing six to 200 pot plants nets an automatic six-month sentence, with an extra three months if it’s done in a rental or is deemed a public-safety hazard. Growing 201 to 500 plants brings a one-year sentence, or 1½ years if it’s in a rental or poses a safety risk.

The omnibus legislation imposes one-year mandatory minimums for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of these offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium-sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else’s land.

A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.

The maximum sentence for growing marijuana would double from seven to 14 years, the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child rape, and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.

_

We seem to have the same problem on this side of the border.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjUZZtKgzv4



Cat

We seem to have the same problem on this side of the border.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjUZZtKgzv4



Cat

You can smoke it, carry a certain amount with you, walk around stoned. But if you grow lots of it that people are allowed to smoke, we will treat you worse than someone who rapes a toddler or forces a five-year-old to have sex with an animal.

Makes perfect sense.  ::)

Marijuana laws don't work because people like to smoke marijuana.  It's just like liquor prohibition.  Harper isn't going to stop pot farming with those mandatory minimums.  The added risk will increase the vigilance and paranoia around cultivation, which will, in turn, stir up more violence.  It will also result in higher prices.  More violence and more money, that's all the Tories will achieve.
::)

What irk's me though is this.

Let's say you had a neighbour to the right of you who gets caught growing dope and gets to serve jail time. You probably aren't happy that your next door neighbour did that, but you are glad he (or she)  is gone.

Now: You have a neighbour to the right of you, one day he rapes your 6-year-old daughter and does other things to her. You are angry and you wish this guy would just die a horrible death somewhere. Your daughter's life is changed forever, so is yours. Your suffer through many sleepless nights and you and your daughter may spend years in therapy. Then you find out the rapist's jail time is less than the guy next door who grew pot.  http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/flame2.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/flame2.gif

That's what irritates the living hell out of me.

It wouldn't bother me if my neighbor grew marijuana.  His property, his business.  It would bother me if my neighbor sold marijuana from his home.  That's because illegal activities attract sleazeballs and cops.  I don't care much for either.  If they just legalized pot, it would take the profit motive away from the patio grower and with it the sleazeballs and the cops.  Of course, even if your neighbor grows pot, he isn't growing more than 200 plants, and if he is growing 201+ plants and you know about it, he's not going to be growing pot for very long!

I agree with what you say about the pot farmer versus the pedophile.  It's the moral ineptitude of mandatory minimum drug laws.  Under the original Rockefeller Drug Laws in New York State, the courts could sentence you to longer for possessing two ounces (113 grams) of cannabis than for rape or murder.  The courts had discretion in sentencing for rape and murder, but the mandatory minimum for two ounces of pot was no less than fifteen years!  Even if you were Joe Schmoe, age 48, with 2 OZ for your personal consumption -- that is, no threat to society, the judge and jury had no leeway.  On the other hand, if Joe Schmoe, age 48, killed your wife with a horse pistol, ahem, by accident, you could conceivably get time served!

Enough people said hey, what the hell, man, about the marijuana law and it was stricken from the code in 1979.  Governor Patterson (D-NY) was once arrested under the RDL and the odious mandatory minimums were thrown out in 2009.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/tongue4.gif

If they just legalized pot, it would take the profit motive away from the patio grower and with it the sleazeballs and the cops. 

I think we are on a slow bumpy road with lots of construction, but headed towards legalization of pot. Might happen within my lifetime.
Might increase the # of stoned people/drivers and might lead to legalization of harder drugs in the future. Also, once legalized, some "users" willl get bored of pot and go into harder stuff.  But the sentences now are too harsh compared to what pedophiles should gett. I agree, it's moral ineptitude of mandatory minimum drug laws. T
here are Pros and cons to legalized pot. I'm sure there's a board somewhere on inthe00s. But it's gonna happen. It will be legalized.

I think we are on a slow bumpy road with lots of construction, but headed towards legalization of pot. Might happen within my lifetime.
Might increase the # of stoned people/drivers and might lead to legalization of harder drugs in the future. Also, once legalized, some "users" willl get bored of pot and go into harder stuff.  But the sentences now are too harsh compared to what pedophiles should gett. I agree, it's moral ineptitude of mandatory minimum drug laws. T
here are Pros and cons to legalized pot. I'm sure there's a board somewhere on inthe00s. But it's gonna happen. It will be legalized.



There have been TONS of threads where we have discussed legalization. I have said this many times before and I will say it again. I am TOTALLY for legalization. (And I hope you are right that it will happen in our lifetime.)

There are so many medical benefits:

-Relief from Chemo. (Both relief from pain & increases appetite.)
-Reduces pressure with Glaucoma.
-Relief from pain.
-Relief from cramps. (Which can fall under the pain category.)


In terms of $$$$$:

-Reduce cost to law enforcement to go after someone who is smoking a joint rather then going after pedophiles.
-Reduces the criminal aspect of the black market.
-Reduces the cost of the court system.
-Reduces the cost of prison system.
-The government can tax the sh!t out of it and make some $$$$$.


Other:


It is less harmful than alcohol & cigarettes which are both legal. 



Cat

-The government can tax the sh!t out of it and make some $$$$$.
It is less harmful than alcohol & cigarettes which are both legal.

Cat

;D
It's also less addictive than cigs.

There are many pros and cons for either. I'm not for the legalization, nor against it. I just think it will happen. I've never tried it before  :o so it won't really affect me personally when (not if) it will be legalized. Fact:  It had proved to help pain relief and provide relief for patients.
It took awhile for (alcohol) prohibition to be repealed, but it was.  I do believe one day the ball will get rolling very quickly and legalization will occur.  And then the governments can have a new cash cow & tax the sh!t out of it! The revenue they receive may eventually help them to avoid a default!  :o

There is not a good, logical, rational argument for criminalization of marijuana - or even, if you want to be coldly logical about it, any of the others.  With one possible exception: a "driving under the influence" test: pot hangs around at testable levels for such a long time, a test to see whether someone was driving while intoxicated is not possible.  Traffic police'd be back to walking the line & getting people to say "The Leith police dismisseth us"..

All other reasons given for criminalization (harm, addiction, "sending messages") are provably fallacious as soon as you look at any kind of statistics or economic analysis.