
*If the Tory gov't gets its' way, we will never have to see THIS again.
One of my favorite things to do is to read the drug war news that I get from MAP in my email. I can see all the tactics that the wingnuts use to scare people into fearing drugs and I can also learn all the positive moves that activists are making in support of ending prohibition. It is quite enlightening when you realize how much time, money and energy is wasted on some really pointless measures.
Take the Tories Drug-Driving legislation. Some of the highlights are:
Under the new bill, the minimum fine for a first offence of either drug-or alcohol-impaired driving would be $1,000 rather than the current $600. A second offence would bring a mandatory 30 days in jail rather than 14, a third offence 120 days rather than 90.
In the worst cases, the maximum sentence would be life in prison for impaired driving causing death and 10 years for causing bodily harm.
The Tory bill also creates a new offence of being in care and control of a vehicle while in possession of an illicit dug - something like driving with an open bottle of beer.
The penalty would be a mandatory six-month prohibition on driving, in addition to jail time that could run up to five years. Link
There have been numerous stories about the proposed bill, some in favor and some opposed. My favorite argument in favor of the drug-driving bill reads as follows:
The Prime Minister is striving to make driving while high as unacceptable as driving drunk. This new legislation will not only help to prevent drug IMPARIED driving related crimes, but it will also help to raise awareness about the issue. Link
You mean the Prime Minister wishes to stop me from careening down the highway with beer bong in hand? Years of drinking and driving propoganda have failed to impress upon people the foolishness of driving while impaired? I find that hard to believe. If education is what is required, I fail to see why a new law is needed. Let MADD hand out some more red ribbons and give it a rest. Impaired driving is already illegal. What this really is is an excuse to infringe upon our civil liberties via drug testing that does not detect impairment.
It seems to me that there are far more important issues than trying to pass a bill that Vic Toews' admits was basically identical to the bill written by the liberals:
But Toews admitted, when pressed by reporters, that the core of his legislation - setting out the legal steps police must follow to prove drug impairment - is taken straight from a bill proposed by the previous Liberal government.
"In that respect, it's essentially the same," said the minister.
He went on, however, to point to areas where the Tories had "enhanced" the Liberal approach - mainly by boosting the penalties upon conviction.
The liberals failed, why do the Tories think that the same bill with increased penalties will be successful?
Bah, humbug!
No comments:
Post a Comment