BUSTED Clips

With all the fuss about Barry Cooper and the fun that the blogosphere has had pooping all over him for his terrible advice, I am feeling the need to link to the BUSTED clips, just in case you haven't seen them. They are aimed at an American audience but the advice applies to Canadians as well. I wonder if there are any Canadian versions of this video anywhere. If anybody knows of any, please link in the comments.

More Drugged Driving Reefer Madness

OTTAWA -- Canadians who say they have driven after smoking drugs has more than doubled since the late 1980s, according to a study that reports young men drive while high just as often, or even more, than they drink and drive.

Almost five per cent of the 4,639 drivers surveyed said they had driven within two hours of using marijuana or hashish in the previous year an average of 24 times, said the Canadian Centre of Substance Abuse.

"The evidence we have is that the behaviour is increasing," said Doug Beirness, senior research associate for the federally sponsored agency. "Another factor that makes us believe it's an issue of concern is that it seems to be most concentrated among young people." Research remains inconclusive, however, on whether the hike in drugimpaired driving has contributed to car crashes causing injuries or death, said the study.

Do you think it's a coincidence that this research reinforces the Tories bid to push through drugged-driving legislation? No, me neither. But even in this article they admit that there is no proof that drugged-driving is a cause of traffic accidents. This just goes to show that if there is a political agenda to be promoted, any study will be interpreted as evidence.

I would like to point out that the rates of cannabis use has been increasing over the years, despite the War on Some Drugs so it really shouldn't be surprising that the incidence of drugged-driving is increasing. What this doesn't prove is that the drugged-driving legislation will reduce accident rates. Statistics should always be carefully scrutinized. The studies are influenced by factors such as the stigma to admitting use of illegal drugs, reefer madness and the honesty of the respondents.

Speaking of studies, here is a study that proves that women need to be married to be happy via Twisty.

What is the Harper government trying to accomplish?

I was thinking about yesterday's story, about Canada looking to the United States for advice on our drug policy. It's bad enough that we are looking to a nation whose drug policy has been a costly disaster. The United States incarcerates a disproportionate number of people of color. The war on drugs costs billions of dollars per year without having a significant impact on the number of drug users. In order to ignore these facts, our elected representatives have to be either willfully blind and stupid or desperately trying to win brownie points from the US government.

But let's pretend for one minute that the war on drugs could succeed and would succeed, if only we poured enough money into law enforcement, built enough jails, locked up enough brown people and gave up enough of our civil liberties. What would we have accomplished?

In the case of marijuana, we would have taken one of our most beneficial plants and wiped it off the face of the earth. Marijuana is an extremely safe recreational substance. Nobody has ever suffered a fatal overdose while using it, it is not linked to cancer and is highly unlikely to be implicated in motor vehicle accidents (despite the Tory governments' pointless drugged driving legislation). Not only that, it is a medicine which is cheap and highly effective. Big Pharma isn't very happy to know that there is an easy-to-grow weed which is highly effective in treating a wide range of ailments, including nausea, AIDS, glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and chronic pain.

More criticism:

U.S. shows us what not to do

Proof that the RCMP is completely out of touch with reality

The RCMP, which has publicly taken a neutral position on Vancouver's Supervised Injection Site for drug addicts, has produced an internal report harshly critical of the pilot project.

The three-page analysis, obtained by The Vancouver Sun, suggests that the "harm reduction" approach -- helping addicts avoid overdosing or contracting HIV-AIDS -- actually encourages drug use.

''The RCMP has concerns regarding any initiative that lowers the perceived risks associated with drug use," states Staff-Sgt. C.D. (Chuck) Doucette, Pacific Region co-ordinator of the RCMP's Drugs and Organized Crime Awareness program.

''There is considerable evidence to show that, when the perceived risks associated to drug use decreases, there is a corresponding increase in number of people using drugs."

It is hard to read the headline without cringing. But the rest of this article is absolutely appalling. Let me get this straight. The RCMP would rather have drug addicts facing the full risks involved with highly dangerous behaviours such as injection drug use. These risks include disease, overdose and violence. Exposing people to these risks is A-OK because it discourages drug use? That is taking a childish and simplistic approach to drug addiction, which is a complex and multi-facetted problem. Prohibition, popular culture, poverty are all factors which encourage drug addiction. But I doubt that those factors were considered when the report was written.

Insite is a safe injection site in Vancouver. Clients are allowed to inject their own drugs at the site and are supplied with the necessary equipment to make this a safer experience.

For some reason this line of thinking reminds me of the wingnuts south of the border that will do anything to keep people from having sex. Abstinence-only "sex education" is taught as the only acceptable way to keep people safe from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

This is the same idea being promoted. It is better to have the drug addicts die or get diseases then to reduce the harm caused by their addiction. It’s better to have teenagers get diseased or pregnant than to have safer sex. It’s almost like the RCMP believe that the only thing preventing your average law-abiding citizen from shooting up is the threat of AIDS.

I agree with the viewpoint put forth by the following article:

Needless to say, we wouldn't expect, nor would we permit, scientists to patrol our streets, as police officers do. But unfortunately, we do need to say that we shouldn't expect police officers to conduct evaluations of scientific experiments, as scientists do.

It certainly isn't the first time that the RCMP has been given unwarranted decision-making authority.

Update on the Winnipeg Shooting

Last Saturday I reported that a shooting occurred during a drug raid in Winnipeg.

Here is a timeline of the events, courtesy of the Winnipeg Free Press:

How it happened

This is the sequence of events as described by witnesses to the police drug raid on 723 Jubilee just before 11 p.m. December 7.

1. After a squad of 12 police officers, some in uniform, some in plain clothes, secure the area around the 1,180-square-foot bungalow at 723 Jubilee, they break through a side door.

2. Bonnie Anderson, 55-year-old mother of the accused, is on the phone talking to her sister when police come through the door announcing themselves as "Winnipeg police". She screams. The family's two dogs are barking.

3. Daniell Ian Anderson, 21, is in his bedroom getting ready to watch the rented movie, Chasing Christmas. He bolts for the bathroom directly across the hall.

4. Anderson's girlfriend, 20-year-old Ashley Cochrane, is in the darkened living room turning off the outside Christmas lights. A police officer, described as wearing a "windbreaker" identifies himself to her as being with the Winnipeg Police Service.

5. After a police officer announces there is someone in the bathroom, a gun discharges from inside the bathroom. Three officers are wounded.

6. Anderson, having had three fingers of his left hand blown off and suffering another gunshot wound to his right elbow, is "dragged" out of the side door as his mother watches.

7. At 11:12 p.m., an ambulance is called to Jubilee and Cockburn -- a few doors away from the target home -- and conveys Anderson to St. Boniface Hospital.

Let me see here. Armed thugs bust down your door screaming and brandishing weapons. Do you think that grabbing a gun, hiding in the bathroom and defending yourself is a reasonable response?

Even if this kid had been selling drugs, there is absolutely no excuse for breaking down his door. What exactly was this supposed to accomplish? As Ken pointed out in the comments, this is standard operating procedure for the police. If they surprise the alleged drug dealer, they may prevent him from flushing his merchandise down the toilet. Although one has to wonder how much merchandise could possibly be flushed in the short period of time it takes to inform the inhabitants of the raid. Surely this isn't necessary for raids on homes with large quantities of drugs. Is it possible to stuff a few kilos of marijuana down the toilet as the cops stand outside your door? It's terrifying to think that marijuana users are being targetted like this.

Did the police think that Anderson was anything other than a kid selling a few bags of weed to supplement his income? How can the police possibly justify their actions? Were they acting on a Crime-Stopper tip?

This incident is just one more reason that the War on Some Drugs needs to end. Unfortunately, due to our cowardly politicians and uneducated public, there will be many more tragedies like this before this senseless death and destruction finally comes to an end.

Just realize what we could become.

Think about grow-ops next time you use pot

It's time for yet another editorial blaming all the drug-users for the growth of grow-ops and all the hazards that they cause. We have the usual hysteria about mold, electrical fires, and gun-toting crooks guarding their valuable crops. The misguided editorialist then implores the pot-smokers to consider the impact of their illegal habits and put down the bongs for the sake of all humanity.

But the author does make the following concessions at the end of the article:

To you we would say that, yes, we could fully legalize marijuana. And perhaps if we had politicians or a population with enough courage to push for this, we would.

But until that day, perhaps you should consider what your pot smoking does to others when people are willing to break the law to grow it for you. It's not a pretty picture.

I would rather that the policy makers consider the harmful impact of prohibition. If decades of reefer madness, gang violence, criminal records and social stigma are not detterants, than the threat of grow-ops are certainly not going to stop anybody from using marijuana. The market for marijuana is a huge mutli-billion dollar industry and its absurd to think that it is going to go away anytime soon.

The threat of grow-ops is ridiculously overstated. We always hear about the threat of fires due to faulty wiring but I certainly do not recall hearing about an outbreak of grow-op induced fires (correct me if I'm wrong.) Reading about the threat of mold is even more laughable. Should we then fear common potted household plants because of the mold they might be harboring? Marijuana man did a far better job repudiating the grow-op fears than I could ever hope to do.

Drug-Driving: Scouge on Society

*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!

It frightens me that these people are in charge sometimes.....

"I can't seriously see people (being) opposed to this type of legislation," said Toews, noting that similar measures are already in force in many American states.

Ha ha

new legislation 'unfairly targets marijuana users'

Russell Barth says it better than I ever could:

Regular medical marijuana users are being unfairly targeted by the Conservative government's new drug-driving legislation, which will increase penalties and make it easier for police to crack down on people who do drugs before getting behind the wheel, a national advocacy group warned Wednesday.

"This law, we feel, would unfairly target marijuana users," said Russell Barth, a medical marijuana user and member of the National Capital Reformers. "Discriminating against us based on our medication . . . is much like discriminating against us based on the colour of our skin."

Justice Minister Vic Toews revived on Tuesday a Liberal-era bill designed to catch drug-impaired drivers through roadside checks and blood samples, an initiative that has failed twice before and raised concerns about court challenges.

Let's hope that this measure fails again.