OnTheIce OnTheIce:
Curtman Curtman:
If you'd like to have a mature discussion, we can do that. Don't ask for one then go directly to your usual condescending dismissive vitrol. You asked where it says something about being near a school. I posted that. He wants to know what it says about rental property, I posted that.
You are the one making a claim without proof.
On the contrary....
Your comments and conduct here are deserving of dismissive vitriol which is why you are not a good person to be pushing this agenda. You don't serve it well.
You made the claim:
$1:
They target anyone who fits their vague criteria. Living in rental property, being "near" a school with no definition of what "near" means, etc..
I asked you to provide me some examples of this actually taking place. Surely this would be a huge problem by now with the law in effect. You dodged the question completely.
Unless you can provide examples of police taking advantage of this law, you have nothing but a chicken little theory of what 'might' happen.
You're asking for examples of people serving the mandatory minimum sentences? That's not going to happen, only people charged 8 months ago or less will have to deal with them. Nobody gets through court in less than 8 months, so nobody is currently serving those penalties.
Here's a good read for you, summarizing a video here:
Compassion in Crisis: Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and Your Medical Cannabis Dispensary$1:
According to Tousaw, cases involving marijuana dispensaries and their growers have often resulted in discharges for the accused. He recalled seeking a discharge in R v Beren on Vancouver Island. The judge in that case, Madam Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg, responded “if ever there was a case in which an absolute discharge was appropriate, it was this one.”
But in order for discharge to be an option, there must be no minimum sentence attached to the crime. Immediately, this eliminates the option for any dispensary operator with more than three kilograms on site. However, a discharge is also unavailable if the crime carries a maximum sentence of 14 years or life in prison. While there is no minimum sentence attached to cultivating fewer than six plants, there is a maximum sentence of 14 years. “Discharges,” said Tousaw, “are not available any longer.”
Another alternative is the conditional sentencing order, which is basically house arrest. Like the discharge, this has been common in marijuana trafficking cases. Again, between the existence of minimum and maximum sentences, this option is now off the table.
The only other option available to the court is to suspend the sentence pending completion of a drug treatment program. If the accused completes the program, then the court is no longer obligated to impose any minimum sentence. The wrinkle here, said Tousaw, is that some people who operate or work in dispensaries do not in fact consume marijuana. Yet completion of a drug treatment program might be that person’s only means of escaping prison time.
There is actually one other way to escape the mandatory minimum. If the Crown declines to inform the accused that it is seeking the minimum sentence and why, then the court is not bound to impose it. Of course, the court is still allowed to impose jail time, but it is no longer bound by the minimums which came into effect late last year.
So, while the courts used to have exclusive discretion in matters of sentencing, some of that discretion now rests with the Crown. On its face, this appears to represent a conflict between two very different activities. At the very least, it seems strange that the same party responsible for proving your guilt should also have the power to set your minimum punishment. Said Tousaw, this transfers “a tremendous amount of discretion into the hands of the Federal Crown and out of the hands of judges.”
Not only do the new minimum sentences fly in the face of case law, he argued, they also offend basic sentencing principles. He cited principles surrounding the gravity of an offense, proportionality, and the intentions of an accused, all of which seem to recommend lenience for dispensary operators. “People in this industry are some of the most responsible people I know. And they are some of the most community-aware and active people that I know.”
He reflected on the basic purposes of incarceration, such as protection of the public, respect for the law, and fostering a civil society, none of which appear to be served by sending dispensary operators to jail. Throughout his talk, Kirk Tousaw returned to the same basic point: jail is a bad way to deal with crime. Even if the goal is deterrence, he remains deeply skeptical. “Even in the most draconian regimes, where people get executed for even possessing drugs, people still do it,” he said. “Even in the States, [where] you get life in prison for growing some marijuana, people are still doing it.”
Tousaw himself is involved in at least five ongoing cases dealing with Canada’s marijuana laws, two of which are mounting Charter challenges, he said. As well, the Quebec Criminal Bar has already filed suit that the mandatory minimums violate the Charter. There are also significant cases before the courts in both British Columbia and Ontario.
But the real test will likely come when individuals charged under the new laws come before the courts. Only those charged after November 6th, 2012 face mandatory minimum sentences. It remains to be seen if barristers like Mr. Tousaw can punch holes in the Conservative government’s new approach. For that to happen, a case will likely need to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. This can take years of working through the court system, which means that the mandatory minimum sentences are not going away any time soon.
It's not entirely clear what your question is, it keeps changing. You made the assertion that Harper's new prohibition laws are different from the U.S. because they target organized crime. That isn't the case though, they target anybody who the vague criteria can apply to.
It's not the police who "take advantage of this law". This all happens after the fact. It takes away the judge's ability to give a reasonable sentence for a victimless "crime".
CKA Uber 
CKA Moderator 
