6 months for 1 pot plant?

It is extremely disturbing that they seem to have made absolutely no distinction between growing for strictly personal use (say 1 to 10 plants) and commercial operations.

What I think is actually even more "extremely disturbing" is that pot is illegal under any circumstance.

Jail time for pot is just insane.  We tried that in the '20s with alcohol and it failed miserably.  In a world with many real problems, why do we insist on creating imaginary problems?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Sven wrote:

What I think is actually even more "extremely disturbing" is that pot is illegal under any circumstance.

Jail time for pot is just insane.  We tried that in the '20s with alcohol and it failed miserably.  In a world with many real problems, why do we insist on creating imaginary problems?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

As much as I'm for legalization, in the absence of it, they do need some laws as the grow-op industry has many problems and associated crime.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

As much as I'm for legalization, in the absence of it, they do need some laws as the grow-op industry has many problems and associated crime.

What kind of laws, specifically?  The reason there is crime associated with drugs is that they are illegal.  I'm not sure what laws could be passed to alleviate crime while keeping drugs illegal.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Quote:

Well, if the only evidence was one pot plant growing in someone's yard, then it would be impossible to prove "trafficking".  But, if the authorities could also prove that you were trying to sell weed from that plant to others, then it would be "trafficking".  The essential element is the sale of weed to others...not the fact that a person has a single pot plant in their yard.

There is the word of the law, Sven, and then there is the enforcement and practice. If I own a oz of weed, say, and I divide it up into four bags, one for this month, one for next, and one for each subsequent month before I get my next oz, sort of like budgeting money by placing dollars in enevelopes, the police would say I am trafficking and the evidence would be the separate bags. Now maybe I could or couldn't beat that rap with a lawyer, but good legal representation remains a luxury of those who can afford it.

I think what shoud be taken from the chart in OP is just how fucked up and, sorry Sven, culturally Ameircan our current government is: more jails - fewer shcools; less crime prevention - more medieval sentencing.

And at the end of the road in both countries, is well connected business people planning to profit from prison contracts.  

ETA: The failing economy might short circuit any plans for tougher sentencing as tax revenues decline (yes, no dollars for health care and day care but seemingly always dollars for concrete, steel, and bars).

Frustrated Mess wrote:

And at the end of the road in both countries, is well connected business people planning to profit from prison contracts.

The influence of a few businesses who construct or run prisons is overstated.  The actual problem is that a significant portion of society views drugs as "bad" and legislatures respond with "tough drug laws".  Whether a prison to house drug convicts is privately constructed and operated or is operated by the state is an after-thought.  Either way, the state pays the bill (it's just that the bill is usually less when a private enterprise runs a prison).

Frustrated Mess wrote:

ETA: The failing economy might short circuit any plans for tougher sentencing as tax revenues decline (yes, no dollars for health care and day care but seemingly always dollars for concrete, steel, and bars).

That parenthetical statement doesn't mesh with the first part of the sentence (will the failing economy short-circuit tougher drug law or will there "always" be dollars available for jails?).

I think an example of the economy short-circuiting tougher drug laws is being seen in California.  The highly-regulated California econmy is in the shitter and several legislators are openly arguing to legalizing pot because it would provide a significant tax revenue stream for the state.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

FM, I don't doubt that the prison industry has influence (even significant influence) in this country.  But, I think it's too far fetched for me to believe that it's the predominant reason for the USA's drug policy.  It's the same damned thing that drove Prohibition 90 years ago (i.e., puritan views of drugs).

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Well, let me put it this way: If the puritanical obsession with drugs were to disappear today, then that would result in an abrupt end to drug convictions (and hence for need to build more prisons to house drug convicts).  But, if the puritanical obsession with drugs is to remain unabated, then the prison building will continue on without a hiccup, even if the prison industry were to completely and immediately stop lobbying.  I just think you put too much blame on the "prison industry" and not enough blame on the puritans in society who urgently demand that legislatures get "tough on drugs".

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Yes, I've seen American Gothic:

What about the plants in the background? 

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Forget it ...

I'm still curious about the plants in the background of "American Gothic"... 

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Heres what pot smoking Canadian want:

Jail time for politicians.

Jail time for officers.

Jail time for insiders.

Jail time for lobbyist.

Jail time for coporation heads.

Jail time for those who turn a blind eye yet it is their job, whats that called an accomplish or better yate the VPD as women on the East will never forget as women still regularly go missing.  How many tickets do you think officers handed out to the poor say in the last five years?  And especially now when City Hall has officers riding residents despite knowing they are a Cold and Callous lot? 

A great related document from NDP MP, Libby Davies (Vancouver East)...

- FrankD

***

March, 2009

Background on Bill C-15 by Libby Davies (MP Vancouver East), NDP Spokesperson for Drug Policy

C-15 an Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marihuana) production, to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

C-15 is the reincarnation of Bill C-26 from the 39th Parliament with minor changes that clean up the language of the bill. The NDP agreed with the experts that mandatory minimums for drug crimes don’t work and voted against C-26 at 2nd reading. The Bill passed and was referred to committee at the time of the election call. The new Bill, C-15, is still opposed by the NDP.

Overall Concerns

The Conservatives are selling this Bill as tough on organized crime and big time traffickers. The reality is that mandatory minimums do not deter organized crime. Instead, they affect almost exclusively the small dealers, street-level traffickers, and non-violent offenders while leaving the door open for organized crime to step in and fill the void created by the sweeps at the lower levels. Mandatory minimums for drug sentences increase enforcement costs exponentially, and the burden on the criminal justice and prisons systems is great. Relying almost solely on enforcement will fail here as it has in the U.S.

Mandatory Minimums Don’t Deter Drug Use

* A 2002 Justice Department of Canada report concluded that mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) are least effective in relation to drug offences.

“MMS do not appear to influence drug consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable way. A variety of research methods concludes that treatment-based approaches are more cost effective than lengthy prison terms. MMS are blunt instruments that fail to distinguish between low and high-level, as well as hardcore versus transient drug dealers.”

MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES: Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures, 2002

* The supposed targets for these sentences - the Kingpins – are in the best position to negotiate lighter or no sentence deals with the prosecutors.

* MMS disproportionately target visible minorities. (American Civil Liberties Union)

* Mandatory-sentencing policies have produced record incarceration rates of non-violent drug users in the United States. (HIV/AIDS Legal Network).

* In June 2004, the American Bar Association's Justice Kennedy Commission called on Congress to repeal mandatory minimum sentences stating, "Mandatory minimum sentences tend to be tough on the wrong people,"

* The US Sentencing Commission also concluded that MMS fail to deter crime and reported that that only 11% of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers, 59% of crack defendants are street level dealers compared to 5% of defendants who are high level crack dealers. (US Sentencing Commission, Special Report to Congress, 1995).

* The United States is moving away from MMSs:

In 2000, California repealed MMS for minor drug offences (California is now considering regulating marijuana). In 2004, Michigan repealed MMS for most drug offences including repealing the “harshest drug law in the nation”, life without parole, for dealing more that 650 grams of cocaine. Delaware and Massachusetts have similar legislative reviews in process.

A Move Away from Public Health, Prevention and Harm Reduction

Under the Liberals, Canada’s Drug Strategy – in theory at least - focused on a balanced Four Pillar Approach: Prevention, Treatment, Harm Reduction and Enforcement. In Budget 2007, the Conservatives introduced a “New Anti-Drug Strategy for Canada” that removed all references to harm reduction from the strategy and instead put greater emphasis on law enforcement. The Conservatives are moving Canada closer and closer toward an expensive and failed U.S. style war on drugs.

Canada spends 73% of its drug policy budget on enforcement. Still, drug use continues to rise. In 1994 28% of Canadians reported to have used illicit drugs. By 2004, this number was 45%.

Enforcement – 73%

Treatment – 14%

Research – 7%

Prevention – 2.6%

Harm Reduction – 2.6%

Economic Concerns

It will be the provincial police forces, courts, legal-aid and treatment centres that will bear the greatest burden of cost for the initiatives under this bill.

In 2005, the Conservatives promised 1,000 additional RCMP and 2,500 additional municipal police officers which they have failed to deliver.

With 12 of the 24 proposed mandatory sentences under two years in duration, it will be the provincial prison populations that continue to grow. HIV/AIDS advocates worry about the growing rate of infection in overcrowded prisons, while Labour groups and the John Howard Society are speaking out against the likelihood that this and other Conservative crime initiatives are opening the door to the privatization of prisons.

Canada’s prisons are overcrowded and, “boiling over with violence.” (B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union.)

* The annual average cost of incarcerating an individual male in Canada

$110,223 (maximum security level)
$71,640 (medium security level)
$74,431 (minimum security level)

* In 2005/2006 adults in remand for the first time outnumbered convicted offenders serving a sentence in provincial institutions. (Statistics Canada Daily, November 21, 2007)

Canada's first large privately run prison, a 1,200-inmate maximum-security ‘super-jail’ has been deemed a failure and will be taken over by the province.

Drug Treatment Court (DTC)

Treatment programs are desperately inadequate and under-funded. The proposal for a drug treatment court would further lengthen dangerously long wait times for drug treatment. While most users need immediate access to services when they are ready to undergo treatment, current wait times range from weeks to months across the country. According to a Nov. 2007 Toronto Star article, some doctors are trying to get young people with addiction problems into the U.S. for treatment.

This existence of this element of the bill reveals that the real intentions of this Bill are to target low level users and not organized crime.

Forced or coerced treatment doesn’t work.

In the US, DTC options have resulted in a surge of individuals who don’t need treatment going into treatment to avoid mandatory terms. It is a colossal waste of resources.

The NDP has called for

* An overall coordinated strategy focused on gangs and organized crime;
* An improved witness protection program;
* More resources for prosecution and enforcement;
* Toughened proceeds of crime legislation;
* More officers on the street as promised by the Conservatives but not yet delivered; and
* Better and more prevention programs to divert youth-at-risk.

Education and Prevention

Young people must have access to realistic and useful information and resources. Similar to safer sex campaigns, education must include information about being safe if you’re taking drugs, how to seek support if you have an addiction, and not just a lot of commercials about the horrors of drugs. With prevention funding allocated to the RCMP, and $14 million in cuts to the National Crime Prevention Centre, which has delivered community based, realistic youth education programs, it is clear that the conservative focus on prevention and education will be dominated by an enforcement approach.

Reduction and Enforcement

The four-pillar approach has proved successful in cities in the U.S., UK, and Europe. It is based on the four pillars of Prevention, Treatment, Harm Reduction and Enforcement. All pillars are equally important and they must be integrated and jointly implemented to be effective. The Big city Mayors caucus supported the four-pillar approach.

In 2002, the House Special Committee on Non-Medical use of drugs, the Office of Auditor General, and the Senate Committee called for:

* Strengthened leadership, coordination and accountability with dedicated resources
* Enhanced data collection to set measurable objectives, evaluate programs and report on progress
* Balance of supply & demand activities across government
* Increased emphasis on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation

Conclusion

* C-15 increases the already imbalanced and over-funded enforcement approach to drug use in Canada without reducing crime rates or drug use.

* C-15 is an oversimplification of drug use in Canada and targets street level users and small-time traffickers. It does not address the problems of violent or organized crime.

* Conservatives are taking Canada in the wrong direction. A direction that is expensive, has no effect on drug use, and will only increase the prison population, creating a new set of overpopulation, health, safety, and crime problems within the prison system.

* Canada must have a balanced approach to drug use. The 4 Pillar Approach: Prevention, Treatment, Harm Reduction and Enforcement, has been successful in Europe and is being adopted by big city Mayors in Canada.

* Mandatory Minimums are least likely to work on drug crimes.

* The experience in the American system shows us this model is a massive failure.

What the Media are Saying

Vancouver Sun, Barbara Yaffe Feb.27, 2009

“Because at the root of the mayhem is the drug trade. And while the state can outlaw a substance, it cannot eliminate its use. Prohibition proved that nearly a century ago. As long as drugs are illegal, there will be underground activity of the sort that spawns drug gangsters.”

Vancouver Province Editorial, Feb. 08, 2009

“There is mounting evidence the so-called War on Drugs can't be won -- and too many people are dying while it's being fought. Even many police believe this. Legalizing drugs, and putting their production and distribution in the hands of legitimate businesses that could be taxed would end the huge drain on the public purse for policing and free up cash to treat addicts.”

Ottawa Citizen, Dan Gardner, Feb. 28, 2009

“In the United States, law enforcement budgets are massive. Powers of search and seizure are sweeping, particularly when organized crime is involved. Punishments are so savage a dealer with a bag of pot and a handgun may face life in prison with no chance of parole -- while traffickers who fire their guns may face the death penalty. It has accomplished nothing. “

Edmonton Journal, Todd Babiak, March 3, 2009

“You would think that instead of simply getting tough, which has been a spectacularly expensive and bloody failure in exemplar nations to the south, Canada might get smart. Californians, partially driven by a $42-billion budget deficit and partly driven by frustration with gangs, syndicates and cartels, are currently considering legalizing and regulating the $14-billion marijuana industry in that state.”

What the Experts are Saying

Waterloo Region Record, Luisa D'Amato, February 27, 2009

Tough crime law under fire; UW professor says bill's strong penalties aren't enough to stop crime

But such a tough policy doesn't actually help stop crime, charges a University of Waterloo sociology professor. "It has just not worked, with youth or adults," said Jennifer Schulenberg, who is associate editor of the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Calgary Herald, Sherri Zickefoose, February 27, 2009
Ottawa gang law playing politics: expert; Calgary police hail tougher punishment

Punishing organized criminals is appropriate, but creating new laws that apply to gangsters may simply be a play for votes, according to a criminologist. "It will not do much in terms of deterring gang activity," said Doug King, head of Mount Royal College's justice studies program.

"Basically, what we're talking about is organized criminal behaviour, but they're also playing to public opinion. All of this reeks of 'let's play to public opinion and get votes. 'Fine. That's what politicians do. But nothing about it will deter criminal activity."
Edmonton Sun, Andrew Hanon, March 5, 2009
Money poured into the failing war on drugs would be better spent on prevention, education and treatment, advocates say

Canada's outdated drug laws are at the root of the blood-soaked gang war taking a heavy toll in Edmonton, Vancouver and Calgary. That's what the head of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy told a crowd of 350 in Edmonton yesterday at a conference on drug harm reduction. "We've had 101 years of drug prohibition in Canada," Eugene Oscapella said. "All of the problems we have seen with drugs have occurred under this system. The solution is not to do more of the same."

What the experts said about C-26 (now C-15)

Retired Justice John Gomery

“This legislation basically shows a mistrust of the judiciary to impose proper sentences when people come before them.”

Craig Jones, Executive Director John Howard Society of Canada

"The feds will crack down on crime, but the provinces will be punished." (on the costs to prisons)

Thomas Kerr, PhD, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS
“If Canada wants to fulfill its mission of reducing the most severe harms associated with illicit drug use, steps must now be taken to implement a truly evidence-based national drug strategy rather than shoveling millions of dollars towards these failed programs.”

Retired B.C. Judge Jerry Paradis, Spokesperson for LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition)

“MMSs are a great motivator for trials, jamming up the courts. Unless a deal is struck, a charge carrying a minimum sentence will be fought tooth and nail.”

Yes I'm curious also?

For Canada's sake, please download this Bill C-15 information handout, print and distribute...

Download PDF version (best for printing)
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/pdf/StopC15handbill_CF.pdf

Download or view full-size GIF image
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/images/StopC15handbill_CF.gif

More info about Bill C-15 here:
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums.html

Quote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

What you're missing is how the hell can you call 1 plant trafficking?  Seriously, can you think of a scenario where someone could be "trafficking" with one plant?

The reality is that “trafficking” is so broadly defined as to include the act of passing a joint to another person. People have received prison time in Canada for passing a joint and being charged with trafficking.

Canada's Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, was quoted recently, saying, "I don't agree with the people who are growing these three or four plants, but this bill is not targeted at them," Nicholson said. "If it's for your own use, you don't get the mandatory penalty which is six months."

Under current policy, using a standard police value estimate of $1000 per plant (regardless of size), the 4-plant garden that Mr. Nicholson refers to would currently be written up in the media as a grow op valued at $4000 "according to police."

Is the Justice Minister really saying that under Bill C-15 someone possessing $4000 worth of cannabis (4 plants) would not receive a prison sentence if, somehow, it was determined to be for personal use, but another person growing a single plant, who happens to “traffic” (give, sell or trade) some to a friend, is considered a “serious drug offender” deserving of 6 months or more in prison?

It is naive to think there would be a clear and fair assessment of what is trafficking and what is not.

-FrankD

Quote:

Aug 30, 2004
Ottawa Citizen Editorial: Five Years for Sharing

http://hightimes.com/news/dan/3056

Quote:

Single joint leads to trafficking charge for high school student

May 17, 2006
Source: CBC News

http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/blaketown_nf.html

Quote:

The influence of a few businesses who construct or run prisons is overstated. The actual problem is that a significant portion of society views drugs as "bad" and legislatures respond with "tough drug laws". Whether a prison to house drug convicts is privately constructed and operated or is operated by the state is an after-thought. Either way, the state pays the bill (it's just that the bill is usually less when a private enterprise runs a prison).

In many US states, especially California, the prison guard's union is a very strong political force, pushing for longer sentences, tougher laws and more inmates.

The Scam of the California Prison Guards Union
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/05/26/359/29521

The California Prison Guards' Union - A Potent Political Interest Group
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/CalifPrisonGuards.html

California prison guards union flexes election muscles
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1323837.html

Harper knows that mandatory minimums won't work, and he knows Bill C-15 will likely result in the need to build more prisons, possibly private prisons, so... maybe that is his goal (aside from appearing "tough on drugs").

Harper already has the support of police unions (e.g. CPA), the most powerful lobby groups on Parliament Hill. (see link below)

Creating a private prison industry in Canada, that will come with a union that can be relied upon to support Conservative "tough on crime" politicians, might be seen by Harper as a way to create future support for Conservative party ideology regarding drug crimes.

Afterall, police and prison unions will fight any legislation that threatens their members' job security.

Thoughts?

-FrankD

---

Tories 'pander' to the interests of police: critics
Nov 19 2006 - Kamloops This Week

"The law-and-order agenda of the Harper Conservative government has made police one of the most powerful and influential lobby groups on Parliament Hill."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-will-expand-prisons-...

Ottawa will expand prisons to suit tough crime laws

[photo caption] Saskatchewan Penitentiary in Prince Albert, Sask. The Canadian Press

The government is leaning toward renovating prisons and building new wings as a short-term solution to anticipated influx of inmates

BILL CURRY

OTTAWA -- From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Oct. 16, 2009 12:00AM EDT Last updated on Friday, Oct. 16, 2009 7:05AM EDT

The Conservative government has doubled the budget for prison construction and maintenance as it prepares federal institutions for an influx of inmates resulting from its suite of new crime laws.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan revealed the government is leaning toward renovating existing prisons and building new wings as Ottawa's short-term approach to managing the increase.

He said cabinet will take another two or three years before deciding whether there is a need to build large new regional prisons as recommended in a 2007 advisory report - but the government already has some land in mind.

The plots are currently being used by inmates for milking cows and gathering eggs to feed their fellow convicts. It is part of the prison-farm program the government is phasing out after more than 150 years.

Since coming to power in 2006, the Harper government has introduced several justice proposals that would increase the use of mandatory minimum sentences, end house arrests and eliminate a judge's ability to credit a prisoner with two days served for every one spent in pretrial custody in calculating sentences.

Mr. Van Loan said he has seen internal estimates that provide a projected range for prison population growth as a result of government legislation either passed or before Parliament. However, those numbers are a cabinet confidence and cannot be disclosed, he said.

"Each bill brings with it a different impact," Mr. Van Loan said. "But ultimately we anticipate some need for major investment."

Most of the approximately 33,000 offenders now incarcerated are the responsibility of the provinces or territories, either because they are awaiting trial or sentencing or serving sentences of less than two years.

Mr. Van Loan said new minimum sentences and an end to bonuses for time spent awaiting trial would see more people serving more than two years and, as a result, ending up in one of Canada's 58 federal institutions.

"The effect of that bill [ending the two-for-one credit] is essentially a massive transfer, financially and in terms of custodial obligations, from the provinces to the federal government," he said.

Mr. Van Loan, who is responsible for the Correctional Service of Canada, said that until cabinet decides on a long-term plan, the farm-program lands will be rented out to farmers.

"It wouldn't be prudent to dispose of the land if you may have potential plans in the future to build super regional prisons," he said. "We don't know how many we will do. But it just wouldn't make a lot of sense in protecting the taxpayer's interest to unload all that land and then decide three, four years hence that you've got to get it back."

A public campaign is under way to save the prison-farm program, which teaches inmates at six institutional farms the ins and outs of agriculture. Proponents, including current prison farmers who are speaking out in the media, say the program teaches universal skills like punctuality. They also say caring for animals instills a sense of compassion.

The government says the program's $4-million budget could be better spent elsewhere, given that less than 1 per cent of released inmates end up in agriculture. Mr. Van Loan said the public and inmates are better served by programs focused on more employable skills such as landscaping or furniture-making, adding that landing a job after prison is a key factor in avoiding a return to crime.

He denied any link between the program's end and the government's expansion plans.

The move to mandatory minimums is in response to the perception among some that Canada has a "revolving-door" justice system that goes easy on repeat offenders. The measures are supported by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, particularly in relation to anti-drug measures contained in a bill now before the Senate.

Frank Addario, president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association, says the American experience shows mandatory minimums don't work.

"The most law-and-order states in the United States have turned away from muscular sentencing and mandatory minimums on the basis that no reasonable state budget can manage the level of incarceration that those laws require," Mr. Addario said. The annual average cost of keeping a Canadian inmate incarcerated is $93,030.

The possibility of using the farm land for prisons was first confirmed by Mr. Van Loan in a written response tabled recently in the House of Commons replying to a question from Liberal MP Mark Holland. The minister's response also revealed the annual budget for "corrections infrastructure" has grown from $88.5-million in 2006-07 to $195.1-million this year. It is projected to peak at $211.6-million in fiscal year 2010-11.

Mr. Van Loan has embraced the recommendations of a controversial 2007 advisory report prepared for the federal government by Rob Sampson, a former minister of corrections in Ontario's Mike Harris government.

Among the report's wide-ranging recommendations was a call to create large new regional correctional facilities that would house high-, medium- and low-security prisoners in one location - though physically separated from each other.

The report said this would lead to administrative savings by sharing common services like food. While other recommendations from the 2007 report are already government policy, the government until now has been silent on the call for new prisons.

A report by prisoner-rights advocates Michael Jackson and Graham Stewart warned last month that some of the recommendations contain "draconian implications" for human rights, yet are being implemented with little public or parliamentary debate.

The Jackson-Stewart report acknowledged the need for upgrades to aging facilities, but said the call for regional complexes was "ill advised" and not well thought out.

******

PRISON NUMBERS

Offenders serving a sentence of less than two years, as well as adults held in custody while awaiting trial or sentencing (known as remand), are the responsibility of provinces and territories. Ottawa is responsible for the detention of offenders serving two years or more.

Provincial custody

* In remand: 12,888
* Serving sentences: 9,750

Federal custody

* Serving sentences: 13,304

Incarceration rates

2007/08

* Canada: 117 people in custody for every 100,000 (including youth) * United States: 762 in custody per 100,000 (not including youth)

Annual budget for prison infrastructure

* 2005-06 $88.6-million
* 2007-08 $103.1-million
* 2008-09 $151-million
* 2009-10 $195.1-million
* 2010-11 $211.6-million
* 2011-12 $163.2-million
* 2012-13 $113.1-million

Farewell to the farms

After more than 150 years, Ottawa is shutting down the Prison Farm Program, which teaches inmates to take care of animals and provides products to the prison population. The government notes that of 25,000 offenders released over the last five years, less than 1 per cent found work in agriculture.

Sources: Responses tabled in the House; Statistics Canada

.

Gawddamned Harpercrit fascist fucks!

So that's what the cancellation of the prison farm program is about - using the land for privatized superprisons, instead of allowing the incarcerated to connect with the land, and appreciate the satisfaction of growing things.

This is truly, remarkably evil.

Quote:

After more than 150 years, Ottawa is shutting down the Prison Farm Program, which teaches inmates to take care of animals and provides products to the prison population. The government notes that of 25,000 offenders released over the last five years, less than 1 per cent found work in agriculture.

So the inmates receive less fresh food, less fresh air, and no contact with nature through the animals that they formerly cared for.

And the Harper government justifies this because only 1% have family farms to return to after their sentences? Did anyone in the entire country actually think that this program was about job training?

Bill C-15 Senate hearings

*Videos and transcripts*

Bill C-15 - SENATE COMMITTEE HEARINGS

-FrankD

FYI: Parts 3 thru 5 uploaded. [Parts 1 & 2 coming soon]

These clips are from the second day of testimony by Senate Cttee witnesses.

*** Please help direct more people to the Bill C-15 YouTube Channel ***

http://www.youtube.com/user/CannabisFactsForCdns

When members of Parliament return in January from their holidays, Bill C-15 be looked at again in the House soon after. We need as many people as possible to be familiar with this legislation by then.

Contact your member of parliament and explain to them why it's so important for them to vote against Bill C-15.

-FrankD

Bill C-15 explained
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/BillC15explained.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ VIDEOS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bill C-15 Senate 10/21/09 Q&A with Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada

---

[Part3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rophlpf6L8c

Senators Wallace and Milne questions:

1) How will Bill C-15 affect small scale grows and those who are growing for medical use but who do not have a license to grow from Health Canada (MMAR)
2) How are people going to know the details of this bill if it becomes law?

---

[Part 4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYcFvW_okPY

Senator Milne questions:

1) How will Bill C-15 affect those who are growing for medical use but who do not have a growing license from Health Canada (MMAR)
2) Availability of drug courts?
3) What data do we have on the effectiveness of drug courts in Canada?
4) Do you have any proof that mandatory minimum sentence will work?

---

[Part 5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96altt9f0XQ

Senator Angus question:

1) Will Bill C-15 make Canadians safer?

---

PRI$ONS!

The motivations for Bill C-15 are being revealed...

-FrankD

related post

==================

CN BC: Jail Rests On Boosting Prisoner Total

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n157/a05.html Wed, 03 Mar 2010

JAIL RESTS ON BOOSTING PRISONER TOTAL

THE CITY is banking on the federal government sending more people to jail for longer periods of time if its hope of an economy-boosting jail here is to be realized.

A city co-sponsored feasibility study lists three pieces of legislation the federal government wants passed, each one of which would result in more people headed for federal jail cells.

One piece of legislation calls for minimum sentences for serious drug cases, another would end the practice of lopping off two days for every day a person is sentenced if that person has been in jail since first arrested and another would impose mandatory jail time for fraud.

The new sentence requirements could boost the federal jail population by 70 per cent, the study suggests.

[snip]

Background

A number of bills introduced by the federal government in the House of Commons are expected to be passed into law. These bills are expected to have an impact on inmate population in both federal and provincial correctional facilities.

Bill C-15: Minimum Sentences

On February 27, 2009 the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Robert Nicholson, introduced in the House of Commons Bill C-15 to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ( Library of Parliament, 2009a ).

Bill C-15 seeks to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ( "CDSA" ) and thereby the Criminal Code to impose minimum sentences for certain serious drug offenses such as dealing drugs for organized crime purposes or when a weapon or violence is involved.

Bill C-15 specifically mentions that in 2006/07 that approximately fifty percent of all drug-related court cases do not result in convictions and convictions rarely result in sentencing incarceration. The majority of offenders only receive probation. This data has drawn the conclusion that there are not sufficient penalties defined in the CDSA to act as a dete rrent.

Currently the CDSA does impose maximum penalties for drug offences but there are currently no mandatory minimum penalties for drug related offences. Primarily the CDSA offences include possession, "double doctoring," trafficking, importing and exporting, and production of substances denoted within the CDSA.

Highlighted Bill S-10 Senate transcripts (May 11, 12 & 13)
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums.html

QUOTES:

Conservative Senator John D. Wallace: "It is the government's view that production from six plants and up does constitute serious drug crime."

Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: "We need to face facts: the problem is not the substance; it is the prohibition of that substance."

-FrankD