Bill C-15 has passed in Canada. You will get 6 Months prison for one plant. ORGANIZE.
- Thread starter StrainCollector
- Start date
StrainCollector
Member
dasruckus thank you for the heads up! I edited my first post, but I feel I did a terrible job. halp!
Fatigues, can you help me out bro, you are very very knowledgeable. - Since the the bill is S-10 (Senate), is it true that contacting your MP about it won't do anything? Should I advise people to contact their senators? I sort of feel like I don't know what I'm talking about in my first post, I feel like a janitor giving a physics lesson, and I would really like you to have a say on what goes into editing it, or preferably a whole column of yours pasted into it.
--->
Also if anyone can help, I'd love to see a collection of short, easy to remember, talking points against the bill that people can continually add to. We need something like "Talking Points against Bill C15/S10", for example:
I'm sorry if I'm jabbering..
Fatigues, can you help me out bro, you are very very knowledgeable. - Since the the bill is S-10 (Senate), is it true that contacting your MP about it won't do anything? Should I advise people to contact their senators? I sort of feel like I don't know what I'm talking about in my first post, I feel like a janitor giving a physics lesson, and I would really like you to have a say on what goes into editing it, or preferably a whole column of yours pasted into it.
--->
Also if anyone can help, I'd love to see a collection of short, easy to remember, talking points against the bill that people can continually add to. We need something like "Talking Points against Bill C15/S10", for example:
- "sending nonviolent-offenders to prison only shapes them into dangerous people" or
- "the further you ban an item, the more profitable that item becomes for criminals, as seen with Al Capone during alcohol prohibition".
I'm sorry if I'm jabbering..
The whole thing rests on what is claimed to be Democracy. If the people want something as a majority and that never comes into law then democracy has failed. I don't understand why we have people 'controlling' things for us when they are clearly doing it wrong.
One thing to help people see the problems is looking at alcohol in comparison to marijuana.
SAFERchoice has this outlook and may show people what's wrong with our current set-up. I mean what is so hard about understanding that alcohol kills and aids in domestic violence?
Plus, if you ask anyone what the LD50 of marijuana is I'm sure they can't tell you a figure that's even possible to consume.
I'm sure that the way society operates is just a way for people to cope with the collective insanity.
One thing to help people see the problems is looking at alcohol in comparison to marijuana.
SAFERchoice has this outlook and may show people what's wrong with our current set-up. I mean what is so hard about understanding that alcohol kills and aids in domestic violence?
Plus, if you ask anyone what the LD50 of marijuana is I'm sure they can't tell you a figure that's even possible to consume.
I'm sure that the way society operates is just a way for people to cope with the collective insanity.
FrankDiscussion
Member
A thread like the one you described, with quotes & key messages about Bill S-10, would be a valuable resource.
-FrankD
-FrankD
get your facts straight too...read this
BILL S-10
PROJET DE LOI S-10
An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts
Loi modifiant la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances et apportant des modifications connexes et corrélatives à d’autres lois
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Sa Majesté, sur l’avis et avec le consentement du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada, édicte :
SHORT TITLE
TITRE ABRÉGÉ
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act.
1. Loi sur les peines sanctionnant le crime organisé en matière de drogue. Titre abrégé
1996, c. 19
CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
LOI RÉGLEMENTANT CERTAINES DROGUES ET AUTRES SUBSTANCES 1996, ch. 19
2. (1) Paragraph 5(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is replaced by the following:
2. (1) L’alinéa 5(3)a) de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances est remplacé par ce qui suit :
(a) subject to paragraph (a.1), if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and
(i) to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if
(A) the person committed the offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, as defined in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code,
(B) the person used or threatened to use violence in committing the offence,
(C) the person carried, used or threat-ened to use a weapon in committing the offence, or
(D) the person was convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for a designated substance offence, within the previous 10 years, or
(ii) to a minimum punishment of impris-onment for a term of two years if
(A) the person committed the offence in or near a school, on or near school grounds or in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years,
(B) the person committed the offence in a prison, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, or on its grounds, or
(C) the person used the services of a person under the age of 18 years, or involved such a person, in committing the offence;
(a.1) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II in an amount that is not more than the amount set out for that substance in Schedule VII, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years less a day;
a) dans le cas de substances inscrites aux annexes I ou II, mais sous réserve de l’alinéa a.1), un acte criminel passible de l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure :
(i) à un an, si la personne, selon le cas :
(A) a commis l’infraction au profit ou sous la direction d’une organisation criminelle au sens du paragraphe 467.1(1) du Code criminel ou en association avec elle,
(B) a eu recours ou a menacé de recourir à la violence lors de la perpétration de l’infraction,
(C) portait ou a utilisé ou menacé d’utiliser une arme lors de la perpétration de l’infraction,
(D) a, au cours des dix dernières années, été reconnue coupable d’une infraction désignée ou purgé une peine d’emprisonnement relativement à une telle infraction,
(ii) à deux ans, si la personne, selon le cas :
(A) a commis l’infraction à l’intérieur d’une école, sur le terrain d’une école ou près de ce terrain ou dans tout autre lieu public normalement fréquenté par des personnes de moins de dix-huit ans ou près d’un tel lieu,
(B) a commis l’infraction à l’intérieur d’une prison au sens de l’article 2 du Code criminel ou sur le terrain d’un tel établissement,
(C) a eu recours aux services d’une personne de moins de dix-huit ans pour la perpétration de l’infraction ou l’y a mêlée;
a.1) dans le cas de substances inscrites à la fois à l’annexe II et à l’annexe VII, et ce, pourvu que la quantité en cause n’excède pas celle mentionnée à cette dernière annexe, un acte criminel passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de cinq ans moins un jour;
(2) Subsections 5(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(2) Les paragraphes 5(4) à (6) de la même loi sont remplacés par ce qui suit :
Interpretation
(5) For the purposes of applying subsection (3) in respect of an offence under subsection (1), a reference to a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV includes a reference to any substance represented or held out to be a substance included in that Schedule.
(5) Dans le cadre de l’application du paragraphe (3) à l’égard d’une infraction prévue au paragraphe (1), la mention d’une substance inscrite aux annexes I, II, III ou IV vaut également mention de toute substance présentée ou tenue pour telle. Interprétation
Interpretation
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(a.1) and Schedule VII, the amount of the substance means the entire amount of any mixture or substance, or the whole of any plant, that contains a detectable amount of the substance.
(6) Pour l’application de l’alinéa (3)a.1) et de l’annexe VII, « quantité » s’entend du poids total de tout mélange, substance ou plante dans lequel on peut déceler la présence de la substance en cause. Définition de « quantité »
3. Paragraph 6(3)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
3. L’alinéa 6(3)a) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
(a) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I in an amount that is not more than one kilogram, or in Schedule II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if
(i) the offence is committed for the purposes of trafficking,
(ii) the person, while committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority, or
(iii) the person had access to an area that is restricted to authorized persons and used that access to commit the offence;
(a.1) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I in an amount that is more than one kilogram, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years;
a) dans le cas de substances inscrites à l’annexe I, et ce, pourvu que la quantité en cause n’excède pas 1 kg, ou à l’annexe II, un acte criminel passible de l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure à un an si, selon le cas :
(i) l’infraction est commise à des fins de trafic,
(ii) la personne, en perpétrant l’infraction, a commis un abus de confiance ou un abus d’autorité,
(iii) la personne avait accès à une zone réservée aux personnes autorisées et a utilisé cet accès pour perpétrer l’infraction;
a.1) dans le cas de substances inscrites à l’annexe I, et ce, pourvu que la quantité en cause excède 1 kg, un acte criminel passible de l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure à deux ans;
4. (1) Paragraphs 7(2)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
4. (1) Les alinéas 7(2)a) et b) de la même loi sont remplacés par ce qui suit :
(a) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years if any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply and for a term of two years in any other case;
(a.1) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II, other than cannabis (marihuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment
(i) for a term of one year if the production is for the purpose of trafficking, or
(ii) for a term of 18 months if the production is for the purpose of trafficking and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply;
(b) if the subject matter of the offence is cannabis (marihuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years, and to a minimum punishment of
(i) imprisonment for a term of six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five, and the production is for the purpose of trafficking,
(ii) imprisonment for a term of nine months if the number of plants produced is less than 201, the production is for the purpose of trafficking and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply,
(iii) imprisonment for a term of one year if the number of plants produced is more than 200 and less than 501,
(iv) imprisonment for a term of 18 months if the number of plants produced is more than 200 and less than 501 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply,
(v) imprisonment for a term of two years if the number of plants produced is more than 500, or
(vi) imprisonment for a term of three years if the number of plants produced is more than 500 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply;
a) dans le cas de substances inscrites à l’annexe I, un acte criminel passible de l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure à deux ans ou, si l’infraction est commise dans l’une ou l’autre des circonstances prévues au paragraphe (3), à trois ans;
a.1) dans le cas de substances inscrites à l’annexe II, à l’exception du cannabis (marihuana), un acte criminel passible de l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure :
(i) à un an, si l’infraction est commise à des fins de trafic,
(ii) à dix-huit mois, si l’infraction est commise à des fins de trafic dans l’une ou l’autre des circonstances prévues au paragraphe (3);
b) dans le cas du cannabis (marihuana), un acte criminel passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de quatorze ans, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure :
(i) à six mois, si l’infraction est commise à des fins de trafic et que le nombre de plantes en cause est inférieur à 201 et supérieur à cinq,
(ii) à neuf mois, si l’infraction est commise à des fins de trafic dans l’une ou l’autre des circonstances prévues au paragraphe (3) et que le nombre de plantes en cause est inférieur à 201,
(iii) à un an, si le nombre de plantes en cause est supérieur à 200 mais inférieur à 501,
(iv) à dix-huit mois, si le nombre de plantes en cause est supérieur à 200 mais inférieur à 501 et que l’infraction est commise dans l’une ou l’autre des circonstances prévues au paragraphe (3),
(v) à deux ans, si le nombre de plantes en cause est supérieur à 500,
(vi) à trois ans, si le nombre de plantes en cause est supérieur à 500 et que l’infraction est commise dans l’une ou l’autre des circonstances prévues au paragraphe (3);
get your facts straight too...read this
BILL S-10
PROJET DE LOI S-10
An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts
Loi modifiant la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances et apportant des modifications connexes et corrélatives à d’autres lois
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Sa Majesté, sur l’avis et avec le consentement du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada, édicte :
SHORT TITLE
TITRE ABRÉGÉ
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act.
1. Loi sur les peines sanctionnant le crime organisé en matière de drogue. Titre abrégé
1996, c. 19
CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT
LOI RÉGLEMENTANT CERTAINES DROGUES ET AUTRES SUBSTANCES 1996, ch. 19
2. (1) Paragraph 5(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is replaced by the following:
2. (1) L’alinéa 5(3)a) de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances est remplacé par ce qui suit :
(a) subject to paragraph (a.1), if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I or II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and
(i) to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if
(A) the person committed the offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, as defined in subsection 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code,
(B) the person used or threatened to use violence in committing the offence,
(C) the person carried, used or threat-ened to use a weapon in committing the offence, or
(D) the person was convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for a designated substance offence, within the previous 10 years, or
(ii) to a minimum punishment of impris-onment for a term of two years if
(A) the person committed the offence in or near a school, on or near school grounds or in or near any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18 years,
(B) the person committed the offence in a prison, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, or on its grounds, or
(C) the person used the services of a person under the age of 18 years, or involved such a person, in committing the offence;
(a.1) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II in an amount that is not more than the amount set out for that substance in Schedule VII, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years less a day;
a) dans le cas de substances inscrites aux annexes I ou II, mais sous réserve de l’alinéa a.1), un acte criminel passible de l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure :
(i) à un an, si la personne, selon le cas :
(A) a commis l’infraction au profit ou sous la direction d’une organisation criminelle au sens du paragraphe 467.1(1) du Code criminel ou en association avec elle,
(B) a eu recours ou a menacé de recourir à la violence lors de la perpétration de l’infraction,
(C) portait ou a utilisé ou menacé d’utiliser une arme lors de la perpétration de l’infraction,
(D) a, au cours des dix dernières années, été reconnue coupable d’une infraction désignée ou purgé une peine d’emprisonnement relativement à une telle infraction,
(ii) à deux ans, si la personne, selon le cas :
(A) a commis l’infraction à l’intérieur d’une école, sur le terrain d’une école ou près de ce terrain ou dans tout autre lieu public normalement fréquenté par des personnes de moins de dix-huit ans ou près d’un tel lieu,
(B) a commis l’infraction à l’intérieur d’une prison au sens de l’article 2 du Code criminel ou sur le terrain d’un tel établissement,
(C) a eu recours aux services d’une personne de moins de dix-huit ans pour la perpétration de l’infraction ou l’y a mêlée;
a.1) dans le cas de substances inscrites à la fois à l’annexe II et à l’annexe VII, et ce, pourvu que la quantité en cause n’excède pas celle mentionnée à cette dernière annexe, un acte criminel passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de cinq ans moins un jour;
(2) Subsections 5(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(2) Les paragraphes 5(4) à (6) de la même loi sont remplacés par ce qui suit :
Interpretation
(5) For the purposes of applying subsection (3) in respect of an offence under subsection (1), a reference to a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV includes a reference to any substance represented or held out to be a substance included in that Schedule.
(5) Dans le cadre de l’application du paragraphe (3) à l’égard d’une infraction prévue au paragraphe (1), la mention d’une substance inscrite aux annexes I, II, III ou IV vaut également mention de toute substance présentée ou tenue pour telle. Interprétation
Interpretation
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(a.1) and Schedule VII, the amount of the substance means the entire amount of any mixture or substance, or the whole of any plant, that contains a detectable amount of the substance.
(6) Pour l’application de l’alinéa (3)a.1) et de l’annexe VII, « quantité » s’entend du poids total de tout mélange, substance ou plante dans lequel on peut déceler la présence de la substance en cause. Définition de « quantité »
3. Paragraph 6(3)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
3. L’alinéa 6(3)a) de la même loi est remplacé par ce qui suit :
(a) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I in an amount that is not more than one kilogram, or in Schedule II, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year if
(i) the offence is committed for the purposes of trafficking,
(ii) the person, while committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority, or
(iii) the person had access to an area that is restricted to authorized persons and used that access to commit the offence;
(a.1) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I in an amount that is more than one kilogram, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years;
a) dans le cas de substances inscrites à l’annexe I, et ce, pourvu que la quantité en cause n’excède pas 1 kg, ou à l’annexe II, un acte criminel passible de l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure à un an si, selon le cas :
(i) l’infraction est commise à des fins de trafic,
(ii) la personne, en perpétrant l’infraction, a commis un abus de confiance ou un abus d’autorité,
(iii) la personne avait accès à une zone réservée aux personnes autorisées et a utilisé cet accès pour perpétrer l’infraction;
a.1) dans le cas de substances inscrites à l’annexe I, et ce, pourvu que la quantité en cause excède 1 kg, un acte criminel passible de l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure à deux ans;
4. (1) Paragraphs 7(2)(a) and (b) of the Act are replaced by the following:
4. (1) Les alinéas 7(2)a) et b) de la même loi sont remplacés par ce qui suit :
(a) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule I, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years if any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply and for a term of two years in any other case;
(a.1) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II, other than cannabis (marihuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment
(i) for a term of one year if the production is for the purpose of trafficking, or
(ii) for a term of 18 months if the production is for the purpose of trafficking and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply;
(b) if the subject matter of the offence is cannabis (marihuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years, and to a minimum punishment of
(i) imprisonment for a term of six months if the number of plants produced is less than 201 and more than five, and the production is for the purpose of trafficking,
(ii) imprisonment for a term of nine months if the number of plants produced is less than 201, the production is for the purpose of trafficking and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply,
(iii) imprisonment for a term of one year if the number of plants produced is more than 200 and less than 501,
(iv) imprisonment for a term of 18 months if the number of plants produced is more than 200 and less than 501 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply,
(v) imprisonment for a term of two years if the number of plants produced is more than 500, or
(vi) imprisonment for a term of three years if the number of plants produced is more than 500 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply;
a) dans le cas de substances inscrites à l’annexe I, un acte criminel passible de l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure à deux ans ou, si l’infraction est commise dans l’une ou l’autre des circonstances prévues au paragraphe (3), à trois ans;
a.1) dans le cas de substances inscrites à l’annexe II, à l’exception du cannabis (marihuana), un acte criminel passible de l’emprisonnement à perpétuité, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure :
(i) à un an, si l’infraction est commise à des fins de trafic,
(ii) à dix-huit mois, si l’infraction est commise à des fins de trafic dans l’une ou l’autre des circonstances prévues au paragraphe (3);
b) dans le cas du cannabis (marihuana), un acte criminel passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de quatorze ans, la durée de l’emprisonnement ne pouvant être inférieure :
(i) à six mois, si l’infraction est commise à des fins de trafic et que le nombre de plantes en cause est inférieur à 201 et supérieur à cinq,
(ii) à neuf mois, si l’infraction est commise à des fins de trafic dans l’une ou l’autre des circonstances prévues au paragraphe (3) et que le nombre de plantes en cause est inférieur à 201,
(iii) à un an, si le nombre de plantes en cause est supérieur à 200 mais inférieur à 501,
(iv) à dix-huit mois, si le nombre de plantes en cause est supérieur à 200 mais inférieur à 501 et que l’infraction est commise dans l’une ou l’autre des circonstances prévues au paragraphe (3),
(v) à deux ans, si le nombre de plantes en cause est supérieur à 500,
(vi) à trois ans, si le nombre de plantes en cause est supérieur à 500 et que l’infraction est commise dans l’une ou l’autre des circonstances prévues au paragraphe (3);
get your facts straight too...read this
StrainCollector
Member
Unfortunately, the bill passed the senate 
Bump so I can see the new posts. The thread ends at Carpsters post asking about ned, er med permits on my screen.
Feel free to delete this...
Peace
Feel free to delete this...
Peace
Hmmm, how odd indeed...
Edit: it worked! i can now see new posts!
Peace
2nd edit to stay on topic... Death to C15/S10!
Edit: it worked! i can now see new posts!
Peace
2nd edit to stay on topic... Death to C15/S10!
Last edited:
StrainCollector
Member
Yes, unfortunately the bill seems to have passed the senate
What Happened:
Apparently while the Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament, Harper stacked the deck in the senate source and finally Rob Nicholson quietly reintroduced the original bill he wrote. To make matters worse, they ignored all the amendments which the senate had made to the bill last year and they introduced the original 'hardline' bill instead of the improved bill. Regarding Harper's special appointees to the senate: "The makeup of the Senate has changed since it voted last December to amend the bill" "A review of Harper's appointments shows 21 of the 36 have strong partisan links either to Harper personally or the Conservatives.." This may have contributed to the senate's passing of the bill (fyi- the senate is a group of un-elected decision-makers paid $132,300 annually)
Here's some discussions about this news from the past few days which may help explain better:
http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/ec2wb/senate_passes_bill_with_mandatory_jail_sentence/
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ecgrl/canadian_senate_pass_governments_crime_bill_s10/
It's a nightmare. Your fate is apparently in the hands of the House Of Commons.
**Could someone who understands this topic better please weigh in? I'm not the best person for this**
*Note: I hate making these posts, I'm just an average youngster and it's very difficult and scary for me to try to understand things I know nothing about and then attempt to articulate it here. I'm always so scared I'm going to get pounced on. This topic is honestly way out of my depth, so please forgive me for any mistakes I make and please be gentle with my feelings My only intention is to alert people when someone else hasn't and do my best to describe it to my abilities.
- Senate passes bill with mandatory jail sentence for growing 5 pot plants
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Se...il+sentence+growing+plants/3887047/story.html
- The Canadian Senate Friday passed the Conservative government's crime bill, S-10
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/nov/26/canadian_senate_passes_mandatory
- Senate passes S-10
http://whyprohibition.ca/blogs/jacob-hunter/senate-passes-s-10-now-proceeds-house-commons
- Senate backs away from changing bill that targets pot-growers
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/S...+bill+that+targets+growers/3885174/story.html
What Happened:
Apparently while the Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament, Harper stacked the deck in the senate source and finally Rob Nicholson quietly reintroduced the original bill he wrote. To make matters worse, they ignored all the amendments which the senate had made to the bill last year and they introduced the original 'hardline' bill instead of the improved bill. Regarding Harper's special appointees to the senate: "The makeup of the Senate has changed since it voted last December to amend the bill" "A review of Harper's appointments shows 21 of the 36 have strong partisan links either to Harper personally or the Conservatives.." This may have contributed to the senate's passing of the bill (fyi- the senate is a group of un-elected decision-makers paid $132,300 annually)
Here's some discussions about this news from the past few days which may help explain better:
http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/ec2wb/senate_passes_bill_with_mandatory_jail_sentence/
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ecgrl/canadian_senate_pass_governments_crime_bill_s10/
It's a nightmare. Your fate is apparently in the hands of the House Of Commons.
**Could someone who understands this topic better please weigh in? I'm not the best person for this**
*Note: I hate making these posts, I'm just an average youngster and it's very difficult and scary for me to try to understand things I know nothing about and then attempt to articulate it here. I'm always so scared I'm going to get pounced on. This topic is honestly way out of my depth, so please forgive me for any mistakes I make and please be gentle with my feelings
My only intention is to alert people when someone else hasn't and do my best to describe it to my abilities.J. Greenstein
Member
Still has to be passed by House of Commons. I think the bill went way too far and won't ge passed. Who are these criminal organizations with 6 plant grows???
They are everyday Canadians who could be jailed under Harper's (the Canadian George Bush) 'americanization' of our country.
Now we see a link with the proposal to double prison space in Canada, and Harper's talk of potential future privatization of Corrections.
Even if it gets through the HOC, it needs Royal Assent, our last line of potential sanity before laws can become enacted.
Canadian Conservative Attempts to Enact "Inhumane,Unjust Anti-pot Law"
Canadian Conservative Attempts to Enact "Inhumane,Unjust Anti-pot Law"
Canadian Conservatives Attempt to Enact “Inhumane, Unjust” Anti-Pot Law
By Reverend Damuzi, - Monday, December 6 2010 r
CANNABIS CULTURE - Major players in the legal system are calling Canada’s Bill S-10 inhumane and unjust, and with good reason. The bill would amend Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act with mandatory minimum sentences for pot offences and increase the maximum, in some cases, to life behind bars.
Most media have focused on the fact that Bill S-10 would throw growers in jail for six months for a measly five plants. Yet there are far worse consequences for pot lovers in the bill’s frightening amendments, including a complete overhaul of Canada's criminal justice system, jails, and ultimately our freedom-loving culture.
Although the Canadian Senate is still debating the bill, it is now dominated by Conservative members. So it is likely that the bill will pass in the Senate and be sent to the House of Commons for readings, debate and a final vote. Time is running short for Canadians to take action and voice their concerns.
You could be in jail for LIFE!
A read of Bill S-10 reveals that members of Canada’s cannabis culture will be jailed for a minimum of one year, and possibly for life if you are caught:
• Trafficking for the benefit of a criminal organization, which could conceivably include passing a joint, a seemingly innocent behaviour for which Marc Emery was charged with trafficking a few years back. Now if you happen to pass that joint to a biker, you could be in jail for life!
http://adserver.avalonsunsplash.com...__oadest=http://www.cannabisculture.com/store
• Carrying a weapon while selling your favourite plant, which might conceivable include a stick, or even the kind of personal mace that women use to protect themselves from rape.
• Dealing with a drug record from anytime in the past ten years.
The sentence goes up to a minimum two years to life for dealing near a school or involving, in any way, a person under 18. This might mean you got busted driving your kid to school with a couple of weighed-out baggies.
Meanwhile, cannaphiles caught with even a mom-and-pop style operation could face mandatory minimum three-year sentences, since that's the punishment, under Bill S-10, for more than five-hundred plants grown "for the purposes of trafficking". Since, in the past, the courts have counted clones as full plants, a two-hundred-and-fifty plant sea-of-green operation with two-hundred-and-fifty clones sitting ready for the next crop would bust the five-hundred plant threshold. A judge couldn't choose to sentence you to less.
Inhumane and Unjust
With such heinous new laws on the horizon, it is no surprise that major players in the criminal justice system are speaking out against it, including the Canadian Bar Association and the John Howard Society.
The John Howard Society was originally founded in British Columbia in 1931, and was named in honour of a prison reformer who lived in the 1700’s, and who sought to stop the abuse, torture and needless deaths of prisoners in Europe.
The John Howard Society has presented extensive briefs urging parliament to drop Bill S-10. When the bill was originally introduced in 2009 the society’s paper - titled “Ineffective, Unjust and Inhumane: Mandatory Prison Sentences for Drug Offences” - asserted that:
“Mandatory minimum sentences, particularly when they involve long periods of incarceration are incompatible with the Fundamental Principle of Sentencing ... specifically that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender… as such they are liable to give rise to inhumane sentences…”
The paper went on to also explain that, according to Canadian principles of sentencing, enshrined in our criminal code, courts are obliged to explore, “…all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances …”
Bill S-10 clearly does not explore all available alternatives to imprisonment.
The Canadian Bar Association agrees
According to the Canadian Bar Association, which represents lawyers and judges across Canada, Bill S-10’s mandatory minimum sentences “…would not be an effective deterrent to crime”, the sentences would be “unjust and disproportionate”, and ultimately the new law “would not achieve its intended goal of greater public safety.”
Specifically, the Canadian Bar Association warned the senate that the provisions of Bill S-10 “…subvert important aspects of Canada’s sentencing regime, including principles of proportionality and individualization and reliance on judges to impose a just sentence after hearing all the facts in the individual case.”
Under Bill S-10, judges are stripped of their power to make a compassionate ruling.
US-Style Drug War
In the US, mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws have sent prison populations skyrocketing. In 2008, over 7.3 million people were in jail or on probation in the US, higher than any other nation in the world. The massive rise in US imprisonment began at the same time as former US President Reagan’s war on drugs.
The cost of housing millions of prisoners has sucked the US public well dry, resulting in cuts to education and other social programs. Prisons have faced wide-scale privatization, and frequently they turn a profit by paying prisoners pennies to work on assembly lines behind bars. Major corporations benefit from prison labour, and some have even closed their regular plants to avail themselves of a less costly work force. As a result, communities have been devastated (See "US Prison Empire", CC #30).
The ultimate outcome is a circle of prison-feudalism. Some people, desperate and out of work, turn to crime: sometimes even to benevolent so-called “crime” like growing and selling a little pot. If caught, they are thrown in prison and work on assembly lines that take jobs from people in thriving communities.
The NDP is on our side
In a letter released to Cannabis Culture by BC Southern Interior NDP MP Alex Atamanenko, the MP is clear that the NDP are trying to defeat Bill S-10.
“My colleagues and I voted a resounding NO when this Bill was introduced in the House as Bill C-15, but it was passed with the support of the Liberal Party. Now we have a second chance to stop this wrong-headed and costly legislation.”
Our second chance, as Canadians, is to make the choice to pick up the phone and call our MP’s. Obvious targets are Liberal MP’s, who we want to impress with our calm but determined opinions against Bill S-10. Since Canada currently has a minority government, if the NDP and Liberals vote together against this bill, it could be stopped.
We might also call the NDP and ask them to stay strong in voting against this bill, or we might call the conservatives and ask them to reconsider. The important thing is to pick up the phone and make the call to stop a US-style drug war on Canadian soil.
Sentences for Growing Pot under Bill S-10
• Six months to 14 years if the number of plants is between 5 and 200.
• Nine months to 14 years for 5 to 200 plants, grown for the purpose of trafficking.
• One to 14 years for 200 to 500 plants.
• Eighteen months to 14 years for 200 to 500 plants, grown for the purpose of trafficking.
• Two to 14 years for 500 or more plants.
• Three to 14 years if for 500 or more plants, grown for the purpose of trafficking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU CAN HELP STOP S-10 FROM BECOMING CANADIAN LAW
Please contact your Senator and Member of Parliament and tell them to VOTE NO on Bill S-10. No mandatory minimums for marijuana!
Find a link to your Senator's contact info on this list - or call them all!
Find your Member of Parliament's contact info on this list or search with your Postal Code.
Let the Liberal Party know you are against this bill - call Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: (613) 995-9364
http://adserver.avalonsunsplash.com...9af760a5__oadest=http://www.whyprohibition.ca
Canadian Conservative Attempts to Enact "Inhumane,Unjust Anti-pot Law"
Canadian Conservatives Attempt to Enact “Inhumane, Unjust” Anti-Pot Law
By Reverend Damuzi, - Monday, December 6 2010 r
CANNABIS CULTURE - Major players in the legal system are calling Canada’s Bill S-10 inhumane and unjust, and with good reason. The bill would amend Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act with mandatory minimum sentences for pot offences and increase the maximum, in some cases, to life behind bars.
Most media have focused on the fact that Bill S-10 would throw growers in jail for six months for a measly five plants. Yet there are far worse consequences for pot lovers in the bill’s frightening amendments, including a complete overhaul of Canada's criminal justice system, jails, and ultimately our freedom-loving culture.
Although the Canadian Senate is still debating the bill, it is now dominated by Conservative members. So it is likely that the bill will pass in the Senate and be sent to the House of Commons for readings, debate and a final vote. Time is running short for Canadians to take action and voice their concerns.
You could be in jail for LIFE!
A read of Bill S-10 reveals that members of Canada’s cannabis culture will be jailed for a minimum of one year, and possibly for life if you are caught:
• Trafficking for the benefit of a criminal organization, which could conceivably include passing a joint, a seemingly innocent behaviour for which Marc Emery was charged with trafficking a few years back. Now if you happen to pass that joint to a biker, you could be in jail for life!
http://adserver.avalonsunsplash.com...__oadest=http://www.cannabisculture.com/store
• Carrying a weapon while selling your favourite plant, which might conceivable include a stick, or even the kind of personal mace that women use to protect themselves from rape.
• Dealing with a drug record from anytime in the past ten years.
The sentence goes up to a minimum two years to life for dealing near a school or involving, in any way, a person under 18. This might mean you got busted driving your kid to school with a couple of weighed-out baggies.
Meanwhile, cannaphiles caught with even a mom-and-pop style operation could face mandatory minimum three-year sentences, since that's the punishment, under Bill S-10, for more than five-hundred plants grown "for the purposes of trafficking". Since, in the past, the courts have counted clones as full plants, a two-hundred-and-fifty plant sea-of-green operation with two-hundred-and-fifty clones sitting ready for the next crop would bust the five-hundred plant threshold. A judge couldn't choose to sentence you to less.
Inhumane and Unjust
With such heinous new laws on the horizon, it is no surprise that major players in the criminal justice system are speaking out against it, including the Canadian Bar Association and the John Howard Society.
The John Howard Society was originally founded in British Columbia in 1931, and was named in honour of a prison reformer who lived in the 1700’s, and who sought to stop the abuse, torture and needless deaths of prisoners in Europe.
The John Howard Society has presented extensive briefs urging parliament to drop Bill S-10. When the bill was originally introduced in 2009 the society’s paper - titled “Ineffective, Unjust and Inhumane: Mandatory Prison Sentences for Drug Offences” - asserted that:
“Mandatory minimum sentences, particularly when they involve long periods of incarceration are incompatible with the Fundamental Principle of Sentencing ... specifically that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender… as such they are liable to give rise to inhumane sentences…”
The paper went on to also explain that, according to Canadian principles of sentencing, enshrined in our criminal code, courts are obliged to explore, “…all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances …”
Bill S-10 clearly does not explore all available alternatives to imprisonment.
The Canadian Bar Association agrees
According to the Canadian Bar Association, which represents lawyers and judges across Canada, Bill S-10’s mandatory minimum sentences “…would not be an effective deterrent to crime”, the sentences would be “unjust and disproportionate”, and ultimately the new law “would not achieve its intended goal of greater public safety.”
Specifically, the Canadian Bar Association warned the senate that the provisions of Bill S-10 “…subvert important aspects of Canada’s sentencing regime, including principles of proportionality and individualization and reliance on judges to impose a just sentence after hearing all the facts in the individual case.”
Under Bill S-10, judges are stripped of their power to make a compassionate ruling.
US-Style Drug War
In the US, mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws have sent prison populations skyrocketing. In 2008, over 7.3 million people were in jail or on probation in the US, higher than any other nation in the world. The massive rise in US imprisonment began at the same time as former US President Reagan’s war on drugs.
The cost of housing millions of prisoners has sucked the US public well dry, resulting in cuts to education and other social programs. Prisons have faced wide-scale privatization, and frequently they turn a profit by paying prisoners pennies to work on assembly lines behind bars. Major corporations benefit from prison labour, and some have even closed their regular plants to avail themselves of a less costly work force. As a result, communities have been devastated (See "US Prison Empire", CC #30).
The ultimate outcome is a circle of prison-feudalism. Some people, desperate and out of work, turn to crime: sometimes even to benevolent so-called “crime” like growing and selling a little pot. If caught, they are thrown in prison and work on assembly lines that take jobs from people in thriving communities.
The NDP is on our side
In a letter released to Cannabis Culture by BC Southern Interior NDP MP Alex Atamanenko, the MP is clear that the NDP are trying to defeat Bill S-10.
“My colleagues and I voted a resounding NO when this Bill was introduced in the House as Bill C-15, but it was passed with the support of the Liberal Party. Now we have a second chance to stop this wrong-headed and costly legislation.”
Our second chance, as Canadians, is to make the choice to pick up the phone and call our MP’s. Obvious targets are Liberal MP’s, who we want to impress with our calm but determined opinions against Bill S-10. Since Canada currently has a minority government, if the NDP and Liberals vote together against this bill, it could be stopped.
We might also call the NDP and ask them to stay strong in voting against this bill, or we might call the conservatives and ask them to reconsider. The important thing is to pick up the phone and make the call to stop a US-style drug war on Canadian soil.
Sentences for Growing Pot under Bill S-10
• Six months to 14 years if the number of plants is between 5 and 200.
• Nine months to 14 years for 5 to 200 plants, grown for the purpose of trafficking.
• One to 14 years for 200 to 500 plants.
• Eighteen months to 14 years for 200 to 500 plants, grown for the purpose of trafficking.
• Two to 14 years for 500 or more plants.
• Three to 14 years if for 500 or more plants, grown for the purpose of trafficking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU CAN HELP STOP S-10 FROM BECOMING CANADIAN LAW
Please contact your Senator and Member of Parliament and tell them to VOTE NO on Bill S-10. No mandatory minimums for marijuana!
Find a link to your Senator's contact info on this list - or call them all!
Find your Member of Parliament's contact info on this list or search with your Postal Code.
Let the Liberal Party know you are against this bill - call Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: (613) 995-9364
http://adserver.avalonsunsplash.com...9af760a5__oadest=http://www.whyprohibition.ca
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/D...e+Liberals+change+position/4254046/story.html
The Conservative government's controversial bill that would impose mandatory jail time for offenders caught growing a handful of marijuana plants appears headed to the trash can.
The Liberals announced Wednesday they will not support Bill S-10, which has already been passed by the Senate.
"I'm very disappointed that they have had this complete flip-flop," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told Postmedia News.
The Liberals, who supported previous versions of the bill, now say it would excessively punish some people for minor offences and would cost too much to implement because it will jam prisons that are already filled to the brink. The Conservatives have said they will spend $2 billion over the next five years to expand prisons.
The Conservative government's controversial bill that would impose mandatory jail time for offenders caught growing a handful of marijuana plants appears headed to the trash can.
The Liberals announced Wednesday they will not support Bill S-10, which has already been passed by the Senate.
"I'm very disappointed that they have had this complete flip-flop," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told Postmedia News.
The Liberals, who supported previous versions of the bill, now say it would excessively punish some people for minor offences and would cost too much to implement because it will jam prisons that are already filled to the brink. The Conservatives have said they will spend $2 billion over the next five years to expand prisons.
