Why Prohibition?

To oppose C-26, contact your Member of Parliament or call the Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, directly at 613-995-1547 or email Nicholson directly. Remember to keep it short and respectful!

The Conservative Government wants to introduce new 'tough on crime' legislation, including Mandatory Minimum Sentences for drug crimes. The scientific evidence, as we intend to show, proves that Mandatory Minimums do not deter drug offenders, that Prohibition is a failed strategy, the Cannabis itself out to be legalized, these laws are unnecessary to begin with and finally, that the Candian public does not support prohibition. From all facets, Bill C26 is a failed strategy before it is enacted; Canadians want our Representatives to answer a simple question: Why?

Mandatory Minimum Sentences:

According to the Rand Corporation 1997 study on Mandatory Minimums 'Mandatory minimum sentences are not justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing cocaine consumption, cocaine expenditures or drug-related crime.'.

According to the Canadian Justice Department 2003 study 'excessively harsh penalties may undermine the certainty of punishment by reducing the risk of incarceration'



Both studies concluded that Mandatory Minimums are not cost-effective or an effective deterrent for drug-related crime.

Why does the Conservative Government want to disregard expert evidence on Mandatory Minimum Sentences?

Prohibition is a Failed Strategy:

According to the Fraser Institute study on Marijuana prohibition:

'Marijuana is too easily produces and exported to be controlled with the tools available to law enforcement in a free society'

An end to prohibition 'would transfer the revenue from the current producers and middlemen, many of whom are associated with organized crime, to the government'.

According to the Canadian Senate report, Prohibition 'benefits organized crime, increasing its wealth, power and possibility of corruption'

Marijuana should be legalized:

According to the Canadian Senate committee report: 'regulation of the production, distribution and consumption of cannabis, inasmuch as it is part of an integrated and adaptable public policy, is best'

'We believe, however, that the continued prohibition of cannabis jeopardizes the health and well-being of Canadians much more than does the substance itself'

There is no justification for this new law:

According to Statistics Canada 'Canada's overall national crime rate, based on incidents reported to police, hit its lowest point in over 25 years in 2006'

'Total drug crimes increased by 2% in 2006. Cannabis offences continued to account for about 60% of all drug offences, and these were down 4%.'

Overall, Cannabis trafficking and production were down 1% in 2006.

There is no public support for this law:

In 2004, SES Research conducted a poll of Canadians opinions on Marijuana; only 8% supported criminal prohibition.

Only 34% of Canadians oppose the Legalization and Regulation of Marijuana.

Mandatory Minimums don't work, neither does prohibition, Cannabis out to be legalized, crime rates are down and the public supports Legalization; so, we as Canadians are forced to simply ask: Why? Why is the Conservative party again ignoring science in favour of ideology? Why is the Conservative party pursuing a strategy which fuels organized crime? Why?

Why does the Conservative party support Organized Criminals?

Details of Bill C-26

Summary:

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.

PROPOSED NEW MANDATORY SENTENCES FOR SERIOUS DRUG OFFENCES SCHEDULE II DRUGS (CANNABIS AND MARIJUANA)

Aggravating Factors List A

The aggravating factors include offences committed:

• for the benefit of organized crime;

• involving use or threat of violence;

• involved use or threat of use of weapons;

• by someone who was previously convicted (in the past 10 years) of a serious drug offence.

² Aggravating Factors List B

The aggravating factors include offences committed:

• in a prison;

• in or near a school, in or near an area normally frequented by youth or in the presence of youth;

• in concert with a youth

• in relation to a youth (e.g. selling to a youth)

³ Health and Safety Factors

• the accused used real property that belongs to a third party to commit the offence;

• the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;

• the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area;

• the accused placed or set a trap.

-Language in Law as Proposed (as pertains to growing)

if the subject-matter of the offence is cannabis (marihuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 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 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 listed 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 listed in subsection (3) apply,

(v) imprisonment for a term of two years if the number of plants produced is more than 500, and

(vi) imprisonment for a term of three years if the number of plants produced is more than 500 and any of the factors listed in subsection (3) apply;

(2) Section 7 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The following factors must be taken into account in applying paragraphs (2)(a) to (b):

(a) the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence;

(b) the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to persons under the age of 18 years who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;

(c) the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or

(d) the person set or placed a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to another person in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area, or permitted such a trap, device or other thing to remain or be placed in that location or area.

Authors Notes:

In the Detailed Backgrounder for Bill C-2, involving mandatory minimum sentences for Gun Crimes and impaired driving, the authors note that there is no evidence to show that Mandatory Minimums work at all, with special note being given to their ineffectiveness in deterring drug offences. This is confirmed by multiple studies including 2 by the Canadian Government, as well as the largest study to date conducted on Mandatory Minimums, by the Rand Corporation.

Organized Crime, as defined by Canadian Law, involves 3 people, thus anyone conspiring with three people (eg: Grower, Transporter, Seller) is subject to a 1 year minimum sentence.

Growing 1 plant = 6 months in Jail.

Growing 1 plant in a rental = 9 months in Jail

Growing 1 plant using Weapons, Violence for Organized Crime = 6 months

Growing 1 plant in a prison, in a school, with youth or for youths = 6 months

The legislation only increases punishment for growing in relation to rentals, booby-traps, not in relation to organized crime or violent acts.

Producing Hash-Oil (1 year) = Growing 500 Plants (1 year) = Trafficking Amphetamines, Heroin, Cocaine for Organized Crime (1 year)