Drug Czar Touted

Drug Czar Touted
Posted by CN Staff on July 06, 2002 at 07:29:46 PT
By Raquel Exner -- Staff Writer
Source: Edmonton Sun 
A member of the combined forces Green Team - which cracks down on marijuana grow operations - agrees with Edmonton's police chief that a drug czar is needed to develop a national strategy to fight drug use. RCMP Const. Dennis Hartl said it's a good idea because the strategy needs to be "better co-ordinated across the country." And sentences in each province should be equal for similar drug crimes, so people aren't crossing borders to get lighter sentences, he said.
"There should be universal sentencing across Canada." Police Chief Bob Wasylyshen also told The Sun this week he is "warm" to the idea that people found with less than 30 grams of weed should be ticketed instead of criminally charged, but only if the government introduces programs to curb demand for the drug. This could include prevention, education and treatment. Wasylyshen stressed he doesn't support legalizing marijuana. Hartl, however, said people who get busted for possessing small amounts of marijuana usually get slapped with a fine, not a criminal record. In Ottawa, federal Justice Department spokesman Irene Arseneau said she couldn't speculate on whether the government would provide treatment and education programs if personal-use pot possession is decriminalized. But she noted two drug courts exist - in Toronto and in Vancouver - that let offenders enter treatment instead of going to jail. And that could wind up being a national program, she said. Meanwhile, the Green Team searched an unoccupied home last week near 85 Street and 120 Avenue, seizing 350 marijuana plants with a street value of $350,000, along with $10,000 in growing equipment. Senh Chi Diep, 23, of Edmonton, has been charged with production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking. Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB) Author: Raquel Exner -- Staff WriterPublished: Saturday, July 6, 2002Copyright: 2002 Canoe Limited PartnershipContact: sun.letters Website: Articles & Web Site:Canadian Links Policy Scandalizes Drug Czar U.S. in Drug Discussions, Panel Hears Czar Wants Tougher Stance Against Marijuana Czar Visits Canada Wants Tougher War on Pot 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #6 posted by Lehder on July 09, 2002 at 13:03:19 PT
fifty experiments
Right on, kaptinemo. That's exactly how I've always understood our theoretical system of governance: fifty experiments in democracy. Each can learn from the successes and failures of the others, and people can vote with their money, skills and feet. It's a system for sorting out the the effective from the ineffective - but now it's only an abstraction.I can't seem to find any references to the expression "fifty experiments in democracy" though I'm certain I didn't make it up. Maybe I'm remembering "forty-eight experiments..." or "thirteen experiments...."
------George Bush today proposes an experiment for curtailing corporate corruption. It's the same as the proposal for reducing marijuana dealing in Lambreth - the doubling of prison terms. Well, I'm all in favor of imprisoning those who rip off the savings and retirements of working Americans, and George Bush and Dick Cheney should be at the head of the line for colonoscopy searches on their way into the big house. But Prison as a solution to each and every problem we encounter only speaks to the crudity to which our one-answer-for-all fifty democracies has degenerated and the crudity of the people it has empowered. Now I'd like to hear the 49 traitorous, unAmerican, soft-on-terrorism, soft-on-crime, soft-on-drugs intelligent proposals. Because the DOW as I write this is down 178 and the usual cure-all PRISON doesn't even make people feel good any more as they descend into the third world.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on July 09, 2002 at 11:59:20 PT:
Consistency...and tyranny
The original idea behind the United States was that if you didn't like the laws in another State (and the State interests were too entrenched to be moved, even at the ballot box) you could move to a State where the laws were more sensible.Thus, taking your money and your skills to more appreciative climes. The State which wouldn't 'wake up and smell the coffee' loses out economically, and suffers. The one which has 'smelled the coffee' - and kept itself free of prejudicial nonsense - benefits. A weak Federal government assured that free travel and movement of capital made for a healthier , more free government. Hence the loud defense of State's Rights in the last century.But all that's changed.The attacks upon the cannabis clubs were the last nail in the coffin for State's Rights. When California legislators - representing one of the most powerful State economies in the Union - proved what political eunuchs they were by allowing this to happen without a single protest, the die was cast. The Feds are only doing what had been in the cards for the last 30 years, as far back as Tricky Dick's tenure in the Whor - uh, er, White House. I've heard some of my Canadian friends complain sometimes about how they feel that their Provincial politics should be superceded by a stronger Canadian Federal government. I usually point out the abuses the US Feds have engaged in...and ask them if they can be so blind as not to see the risks in having too much centralized power. One look across the border should be enough to convince any Canadian of the dangers of allowing that much power to be held by people too far away to throttle when they get too big for their britches...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on July 06, 2002 at 10:18:19 PT
Old editorial somehow seems appropriate 
The Baltimore Sun
January 7, 2001
A Confederate in the Cabinet
Opposition: Should the attorney general be someone who doubts that the
preservation of slavery was a "perverted agenda"?
By Norman Solomon
Originally published Jan 7 2001
Norman Solomon is executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a
nationwide consortium of policy researchers with offices in San Francisco and

MORE THAN 13 decades after Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the U.S.
Senate is getting ready to confirm as attorney general someone who has voiced
fervent admiration for the Confederacy. It's an almost unbelievable situation.
Yet many news outlets - and the vast majority of senators - are perpetuating a
state of denial.
John Ashcroft, defeated for re-election to the Senate in November, is the
incoming president's most controversial Cabinet pick. Arguments are raging about
Ashcroft's hard-line positions against civil rights, affirmative action, school
desegregation, women's rights, abortion, gay rights and protection of civil
liberties. Media attention has focused on the extraordinary actions that he took
in 1999 to block the appointment of African-American Judge Ronnie White to the
federal bench by smearing him as "pro-criminal."
If he becomes attorney general, Ashcroft will be the nation's chief law
enforcement officer. He'll have enormous power while running the Justice
Department and making weighty recommendations to the president on judicial
appointments. For good measure, Ashcroft will oversee such agencies as the FBI,
the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
and federal prisons.
Less than two years ago, in an extensive interview with Southern Partisan
magazine, Ashcroft was emphatic about his admiration for Jefferson Davis and
other Confederate leaders. At the time, the senator was considering a run for
the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, a quest that would have involved
cultivating support among white voters in GOP primaries in the South.
During the interview, Ashcroft praised Southern Partisan as a magazine that
"helps set the record straight," adding "You've got a heritage of
doing that, of defending Southern patriots like Lee, [Stonewall] Jackson and
Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand
up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were
giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some
perverted agenda."
Should the attorney general of the United States be someone who doubts that
the preservation of slavery was a "perverted agenda"?
That's not the only question arising from the interview. And to fully
understand the impact of Ashcroft's words, you must understand who reads
Southern Partisan, which has been described as "a leading journal of the
neo-Confederacy movement."
In 1996, the magazine asserted that slave owners "encouraged strong
slave families to further the slaves' peace and happiness." And in 1990,
Southern Partisan touted former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke as "a
Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal."
Some Ashcroft backers have strained to pooh-pooh the fallout from the
interview. For example, a Dec. 31 editorial in the Detroit News scoffed at any
suggestion that Ashcroft's comments "call into question his commitment to
civil rights and may be grounds for a challenge to his appointment."
The newspaper declared: "That's a nonsensical smoke screen. The views
Sen. Ashcroft shared several years ago with Southern Partisan magazine reflect a
curious American reality - the ability to reconcile admiration for the courage,
nobility and commitment of the rebels with an objection to their cause."
In fact, Ashcroft derided the idea that pro-slavery leaders had a blameworthy
agenda, and he did not express any "objection to their cause." The
Detroit News editorial was misleading in another important respect: Like so much
other media coverage, it did not scrutinize - or even mention - Ashcroft's
sweeping endorsement of Southern Partisan as a magazine that "helps set the
record straight."
Avoidance of Ashcroft's overall record has been typical of editorials by
newspapers supporting him for attorney general, including the Boston Herald, the
Atlanta Journal and the Chicago Tribune.
But at least as many daily papers - notably the New York Times, the San
Francisco Chronicle and the Star Tribune in Minneapolis - have editorialized
against the Ashcroft nomination. And quite a few other dailies (such as The Sun,
the Atlanta Constitution, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times and St. Petersburg
Times)have expressed editorial misgivings.
Perhaps most telling has been the response from the most prominent newspaper
in the prospective attorney general's home state of Missouri, the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch - which swiftly urged the Senate to "investigate Mr.
Ashcroft's opposition to civil rights, women's rights, abortion rights and to
judicial nominees with whom he disagrees."
The Post-Dispatch recalled that "Mr. Ashcroft has built a career out of
opposing school desegregation in St. Louis and opposing African-Americans for
public office."
It's no surprise that Bob Jones University, notorious for bigotry, gave
Ashcroft an honorary degree in 1999. Accepting the award in person, he was proud
to deliver the commencement address.
While the country's editorial writers and columnists are deeply divided over
whether Ashcroft should become attorney general, there is much less division in
evidence on Capitol Hill. Republicans, of course, are marching to Bush's drum.
Meanwhile, the Senate's 50 Democrats have been mealy-mouthed at best.
Democratic politicians are fond of preening themselves as champions of civil
rights. But now, at a pivotal moment in history - while some complain that
Ashcroft's ideology makes them uncomfortable and promise that the nominee will
face tough questions - the bottom line is that the Democrats in the Senate seem
very willing to cave.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont lost no time signaling pacific intent toward
Ashcroft, a six-year-member of the club: "I do not intend to lead a fight
against him."
Another purported liberal on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Joseph R. Biden
Jr. of Delaware, was quick to say: "Unless there's something I'm unaware
of, I'd be inclined to vote for him."
The Ashcroft nomination could turn out to be the defining issue of the
presidential transition. Right now, the cowardice of Senate Democrats is sending
an obscene message of contempt toward all Americans who have struggled against
racism since the Civil War.
See also:
A Confederate in the Cabinet
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by R-Earing on July 06, 2002 at 09:37:36 PT:
Don't they learn?
After seeing how a "drug Czar" worked out for the USA this guy wants the same? Is he just dense or not paying attention? "Oh ya, having a Fuhrer is working out great for the Germans-look at how well the trains are running!"
It's silly to envy bad things.About sentencing:Canada is really inconsistent.Same offence in different provinces gets 10X the sentence-for breaking a federal law.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by John Tyler on July 06, 2002 at 07:56:26 PT
That's right...
by making everything illegal then you can investigate and arrest anybody for anything if you feel like it. This is how it works for minority or other unacceptable social goups. I have tried to point this out in letters to black congressmen and black newspapers, but they ignore me. I can't tell if they don't care, now that they have "a piece of the pie", or if got bought off or sold out.  
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on July 06, 2002 at 07:38:32 PT
Jim Crow
"Hartl, however, said people who get busted for possessing small amounts of marijuana usually get slapped with a fine, not a criminal record."Good, then change the laws to reflect that standard practice! What does he think this is? That's how police states work - everything's illegal, so the State has something against every single person. I'm sure this argument was invoked many times in support the Jim Crow laws - Oh, don't worry, most Negroes that look a white woman in the eye are let off with just a warning! Only the real unruly types are arrested! 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment