Friday, June 12, 2009

Why are Liberals Setting Canada Back Decades

I've complained all the way up to the top. Nobody cares that there is no evidence whatsoever that Bill C-15 will reduce drug crimes. NONE.

At least somebody at The Star is writing about it. Apparently it's all about the polls?



Photobucket

8 comments:

bigcitylib said...

I would have to see those surveys she's talking about before I believed her. My impression was that about 2/3 Canadians were for decrim.

Toe said...

It boggles. My concern (now) is how much leeway will the judges have. If they are not free to use their own minds, they will be handcuffed. What will a judge do with he's got a father/husband, served in Afghanistan and seriously suffering with PTSD, no criminal background, in front of him? (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/649681) The choice for that guy is liberty or health?

In the Senate's final summary (2002) it was stated - In addition to being ineffective and costly, criminalization leads to a series of harmful consequences: users are marginalized and exposed to discrimination by the police and the criminal justice system; society sees the power and wealth of organized crime enhanced as criminals benefit from prohibition; and governments see their ability to prevent at-risk use diminished.------

So what is this really about, the Growers?
Don't vote for politicians who choose to ignore the significant harms that result from cannabis prohibition.

Brent said...

I suppose supporting failed Conservative ideology and sending a message to the Canadian people that the Liberal Party of Canada is incapable of defending its own membership's stance on the issue is much easier than educating the general population about the facts and explaining to them why mandatory minimums will only create new problems and make the current problems even worse.

Devin Johnston said...

I asked myself the same question that appears in the title of the post throughout the Chretien-Martin era. The best answer that I can come up with is that Liberals (the politicians, not the supporters) are largely faux progressives. They are nominally supportive of progressive causes, but that support is fickle and depends on poll numbers and opportunism. It's the same reason that the Liberals were against employment insurance during the last recession but are all for it now.

KC said...

Further to what Devin just said: My sense has always been that for the most part the Liberal Caucus is more conservative than the Liberal rank and file. Can't really put forward any objective evidence to that effect but that has been my sense.

roblaw said...

Bang on, James, bang on.

It's about votes. End of story.

Neither Harper nor Ignatieff are stupid enough to actually believe this will have a postive outcome for Canada, but both of them know it will play well to the great middle.

Politics is stupid sport.

Toe said...

Bingo! KC

Spudster said...

Sadly it's true that when the question is framed around minimum sentences for trafficking, the public supports this legislation. But when asked the other way around, whether to legalize Cannabis, you get a much different story.

The point is, the way you frame the issue will change how the electorate responds to the issue. The best way the Libs could have fought back was by supporting Keith's pragmatic but progressive decrim bill. They are on the right side of the public with that legislation.