Login / Register"still thinking about you" ... i am confused, feeling lost too, and i am so sorry. pls, go to fb, cause i think it is you.
Leaders debate: Jane Sterk offers fresh ideas on crime and prohibition
Wow. That's all I can say after transcribing Green Leader Jane Sterk's comments on crime in today's televised debate.
More on the B.C. leaders debate
NDP's Carole James delivers a spellbinding performance in leaders debate
Gordon Campbell, Jane Sterk, and Carole James on the economy
Whereas B.C. Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell and NDP Leader Carole James kept trying to outdo one another with their Republican law-and-order banter, Sterk stood out in stark contrast by emphasizing her opposition to prohibition.
“If more police, more prisons and more prosecutors was a solution to safer streets, the United States and China would be the safest countries on the planet, and they’re not," Sterk said in her opening comment on the issue. "We believe that the root cause of the gang violence that we see in the Lower Mainland and elsewhere in British Columbia is directly related to prohibition of substances. The last time we saw this kind of gang violence—this kind of murderous gang violence—was when there was prohibition against alcohol in the 20s and 30s. When that ended, the gang violence ended. So we need to get into prevention."
Sterk also said on more than one occasion that we "cannot police ourselves out of social problems".
"So we need to create the social infrastructure to take care of people so we prevent them from getting into gangs," she said.
The NDP's James, on the other hand, said her party has put forward a plan for putting more police on the streets and creating a dedicated team of Crown prosecutors.
"We’ve doubled the number of police that are put forward in the Liberal plan," James said. "We’re making sure our streets are safe. And we’re also going to make sure we focus on prevention to make sure we keep young people out of gangs.”
Campbell responded that his government has hired more than 1,100 additional police officers since it was elected in 2001—and this year, another 168 officers have been added.
"Gangs are not welcome in British Columbia," Campbell said. "We’re going to go after them with additional police officers. We’re going after them with additional prosecutors. We’re working with the federal government to make sure that they toughen the Criminal Code so we make sure our police officers actually have the tools they need. But you know, I think we should recognize the integrated task force we have are doing a great job on behalf of all of us. Over a dozen gang leaders have been put behind bars in the last few weeks alone. And that’s a real tribute to our police forces.”
James and Campbell then debated the meaning of the provincial budget, which called for a $10-million reduction in courts and prosecutors.
That prompted Sterk to say that she felt she wasn't present in the debate because Campbell and James kept perpetuating an argument that we can police our way out of social problems.
"It costs $55,000 to keep someone in poverty in this province," Sterk said. "It costs $140,000 to hire a police officer. At some point in time, we have to look at the way we’re spending our money so that we start to have different choices and make different choices. We have to deal with prohibition. Get these substances out of the hands of the bad guys, and control the supply and distribution.”
Repealing prohibition is the only way to stop the gangs, stop gang recruitment, deter police corruption, halt the disorder and decay in the downtown eastside. Enforcing the drug war keeps prices high which makes the drug market attractive to hundreds of thousands of young people. Jailing them only increases gang recruitment, as gangs run the jails in this province. Jails cost the citizen dearly for no improvement ion the street.
I'm surprised, Janice, you manage to get out and vote, because your mind is clearly unable to absorb rational ideas. Consistent with your ignorance, I urge you to vote BCNDP or BC Liberal.
You can follow the American "Banana Republican" example, and create local economies in which beggars make a better living than people who actually work hard cooking your dinner, raising your kids and building your houses, or you could, instead, conduct yourselves like a civilized country. People turn to dope because there's nothing else left for them. And throwing addicts in prison only worsens the problem.
Even communist China has state-sponsored rehabs for addicts, job training and various social programs to help addicts in early recovery rejoin the real world...and in that respect, the Chinese are far more civilized, and have a deeper sense of social responsibility than us Westerners.
Political agitators excluded, ordinary Chinese don't live in terror of the police as Americans do! Criminalizing everyday, minor rule-breaking and witch-hunting one's own people is mostly common in the U.S., the U.K. and (sorry) Canada.
RT
www.anonymity.ru.tc
Janice, I'm 24, Smoke a lot of pot and happen to make 50k/year working as a software developer.
You don't know what you're talking about at all, prohibition doesn't work, pot doesn't make you lazy.
Stop spreading lies.
@Janice: It sounds like you're unaware of how easy it is to get pot in BC currently, despite it being illegal. If anyone wants it currently, they can get it. The issue is about 'who controls it'.
the suggestion to legalise has come up before. anyone who seriously advocates it would be the first target of the drug cartels of course. but getting murdered by the cartels aside, once any government takes it over there'd be an army of bureaucrats, government inefficiency would set in, all the bureaucrats would be permanently stoned, no records would be kept & taxpayers would have to subsidise it. only a courageous politician would advocate creating another underperforming government agency.
legalising it may be the answer. the current situation clearly isn't working.
... paul, melbourne, australia
First of all, it isn't legal in Mexico: small amounts have been decriminalized. Secondly, you have no concept of time: it has been a week, and drug crime was rampant long before the measure. Who can't think rationally? Looks like it's you, Janice. Everyone else makes sense in here except you. All you are doing is preaching war and violence, because you hate drug users, and you want to see them harmed and hurt. Take a step back and examine your motivations. Do you see anyone here advocating locking *you* up in prison for your private personal lifestyle?
Pages