Posted by David Bratzer, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences continues to be a hot topic in the world of drug reform. (Yes, I admit it, I am a policy nerd and this stuff excites me.)
In Pennsylvania, a major new study suggests the state should alter its sentencing laws. The report found that mandatory minimums did not affect recidivism, although they did encourage plea bargaining. From the Delco Times:
A nearly 30-year debate on mandatory-minimum sentences recently got a another look with a new report from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.
I write in advance of your anticipated vote on the Report of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs regarding Bill C-15, an Act to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Please forgive the mass nature of this communication but the exigency of the circumstance necessitated direct, and swift, contact with you all.
I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to reject the Committee Report as a prelude to rejecting the Bill entirely. I know this would be an unusual action for the Senate. Most legislation sent to you by your colleagues in the House of Commons is approved. But if there were ever a time for the Senate to fulfill its traditional role as the body of sober second thought, this is that occasion.
The Senate committee deleted 3, b, i, but left 3, b, ii intact. ii prescribes 9 month terms if aggravating factors such as renting or using residential property are concerned.
Section 3:
(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:
(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,
Subsection (3):
(a) the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence;
Honourable Senators, thank you for the invitation to testify. I have read the transcripts of past proceedings and appreciate the hard work this Committee is doing on this vital issue. All Canadians deserve the kind of rigourous analysis that this body has conducted. I urge you to continue to apply that kind of rigour to your deliberations and to fulfill this House’s traditional role as the sober second body of our government and reject this radical and dangerous escalation of the war on drugs.
Read more »
OTTAWA — For the second time this fall, a committee of the Liberal-dominated Senate has amended a Conservative law-and-order bill, eliminating an element that would automatically send marijuana growers to jail for at least six months if they're caught with as few as five plants.
The committee altered the controversial bill Thursday to retain a judge's discretion when sentencing offenders convicted of growing fewer than 200 plants, putting the upper chamber on a collision course with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.
Automatic terms for a variety of other drug-related crimes — for the first time in Canada — were kept intact.
Nicholson, however, seized on the committee's move to highlight divisions between the Liberals in the Senate and the House of Commons.
The drug bill sailed through the Commons earlier this year after the Liberals teamed up with the Conservatives, despite grumbling within Grit ranks that they were being told to support a bad bill so they wouldn't be accused of being soft on crime.
It now proceeds to the Senate for a final vote. After that, the bill only requires a signature by the Governor General to become law.
This unfortunately means we will be unable to delay C-15 any further, and short of rejection by the Senate (highly unlikely), we will face passage of this bill before, or shortly after, the Winter break. Read more »
The Senate Constitutional and Legal Affairs committee today voted to remove under 201 plants from C-15's mandatory minimum sentencing provisions, so long as the production occurs outside of residential areas and in properties owned by the grower.
Let me be clear:
If you produce 1 plant in a residential neighbourhood, C-15 still prescribes a 9 month sentence.
If you produce 1 plant in a rented property, C-15 still prescribes a 9 month sentence.
If you produce 1 plant in a house that you own, C-15 still prescribes a 9 month sentence.
If you produce 200 plants on a farm that you own, C-15 does not apply.
Unfortunately, the Committee was missing the two most prominent critics of C-15 during the clause-by-clause debate today, and were unable to propose ammendments to remove 1-201 plants in residential or rented properties.
This was a victory today, but a small one, that primarily effects rural areas, leaving urban areas under the thumb of these ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences. Read more »
With remarkably little debate, the Conservatives have pushed through major changes to the justice system in the name of being ‘tough on crime.' But legal experts say it all could lead to a U.S.-style future of bursting prisons and cash-strapped courts – without making us any safer.
By. Kirk Makin, Globe and Mail
Tough, uncompromising and characteristically in high dudgeon, federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson makes a powerful salesman for a government sworn to stop mollycoddling criminals.
Welcome to WhyProhibition.ca. We are working to repeal the prohibition of cannabis by organizing and educating the public. Sign up to get activism alerts, and access to organizing tools.
Posted by 
The Senate has accepted the proposed amendments 49-43.
Honourable Senators, thank you for the invitation to testify. I have read the transcripts of past proceedings and appreciate the hard work this Committee is doing on this vital issue. All Canadians deserve the kind of rigourous analysis that this body has conducted. I urge you to continue to apply that kind of rigour to your deliberations and to fulfill this House’s traditional role as the sober second body of our government and reject this radical and dangerous escalation of the war on drugs.
With remarkably little debate, the Conservatives have pushed through major changes to the justice system in the name of being ‘tough on crime.' But legal experts say it all could lead to a U.S.-style future of bursting prisons and cash-strapped courts – without making us any safer.
