NDP leader Jagmeet Singh says drug addictions are social justice, not criminal justice, mattersLaw & Order | 207186 hits | Nov 06 12:58 pm | Posted by: N_Fiddledog Commentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
|
Singh said addiction is rooted in issues of poverty and mental health.
�To me poverty, mental health and addictions don�t sound like criminal justice problems,� he said. �They sound to me like a social justice problem.
�That�s why I�m calling for the decriminalization of all personal possession offences when it comes to drugs to make a difference in the lives of people and actually bring real change.��
So what exactly is he saying then? Take Fentanyl, for example. That's an opioid.
What specifically does he mean if he is saying he wants to "decriminalize Fentanyl?"
So what exactly is he saying then? Take Fentanyl, for example. That's an opioid.
What specifically does he mean if he is saying he wants to "decriminalize Fentanyl?"
Sensationalism. Yawn.
Sensationalism. Yawn.
Is it?
Let's talk some numbers then:
At least 2,458 Canadians died from opioid-related overdoses in 2016: report
B.C. opioid crisis: Province on pace for more than 1,400 overdose deaths in 2017
Singh was talking opioids. Let's not pretend this was just about Marijuana.
So what I'm saying is very well, how exactly would this plan of decriminalizing something like Fentanyl work then? What exactly would be done to stop Fentanyl street sales by treating it like a social rather than a criminal problem?
-J.
"Singh drew a standing ovation when he said the New Democrats would decriminalize personal possession of all drugs, not just marijuana.
Singh said addiction is rooted in issues of poverty and mental health.
�To me poverty, mental health and addictions don�t sound like criminal justice problems,� he said. �They sound to me like a social justice problem.
�That�s why I�m calling for the decriminalization of all personal possession offences when it comes to drugs to make a difference in the lives of people and actually bring real change.��
Key words... personal possession... not sales, importing, etc. Filling up our jails with addicts does just that, it fills the jails, leaving no room for real criminals like crooked politicians and CKA posters.
Sensationalism. Yawn.
Is it?
Let's talk some numbers then:
At least 2,458 Canadians died from opioid-related overdoses in 2016: report
B.C. opioid crisis: Province on pace for more than 1,400 overdose deaths in 2017
Singh was talking opioids. Let's not pretend this was just about Marijuana.
So what I'm saying is very well, how exactly would this plan of decriminalizing something like Fentanyl work then? What exactly would be done to stop Fentanyl street sales by treating it like a social rather than a criminal problem?
Well, that two thousand that died would still be living if placed with the 40,000 or so prisoners in jail right now. Or perhaps it would be more humane (and cheaper) to provide safe drugs at supervised safe injection sights.
Key words... personal possession... not sales, importing, etc. Filling up our jails with addicts does just that, it fills the jails, leaving no room for real criminals like crooked politicians and CKA posters.
I see. So these guys below would, of course, be charged:
But the guy who bought a few pills off him would not be.
So how is this different from what's happening now, and why would you expect anything to improve?
Apparently, some European countries claim some success decriminalizing something like Heroin and allowing simple possession of small amounts. I'm wondering why we would expect the same for behind the counter opioids acquired illegitimately then sold on the street by dealers. There is already the option of acquiring Fentanyl legally. Does Singh want to make it easier to get? Over the counter or something?
I glanced around. Didn't see anything about how well that might work if it was ever tried. Maybe you can.
Key words... personal possession... not sales, importing, etc. Filling up our jails with addicts does just that, it fills the jails, leaving no room for real criminals like crooked politicians and CKA posters.
I see. So these guys below would, of course, be charged:
But the guy who bought a few pills off him would not be.
So how is this different from what's happening now, and why would you expect anything to improve?
Apparently, some European countries claim some success decriminalizing something like Heroin and allowing simple possession of small amounts. I'm wondering why we would expect the same for behind the counter opioids acquired illegitimately then sold on the street by dealers. There is already the option of acquiring Fentanyl legally. Does Singh want to make it easier to get? Over the counter or something?
I glanced around. Didn't see anything about how well that might work if it was ever tried. Maybe you can.
Perhaps I can make it simple: people who are addicted are treated for their addiction, perhaps by being provided with the substance they are addicted to and if they request it, treatment by other means (like methadone...I think that's what it's called.). Having 40 000 pills is trafficking, not being an addict! These drugs are payed for, at this time, through criminal activities and the sex trade. If the drugs are provided by the government than much of that crime will be eliminated. If they are consumed at safe injection sites than EMS workers can go back to saving auto accident victims and heart attacks . Society wins.
Fentanyl is a prescription drug.
My question has to do with such prescription opioids. You can already get it legally or illegally. Many are choosing the illegal option and thousands will die.
Why does Singh think he will solve this problem by not charging when the possession is a limited amount? Do they even charge addicts now if they just have a few prescription pills? What would the penalty, if any, be for that? I don't know and couldn't find any info on it.