Tories to outline $64-million anti-drug strategy:

[Praxius]

CTV.ca | Tories to outline $64-million anti-drug strategy

The Conservative government is set to announce today its $64 million anti-drug strategy, touted as a balance between prevention and punishment. Prime Minister Stephen Harper will outline the plan in Winnipeg alongside Health Minister Tony Clement. The initiative will focus on combining prevention and treatment with harsher penalties for illicit drug use and a crackdown against drug smuggling at the border. "There are two aspects to this,'' a source familiar with the announcement told The Canadian Press. "How can you help the user? And the other thing is punishing the dealer.'' Funding for the strategy was set out in the 2007 federal budget. The government has set aside $32 million for treatment facilities like detox and rehab centres. Health Minister Tony Clement said Saturday that the plan will show that the government is "back in the business of an anti-drug strategy." "There hasn't been a meaningful retooling of our strategy to tackle illicit drugs in over 20 years in this country," Clement told CP. Marijuana use About $10 million has been allocated in the plan to fund an awareness campaign directed at young people. The government wants to remind youth about the dangers of marijuana and that the drug remains illegal. The Conservatives quashed a bill from the previous Liberal government decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana shortly after coming to power last year -- despite support for the resolution in the House of Commons from every other party. Since then, drug-related arrests have spiked dramatically across the country with a number of Canadian cities reporting arrest increases by more than one-third. Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Halifax all reported increases of between 20 and 50 per cent in 2006 of arrests for possession of cannabis, compared with 2005 statistics. Police forces claim many people believed the Liberal bill had passed, prompting users to spark up in public without fear of reprisal. As a result, thousands of people were charged with criminal offences that would have been classified as a misdemeanour under the previous Liberal government. Legal experts argued earlier this year that inconsistencies in Canada's marijuana laws made it difficult for the justice system to handle the sudden influx of possession cases brought before the courts under the Conservative government's new focus on enforcement. Other critics claim the crackdown on marijuana is a waste of taxpayers' money and some drug-dependency experts have also challenged the notion that the substance is a 'gateway' to harder drugs. They argue that marijuana actually keeps users from experimenting with other drugs. Safe injection sites In the past, Clement has vocalized his opposition to harm reduction strategies like safe injection sites, where nurses provide clean needles and safe havens to illicit drug users. At a Canadian Medical Association meeting last month, Clement was quoted saying "harm reduction, in a sense, takes many forms. To me, prevention is harm reduction. Treatment is harm reduction. Enforcement is harm reduction.'' Advocates say the sites help to prevent the spread of deadly diseases like AIDS and Hepatitis by reducing the number of needles shared. This week, the federal government granted Vancouver's safe injection site a six-month reprieve, meaning it can stay open until June. While the extension was welcomed, critics say the move simply allows Ottawa to get rid of the issue until after a possible fall election. A Health Canada spokesperson said the exemption will allow the government to conduct further research on the issue.

And that's why they never got my vote last time.... nor will they get my vote this next time.

About $10 million has been allocated in the plan to fund an awareness campaign directed at young people. The government wants to remind youth about the dangers of marijuana and that the drug remains illegal.

Instead of some 10 million dollar awareness plan, why don't they put that money into some actual research into some new "Awareness" with some updated facts?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Praxius Instead of some 10 million dollar awareness plan, why don't they put that money into some actual research into some new "Awareness" with some updated facts?

Come on, do you really need to ask this question?


You know who they are in bed with, and whos opinion they are going to be coming around to.


This is why you don't want your government to have close ties with the US, all the garbage they foist on us is only steps away from becoming your reality.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Come on, do you really need to ask this question? You know who they are in bed with, and whos opinion they are going to be coming around to. This is why you don't want your government to have close ties with the US, all the garbage they foist on us is only steps away from becoming your reality.

Oh I know... it reeks of the US war on drugs.... but for some reason Harper doesn't seem to have noticed it's failures over the last couple of decades.... and a slightly different approach will not make a difference.

The bill has not been passed yet, and I doubt it will pass, considdering all other parties voted for the decriminalization of Marijuana but the Conservatives didn't and had the total opposite approach.... this is continual of their approach and if the other parties are consistant, then they should vote this bill down, since it would be kinda contradicting to first attempt a decriminalization, and then go 180 and support this.

There is rumor that there will be a fall election in Canada, and if this bill doesn't pass, all that is needed is a non-confidence vote by the other parties and we goto the polls.... and I'll be sure to not vote for conservative.... not that I ever did.

They've done a good job getting the debt paid off, they helped a bit to get the canadian dollar to where it is, they've got the military pumped up a lot better to where is used to be..... but this takes the cake for me.

[Milton Bradley]

I think it's a glaring example of what will become tradition if you guys let it happen.


If your politicians hop into bed with Washington, you have to compromise certain things in order to make their jobs ( in Washington ) easier. Our War on Drugs will become your War on Drugs just like it has for Colombia, and Mexico.


Clearly, the cooperation part is what should alarm you, primarily because of the overwhelming evidence that exists to suggest that our government officials don't intend to be bound by any laws that may exist regarding these matters.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Praxius [img] Tories to outline $64-million anti-drug strategy: http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20071004/450_cp_harper_071004.jpg[/img] CTV.ca | Tories to outline $64-million anti-drug strategy And that's why they never got my vote last time.... nor will they get my vote this next time. Instead of some 10 million dollar awareness plan, why don't they put that money into some actual research into some new "Awareness" with some updated facts?

There is no effective anti-drug strategy, policy, etc.
It would cost hundreds of billion of U.S. Dollars, at least.
I see no attempts in order to anticipate and/or appraoch that, so far.

Such plan would require the following (at least) :
1. rehabilitation process for drug-addicted individuals, (and that would cost the most)
2. (a near) total control of all the borders
3. an extremely harsh policy against all drug distributors and/or makers, (including all the supporters)

Point #1, needs a completely new approach that would affect all the HealthCare programs.
It must be supported by Labor and Employment agencies, in order rehabilitated individuals to start participating in their "new life".
Otherwise, all programs, funds, etc. are lost with no chance to recuperate any "penny" out of it.

Point #2, seems to be unreal, completely, since it would require the most modern technology (along with well-trained personnel), to monitor any drug activity around the borders, not to mention hiring new personnel in order to secure and/or protect borders.
A task, that is beyond today's reality.

Point #3, looks as the most realistic.

We are talking hundreds of billion of U.S. Dollars, yearly (!!!), and that must be continued for the next decade, (at least). The ammount of funds would be lowered (eventually), as progress brings positive outcomes.
Then, whatever Canadian governing body says, I feel I am watching "(Political) Comedy Central" channel.

[Chris the Chees]

I can think of a money making scheme to eliminate drug cime; legalise them and put a tax on them.

[Praxius]

And I agree... but I think the only reason why they don't, is because once it is legal... many of these drugs are still much more easier to reproduce on your own then to go out and buy a taxed up version of the drug.

They'd legalize it, tax it beyond belief.... and then everybody would just make their own, because it would be legal to do so..... and the government would still loose out.

Well then again, maybe not.... I mean, if they make it taxed and legal, there still won't be a lot of people who are in the mood to grow their stuff, or know how to, and would rather get stuff form actual companies so that there is a level of quality.

Who knows?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Praxius And I agree... but I think the only reason why they don't, is because once it is legal... many of these drugs are still much more easier to reproduce on your own then to go out and buy a taxed up version of the drug. They'd legalize it, tax it beyond belief.... and then everybody would just make their own, because it would be legal to do so..... and the government would still loose out. Well then again, maybe not.... I mean, if they make it taxed and legal, there still won't be a lot of people who are in the mood to grow their stuff, or know how to, and would rather get stuff form actual companies so that there is a level of quality. Who knows?

But the government losing out on some tax is better for the government than not getting any tax at all.

[Praxius]

Agreed, which I attempted to explain halfway through that quote.... I may have not been clear enough.