I think there is a medical component to addiction, obviously, but it doesn't force a drinker or drug addict to commit crimes. You can be an alcoholic, but it doesn't make you drive while drunk. You can be a drug addict or use drugs, but it doesn't force you to do home invasions or beat people. Many drug addicts get money without resorting to violence. There are also ways of asking for help. If someone repeatedly commits crimes and uses the excuse of addiction I think that shows a pattern and an unwillingness to change. How do you feel about escalating sentences? Every crime gets you double the sentence from the previous? No need for three strikes then. Where did you get the info in Coleman and Michael Campbell convicted of DUI?[/QUOTE]Cock Throppled said:
Made a mistake it was Gordon Campbell, not Michael. Rich Coleman part was from Marc Emory originally, but was also brought up at an all candidates meeting in Langley that Coleman attended. He didn't refute the comment when it was brought up. The media has kept that part from the public, but it explains why he has been soft on the problem.
I don't make excuses for anyone using cars or anything else under the influence. Home invasions are not caused by the drugs they are sometimes the consequence of not dealing with the root cause. Putting people in jail is a stop gap that wont lead anywhere except big prisons. They can maybe protect society for awhile, but in the mean time we must go after the real root cause. No drug addicted meth head worries too much about consequences of their actions, they just don't think rationally. They have a mental illness in my opinion, and maybe have to be kept away from society until they can do so, or maybe they stay in a mental hospital on a permanent basis. I don't believe on time limit sentences made by some judge, much like rapist leaving after a time period even though they have refused any treatment. Much like I believe pedophiles can't be cured of that illness and maybe shouldn't get out at all
Addiction leads to many crimes (property, burglary, etc), so you try to deal with addiction. Its only logical to go after the source of the problem. Some drugs are more addictive than others so you put your efforts most towards those drugs. Hence why I am for legalizing pot and using the miss spent money towards more useful endeavors like Meth. Same with heroine, I would expand that program for free heroine. Even though I know there are people that go on about the costs of those programs, but I have lost lots of money to property crime because of their need for drug money. Take the criminality out of the drug business, you take away the money. If there is no money to be made then there won’t be so much interest smuggling in drugs to a market that isn't there anymore. How many new addicts will you get when the pusher gives away drugs at risk of getting caught only to have his newly addicted customers go get them for free from a government program?
The continual idea pushed by police/politicians to just make laws and tough sentences to stop social problems hasn't worked. These comments always sound good on the sound bytes as solving the problem. It would be interesting to see how much crime is left to deal with, if the drug problem was dealt with properly.
