wiebul ludwig

[coppertop]

HORSE, for God sake, Jim Rozco terrorized his community, preyed on kids and other things too dispicable to mention.
To lay blame in the RCMP is WRONG !!! He stalked officers to their homes, taunted them every chance he got and when they did get enough on him to put him behind bars the judge slapped his wrists.

His place was a chop shop, and a grow up as well. Are police supposed to turn a blind eye to these things. Do you ever wonder how many young lives were screwed up due to the drugs he grew and sold ?????

[Horse]

I think you got all your info from the media ,asuming that 1 plant is to many just how many do you think he grew,and do you realy believe 1 man could terrorize the whole detachment with all thier resources? And the chop shop how many vehicles was there ,this was just bad police work.

[coppertop]

Horse, I happen to know many people in the community where he lived. His own brothers are heart broken over what happened, and they have come out publically saying how horrible he was.

A very good friend of mine heard on the radio about four RCMP officers not responding etc., and the first thing she said was Jim Rozco....she has known him since she was a little kid and knew what he was capable of.

I think the police made some grave errors and it cost them their lives, but making an error does not mean they should have been shot.

Within fifteen miles from my home there have been two grow- op/chop shop operations uncovered in the past year and a half, this stuff is serious business, and these guys aren't playing tiddly winks .


I have seen in my owm community the heartbreak families are going through because some jerk got their child hooked on dope.....the only good thing that came out of Rochfort Bridge on March 3 of last year is Rozco doing himself in. Saved the taxpayers one hell of a lot of money !!!

[cowman]

Horse: I would say the two examples you quoted are good reasons to have gun control? Two irresponsible people who never should have been allowed to own a gun?
This isn't the wild west where you shoot first and ask later!
"Accidents" happen...not deliberate stupidity with a gun!
Rosco was a criminal and a sexual predator. He obviously had some mental problems as well as a very violent temper? Is that the kind of person who should be allowed to have a gun?
The mounties aren't perfect, but I like to believe they are decent people trying to do their jobs of upholding the law? Those four young men did not deserve to be shot down like dogs by a deranged madman.

[FarmRanger]

Question? Is it legal to have guns in those racks that sit up in the back window of a pickup truck? My neighbor has guns in his, and he may not be a Ludwig or Roscoe, but he definately isn't real stable either.

Just curious if he is breaking any law by carrying guns that way?

[coppertop]

As far as I know the guns can be transported as long as they are not loaded, but there may be some stipulation that they must be out of sight if the vehicle is not occupied eg: [parked], I am not sure of that.
Unless the individual has threatened someone with a gun he is allowed to own them, and as happened in the Rozco case even when they have been found to be unstable they can own an arsenal!!

There are lots of coconuts that own guns and sometimes they are pretty scary. My wacky neighbour is scarier out on the road in his manure spreading truck than anyone else around here with a gun as far as I know.

[kpb]

roscoe had a bad past but I have to agree with horse that he was not running a grow-op. Even the police admitted later on that they found only a couple of plants, not a grow-op that would be used for selling.

kpb

[coppertop]

The information I have heard from our local RCMP was that there were enough plants and associated materials to consider it a grow-op.
The RCMP are faced with entering hostile premises on a daily basis somewhere in this country, whether they find a grow up, an arsenal of illegal guns or chop shops etc., doesn't really matter, its the fact that in many cases they are dealing with people that have a long history of either violence or threats of violence. The situation in Mayerthorpe just compounded the fact that judges being lax have allowed people like Jim Rozco to continue their suspect activities and be a threat to society vs being incarcerated.

[Horse]

Copertop just how big of a jail would you like ,man if you put everyone in jail that broke the laws there wouldnt be enough people to look after them all.
As for the local RCs telling you a story ,they are still trying to figure who to hang this mess on, and after all they are just human and they sure do look after themselves.
And no they shouldnt have been shot no one should but the basic premis of policing is to intimidate well sooner or later there is going to be those that have had enough and will go off the deep end. Enough said.

[coppertop]

If the deterrent was severe enough perhaps people would think twice before committing crimes.

The new government certainly sounds like they mean business when it comes to getting tough on criminals. If they need to build more jails then so be it. More criminals in jails may mean the streets and communities are safer for the law abiding citizens !

Or, horse, do you advocate allowing criminals to run the country. Then we could get rid of the RCMP and just have every man for themselves.

GEE, didn't it used to be like that before the WEST WAS WON ????

[kpb]

If we stopped putting people in jail and wasting police time and money on petty marijuana offences, we could spend more time and money on dangerous offenders.
A large portion of those in jail are in there for drug offences. If the non-addicting drugs, at least, were legalized and regulated, a lot of manpower and jail room would be freed up.
The case could also be made that all drugs should be legalized. If this was done, and regulated, there would be a huge drop in crime. Many crimes are commited because of the so-called crime tarrif that means that drugs are expensive to buy simply because they are illegal. Drug addicts are then forced to steal, etc. in order to get the money to pay for their habit. With legalization you not only eliminate jailing people for possession, and eliminate gang control of distribution (through legal, regulated outlets), you also eliminate the huge amount of crime that is perpetuated in order to get money to get drugs.

kpb

[coppertop]

The cost to regulate drugs would superceed the cost to keep people in jail !!!

If we bow to pressure from drug users and regulate the damn things then we may as well turn the country over to those who seek to destroy our youth by getting them hooked on these substances.

Perhaps we should forget trying to regulate the sale and consumption of alcohol at the same time. We have police and emergency response folks cleaning up bodies after car wrecks as a result of drunken driving on a weekly basis now, so if we legalize dope and booze we could keep them busier.

If the jails are full of people who commit crimes in order to obtain drugs then they are criminals. Providing them drugs legally is not going to change the fact they are willing to rob, vandalize, threaten and commit acts of violence while under the influence of these substances. Legalizing them is not going to make this country safer for the rest of us that manage to get through life without crutches such as booze and dope, and interestingly enough we also manage to get through our problems, ups and downs in life without bludgening our spouse, family or terrorizing our neighbourhoods.

[kpb]

coppertop, your arguments are the same old tired ones that authorities have used for about 70 years as they waged a war on drug use. Do you think they're winning the war?
As far as costs are concerned I think you need to do some research. The cost to keep someone in jail is between $25,000 and $40,000 per year. Do you seriously think that regulating drugs like alcohol would cost that much?
The fact is that over half the people in jail are there for drug offences.
The only way to ensure that young people do not use drugs is to legalize and regulate. The current laws on drug use by anyone have not made a slightest difference in the use by the youth. But more liberal laws would allow for better treatment for the sick and abused and a stiffer ban on selling to the under-age (as per alcohol). None of the above is currently being done in a meaningful way.
The reason that crime is associated with drug use is not, for the most part, because there are drug-crazed addicts roaming the streets but, rather, because people who take drugs have to spend a lot of money to buy those drugs. Why? Because the drugs are illegal and, because of that there is a crime tarrif on them that inflates their price. Drug users then have to steal and kill to get the money to buy the drugs. This would be eliminated with legalization.
Finally, your argument that because a law is on the books it has inherent value is completely specious. Laws change all the time. A few hundred years ago we chopped off hands for stealing. Presumably we are more enlightened now so no longer do that. A law is only valid for a particular society at a particular time. I say that attempts to make drug use (and for that matter, prostitution)illegal have not worked and cannot work. Your way is self-evidently not working.

kpb

[coppertop]

This post was originally about Weibo Ludwig, who I don't think was ever charged with drug related crimes.
It then discussed Jim Rozco, who among other things was a predator against young men. Now, I doubt that any thinking person would legalize that behavior.

Communities all across this country are fighting a huge battle against crystal meth. The government has just made accessing the ingredients more difficult by keeping them off the shelves in drug stores and behind the pharmacy counter. Should they be put back on the shelves and regulated ??? I think not !!!

People who make the choice to use any substance realize there is a cost to doing so. Some people choose to drink up every penny they make, leaving the cost to look after the social and creature comforts of themselves and family if they have one to the rest of society.
Legalizing soft drugs is not going to take away the criminal element. If they choose to spend all their disposal income on the REGULATED drugs then what is stopping them from turning to crime to provide the funding for their creature comforts, or do the rest of us have to support them as they snort, sniff and smoke what little brains they have away ??

This morning at our local IGA Garden Market a young man carried out my groceries. He was an outstanding young fellow, wonderful athlete, excelled at school, was his parents pride and joy and their dreams rested with him.

HE got mixed up with crystal meth some time ago and literally burned out his brain to the point where he now spends his days as a grocery boy under the auspices of the local handicapped society. Talk to his parents about legalizing drugs and whether they feel that the jails are full of poor misguided souls that would promply become model citizens if they could just get their habits legalized.

Life is about choices, if we choose to break laws that have been enacted by governments that are elected by the people, then we pay the consequences. If the laws are too restrictive the governments of the day will have to react to pressure from the public to relax them. I know where my MP stands on legalizing drugs, and making things tougher for the criminal element, and his stand is supported by a vast number of people as evidenced by his overwhelming majority in the recent election.

In fact, at the next meeting of his executive I am going to ask the membership what they think of the ideas you have posed,, then I will duck !!!!!

[FarmRanger]

Well said coppertop.

kbp said
"But more liberal laws would allow for better treatment for the sick and abused and a stiffer ban on selling to the under-age (as per alcohol). None of the above is currently being done in a meaningful way."
We have laws against selling drugs to underage people now, and legalizing them for everyone over 18 is going to help this... how? Liberalizing laws and making drugs cheaper is going to keep more people off of them? It seems counter-intuitive and dangerous to me.
Yes, we have people still abusing drugs even though they are illegal, but would legalizing drugs help or hinder that? Cheaper drugs might eliminate criminal profits from drugs, but would it result in less or more lives being ruined by drugs? You say we pay $25,000 to$40,000 a year to house drug criminals in jails, but what’s the cost to society for a brain-mushed druggie and how many more of them will be created through drug legalization? Is there any other jurisdiction in the world that has tried throwing open the drug pandora’s box, and if so, are there measurable successes or failures? It sure sounds like a dangerous social experiment that would use our youth as the guinea pigs.

I think you'll find that western nations have never cut off hands as a punishment for stealing. I believe it's a practice exclusive to middle eastern countries. And it has nothing to do with the validity of drug laws in Canada.