# Rochfort Bridge tragedy and consequences



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The loss of four young RCMP officers who were on guard at a farm at Rochefort Bridge that had been raided as a grow-op is a terrible tragedy that will cause much reflection by the RCMP and most Canadians. Three were from one small community. Their loss is incalculable. 

The tragedy will surely also have a drastic effect on the tactics of such raids in the future. The USA DEA has already commented on the proliferation of marijuana growing operations in Canada. After this incident, there will likely be a national task force dedicated to seeking out and terminating such ops, especially the large ones.

Will this have a backlash on the (albeit slow) trend towards legalization of possession? Will the public, who end up paying for the stolen energy costs of hot-wired power in domestic grow operations, see and revolt against the "ugly" side of the trade?

Or is this battle pointless and only solvable by radical action such as legalizing production (thus depriving the criminal element of the enormous profits)?

Even if this was an isolated crackpot, the underground marijuana production economy (said to be worth billions) has undergone a fundamental change in perception by the law and by society.

The focus for the next period of time should and will be on the tragic loss of four men and their grieving families. My heart goes out to them. The long term implications will be dramatic and far-reaching.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*A Canadian Tragedy.*

For those who don't know, four RCMP officers died today in the line of duty near the small community of Mayerthorpe, Alberta.

They were the victims of a deranged man with a high powered rifle. A case of a gun used for evil. (Insert your favourite gun registration argument here.)

Ten years ago, when I was in the business, I received a phone call from the man who pulled the trigger, who accused me of running a newspaper who conspired against him in our coverage of his trial as a sexual assault perpetrator. At the time he harassed our office and staff in that small town.

He called me in my office in Edmonton and swore he would kill me. I in turn in my usual flippant manner told him, "good luck pal" and dismissed him as the musings of a disturbed person.

Today, he shot and killed four RCMP officers.

I cannot even begin to express my grief over those senseless deaths. This man was well known to all in the community, and especially to the RCMP.

I cannot imagine why I survived his fury those many years ago, and today so many died from his actions.

Life is very fragile indeed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Since our threads were posted within a minute or so of each other Jim, perhaps the mayor could combine them?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

peace be with you

this is an historically significant event. wonder what changes it will bring, good and bad


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Agreed.

SINC, your personal encounter with the murderer is spine-chilling. I hope you will keep us abreast of the developments and background to the tragedy. Understanding these events is critical in preventing their repetition.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I blame the unnecessary deaths of these officers on the utter stupidity of marijuana prohibition.

Just as alcohol prohibition created and empowered the Mafia and other organized criminals in the past, marijuana prohibition is doing the same now. Biker gangs and other violent types benefit by being ready and willing to get very nasty for lucrative profits. The potential harm to society posed by marijuana (very minor, IMHO) is not worth any of this.

As a society we are not using our heads. So we step up enforcement now, as Anne McLellan has suggested, and we simply create a situation where only the most hardened criminals will dare to grow pot, for bigger profits to boot, since their risk has now increased. Biker gangs get richer and more powerful.

The police leadership is implicated in this too, as it's in their interest to promote more enforcement, to increase their own bureaucratic fiefdoms. Meanwhile the larger and meaner drug enforcement agencies now become even more prone to corruption, as has happened in all the big US cities as well as Toronto and Montreal.

Marijuana grows like a weed, simply and easily. If it was legal for folks to grow what they want for personal use, it's value would be about the same as home garden grown zucchini. Organized, violent criminals would be shut out.

Instead, expect the insane War On Drugs hysteria to increase.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

why blame anyone

maybe the guy was just a nutjob, ask sinc

he could just as easily been a faller or a water seller or an academic


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I am still trying to recall the details of what I then thought was a nothing phone call.

I will sleep on it and try to give you all a better account of my reactions tomorrow.

One thing I can tell you now though, is that JR had perhaps one of the most eloquent commands of the english language I have ever heard.

His conversations with me were sprinkled with opinions that one would have immediately thought to be those of a university grad, and a well balanced one at that.

Here is the original post in the other thread:



SINC said:


> For those who don't know, four RCMP officers died today in the line of duty near the small community of Mayerthorpe, Alberta.
> 
> They were the victims of a deranged man with a high powered rifle. A case of a gun used for evil. (Insert your favourite gun registration argument here.)
> 
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> why blame anyone


True, this guy may have found another way to kill some people, if he was so inclined.

But the fact that armed grow-ops exist and that police have to raid them is because of prohibition.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I merged the two threads and deleted two posts (one a copy over post by Carex, another a pointer to this thread by Sinc). Joined together now.


----------



## SkyHook (Jan 23, 2001)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have sent an e-mail to the publisher of the Freelancer, the paper in Mayerthorpe who worked for me during my experience with Jim Roszko, the man who gunned down the Mounties.

He is a long time friend, about my age and after reviewing details with him, I will try and post more details on the events leading up to the threat against me. Since I never took it seriously at the time, I did not pay much attentions to exactly what it was that set him off, although I seem to remember it was over a letter to the editor he had written. Later . . .


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GA - exactly!!!! :clap:
It is a decision of society to set up the conditions for profiting from drugs...or alcohol for that matter. 

Maybe, jut maybe this will be a wake up call to move forward hard on a change and THEN these deaths will mean something very valuable as a watershed to a new approach.
It's about time.


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

I haven't purchased street smoke for more than 20 years. I will not buy from "friends" either. Growing my own is not an example I want to share with my children. I will choose not to smoke. My actions or non-actions did not bring on this tragedy. Where do you stand?

A few harmless puffs on the deck at a party? Wherever, it all contributes. Choose to say no.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Never having tried the stuff, I am not a contributor, but rhino's assessment seems right to me.


----------



## rhino (Jul 10, 2002)

We may be thought of as ******** and many other things out West here, but this message should resonate throughout this country.

From Calgary Hearld Editorial:

Killings change rules of the game

Mountie deaths a wake-up call to politicians about drug crimes


Calgary Herald

March 4, 2005

The rules of the game have just changed. With the deaths Thursday of four RCMP officers in the botched bust of a marijuana grow op, the notion that this part of the drug trade rests in the friendly hands of stoned good ol' boys who just want to spread a little happiness has been exposed for the muddy pretence it always was.

Drugs are about money -- big money -- and the marijuana trade is not some sort of criminality-lite, a mild exception in an otherwise nasty business.

At time of writing, details were sketchy about how a lone gunman was able to shoot four police officers dead before committing suicide.

However, it is premature and would be unwise to assume this was an anomaly, an event out of character for people involved with drugs.

While there is no information about the gunman's connections to organized crime, that there will be some is a reasonable speculation.

Gangs need producers, producers need a marketing arm.

Both therefore share responsibility for the drive-by shootings and other incidents of gang-related violence that plague Canadian cities, Calgary among them.

And the deaths of these four officers in the line of duty is a consequence not of a lone crazed gunman.

Rather, they must be laid at the feet of the drug-using culture that supports a whole criminal infrastructure, built upon greed and maintained by the threat, and occasional exercise, of brutal violence.

Enough. For too long, we have diminished the dreadful influence of the marijuana business upon society. The police have been under-resourced to deal with it, and had to watch courts hand out laughably inadequate penalties when a conviction has been obtained.

It is time for politicians to get serious about this business, and the criminals who draw blood profits from it.

To the families of those killed, we express our heartfelt sympathies; to those who take their place, our keen support.

©*The Calgary Herald 2005


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

SINC,

I think we would all appreciate your personal insights into the killer. There is some background information in the Globe and Mail but its only gleaned from his criminal record and a brief interview with his disraught 80 year old father to whom he hadn't spoken for 9 years. As you know all too well, the dynamics and knowledge of your neighbours in small communities is at a completely different level from urban centres. He was well known to the police and they'd removed firearms from him in the past. What made him snap? Was it a matter of time? Were the Mounties adequately briefed? There is a report of him being chased in the night in a white pick-up truck by the RCMP. There is more to this than meets the eye.

I do think there will be a knee-jerk reaction to cracking down on grow-ops - the RCMP and the public will look for some means to "answer" this tragedy but it may spark a lot more violence. I have no sympathy whatsoever for grow-ops, but I do think that conventional warfare on drug production causes far too much collateral damage for the small successes it achieves (vis a vis the American war on drugs).


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

I'm with GA: legalize it, tax it, work on keeping it away from kids as much as possible -- but using health education, not the criminal justice system. Direct resources to education, prevention, and rehab for the minority who become problem users (they do exist, but it is a minority -- I'm tired of advocates claiming it's all good and opponents claiming it's all bad); get the amateur electricians out of our neighbourhoods (scariest part of the whole thing, for me). 

Sadly, though, I think this won't happen any time soon. We'll first go through more killings, and more house fires caused by shoddy electricity-thieving. The reason, as I see it, is simple: our culture has a 10,000-year relationship with alcohol, for both ill and good. Pot, on the other hand, still has an "alien" stigma in western culture, and even though it's objectively no worse than booze we will continue to handle it as something foreign that can be stopped...even though it can't.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Here's a thought. What if we quit trying to stop the grow-ops and cracked down on use. If we made it really difficult for people who use drugs, the market would dry up.

Look what happened when the "no carbs" craze hit North America - it wasn't long before bakeries started whining that it was hurting their business.

Wouldn't it be more cost effective (and safer) to swing down back alleys on a Saturday night with a drug-sniffing dog (with big teeth) and lay a $100 fine on everyone that's out on all those back porches, than to try to suss out the grow-ops and face the armed resistance. It wouldn't be long before the most people would get the message that it just ain't worth it.

I know I'm not describing reality - but there has to be a better way. What we've been doing hasn't been working and the cost is astronomical in comparison to the effectiveness.

It saddens me to realize that last month or last fall or over the last couple of years, I saw all of those young cops taking their driver training on the same streets I drive on, or shopping in the same stores or lining up for the same movies or pitching in for charity events - They become part of our community for the time they are here and although we often don't learn their names or know them individually, they are very important to us. God be with you all.

Margaret


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

winwintoo - The problem I see with going around arresting random drug users is that especially with the homeless a great deal of them don't have $100. If they have a drug addiction, there money is going to end up going to their next fix. It's not easy to quit an addiction, as it is getting a job when you're homeless. I don't see how laying down a $100 fine on someone who has no address or the ability to pay is going to make a difference.

Going after the grow-ops is the only thing that the cops can really do, and it is extremely treacherous.

On another issue, can someone explain to me how a gun registry would have prevented this?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

winwintoo, too much manpower required. The police have cracked down on speeding for years, yet I speed (not excessively IMO) everday. I haven't had a speeding ticket for about 15 years. You'd need a cop on every corner. I'd be willing to be that most pot smokers smoke at home anyway. You'd be busting a lot of teenagers I guess. 

Buddies old man didn't sound like the most stable/sane individual on the radio this morning either. Breeding problem?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

The whole idea of decriminalization is to make it worth the beat-cop's time and effort to write a citation for the ordinary user. As it stands, a cop looks at somebody smoking a joint in the street and sees a bunch of red tape leading to a conditional discharge or a small fine that won't nearly cover the costs to the system. With decrim, that's all changed and the cops can go around writing tickets and generating lots of revenue.

That's the theory, anyway. The reality is likely to be a reduction in public smoking and perhaps an increase in alternative modes of ingestion such as cakes and cookies. (Which is a mixed blessing: reduced harm to the user's lungs, greatly increased risk of accidental consumption by children.)

In short: I also doubt there's any point in cracking down on consumption.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I realize I was just blowing smoke, but there has to be some way to fight this thing that will be more effective. 

Unfortunately, this being a marijuana grow-operation, it will take some of the focus off the problem of crystal meth which is an even bigger problem among our urban youth.

These brave young men lost their lives in a struggle that won't be won in our lifetimes I'm afraid.

Margaret


----------



## talonracer (Dec 30, 2003)

First off, this sickens me. My extreme condolences to the families and friends of the officers.

Secondly, I do not see how this can be used to argue that decriminalization of marijuana is the answer. By that same token, if some teenager in a riced out honda gets in a horrific accident while running from the police and kills several people, can I then argue that speeding should be legalized, because everyone, myself included, does it?

There is a reason marijuana is listed as an illegal substance. I have never tried it, and do not think I ever will. Many of my friends do and I do not judge them because of that, but it is my own personal choice to not do it.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

But Talonracer, I think you would judge your friends if they were involved in street racing or even habitually getting involved in police chases, right?

The argument for legalization (not decriminalization) is that the way to get rid of grow-ops is to put production into the hands of accountable businesses and/or the state. Underground operations pose too many dangers for everyone. 

Simple as that; there's no judgment of whether the consumption of the product is right or wrong, just a claim (one that's very hard to dispute) that the current approach to eliminating it is futile.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over half-a-trillion tax dollars and increasingly punitive policies, our confined population has quadrupled over a 20 years period making building prisons this nation's fastest growing industry. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.6 million for nonviolent drug offenses‹more per capita than any country in the world. The United States has 4.6 percent of the population of the world but 22.5 percent of the world's prisoners. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!


That quote is from the LEAP web site, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization made of people involved in law enforcement who have come to the realization that the War on Drugs is a sham, has never worked and will never work. The organization has a few prominent Canadian members, including Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell, who also was the former Vancouver Coroner, and likely saw scores of the War on Drugs casualties.

Doing the same old thing about drugs has been an abject failure and that tough-talking Calgary Herald editorial simply proposes more of the same. Throw even more money and lives at the problem and this will somehow magically make it go away. Hitting ourselves in the head with a hammer hasn't cured our headache, so let's just use a sledgehammer.

While the editorial correctly identifies growing pot as big business, it doesn't explain why it is big business. The reason why it is a big violent business is simply because of prohibition. Increased sentences, or mandatory minimums, won't deter biker gangs from setting up grow-ops. It will mean that only those criminals who are willing to take the bigger risk for bigger rewards will get involved. Those are typically the most violent and sociopathic amongst them.

And what is the point of all this madness, including the completely unnecessary deaths of those 4 young men? To stop people who like to smoke a bit of pot from doing so? Why?

I have smoked pot and I can tell you that it didn't kill me, or lead me to become a heroin addict or do anything other than be a mild enjoyment that I used occasionally. It is absolutely no different than enjoying a bit of scotch now and then or a couple of martinis occasionally. I know people who smoke pot on a regular basis and they are no less productive members of society than my friends who drink alcohol on a regular basis. Alcohol is actually a much more dangerous drug yet it's use is condoned and even celebrated. All this "Reefer Madness" stuff that Drug Warriors spout is simply BS propoganda, put out by those with an agenda.

Talonracer, you say that there is a reason that marijuana is illegal. Could you please state that reason and explain how it makes any sense?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*What a waste.*

I was sickened and appalled at the headlines this morning. Any time peace officers are killed in the line of duty it has a special significance for society as a whole. For this unmitigated disaster to occur simply as a result of our inability to solve such a trivial problem as a society is a disgusting waste.

I certainly join everyone in offering my deepest condolences to the families and friends of the slain officers.



talonracer said:


> Secondly, I do not see how this can be used to argue that decriminalization of marijuana is the answer. By that same token, if some teenager in a riced out honda gets in a horrific accident while running from the police and kills several people, can I then argue that speeding should be legalized, because everyone, myself included, does it?


I'm afraid that this is a completely inappropriate comparison. The reason speeding is illegal (but not criminal, like drug crimes, BTW) is that it is dangerous to society _in and of itself_. If I drive reclessly, I'm endangering not only myself, but everyone else on the road. If I sit at home and have a beer (or smoke a joint) I'm not endangering anyone. Marijuana is a drug just like alcohol, and, just like alcohol, treating its production and use as criminal issues simply does not work. 

Marijuana clearly needs to be regulated, and its production and profitable sale by organized crime needs to be stopped. The simplest, fastest, most effective and most economically practical way to do this is to legalize it, and tax it, like we have done so successfully with other drugs (alcohol and tobacco).



> There is a reason marijuana is listed as an illegal substance.


Lots of reasons, actually. They range from the lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry (due to the possibility of loosing lots of sales of their less effective, but patented, analgesics and other drugs), to the lobbying from the forest industry (hemp makes great fibre... much better than the trees we are using today, but if we switched to hemp, the forest companies would loose their market for much of their scrap wood), the oil industry (hemp is a great source of biofuels), and many other industries. The fact that many powerful people (ranging from cabinet ministers, and police chiefs to lawyers and drug-lords) stand to loose a lot from the decriminalization of marijuana is also a factor.

However, by any rational standard, marijuana should be legal. Legalizing it would certainly prevent tragedies like yesterday's. How can anyone _not_ see this?



> it is my own personal choice to not do it.


Good for you. I applaud people's choices to take good care of themselves. If you chose not to drink alcohol I would applaud that as well.

Personally, I have no use for marijuana (right now... I might want to use it if I were suffering from some chronic illness that was alleviated by THC). But I completely support its decriminalization, and even its legalization.

I hope we can achieve that before more police officers are needlessly endangered by this useless conflict.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The speeding laws do work. The fact that speed limits are exceeded is not an indicaiton of failure, its just that cops will go after those that excessively speed. It is also a whopper of a revenue generator. Even speed cameras are set significantly above the speed limit (although the delta is up to the local authority so there can easily be a cash grab).

The problem with decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana in Canada is that will have no effect on the grow-ops that are primarily targeting the USA market. I sincerely doubt that this market will disappear and so the "professional" grow-ops will continue. The one at the centre of yesterdays tragedy may have been small and those sort of operaitons may disappear if there was a loss of local market. For grow-ops to fail, there has to be some sort of disincentive. Removal of market is one (but ain't going to happen in the foreseeable future). Enforcement is another (but will likely be bloody). Rocks and hard places......


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

UTBJW, I agree that the biggest grow-ops are likely targeting the US market. I think that marijuana legalization in Canada would probably spur on similar moves in the US, just as our recognition of same-sex marriage has done, and that is why the US Drug Warriors are deathly afraid of it happening here and are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it. The head of the DEA as well as bigmouth US Ambassador Celluci, have both fervently spoken out against any move towards legalization, as well as drug harm reduction programs, here in Canada, using vague threats of retaliation as a scare tactic.

If Canada suddenly wakes up and starts making sense, they know that will cause many in their country to do so also. Probably just another reason why the current US administration wants to increase its control of its Canadian "colony".


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

rhino said:


> I haven't purchased street smoke for more than 20 years. I will not buy from "friends" either. Growing my own is not an example I want to share with my children. I will choose not to smoke. My actions or non-actions did not bring on this tragedy. Where do you stand?
> 
> A few harmless puffs on the deck at a party? Wherever, it all contributes. Choose to say no.


I blame the law makers that have driven the street prices up to the levels that entice people to do anything to make this kind of money. Decriminalization would let many people have small plants without risk of having their lives destroyed because of growing a banned *plant*. Legalization would completely remove the money component. When was the last time you heard of a tobacco grow-op being busted?

Chances are this nut would have found some other reason to kill someone. With the money involved with "black market" pot - it was just too easy for him to pass it up...


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

winwintoo said:


> Here's a thought. What if we quit trying to stop the grow-ops and cracked down on use. If we made it really difficult for people who use drugs, the market would dry up.


Isn't this the main thrust behind USA's "war against drugs"? Just fine or imprison the 20% of the population that are regular users...

We all know how well that's working...


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

talonracer said:


> There is a reason marijuana is listed as an illegal substance.


There are lots of places on the net where you can read about the *real* reasons why it was made a controlled substance in the first place. 

Don't kid yourself - it wasn't because it was an incredibly dangerous drug...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I heard Anne McLellan on the radio this morning attempting to justify the continued prohibition of marijuana, when asked by an interviewer if it should be legalized. I've rarely heard such a steaming pile of excrement spew from the mouth of a politician.

Her first response was "Pot smokers are stupid". 

Then flailing around for something that sounded a bit more intelligent she said, "Pot smoke is a carcinogen and therefore dangerous."

Her third response, looking for a shred of something to justify her governments ridiculous policy was that she thought marijuana was a "gateway" drug to other harder drugs. The fact that she landed on this as her argument is telling. 

The gateway drug theory has been so thoroughly debunked for decades, even by her own government's studies, - you might as well say mother's milk is a gateway drug, that I believe she must know that her arguments for prohibition are sheer nonsense.

Can she really believe, or expect us to believe, that this shoddy reasoning is why we spend millions on prohibition, why we employ, by some estimates, up to a quarter of the police that we do, why we continue to incarcerate and ruin the lives of those engaged in this fairly innocuous activity, and why more people have to die for prohibition, such as those four young men?

-- Note to Sinc: I just insulted a sitting Canadian cabinet minister. Am I Canada bashing now?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Laws work generally when they are respected by the public at large. That's a major issue with pot laws they make no sense against booze so they are disrespected and we have pot runners just as there were rum runners.

You CAN'T legislate behaviour you can only legislate reasonable rules if you want them to succeed. The profit factor HAS to go to get organized crime out of the picture.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> -- Note to Sinc: I just insulted a sitting Canadian cabinet minister. Am I Canada bashing now?


I read only criticism, not insults.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

> Truck dispute led to RCMP tragedy
> Last Updated Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:09:34 EST
> CBC News
> 
> ...


Link to the story 

So the whole thing was over the repo of a pickup truck and the marijuana was a coincidence. 

Four young men lost their lives over a lousy piece of junk.

Margaret


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

20 plants hardly sounds like a grow op. I doubt he was even in the 'business'. BUT, it is not in every international newspaper (NYT, BBC, etc.) as Mounties staking out and trying to bust a grow-op. Interesting how the media and the pundits work to grasp at any opportunity to spin a story. 

A whacko killing 4 RCMP officers over a repoed truck. Terrible.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

While my son was envolved in a snowboard race today (Saturday) in Ontario, I spent some time with one of the other racing team parents who happens to be a cousin to one of the slain officers. Fortunately for the family, his twin brother was not on duty at the time. It sure is a small world.

Having family members who work on the front lines (firefighters), I certainly feel for the families linked to this tragedy.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I find it perplexing. 
Governments spend millions (billions?) trying to stop people for smoking tobacco for the obvious negative health affects. We force tobacco companies to have pictures of blackened lungs and warnings all over the cartons and we're constantly increasing the restrictions on where people can light one up. 
Then they turn around and start entertaining the idea of legalizing and legitimizing the use of marijuana. 
It has 4X the cancer causing tar of a cigarette. 
Studies show it damages a child's learning capabilities when used by pregnant women. 
It ads another impairment for police to deal with but its an impairment that can't be measured like alcohol.
Relaxing marijuana prohibitions could affect the incidence of hard drug use by diminishing the stigma of drug use generally, thereby increasing adolescents' willingness to try hard drugs. All the coke heads I know started out with booze and then a few joints. Suffice to say I know some marijuana users that haven't graduated to harder drugs.
So while the government is doing its best to end tobacco addiction and save us from its ill affects, we want to take actions that will only increase the use of something more toxic and impairing.
I guess it boils down to this, how are we as a nation going to benefit from having more impaired and addicted people than we have to deal with now? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

I guess you have to believe that the impairment and addiction will increase from current levels. 

Increased cancer risk is likely due to the fact that dope smokers don't use filters. 

Pregnant mother ingesting anything bad is stupid. 

The gateway argument has no merit. Except by Reefer Madness types.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You could say all of those negtives about alcohol and then some. Fetal alcohol syndrome is insidious to society.
Prohibition doesn't work - control and taking out the profit motive for organized crime helps. You can't legislate human behaviour



> The Netherlands decriminalized possession and allowed small scale sales of marijuana beginning in 1976. Yet, marijuana use in Holland is half the rate of use in the USA. It is also lower than the United Kingdom which had continued to treat possession as a crime. The UK is now moving toward decriminalization.
> 
> 
> [Center for Drug Research, "Licit and Illicit Drug Use in The Netherlands 1997" (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands: CEDRO, 1999; Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, "Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report Sept. 1997-Sept. 1999 (The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Nov. 1999); US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 1998, 1999, and 2000 (Washington, DC: SAMHSA).
> ...


There will always be addicts for any number of things. Limiting the profit factor and incorporating addiction into the medical system helps limit the damage.

Why do we have lotteries?? Because people WILL gamble. Co-opt or it goes underground.

Prohibition patently did not work with alcohol, has not worked with weed. Even hard drugs benefit from a controlled addiction program.

If you were addicted would you rather buy on the street some unknown substance or go to a clinic even if it is for a fix.

Developing the equivalent of the breathalyser test is not that hard for situations like driving.
Put the resources delegated to prohibition to control.....THEN there will be some common sense in dealing with human nature as it IS, not some dream world utopia that does not exist.
Some of our species are prone to addiction - that's a reality - we won't wish it away.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

Alcohol is toxic enough to kill a careless or inexperienced drinker after a single session of overindulgence.*

And yet in every province, it's a perfectly legal substance. In most provinces, the government actually sells the stuff. In some, such as Quebec, wine and beer are on display right next to the potato chips and Coca-Cola. (Themselves loaded with horrific toxins, but that's another story.) Newsstands are full of magazines (and the TV full of shows) glorifying the pleasures of imbibing and/or cooking with wine, beer, spirits -- all deadly poison. 

Given its high toxicity, high concentration of carcinogens, high potential for causing accidental death, habit- and addiction-forming consequences for a significant minority of consumers, high incidence of use among people who take up cocaine and crystal meth, and its behaviour-altering characteristics (which cause consumers to do things ranging from the merely embarrassing to the seriously dangerous),** I believe alcoholic beverages should be banned.

Of course, it's probable that some people will continue to imbibe. After all, alcohol has been part of our culture since time immemorial so even if we do the sensible thing and ban it, some will disobey. No matter, the police will enjoy the challenge of tracking down illicit buckets of homemade beer and wine (and people surreptitiously selling the materials therefor), and especially the opportunity to track down the many amateur stills that will be built in basements, attics and garages.

Amateur stills of course pose some safety hazards, but we will have to accept that some lawbreakers will install them in residential areas regardless; we will need to give the police the tools and funding to eliminate as many as possible. Inevitably, despite their best efforts, a few accidents will happen. So what? What's an occasional explosion when we're preventing the immorality of government alcohol sales? And who really cares if a still in amateur hands produces hooch that's riddled with highly toxic impurities? After all, the whole point is to produce a toxin anyway, so what's wrong with one or two more? I say drinkers deserve it if they're going to break the law.

Over time, we can expect these small amateur stills to become uncommon. Stiff penalties, hassles and risks, the realization that the nasty product is not worth the bother and, most of all, the emergence of cheap, near-professional-quality bootleg booze will lead most people to give up. They'll leave it to large-scale criminal operations, the kind that are able to mobilize sufficient capital and grease the right palms so as to make their operations almost as slick and efficient as legitimate businesses...plus a few killings here and there. But hey, what's a few killings when we're keeping the government out of the business of selling poison? Besides, criminals killing criminals isn't so bad, is it? Really, the whole idea of "innocent bystanders" is overrated.

In theory, those with sufficient disposable income (such as myself and our lawmakers, but that's beside the point) will still be able to get the same fine wines and spirits as before...but we know we/they wouldn't do that. After all, lawmakers and solid citizens by definition refrain from that sort of illegal activity. In reality, everyone who breaks this proposed new law will have to settle for products of uncertain (but certainly criminal) provenance and dubious quality. Everyone, but everyone, who chooses to break the law will run the same risks -- from methanol-blindness to incarceration for drinking wine. Right?

Ultimately, aren't enforcing the law (whatever it may say), protecting people from themselves, and keeping government moral the most noble goals of any society?

Therefore, I urge you all to join me in asking the Government of Canada and its various provinces to act forthwith to ban the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Do not forget to include in your letters a call for the building of more courthouses and prisons and the allocation of more billions for law enforcement, for these are the happy side-effects of our glorious project.

* <i>Can't say this about pot.</i>
** <i>Nor most of this.</i>


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> It has 4X the cancer causing tar of a cigarette.
> Studies show it damages a child's learning capabilities when used by pregnant women.
> It ads another impairment for police to deal with but its an impairment that can't be measured like alcohol.
> Relaxing marijuana prohibitions could affect the incidence of hard drug use by diminishing the stigma of drug use generally, thereby increasing adolescents' willingness to try hard drugs. All the coke heads I know started out with booze and then a few joints. Suffice to say I know some marijuana users that haven't graduated to harder drugs.
> ...


Lot's of comments on this post, but I'll limit them...

There *may* be more tar in a joint - but I know very few people that smoke 20 joints a day. Also, there are modern methods of ingesting marijuana that don't involve *any* smoke. 

IMO, the number one gateway drug (if you choose to believe the gateway "theory") is tobacco, followed closely by alcohol. Both are used far more and are easier to obtain by our youth than pot.

Most of the studies that I've seen indicate that marijuana is less addictive than chocolate. Toxicity levels are shown to be *very* low. Nicotine and alcohol are both very *physically* addictive.

But let's face it - they aren't trying to keep people from becoming addicted, they are trying to keep the status quo...

My biggest complaint with the US "war on drugs" is that they lump all controlled substances into one pile. It bothers me that they are trying to convince my kids that marijuana == crack == heroin etc... The kids "experiment" with pot, find out that they were lying about its affects and think that perhaps they were lying about crack, too...

It's like trying to protect our kids by refusing to educate them about condoms. They're gonna be curious - I want them to have full (or at least some) information. Telling them it's bad and not to do it isn't going to work... I don't want them to find about VD when they are sitting in the clinic or find out about the ramifications of herion addiction as they are stealing a VCR...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_It's like trying to protect our kids by refusing to educate them about condoms. "_
The exact same bunch does that too.
Education works well over time and it takes time.
There will ALWAYS be out of norm behaviour - some is societal some is genetic and most a bit of both.
Creating a "safe" structure health wise and withdrawing the incentives to criminals who WILL exploit human behavior patterns strikes me as the only route for societies to take.
REALISTIC expectations of human behaviour need to inform those programs.

Gradually shifting public opinion on certain behaviors will work over time for the great percentage while for some members addictive behaviour will be a life long struggle.
If criminals are presented with the opportunity to profit from that struggle they will.
The offsetting institution is gov and NGO programs to reduce the impact and keep the profit motive at bay or turn it to "good use" ( gambling profits - LCBO profits - cigarette taxes - the "sin taxes")

That's another whole argument but better the funds flow there than into organized crime.
Secular gov and organizations to be effective need to be realistic and create programs that dealw ith the real world and gain respect for being effective - not being seen to be "morally correct".

If Holland has half the rate of use of Britain then they are doing something right in the real world. Wishful thinking, ridiculous use of resources and the criminal system won't improve things - it patently has not.

ANY organization that ceases to be relevant in the real world loses respect and tolerance of support ( gun registry ). I think the anti-smoking campaigns on the other hand have wide spread support and they work.
Pot has medicinal uses and is in the recreational substance use and is used by the criminal society to fund itself.
Time to get it out of their control and into the social fabric where there are existing tools to deal with the use and abuse.

•••••

"_All the coke heads I know started out with booze and then a few joints_" 
Did it occur to you that these are addictive personalities and are being preyed on by the drug profiteers??


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

These deaths are shocking. In a small community like the one where the violence occurred the impact will be felt for years.

It seems some feel that changing the legal status of the plant concerned (and it's by-products) in Canada will change the level of criminality involved.

Hardly. According to the RCMP and the FBI, Canada has become a major source of high quality (therefore expensive & profitable) stuff. So criminals will want to continue massive grow-ops for the export market.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

The deaths will be more far reaching than just Mayerthorpe. Since it sounds like the officers were all quite young, they are likely, almost certainly not from Mayerthorpe. These fellows get transferred around frequently post training. They are probably being mourned on a personal level right across Canada.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good point but it wil free up resources and take away the local support that hides the operators.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Carex said:


> The deaths will be more far reaching than just Mayerthorpe. Since it sounds like the officers were all quite young, they are likely, almost certainly not from Mayerthorpe. These fellows get transferred around frequently post training. They are probably being mourned on a personal level right across Canada.


Three were Albertans. One was Metis and from Lac La Biche where he will be buried Wednesday, one from Spruce Grove whose father is a minister and will conduct his funeral Thursday, another is from Red Deer and the newest rookie was from Ontario. Sorry but the exact town name escapes me right now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The situation reminds of an excellent Canadian film * Little Criminals * on the independent channel the other night.

In the film, the community knew the kid was a time bomb but the tools were not there to deal with that knowledge in an effective manner that did not ultimately lead to the deaths of others.

This guy in real life was obviously a time bomb....... - a case where the personal freedom of a flawed personality collides with "common weal"...........at great cost to families and the community both local and national. ;(


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i wonder how things would change in Canada if things like marijuana and prostitution were legalized and taxed by the gov't?

seems things aren't going that well with policing as four shattered families can probably attest

prohibition of alcohol didn't work either
unless you were a booze runner and then you made huge profits

so why not add more sins to the sin tax bin?
hopefully those monies can go into health care, building hosptials, keeping medical practioner salaries high
yes, i believe that physicians should be paid on salary as gov't employees with pensions and holidays and all that good stuff
but not allowed to strike

a few really money hungyr docs will take off to the u.s. but i know up here in shangri-la of several u.s. born and trained dr. that left the u.s. because of huge malpractice prices

sorry, i digress


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Guys, the whole damn thing was about a *PICK-UP TRUCK* and some other assorted stollen auto parts. The fact that guy had a few marijuana plants was just a coincidence!!

The cops were there *BECAUSE THE FORD DEALERSHIP WOULDN'T REPLACE THE TAILGATE ON THE GUY'S PICK-UP TRUCK* 

The loss of life in this case is way more stupid than anything to do with drugs.

It was over a stupid truck.

What a waste.

And the fact that this country (and the western world) has no mechanism in place to deal with people who are clearly mentally ill and pose a danger to the public.

Margaret


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> *BECAUSE THE FORD DEALERSHIP WOULDN'T REPLACE THE TAILGATE ON THE GUY'S PICK-UP TRUCK*


No need to yell. I think we are all aware of that now. Yes, it is surely tragic, a nutcase finally lost it and took some innocent people with him. It's awful.

The initial discussion about marijuana and grow-ops was prompted because the media was reporting it as a botched grow-op raid. This discussion on marijuana has now taken on a life of its own with valid points being made.

*Excellent post iMatt.*







You hit the nail on the head by comparing the idiocy of marijuana prohibition to the idiocy of alcohol prohibition. The fact that organized, violent criminals have taken over much of the growing of pot is directly the result of increased enforcement, exactly like alcohol prohibition created the conditions for the enrichment of the Mafia and other organized crime in the 1920s and 30s. If it was legal to grow for personal use, and pot smokers didn't face possible jail and/or asset seizure, the profit margin that criminals enjoy would disappear and cut the legs out of the grow-op market.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> No need to yell. I think we are all aware of that now. Yes, it is surely tragic, a nutcase finally lost it and took some innocent people with him. It's awful.


I'm yelling because the tragedy of four young cops losing their lives at the hands of a nutjob over his lousy pickup truck has been lost in all this discussion about drugs.

It's unfortunate that the media jumped on the grow-op thing and blew it out of proportion.

Margaret


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The specific trigger is irrelevant. It could just as easily been Sinc that set him off, or a crying kid or whatever.
Most trees in the forest don't kill - a few do. It's random. There is little to be learned in this now we know the larger story.

Once in a while those that chose to defend society from acts of violence or criminality pay an ultimate price. For that they deserve our thanks and admiration.

Making sure they take the risk in defending sensible respected laws is something we CAN do. This is a random act of violence that like an earthquake in certain areas was just about bound to occur sometime....but no one knew when.

If it raises good debate on marijuana laws despite having little to do with the issue.......so much better.
Firefighters lose their lives when things go unexpectedly too.


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

winwintoo said:


> The cops were there *BECAUSE THE FORD DEALERSHIP WOULDN'T REPLACE THE TAILGATE ON THE GUY'S PICK-UP TRUCK*


Yeah - it struck me as very odd that someone would be so upset about a dented tailgate (they were going to fix it - just not replace it) that he would end up going down the path he did... 

Hopefully this situation will help just *one* person realize that life is too short to sweat the little things. Don't be in a rage all the time - things can *always* be worse...


----------



## RobTheGob (Feb 10, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Once in a while those that chose to defend society from acts of violence or criminality pay an ultimate price. For that they deserve our thanks and admiration.


Yes - I agree. While I may not agree will all laws- the police have my utmost respect. It's a tough job - perhaps one of the worst - but I completely respect the individuals doing the jobs.

I have a similar feeling for the members of our (and the US) armed forces. I don't agree with the US actions in the mideast - but you better believe that I feel for the soldiers that are over there.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The streets of Edmonton were awash in red this noon hour as 11,000 Mounties marched in formation from a local park used as a staging area the the University of Alberta Butterdome, where services are being held for the four slain RCMP members. Law enforcement officers from as far away as Alaska, California and Boston are in attendance.

They were led by four members of the RCMP musical ride, lances held high and sabres drawn. The ride members were followed by four Mounties who carried the stetsons of their fallen comrades.

Four venues are being used to house the crowds in attendance and thousands of Emontonians lined the streets along the route from the park to the Butterdome. A giant TV screen has also been erected to afford a view for those who cannot cram into the four venues.

It is a day to be marked in the history of Canada as PM Paul Martin and Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarke lead the mourners.

It is a sight I will remember for the rest of my life.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Edmonton did these Canadians proud SINC. May their loss not be in vain and let everyone remember this day.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I did not realize it at the time, but the drawn sabres were to protect the "Guidon", the symbolic flag of the RCMP, blessed and given to them by the Queen. It was there as a special honour to the four dead Mounties. It is normally encased in a vault in Ottawa.


----------

