Pubdate: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 Source: Hamilton Spectator (CN ON) Copyright: 2006 The Hamilton Spectator Contact: http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/181 Author: Susan Clairmont EVEN POT ACTIVIST AGREES CITY SHOULD HAVE GROUND OUT CAFE It has truly gone Up in Smoke. The two-year-old pot palace that caused so much controversy has butted out for good. With owner Chris Goodwin chilling for the past three weeks in the Barton Street jail on charges of possession of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking and breaching conditions, the King Street East cafe has officially closed shop. Yet opponents are still angry the cannabis cafe was ever allowed to open in the first place. While there's lots of finger-pointing over who should have done what, most of the blame sticks to the city's licensing department. The police blame the city. So does the International Village BIA. So too does Councillor Sam Merulla, who chairs the city's licensing committee. Even Chris Goodwin says the city could have shut him down. And it's hard to argue with them. Not just once but several times over, the city had the opportunity to grind out Up in Smoke. But it didn't. The city could have refused to grant the cafe its licence in the first place. When pothead activist Goodwin applied for a restaurant licence before his grand opening in August 2004, it was clear what activity would take place at the store. Goodwin laid it all out in meetings with city staff, local business owners and even the police vice and drugs unit. He proclaimed in media interviews that customers would be smoking pot in the cafe. And on the licence application itself, he described his business as "a cannabis cafe." Well, that's illegal. Smoking pot anywhere -- unless you are one of the few Canadians granted a medical marijuana licence -- is still against the law in this country. So was the City of Hamilton clueless about Up in Smoke? Did anyone even take a moment to consider the name of the business? Or did it choose to ignore Goodwin's blatant bragging that he would allow criminal activity in his place of business? Goodwin got his restaurant licence. The food consisted of coffee and hash brownies. He opened for business on Aug. 21, 2004 -- Canabian Day. "The business was clearly breaking the law," he tells me from jail. "I knew that and wanted to take my case to the Supreme Court." Ten days later, the first arrest was made. Now, there's no way the city could have missed this. It was the top news story of the day. Jean Cooper, a 70-year-old great-grandmother, was arrested for pot possession. In November, she pleaded guilty and was given an absolute discharge. Her case was the first judicial confirmation that criminal activity was taking place at Up in Smoke. Still, the cafe continued to operate. The city could have hauled Goodwin in front of the licensing committee, chaired by Merulla, to determine if Up in Smoke's licence should be revoked or suspended. The committee had the ability to close the place down. It should have been a no-brainer. But it never happened. The cafe never went before the committee. And Goodwin easily renewed his business licence last winter. "It obviously was a hot potato and nobody wanted to slice it up and have it for dinner," says Mary Pocius, executive director of the International Village BIA. Merulla is even more blunt. "It should never have been allowed to open in the first place," he says. "It was obvious there was criminal behaviour ... It made the city look weak and like we were condoning it. There are gross oversights within our licensing and enforcement department that are beyond comprehension." The city dropped the ball. Big time. It took a mess it had every legal ability and moral responsibility to deal with and left it for the police to clean up instead. For two days I called the licensing department about Up in Smoke, but nobody with answers called back. Also unavailable for comment was Marvin Wasserman. He owns the Up in Smoke property. He leased it to Goodwin for a year and then monthly after that, despite mounting drug convictions related to the cafe and pressure from the BIA and police to evict the tokers. Meanwhile, as Up in Smoke operated under a city business licence for two years, the police came under public fire for their perceived inaction. The public wanted to know why cops were going into the cafe every day -- sometimes three times a day -- and more often than not walking out again without making arrests. Cops were watching. Undercover officers were checking in on Up in Smoke. Intelligence was gathered. Comings and goings were monitored by downtown surveillance cameras. Slowly and steadily police were building a case. "The owner of Up in Smoke was here for the purpose of making a point and selling marijuana," says Staff Sergeant Ken Weatherill. "We're stepping on brand new ground here. Our approach would be one of patience, consistency and perseverance ... At no time did we ever say we would turn a blind eye to it." Eventually, uniformed officers started making arrests for possession, and undercover officers for trafficking. There were a total of 72 arrests. All but one person dealt with in court has pleaded guilty, according to federal drug prosecutor Jeffrey Levy. All were given fines, conditional or unconditional discharges. One youth was diverted into a drug program. Levy praises the cautious approach taken by police. By taking time to build a solid case, they reduced the risk of having charges thrown out in court and setting a poor precedent. So will Chris Goodwin reach his dream of taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court? Sounding tired and more lucid than usual, he told me from jail he hasn't ruled out the idea of pleading guilty. He talks of finishing his political science degree. Perhaps going to law school. Maybe even running for city council in the upcoming election. "There is something to be said for retreating and living to fight another day." - --- MAP posted-by: Derek