Pubdate: Wed, 12 Sep 2007
Source: North Shore News (CN BC)
Copyright: 2007 North Shore News
Contact:  http://www.nsnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/311
Author: Jerry Paradis
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)

THE CURSE OF THE GROW OP IS UPON US. . .

There is a new Black Death creeping up on us. It relentlessly 
threatens the very foundations of everything we hold dear and, if 
something isn't done soon, we'll all be hopelessly lost.

No, it's not the West Nile virus, nor a rogue meteorite or a race of 
Lindsay Lohan clones.

It's the grow op.

Consider a 2006 press release by the provincial government about new 
efforts to detect electrical diversions. Housing Minister Rich 
Coleman warned that, "Grow ops are more likely to catch fire, more 
likely to have guns inside and are more likely to be robbed. They 
pose a danger to our neighbourhoods and we're determined to shut them 
down." John Les, minister of public safety and solicitor general 
added that, "Marijuana grow ops are a $7-billion industry in B.C. and 
they are largely controlled by organized crime."

According to judges at all levels of B.C. courts, it's a "scourge," a 
"plague," or an "epidemic." Those words ring with a certain hysteria 
that should be reserved for truly cataclysmic events. Quite apart 
from the unseemly judicial whines about being constrained by higher 
court rulings, the language that accompanies the wringing of judicial 
hands when grow-op sentences are imposed has a certain apocalyptic 
tone usually associated with lamenting the onset of an incurable 
disease. Here's a prime example from Surrey provincial court Judge 
John Lenaghan in a 2005 case, R. v. Wallis:

"Five years ago, in a decision entitled R. v. Nguyen, (2000) B.C.J. 
No. 807, I made the following comments, at paragraph 29: 'Every judge 
who sits or resides in this community is only too aware of how 
prevalent a crime marijuana production is. Crown counsel . . . . 
referred to it as an epidemic and, in my respectful view, this is not 
an exaggeration. Enormous social resources are consumed in the effort 
to eliminate this problem and all the indications are that it is a 
largely unsuccessful effort . . . . Parliament has deemed the 
production of marijuana to be illegal and it is the duty of the 
courts to uphold and apply the law. In my view, what may be termed 
'the marijuana industry,' has a profound and corrupting effect which, 
if not checked, has the potential to undermine social institutions 
and mores Canadian society holds dear.' Since I wrote those words, 
the situation in this community has worsened. What was an epidemic 
has become a plague."

That call to arms, as over the top as it was, has been cited with 
approval in a number of cases since, both in the provincial and supreme courts.

Let's be clear. Grow ops are a nuisance and a criminal activity that 
deserves to be condemned. We would certainly be better off without 
them. But we will never be if we continue to believe that we can 
deter people from entering the trade by sending existing urban 
farmers to prison for longer and longer stretches. There will always 
be someone willing to take whatever risk there is to reap the 
enormous profits available in the cannabis trade.

After all, an ounce of pot costs peanuts to produce and, in a black 
market, is worth about $600 an ounce, almost as much as an ounce of 
gold. The only answer is to legalize and regulate.

But I'm not interested here in sentencing delusions. What I want to 
explore are those grave problems that, we are told, have turned our 
otherwise peaceful and stable neighbourhoods into war zones.

Police experts are routinely called to give an opinion (or are quoted 
by prosecutors) on the ill effects of grow ops, a sort of shopping 
list of evils. The object of the exercise is to impress upon the 
court that the grow op is a close cousin of the car bomb and, judging 
by the response, it's extremely effective. Here are the major items, 
recited solemnly like Bible passages, that have been culled from both 
personal experience and recent cases:

- - The number of grow operations in the province is increasing 
dramatically, to the point where it has reached "epidemic" 
proportions; and growers are not only getting more efficient, they 
are becoming increasingly adept at hiding indicators of their 
presence. (Grow ops are always "sophisticated," a word that means 
absolutely nothing in the context and should be shunned by all involved.)

- - Eighty to 90 per cent of those operations -- or whatever may be the 
percentage du jour -- are associated with organized crime;

- - Firearms are frequently present and are a constant danger to police 
when grow ops are raided;

- - There is an increasing level of violence associated with home 
invasions of residences containing grow operations. A corollary to 
that is the increasing number of traumatic incidents where innocent 
neighbours are mistakenly targeted for home invasions.

- - There is a high risk of electrical fires from faulty wiring;

- - Serious damage may be caused to the building housing a grow operation;

- - Growers are increasingly purchasing new homes in residential 
neighbourhoods. With no landlord to deal with, the risk of detection 
is reduced; and residential homes are preferred for grow operations 
because of the greater privacy protection offered by the Charter than 
would otherwise be the case.

Right off the top, the first is as obvious as a warty nose. 
Nevertheless, all that expansion happened when the sentences being 
handed out were oscillating like a strobe light. No entrepreneur 
could be sure if he'd go to jail for a long time or not; but that 
didn't prevent a 116 per cent province-wide increase in grow ops 
between 1997 and 2003. Not surprisingly, the grower learned over time 
how to be more efficient ("sophisticated") and how to camouflage the 
farm to minimize his risk.

Yet all that says nothing about any real or perceived evils 
associated with grow ops.

The last two are equally irrelevant, particularly when taken 
together. The harm caused to the premises has nothing to do with any 
threat to social peace; and it becomes even more irrelevant as the 
shift to ownership continues. If an owner wants to damage his own 
investment, who's to complain?

As for the Charter, the home of a tenant is no less a castle than 
that of an owner, and just as protected against unlawful searches.

Which leaves organized crime, firearms, "grow-rips" and fires, all of 
which I'll look at in detail next time.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom