New Paragraph

Legalizing marijuana is not that cut and dry
August 15, 2017

I’ve had my say on the marijuana legalization debate during a number of interviews and in my October 5, 2015 article: Op-Ed: Decriminalization versus legalization of pot.

Although I did not agree with the old enforcement model whereby people of any age could obtain criminal records for life over possessing a few joints, I also do not support the federal government’s direction on legalization. However, I fully understand that the marijuana legalization ship is well under sail. But while discussing the related issues recently with some former police co-workers, I felt my blood pressure rise once again over what I believe are blatant matters that are being somewhat misrepresented through federal government spin.


One former colleague – and probably one of very few current or former police chiefs in Canada that support legalization, MP Bill Blair, stated publicly at an April 13, 2017 press conference that: “It will be far more difficult for kids to get access to it when this new regime is in place, than it is today.”


He went on to say, “Today, the decision to sell or not to sell to that child is often being made by a gangster in a stairwell.”


Sorry Bill, it is not that cut and dry.


I tried smoking marijuana in my teenage years. I also tried alcohol. What scared me away from pot was the fact that it was illegal. I could easily buy it from fellow students in the locker room, who although were breaking the law were far from organized crime thugs in a dimly lit stairwell, but I did not want to risk getting a criminal record, so I didn’t. But I certainly didn’t mind helping myself to the alcohol in my parents’ home on occasion or having friends who at least looked of age purchase it through the LCBO on my behalf. That was my thought process. I know many of my friends at that time felt the same way, so many of us shied away from pot. All of the former colleagues I recently spoke to operated under that exact same mindset when they were in their teen years. Will our decision-making model of old not apply to the youth of today while accessing legalized marijuana?


When the new regime is implemented and many parents of Canada’s youth are purchasing pot legally (or in an alley somewhere) and it is now in their homes and often as accessible to kids as my father’s liquor cabinet was to me, what will the new-age decision-making process be? I predict that many more kids will try marijuana than ever did when I was a teen so many decades ago. The argument that it will become harder for young people to access marijuana makes little to no sense. It will be in fact easier for them to obtain. It will be everywhere.


Mr. Blair also stated publicly that “we need to be able to compete effectively with organized crime and take this business away from organized crime.” Yes, I agree organized crime will lose some of their marijuana sale profits, but in the competitive marketplace, they will always offer a much cheaper product for pot consumers.


Cigarettes have been legal for years and organized crime has still made zillions of dollars by undercutting legitimate manufacturers and government taxation schemes. When illegal cigarette manufacturing started to flourish in the early 1990s, it was completely impossible for licensed tobacco companies to compete against their rock-bottom prices. However these off the grid plants were not subject to government standards; inspections; or licensing and tax fees. The illegal cigarettes of the day were well known of be of inferior quality and an even greater health hazard to smokers as a result. It was an accepted fact that manufacturers routinely swept excess tobacco off the floors of their plants and added it to the mixture – not caring for a minute about the additional chemicals, dirt and rat droppings that got caught up in the sweepings. But smokers still bought millions and millions of these poor quality and illegal cancer-sticks because they were cheaper.

The cost to legally grow pot will be astronomical. Government standards for cleanliness, equipment, content and security will be very costly to meet – and so they should be. Then add licensing fees and taxes to the mix. Organized crime groups will always undercut the legal grower’s prices and their business will flourish because of the reality that more citizens of all ages will smoke pot when they will longer have to worry about being prosecuted for simple possession. I'm not good at math, but a bigger market than ever and the ability to offer a product (although inferior) at much cheaper prices without the background checks required of legal growers and with little overhead = organized crime wins. People will still buy pot – most likely more people than ever, and many will not care about the source or quality when they can get more product for their money on the black market.


We know it’s coming – that’s a given. But let’s go into this with our red-rimmed eyes wide open.

By Chris Lewis February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?
By Chris Lewis January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.
By Chris Lewis December 28, 2024
Violent Crime Remains High
Share by: