New Paragraph

Should our cops be allowed to smoke pot?
October 25, 2018

I didn’t agree with the legalization of Canada’s marijuana legislation from inception. Although I supported “decriminalization” for small amounts, for a host of reasons I thought – and still maintain -- that legalization was a disaster from the get-go.


[October 5, 2015 Op-Ed: Decriminalization versus legalization of pot]


I believe that the vast majority of police leaders in this country felt the exact same way.


Despite law enforcement concern, legalization is upon us. Time and honest analysis will eventually determine who was on the right side of this experiment.


In the meantime, Canada’s police services, their leaders and their associations are struggling with related policy issues as to whether or not officers can use marijuana at all, and if so, how long before an officer’s tour of duty they are able to use the drug.


Policies vary from A to Z, with some services declaring a total prohibition for officers from using pot either on duty or off, to some ordering that officers cannot smoke or eat this stuff for time periods varying from 28 days to 24 hours prior to duty, to policy that they must simply report for work “fit for duty” (legally sober).


We all know it’s simply a matter of time before officer marijuana use becomes an issue in a police use of force investigation or during evidence presentation in legal proceedings, but those are bridges yet to be crossed. Having said that, prohibiting the use of a legal product by officers while off duty seems like a legal challenge waiting to happen. I do not see that position as reasonable, practical or defendable. But where should the line be drawn in terms of the use of pot by an officer and his/her eventual reporting for work to protect the public they are sworn to serve?


I’m not marijuana expert. I can’t quote research and stats about the long term effects of marijuana use on the human brain. But I do know what I have seen during my 61 years on this earth, including 36 years as a police officer. Marijuana does have both short and long term effects on its users.


Marijuana generally affects people differently than alcohol. Sadly many people suffer from the effects of long-term use of alcohol, including alcoholism. A number of people will disagree, but marijuana is addictive as well. Undoubtedly there are people walking and driving around this world in a complete fog as a result of their decades of marijuana use.


Many experts agree that the regular use of marijuana brings an increased risk of psychotic disorders, including hallucination and paranoia. A number of experts also agree that marijuana use by younger people increases the risk of them having a lower IQ later in life. These are but a few of what I believe are the commonsense arguments against the complete legalization of this drug. But I digress.


Expert opinions vary regarding the period of time that the consumption of pot will negatively affect work performance. In my perfect world, no law enforcement officer would use marijuana, ever. Ideally, no cop would drink alcohol; smoke cigarettes; eat fattening foods; have marital problems; face personal mental or physical health issues; or get PTSD. In that perfect world they wouldn’t have to risk their lives or get punched or spit on either. But that is not the world in which they live and work.


The reality of life is that police services hire human beings. “Robocop” was only a movie and police only use robots in extremely high-risk activities like bomb disposal.


For the most part, they also only recruit mature adults who are then highly trained and issued firearms and granted extraordinary powers – including the authority to take lives in specific situations.


Like it or not, our current elected government has made pot a legal consumable. From here on in, police leaders must treat its consumption by officers like they do alcohol. Cops can’t consume alcohol on duty except in special circumstances – like working undercover or when attending sanctioned events. They shouldn’t be allowed to smoke a joint at work either.


Officers must report for work being “fit for duty”. That includes not being impaired by alcohol or drug – prescription, over the counter and/or pot.


They can’t carry alcohol around with them in their pockets or briefcases at work or have it in their lockers. It makes total sense to similarly apply that rule to marijuana in the new legalized pot world in which we live.


As a related note, perhaps it’s time to revisit the implementation of random drug-testing on emergency services personnel. Unless legislation is passed, such a move by organizational leaders will undoubtedly result in bargaining group and contract negotiation challenges, but so be it.


Regardless, let’s keep the rules simple, reasonable and realistic. Then lets trust these adults to do what is right and subsequently deal with the few that don’t play by the rules – through due process.

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: