Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« This is obviously just a joke, right? | Main | And now we have a scandal »

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Frontline drug warriors are losing faith in prohibition. Are there any true believers left?

Tony Smith is a retired Vancouver cop and a spokesperson in Canada for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). Founded on March 16, 2002, LEAP is made up of current and former members of the law enforcement and criminal justice communities who are opposed to drug prohibition. Many of LEAP’s 10,000 members were on the front lines of the war on drugs and today have the passion found only in a convert to reform what they believe is a broken system.

While people like Smith are rare, they are not entirely new to the Canadian political scene. Canadians may remember Vancouver cop Gil Puder. Puder died of cancer in 1999 at the age of 40, but not before making his mark in the movement to end drug prohibition.

While still a member of the Vancouver Police Force, Puder made a presentation called "Recovering Our Honour: Why Policing Must Reject the War on Drugs" at a Fraser Institute conference in 1998.

Puder was threatened with discipline from his employer for his participation in the drug conference, and the Fraser Institute drew criticism from some of its conservative supporters, including sitting Reform Party Member of Parliament Art Hanger, now a Conservative representative.

In the end, though, the Fraser Institute published “Sensible Solutions to the Urban Drug Problem” in 2002 which included a posthumous contribution from Puder.

This watershed publication challenged the Canadian conservative movement to rethink the war on drugs, making opposition to prohibition at least a tolerable eccentricity.

To learn whether or not the political climate today is better or worse for drug law reformers like Tony Smith, however, you’ll have to read “Canada takes a LEAP forward in drug reform advocacy” here.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 14, 2008 in Crime | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Frontline drug warriors are losing faith in prohibition. Are there any true believers left?:


I have no doubt that high ranking people in the RCMP and the government are lobbying for prohibition BECAUSE it subsidizes organized crime.

maybe they are under threat, maybe they took bribes, maybe they are so bent on their quasi-moralistic ideologies that they truly believe in this mess (I have met people who actually think pot users should go to jail for the simple reason that "Well, they broke the LAW!", as if all laws were equal).

The bottom line is, prohibitionists are a serious threat to democracy, sovereignty, and public safety. They seem pretty casual about rounding drug users up into jails, so i think maybe it is time to lock THEM up for their twisted, anti-compassion views. They - not the addicts - are the real danger.

Posted by: Russell Barth | 2008-08-15 4:09:06 AM

Here's an interesting analogy:

What Motley Crue Can Teach Us About Drug Legalization


Posted by: JC | 2008-08-15 6:08:02 AM

Another typical Llibertarian strategy. Throw the drug prohibitionists in jail and leave the druggies, pushers, pimps and prostitutes on the street.

Typical goofy Llibertarian nonsense. Let's see you campaign on that you morons.


Posted by: epsilon | 2008-08-15 8:20:13 AM

I have never met a more dogmatic and destructive strain of politicos than those who support the war on drugs. The few who have broken ranks with the faithful are more likely to be distained than followed.

Running out of intelligent arguments and running out of believers are two completely different things.

Posted by: Meredith | 2008-08-15 8:20:54 AM

'Regarding heroin and the opiates, the decriminalization trials in Switzerland have been such an overwhelming success, by crime, economic, health and public approval standards36, that replication of the process must be implemented in this country, and none too soon. The British Columbia Chief Coroner's exhaustive analysis of illicit injection drugs37 finds our Canadian responses hopelessly inadequate, and in need of a broad-based, multi-disciplinary approach. A large scale and carefully monitored medical trial could at last provide lawmakers with an opportunity to rationally evaluate alternative control mechanisms. When heroin finally receives the serious examination that it deserves, other substances such as cocaine and chemical drugs might then be critically studied on their own merits, rather than in the current climate of irrational fear. Which control methodology would prove least harmful to society is, of course, open to informed speculation. What we've spent billions of dollars and countless lives proving, however, is that criminal prohibition isn't it.

Progress will not be easy, and there will be no shortage of naysayers lining up to promote everything from legitimate concerns to "chicken-little" styled hysteria While people would rightfully view this presentation as critical of certain policing practices, we must remember that many groups have contributed to history's most expensive failed social experiment. Whether it's counselors dependant upon government funding, politicians with career plans, doctors with monopolistic treatment clinics or simply citizens blinded by propaganda and faith, there's plenty of blame to go around, and the concurrent incentive to deny necessary changes. Critical examination, however, invariably exposes the traditionalist's threadbare and self-serving logic.'

This is from the Fraser report and notice how its all blah blah blah on heroin and cocaine.
There is no safe way to use either Matthew this drug kills people and no law or lack of law will change that.
Medical trial what a joke. How about my friend who died at 22 on cocaine-these dumb asses have no idea what they speak of

Posted by: Merle Terleski | 2008-08-15 8:28:51 AM

Right on eps, oh its an addiction and a disease all they need is a pat on the head.
Tell that to people who find used condoms and needles near their house.
One little girl picked one up and thought it was a balloon and was rushed to hospital for ingesting someones ejaculated sperm.
Yes lets see the Libertarian Party platform and campaign on this nonesense.

Posted by: Merle Terleski | 2008-08-15 8:32:43 AM

"The crimes committed by the Crue were exactly the theory's expectations. There was an increase in minor nonviolent misdemeanors, domestic disturbances, bar fights with fellow drunkards, and intoxicated driving. There were no muggings, break-ins, or gang shootings caused by the inability of the drug addicted to meet their financial ends"

Without the legal system ruining the lives of nonviolent drug users, there will be a light at the end of the dark tunnel known as drug addiction. Not all problems will disappear. Drugs will continue to wreck lives, just as alcohol dependency has been doing for centuries. But one day, hopefully, drug addiction will be treated by doctors, friends, family, and church — not prison bars and an aggressive police state. Drug addicts will be allowed to peacefully readjust to society, becoming productive members without the scars of the penal system. They will have a chance to recover and to rock on, just like Motley Crue."

Oh yes vehicular manslaughter is no big deal eh? Lets leave it to the church to pull addicts out of the gutter?
On and driving high never killed anyone oh no not at all.
What a bunch of socialist crap!!!Oh its a social problem-no its a deadly criminal addiction-look at Marc Emery who has achieved what in life????

Posted by: Merle Terleski | 2008-08-15 8:54:46 AM

Oh and one more thing-just because Stockwell supports ending jail sentences for pot users does not mean he supports legalizing cocaine and heroin.
Most certainly he will never join the pot heads in the Libertarian party

Posted by: Merle Terleski | 2008-08-15 9:06:08 AM

Typical of the far left and far right to pin on one particular issue and run with it. The thing missed here by all that are the indoctrinated hamsters of the criminal political system that presently enjoys our willing compliance, is that we are making the problem WORSE with prohibition. Too bad the wilfully ignorant simply can't get their heads around the basic tenets of personal freedom and individual responsibility. Both are frightening to those who "need" cradle to grave aren't on drugs...they must be. Our politicians are killing more of us than drugs ever could. But you have to be paying attention to see it.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-15 9:22:46 AM

Ooops, Should read:

Both are frightening to those who "need" cradle to grave instructions. Our politicians are killing more of us than drugs ever could. But you have to be paying attention to see it.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-15 9:24:36 AM

Are there any true believers left?

Well, I guess Merle and Epsi are still with the program.

Pretty well every rock star from Alice Cooper to Ozzy Osbourne has stated publicly that their most destructive addiction was booze. The major exception would be the herion addicts like Keith Richards and John Philips.

I can't imagine that legalizing opiates would be a good idea, but the big drain on our system has always been marijuana. I know I'm going to get trampled for saying this, but the only people I know who are dead set against legalizing pot are either involved in the business, or they're jaded by some personal issue.

I include police when I say "involved in the business". Look how many cops are doing nothing but chase kids around. I watched an episode of "Cops" the other night. They seem to have a knack for making some black kid with a little bag of weed in his pocket into a gangster. They chase them, jump on them, cuff them, point guns at them, and proudly hold up a few grams of weed. It's a sickening display of a bunch of dumb-ass civil servants wasting our tax dollars at the expense of some kids who just want to feel a little better for a couple of hours.

Think about that the next time you go to the fridge or liquor cabinet. You just want to feel better, and you're willing to put your family at risk to do it. What makes you any better than some black kid with a little bag of weed in his pocket?

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-15 9:43:05 AM

are you stoned jc? what a bunch of jibberish

Posted by: Merle Terleski | 2008-08-15 9:47:35 AM

I dont put my family at risk having a few cans of beer dude.

Posted by: Merle Terleski | 2008-08-15 9:48:47 AM

I dont put my family at risk having a few cans of beer dude.

Posted by: Merle Terleski | 15-Aug-08 9:48:47 AM

Bullshit. How many times have you driven to the store after 1 can? How about 2 cans? How about 3 cans? Oh shit, I'm out of beer. How about 6 cans?

Don't try to fool me, I used to drink.

Posted by: dp | 2008-08-15 10:07:25 AM

Merle Terleski wrote: “There is no safe way to use either Matthew this drug kills people and no law or lack of law will change that.”

Thanks for your comment, Merle.

“Harm reduction” is not “harm elimination.” The people who support harm reduction strategies recognize that drugs like heroin and cocaine are indeed dangerous. They also recognize, however, that prohibition makes unsafe drug use even more dangerous. The devastation on Hastings in Vancouver caused by HIV and hepatitis could be prevented with clean needles, for example.

I don't want to see these programs supported with tax dollars, but I don't want to see these programs prohibited either.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-08-15 10:45:04 AM

Well Matthew it could be elimianted if these same people stopped-period. No more safe injection sites. I used hard drugs in my life and I quit.
No more band-aid solutions-quit or suffer the consequences= death. Its that simple really.
All the homosexuals cry out save us from AIDS-well read the recent reports from the UN as they say in N.America it is still a homosexual drug user and those who use prostitutes disease.
Do you want to stop AIDS stop the cause. illicit homosexual sex,drug use and Johns.
You want the programs Matthew, but you want the church to do it.
I dont want the programs.
As for East hastings surround it with troops for 3 months nothing in or out.Only water and food and gas all cars checked in and out for 3 months.
If you walk out you dont come back with out a ink stamp like Iraq voters and if you are high you stay out.
Military blockade and that will solve the problem.
Go staight cold turkey or oh well.

Posted by: Merle Terleski | 2008-08-15 11:19:19 AM

Actually, Merle, the war on drugs is a socialist program. Capitalists, and small government supporters, tend not to go in for social engineering, or for making adults do what the government bureaucrats want.

Epsilon: Can you please provide an argument? Pretty please? Just one. I appreciate your emotions, and your desire to express those emotions, but maybe you could provide a justification on top of your ad hominems and emotional outbursts.

Drug prohibition may be well intentioned. Maybe people recognize the danger of certain kinds of drugs and would like to see fewer adults and children harmed by drugs. And maybe they think the law will work.

But it hasn't, and there's no reason to think that it will. Meanwhile, there's very good reason to think that drug prohibition is the root cause of the problems.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-15 11:24:23 AM

It matters little where one stands on the prohibition of drugs issue, because it is highly unlikely that any Canadian government would be willing to oppose the Americans on it. No, I am not anti-American but I am a realist.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-15 11:36:19 AM

Alain has it right.

Nothing is what it appears to be ... ever!

Posted by: John V | 2008-08-15 11:44:30 AM

May I add another equally important reason why drug prohibition in Canada will not end. We are far too removed from the concept of seeing and treating adults as responsible human beings who are able to make their own choices while also holding them accountable for their choices, that it simply will not happen. Just a couple of examples are the seat-belt and helmet laws (including for bicycles in some provinces). Were I to see some small steps to return to such a view, then I could see it possible down the road.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-15 11:54:35 AM

We are far too removed from the concept of seeing and treating adults as responsible human beings who are able to make their own choices while also holding them accountable for their choices, that it simply will not happen.Just a couple of examples are the seat-belt and helmet laws (including for bicycles in some provinces).
Posted by: Alain | 15-Aug-08 11:54:35 AM

And what about the responsible adult that didn't bother about the Ford (BBQ with 4 seats) Pinto recall?

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-15 12:24:16 PM


You are confused. The Pinto, like the Corvair, were big mistakes that have been corrected.

What does it have to do whether or not I choose to wear a helmet or smoke pot?

People make bad choices all the time. That is how we got the huge caring industry that we all are forced to fund through over taxation.

The point is that when people make a mistake, they must pay the price. That is a law of nature.

To go against nature is to create a false sense of security through totalitarian governance.

I prefer to take my chances.

Posted by: John V | 2008-08-15 12:48:51 PM


Am I stoned?
No I don't use drugs or alcohol. It enables me to see more clearly.
Perhaps the idea is simply too complicated for you. That would put you in the majority with the rest of the brain washed.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-15 12:52:52 PM

You are confused. The Pinto, like the Corvair, were big mistakes that have been corrected.
Posted by: John V | 15-Aug-08 12:48:51 PM

First, the video was a joke. The Pinto however was no joke. Ford knew there was a big problem with it and decided it was cheaper to settle a death claim than it was to issue a product wide recall and fix the problem. If you want to drive a motorcycle without a helmet that's fine, until your actions impact me.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-15 1:08:58 PM

Jaws, don't you know that people make 100% of their decisions based on emotions? This is a fundamental flaw of llibertarian nitwits, they discount the enormous impact of emotion and "humanness". This is why their arguments only resonate with insensitive machine-like drones and not with the general public or what conservative minded normal people want.


Posted by: epsilon | 2008-08-15 2:31:17 PM

Epsi you're so in tune with tunnel vision it seems. People make 100% of their decisions based on emotion? Wow that's very Clintonesque.
I can see that you come from a position of "morality". But I disagree with your interpretation of morality.
I disagree with any doctrine who's morality says everyone needs to be controlled. That's slavery.
And I'm at LIBRTY to think so whether you like it or not.
Have a great day and don't forget to pay "your" taxes.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-15 2:48:57 PM

Llibertarians are so un-human that you have to spell it out for them.

People make 100 % of their decisions on an emotional basis. You can read and study all the "rational" arguments you want, the decision that you take is going to be the one that makes you FEEL most satisfied or you FEEL is most correct.

Got it?


Posted by: epsilon | 2008-08-15 3:01:00 PM

"Llibertarians are so un-human that you have to spell it out for them."

That's rich coming from someone who wants to lock up peaceful, decent, ordinary Canadians who choose to smoke pot.

It seems to me like the only inhuman people on here are the pro-drug war types. They'd rip apart families, send the military in, turn Canada into a police state, get kids hooked on drugs (it's true. Legalize and regulate = fewer kids doing drugs. Keep illegal = more kids on drugs.), etc.

Inhuman? You need to take a good long look in the mirror, epsi.

And as for your "100% emotion" line... Bollocks. I don't "feel" good about what Phelps has to say, but I believe he has the right to say it. I don't "feel" good about people snorting coke, but I still think it should be legal (even if I ask them not to), I don't "feel" good about a pile of things, but I'm not a big government, nanny state, tell-you-what-to-do kind of guy.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-15 4:08:31 PM

Libertarians are simply people who don't feel that other people are their responsibility.

They are people who simply want live free and control their own lives.

They are people who simply want to decide how their money is spent.

They are people who simply don't want to live of the avails of others. (Employees aren't victims.)

Libertarians are people who value their life and the lives of their families and friends over the lives of complete strangers.

Libertarians are people who are not so petty as to whine about smokers and the obese as being a drain on their own wallets. They know that smokers and the obese will die young and actually do us all an economic favor. They also pay more taxes with their over consumption.

Libertarians are people who understand the difference between reality and fantasy.

Libertarians are people who simply are smarter and more responsible than liberals or even most conservatives at this time in our political history.

I would much rather be marooned on an island with a libertarian than a liberal, since the libertarian is far more self-reliant and willing to do what it takes to survive and prosper.

I could go on, but I think you get the message. In short, Libertarians are better people than the smarmy, dependent, easily duped Liberal and phony conservatives all of whom unfortunately, make up the majority of our failing society.

Posted by: John V | 2008-08-15 4:24:12 PM

Epsi, would you please clarify your position? On one hand you state that people make their decisions based on emotion, and I would say many people do some of the time. However, it appears that the only solution to that problem in your view is for others to make their decisions for them. If this is incorrect, please clarify what the solution is.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-15 4:59:27 PM

Epsi: Intelligent decisions are not made by emotion. If LEAP (experienced, educated drug warriors) say that the war is a stupid disaster, why would you argue with them? Do you know something they don't? Are you even aware of the many issues that exist because of the war on drugs?

Merle: Should the law preclude people from taking dangerous risks?

Posted by: attitude | 2008-08-15 6:19:23 PM

Llibertarians are so un-human that you have to spell it out for them.

That's simply not true. But it is the battle cry of the indoctrinated conformist. Name calling is all they have when reason fails them.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-15 7:25:24 PM

PS , Attitude:

I don't know if you are aware of this, but LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) has 100,000 members in the US and 10,000 in Canada. They must all be un human libertarians too I guess. ;)

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-15 7:27:37 PM

you are emotionless zoids.

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-08-15 11:17:28 PM

This is a quote from the 2002 report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs entitled, "Cannabis: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy":
"The continued PROHIBITION of cannabis jeopardizes the health and well-being of Canadians MUCH MORE than does the substance itself."
This has been the conclusion of many other reports as well.
Ending cannabis prohibition is in Canada's best interest.

Posted by: FrankD | 2008-08-15 11:32:04 PM

"you are emotionless zoids."

Oh stop you're hurting my feelings...oh wait! I don't have any, that's right.
This is going to come as a surprise to my wife, kids and dogs...they think I love them.

Thanks Epsi, for a minute I thought I was passionate about my country's future...turns out Turns out I should just go back to "Zoid" land.
And you should go back to the Hillary Clinton finishing school.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-17 9:42:01 PM

That should be worth another 100 votes for your stupid llibertarian party, fuckwit.

Posted by: epsilon | 2008-08-17 10:51:56 PM

I never thought epsilon would accuse libertarians of lacking in empathy; typically, only the left makes that claim. Hmmmm...

Are you now or have you ever been a leftist, epsi? :-)

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-18 7:02:16 AM

Any prohibition breeds crime, it breeds more job for law enforcement and more government spending, but it does not remove the cause of the problem. Let us people themselves decide what is good for them what is not.

Posted by: Vladimir | 2008-08-26 5:51:10 AM

Not only do I agree with Young's position against Marijuana prohibition.

I will go a step further. ALL the drug industry should be deregulated.

We should allow EVERYONE to buy, sell, produce and consume all the drugs they want and we should get rid of the PRESCRIPTION SCAM.

Patients should have the right to order the medicine they want without having to first see a doctor.

Patients and drug users should also bear the full consequences of their actions.

Doctors should NOT have the power to prevent people from having the medicine or drugs they want.

Doctors should be advisers not controllers.

That way, doctors would be forced to do a better job, be more polite and respectful with their patients and care about them if they want to keep their job.

Because if I was in power, I would immediately short circuit their ability to prescribe drugs by making all drugs available. I would get rid of the doctor bottleneck.

Patients should not be forced to go see their doctor to renew asthma prescriptions. That drug, like all drugs, should be available on demand, period.

Nobody should have power over patients except the patients themselves.

Posted by: Libertarian Warrior | 2008-08-26 7:22:22 AM

Reply to Epsilon who wrote:

"you are emotionless zoids."


Posted by: I Hate Epsilon | 2008-08-26 7:26:05 AM

We should allow EVERYONE to buy, sell, produce and consume all the drugs they want and we should get rid of the PRESCRIPTION SCAM.

Patients should have the right to order the medicine they want without having to first see a doctor.
Posted by: Libertarian Warrior | 26-Aug-08

Pregnant women can get thalidomide again for morning sickness. Great idea.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-08-26 7:33:59 AM

I agree with The Stig, allowing anybody to have whatever drugs they want would cause extreme abuse of prescriptions. I think nearly everyone would be hopped up on something 24/7.

Posted by: Ike | 2008-08-26 9:06:25 AM

Knothead Harper has already said he would sooner see his kid with a beer than a joint,so his kid has abetter chace of dying than I do, poor little dude. we need to fire Harper and elect a real person not a alien like him

Posted by: Mav | 2008-08-26 2:43:12 PM

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. Imagine what would happen if tobacco were totally outlawed! Yet both are probably more dangerous (and more addictive?) than marijuana.

I am surprised at how much fear Merle and Epsi have about legalizing drugs which are readily available anyway. They are prepared to use guns to stop the use of such drugs.

Given what we know about thalidomide, how stupid would a preganant woman have to be to use it? How stupid would a drug store have to be to sell it to a pregnant woman? How stupid would a manufacturer be to sell it without a warning not to use it if you are pregnant? How stupid do you have to be to suggest this might happen?

And aren't we lucky that the government approved thalidomide as a remedy for morning sickness? Of course they know what is good (and bad) for us. NOT!

Ike, are all your friends hopped up on alcohol or nicotine 24/7? 99% of the people I know lead normal, productive lives in spite of the fact they could obtain marijuana, cocaine and heroin without a prescription today. The primary effect of legalizing them would be a significant reduction in the price and an improvement in quality and safety.

Most libertarians I know don't even smoke let alone use prohibited drugs and would not encourage either. I wouldn't even encourage drinking beer, but I don't believe I have a right to prevent you from drinking it, or smoking tobacco (except in my home).

Most drugs were used in the past with no more repercussions than alcohol until some busybodies convinced the government to prohibit it. Hemp was a threat to cotton growers, so it was prohibited. Chinese immigrants (who built the railways) had their opium dens until racists decided they were having too much fun.

IMHO, force is not the solution to the drug 'problem.' Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the past and it isn't working for other drugs today. Unfortunately it is having the same unintended consequences of increased crime.

Posted by: Jim Mc | 2008-08-26 7:55:48 PM

Hemp-Cannabis (H.-C.) is the Holy Herb.
H.-C. is the best medicine, best diet, best clothing, best lodging, best fuel & best leisure. It is needed for the well-being of ALL!
H.-C. is the most ancient culture of humanity; Humans & H.-C. are symbiotic. Some 5,000 years of experience/knowledge are it.

The references are countless: the Commission Ledain, yes, LEAP, yes, also the Canadian Senate Report on it, the letter from the City of Victoria Council to Health Canada, the Zion Coptic Church of Ethiopia, ancient China & every ancient human culture from every continent.
Blessed those who, despite the oppression, stand for the Herb!

Posted by: Rejean | 2008-08-26 7:58:12 PM

I've been reading some of Matthew Johnston's articles on this issue which has been on my heart since 1964, when I was attending one of Canada's most prestigious private schools north of TO.

I was 14 and extremely rebellious. Skipped out to the big smoke and scored some smoke. Not that is had been on the agenda. I was introduced to it.

It was a scary experience because the film reefer madness was still a "hit" on the big screen, and smoking pot was like doing Heroin. I smoked it because it seemed like an adventurous thing to do, there was a thrill in the outlaw behavior.

From then on I fell into the drug user fringe by being welcomed there and ostricized from elsewhere. I come from a family who didn't shy away from alcohol and I had already gotten hammered on booze at a couple of Polish weddings, before I was 12. When mom and dad were busy on the dance floor, I would, along with other rascals my age all dressed in pint sized suites,d sip those drinks on the tables, then dance with the young cuties all dressed up. we were only doing what we saw the adults doing.

When I turned on to drugs part of the allure was the fact that this was NOT my old man's favorite substance. I think some youth are captured that way, a mix of seeking adventure (later in life I loved to hang glide), rebelliousness against tradition, the old man, the world, which now alienated me because I was one of "them," a drug user.

This is the path of street adventure which confronts many rebellious youth who see themselves as marginalized, because they are poor, or by the others who are conformists.

I have turned in an organized crime figure who bragged to me of murder one and may yet pay the price because the cops didn't keep their mouths shut. See "I trusted the RCMP."

I would like to trust my police, because I am not violent and would rather let them protect me from the idiots. I called 911 many times when I hear someone needing help or saw someone pimping a 14 year old girl. The cops must have this record.

I don't understand why then, a supervisor who helped with the arrest (I stuck my head into a cop car and asked them if they wished to buy pot to challenge the laws) would not return my message afterward.

I had, about a month earlier, been walking somewhere in East Van with my headphones on but turned off. I had the opportunity to overhear several young males in heated discussion over the hood of an expensive 4X4. they weren't being careful and I walked quickly by minding my own business, an old man walking his dog. The conversation concern doing something to someone. I remembered the plate number which I got when I turn to call my dog lagging behind. I always copy down suspicious plate numbers.

I had mistakenly thought that I could trust this obviously senior cop to make our neighborhood safe from violence.

Instead my call was never returned and then a few days later I found out that they were keeping my Bud Hat as Evidence even though I have been wearing it for 2 years and I had stuck my head into the cop car to initiate the legal process. This is blatant political oppression which is not supposed to be in a cops job description. But what should be in their job description is not being taken care off. With that license number they might have solved a crime and got some dangerous people out of our community.

Can any LEAP cops explain why people with such small imaginations and narrow focus get to advance to supervisory positions?

Isn't their duty to be concerned for public safety more so than harassing a 58 year activist toker? Couldn't a 30 second phone be something that someone employed in the public service take a gamble, feel obliged to take? Are they really that childish to take my hat in order to spite me in preference to doing proper policing?

Posted by: budoracle | 2008-09-30 10:31:18 PM

bud- Cops will always take the line of least resistance. Going up against a non-violent pot smoker is a much easier way of finishing your shift, than getting involved with a violent situation.

That's a real problem in Calgary right now. The cops are falling all over themselves to arrest hookers on the stroll, and kids smoking cigarettes. When it comes to confronting gangs, they always seem to be somewhere else when the bullets are flying.

Posted by: dp | 2008-09-30 10:42:00 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.