CUT OUT THE MIDDLE MAN

In his editorial of November 19, (Funding cuts hamstring war against drugs),
retired RCMP inspector David L. Staples suggests that "It is high time that
assets seized as proceeds of crime are used to augment (not replace) the
funding for drug enforcement as has been successfully done in the U.S."

Under asset forfeiture laws in the U.S., there is no presumption of
innocence and no right to an attorney. The burden of proof is reversed. Once
the police establish that a property is subject to forfeiture, the burden
shifts to the property owner to prove that the property does not belong to
the government. Consequently, 90% of forfeitures are uncontested and 80% of
those who lose property to the government through civil forfeitures are
never charged with any crime.

If drug prohibition and asset forfeiture are such great solutions to pubic
health problems, why don't we prohibited tobacco, a drug that kills more
Canadians that all illicit drugs combined? Then the police could seize the
assets of tobacco dealers too. Property crime would go through the roof when
tobacco addicts are forced to pay $100.00 a pack, but the police would make
a killing. Mind you, the police would not have any incentive to investigate
violent crimes or impoverished criminals.

I have a better plan. The police should cut out the middle man. Under the
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, they have new broad powers of search
and seizure and the ability to conduct "reverse stings". The police could
just sell drugs and steal car stereos to fund their failed war against
drugs.

Matthew M. Elrod Victoria,


Checked-by: Don Beck