Police obsession with potgrowers is silly

Jon ParkWheeler

With regards to the July 22 front page article, "RCMP wants crackdown on
indoor marijuana growers," all I can say is, what new silliness is this?

(Let me state that I am neither a cultivator nor a user of the
pernicious weed, but that I may know the odd person who enjoys the
occasional "reefer.")

To be sure, crime as committed by outlaw groups such as the Hells Angels
must be condemned, excoriated, and most certainly halted, but by
targeting vendors of hydroponics supplies? The rationale seems to be
that the innocent will never suffer, but the ne'erdowells and the
shady types of the demimonde will be brought swiftly to justice.

One is forced to speculate as to where this flimsy philosophy might
lead: should we also monitor the sales of condoms, in the hope that it
might lead to the arrest of a serial rapist? Might we record all sales
of gasoline, given that bank robbers must have a getaway vehicle?
Perhaps covert surveillance of the screwdriver rack at Canadian Tire
would serve up a bevy of breakandenter types.

Anyway you slice it, it looks more and more like an invasive policy that
erodes our liberty just a little more. If the problem is a burgeoning
criminal element, there are other ways of dealing with them.

One might think about decriminalizing the use of marijuana, controlling
its cultivation, and attaching the same sort of constraints to its use
as are currently found on, say, erotica, explosives and alcohol. Imagine
the flood of revenue to government coffers, and the unhappiness of the
illegal growers. Would they continue to grow? Sure, but with a couple of
differences: with a licit option, anyone I might know would gladly pony
up at the MCBO (Marijuana Control Board of Ontario), cutting into our
buccaneers' profits. The other thing is that, with actual money at stake
(in the form of taxation), society is bound to take a much more savage
view of those fallen Angels and their naughty ways. ( If you don't think
so, just take a look at the difference in the kinds of vehicles our
society finds appropriate for transporting cash compared with those we
find acceptable for busing schoolchildren. Just what do we consider most
precious, anyway?) We seem to be a society with conflicting values.

We would also appear to be a society capable of adapting to changing
times. On that same front page is an article about the women who fought
a long battle to be recognized as persons. Perhaps marijuana users ought
to visit the Privy Council of England (as those courageous women did in
1929 to plead the case of women's suffrage) to win the right to consume
their recreational drug of choice.

Maybe propot types need a senator with the resolve of Sharon Carstairs
(the subject of a proeuthanasia article on that same front page) to
carry their torch. She notes that "We don't prevent suicide in Canada.
Canadians can buy a gun or rope to commit suicide." (Let's put a watch
on ropesellers, too.) If we can contemplate the enormous obligations of
legislating the right to this irreversible choice, where does mere
marijuana use fit in the scheme of things?

Unchecked, untaxed cultivation of the evil weed? No! A controlled,
qualityconscious industry employing many to serve the desires of many
(but not me), and generate all kinds of tax revenue? Why not give it a
moment's thought?

If our national police really want to stake out retail outlets for
something that makes most of us nervous, watch Toys 'R' Us for potential
pedophiles purchasing bait. Do that, at least, should I become a police
target for deciding to hydroponically grow tomatoes and lettuce in the
winter.

Jon ParkWheeler, Ottawa