ASSESSING THE 'THREAT' POSED BY GROW-OPS

ON Sept. 12 in this space, I explored the reality and the hype about
marijuana grow-ops, pointing out that evidence about the many harms
they cause often has nothing to do with threatening the community.

In particular, that they are proliferating at an exponential rate and
that they may cause damage to the premises that house them has no
bearing on whether they are the scourge they're made out to be.

It's time to take a closer look at the four items that might well be
a threat: firearms, fires, home invasions ("grow rips") and organized crime.

In 2002 and 2004, criminologists at the University College of the
Fraser Valley published a study titled Marijuana Growing Operations
in British Columbia, covering the years 1997-2003.

It should be a reliable source of information on all aspects of the
problem. Unfortunately, in each study, it devotes only one page to
the potential harms associated with grow-ops, simply pointing out the
percentage of cases where firearms, booby-traps and explosives were
found. It also sets out the percentage of cases where fires were "involved."

My own study has taken the form of poring over the entire judgement
databases of all B.C. courts, some cases going back to the late '80s.
It is manifestly unscientific (and tedious); but it seems reasonable
to expect that, if there are certain constant dangers associated with
grow-ops, their presence will be reflected in the cases that come to court.

There are about 500 cases that mention grow-ops. Approximately half
of those are directly on point, especially when the search includes
"firearms," "organized crime" or "fires." It turns out that most of
the hits are due to a ritualized mention of those dangers in
judgements, not because they were actually present but because the
court assumed their prevalence -- the very problem being explored here.

The UCFV study found that there were guns found at six per cent of
grow-ops raided. My research suggests that that percentage has gone
up slightly. Still, there are no firearms found at about 93 per cent
of grow-ops raided. More important, simple figures don't reveal the
kinds of firearms found. Of the judgements that mention firearms,
only two involve handguns. One speaks of a replica and two other
unloaded handguns, without ammunition, properly stored. In the other,
the accused was arrested without incident and only after he had been
taken away did the police discover a loaded .38 under the comforter
on the sofa where he had been sleeping. The other cases demonstrate
that the typical firearm found at a grow-op is a hunting rifle
stuffed in the back of an upstairs bedroom closet, often leading to
"careless storage" charges but nothing more.

Available statistics suggest that there is at least one firearm in
about one-quarter of Canadian households. It is no surprise that they
will be encountered occasionally in grow-op investigations.

All of that is hardly the stuff of a palpable threat. And it seems
the police are aware from experience that the menace is much less
than it's made out to be. Consider this excerpt from a recent Port
Coquitlam provincial court judgement:

"According to the ERT (emergency response team) leader, Const.
Thompson, these members were the best-trained personnel to deal with
the unknown risk hazards that are commonly associated with marijuana
grow operations. Const. Thompson testified that there can be weapons
and explosives inside a residence. Further, the interiors of
buildings can present a variety of electrical hazards. Occupants of
the residence may be violent.

"However, in his seven years of experience on the ERT, Const.
Thompson did not know of any police officers who suffered injuries,
or who were attacked by a person with a weapon, while executing such
search warrants."

I came up with a total of seven cases that specifically refer to a
crime as a "grow-rip." As many or more involve invasions of homes
because they were reputed to have large amounts of cash, jewelry or
other valuables -- which suggests that, if grow operators are a
threat to the neighbourhood because of the potential for a grow-rip,
so are those who don't trust banks, collect valuable arti-facts or
keep expensive jewelry around.

Without providing any definitions, the UCFV study says "hazards
(e.g., booby-trap, explosives, dangerous chemical product)" were
found in 2.1 per cent of investigations. That must be all about
dangerous chemicals (whatever they are) because, if there has ever
been a grow-op case in which explosives or booby-traps (again,
whatever they may be) were actually found, it didn't end up in court.
Indeed, the hundreds of cases I reviewed, and the many of my personal
experience, all seem to be of a piece: a tip, a bit of surveillance,
a warrant, a raid -- almost always, and unnecessarily, with a
battering ram -- and the ritual arrest of the surprised but compliant
people inside.

Fires are equally elusive. Only one case mentioned an unfortunate
grower who had his operation uncovered because there was a fire in
the basement of his home where, of course, his budding crop was
located. That was in Nelson, in 2002, and the judgement never said
whether the fire was caused by the grow-op.

A survey of North Shore fire and rescue services reveals a total of
five fires at grow-ops. In West Vancouver, there have been two since
1997, one caused by the explosion of a propane heater. The City of
North Vancouver reports none and there have been three in the
District of North Vancouver since 2000.

All three services confirm that a significant percentage of their
calls are due to faulty or amateur electrical wiring. In the
district, for example, that was the cause of 107 of their 633 calls
in the past seven years. Three were at grow-ops. Adjusted for
population, the figures for Vancouver are equally benign. Considering
the number of grow-ops busted over the past several years, that's a
pretty respectable showing. Indeed, as one deputy chief put it,
people setting up electrical diversions for grow-ops are "getting
better and better at it -- we're finding that the wiring is getting
safer and safer."

Which leaves organized crime; and the cases fail to support all the
talk about its omnipresent connection. There was never a mention of
it among the many cases I heard; and only two in the databases speak
about organized crime. The connection in one had the muted,
peripheral importance of elevator music. The other referred to the
Hell's Angels pressing the accused to set up an operation but said
nothing about their involvement in it.

The return on investment that the cannabis trade promises is such
that criminal organizations would be crazy to stay on the sidelines.
But, at least according to information available in the public
domain, such groups are clearly not a feature of the ordinary
grow-op. It is almost always a private venture, entered into for
profit that the entrepreneur would prefer not to share with others.
No doubt police forces have their sources that tell them otherwise (I
say "no doubt" because, if not, all those experts are routinely lying
to the courts); but it would be helpful if they would share with us
interested parties at least a broad outline of what role, exactly,
organized crime plays in the cannabis market.

It is significant that the UCFV study doesn't even deal with the subject.

I repeat: Grow-ops are certainly a nuisance, as well as criminal
activity that must be denounced to promote respect for the law. But
if judges, when considering an appropriate sentence, are going to be
presented with information from "experts" about the dangers of
grow-ops, they owe it to themselves -- and certainly to the accused
-- to examine that evidence with care and certainly a little skepticism.