IS TACKLING 'GROW OPS' REALLY THE ANSWER?

In the wake of last week's terrible tragedy in rural Alberta, all the
immediate attention seemed to be directed at the need to impose tougher
sentences on commercial marijuana growers.

That's certainly the direction in which the federal government is moving,
with proposed new laws allowing sentences of up to 14 years for large-scale
operators. (As matters stand, most people convicted of growing marijuana
are receiving nothing more than fines and conditional sentences.)

But is there really a shred of evidence that the deaths of four young Royal
Canadian Mounted Police officers would have been prevented if we already
had the proposed law in place?

The reality is that police went to the farm of James Roszko - a gun-loving,
sadistic maniac described by his own father as "the devil," with a long
history of violent, criminal and drug-induced behaviour - simply to back up
a sheriff's order authorizing repossession of a pickup truck. It was only
when they arrived there that the officers found that a large quonset hut
contained both a marijuana "grow op" and what appeared to be a "chop shop,"
where parts had been reclaimed from stolen cars.

All we know at this point (and we'll likely never know much more) is that
the four young officers, equipped with nothing more than their service
revolvers and ordinary body armour, were no match for a cop hater armed
with a rapid-fire assault rifle and (we suspect) armour-piercing bullets.

In an all-too-typical knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy, the Grit-hating
Toronto Sun ran an editorial last Saturday headed, "Our laws go to pot"
which put all the blame for what happened at the doorstep of Prime Minister
Paul Martin's Liberal government.

"The Liberals' suck and blow approach to enforcing our marijuana laws,
quite frankly, sucks," the editorial began.

"Suddenly Jean Chretien's jokes about taking up pot smoking once the
Liberals decriminalized it don't seem so funny, do they?"

The Alberta massacre was attributed to "the Liberals' soft approach to all
crime."

"On the one hand," the editorial said, "they say the want the police to
crack down on illegal grow-ops, without giving them either the financial or
legal resources they need to do the job. On the other, through their plan
to decriminalize marijuana, they're telling the public it's no big deal to
buy the product those grow-ops produce."

Granted, the Sun did admit to there being "many disturbing aspects to the
murder of these four young RCMP officers that have nothing to do with
grow-ops." These included why Roszko "was even walking the streets.
Neighbours living close to his Alberta farm described him as 'dangerous,'
and 'on the edge.' He shot at passersby. He had spikes at the end of his
driveway. He was known to police. He was also known to hate the RCMP, which
raises the question of why four young cops, one of them with two weeks on
the job, were sent to deal with him.

"In short, Roszko was just the kind of thug who routinely takes advantage
of our lax justice system, headed up by a Liberal government for whom law
and order has never been a priority."

Not surprisingly, neither the editorial or the Sun's news coverage included
any questioning whatsoever as to the role played by the massacre's location
- - in the middle of "Texas North," where the love of oil seems to be matched
only by the love of firearms and the hatred of Grits is matched by the
detestation of the federal gun registry.

A couple of questions we would like to see answered by a public inquiry:

Was the cop killer subject to a court order prohibiting his ownership of
firearms or explosives, and if not, why not?

And, in view of the fact that (despite the best efforts of the gun lobby)
assault rifles are prohibited weapons in Canada, would an effective gun
registry plus co-operation from the public not likely have led to seizure
of Roszko's killing machine?

By later in the week similar points were being made by a former RCMP
commissioner, Norman Inkster. He said the tragedy raises questions about
how the gun registry failed to keep the powerful weapon from the hands of a
man with a reputation as a violent psychopath.

"I would hate to see the aftermath of all this overlook the fact that we
are in a country where, apparently, people can acquire and retain powerful
weapons."

We are certainly not a fan of the enormous expenditures to date on creating
a gun registry that now apparently has about 9 million entries but likely
includes only a minority of firearms in Albertans' hands.

However, we do think the same reasons that we have long accepted a need to
register cars, trucks, motorcycles and even bicycles can be applied to
registering firearms: registration will ultimately allow better recovery
following thefts as well as making it easier to deny some persons the right
to acquire them.

What we would like to see is a truly "friendly" gun registry, operated with
state-of-the-art technology and paid for entirely by the public purse.

After all, is there any good reason why Ottawa could not come up with a
self-registering system similar to that used on hordes of websites, ranging
from airlines to public campgrounds?

These days, it should be possible to develop computer software that would
allow anyone with Internet access to register their firearms and get a
confirmation printout at no cost to the registrant and minimal cost to the
taxpayer.

(The same computerized system could be used to register all firearms at the
point of sale by dealers.)

Oh yes - we would favour tougher penalties for most criminal offences, and
in particular for possession of a firearm by anyone convicted of owning or
operating a marijuana growing operation.