FLIR TECHNOLOGY EXPENSIVE AND GOOD FOR COPS TO CATCH THE 'SMALL FRY' ONLY,
READER SAYS

To the editor:

I see the greatest weapon organized crime wields, the various OPP drug
units, are back at it. "Supreme Court puts FLIR back in the air for
cops," Dec. 24.

Does anyone know anything about Thermal Imaging technology?

There are various measures to reduce and eliminate the thermal
emissions from indoor hydroponic systems, but it costs a bit of money.

This is no problem for organized criminals as they have access to this
technology and the cash to afford it. So they will continue to stay
one step ahead of the cops as they always have and always will.

Why then would the police invest millions more of taxpayers' money
into a system that will regularly catch the small fry, as they do now?
The same reasons they always go after the little guy: career
enhancement, personal safety, corruption, political direction, etc.
etc.

For anyone who thinks Sgt. Barnum actually believes what he is saying,
one only has to look to his statements. In your article the Sgt. is
quoted as saying, "It's great news in that the courts are on our side
in this, and we're excited about that. But we get a search warrant in
these investigations anyway. FLIR is used under a warrant whenever we
need it [the technology]."

He goes on, "We don't take the helicopter out and go 'hunting,' he
said. "It's a pretty expensive resource. Usually, we get tips and
information on grow operations, often from the public and then we
proceed with the warrant. We use the helicopter and FLIR to search a
large area, for example if we receive information that a number of
houses in an area are showing suspicious activity. We would use FLIR
to cover a large area in that case."

So, which is it? Do we "get a search warrant anyway" or do we "cover a
large area?"

I think the telling quote is at the end of the article: "The good news
for us in the court ruling is that we don't have to get a special
warrant to use FLIR."

Now for an alternate perspective:

Marijuana is the best medicine on the planet but use was prohibited
because of racist policies in the 1930s and at the desire of Mellon,
Du Pont, Hearst, et al. expressly so they would not have to compete
with hemp's natural products.

The original prohibition was constructed on a fraudulent foundation -
the resulting erosion of civil liberties is now accepted by society
almost without question - while the Europeans that actually lived
through the hell of the world wars watch in disbelief.

The political corruption reaped by this fraud has trickled down to the
rank and file, and we now see the day of negative health effects on
three generations denied the healing powers of this harmless medicine.

Chris Bransfield

Barry`s Bay