HOME BUYERS NEED INFORMATION ON FORMER POT HOUSES

I fully support the recommendations put forth by several local MPs to make
public background information about the history of pot grow houses. Their
recommendations were mentioned in the June 4 article, Divulge Pot Houses'
History To Buyers: MP.

The frequent busts of these lucrative operations have become an alarming
trend within our region. The reason our local municipalities have been
targeted is only speculative; however, it's apparent that no street, urban
or rural, can claim exemption from this escalating problem. The significant
result of this trend is that our young people in senior public and high
schools have ready access to marijuana.

While not everyone agrees on the negative effects of casual marijuana use,
statistics support the theory that heavier drug use generally begins with
casual experimentation with "weed."

Our judicial system has been questioned for inconsistencies in sentencing
as the penalties handed down by our judges have varied from house arrests
and fines to, more recently, some jail time for involvement in these
sophisticated operations. In many cases, defence lawyers would wish the
courts and the public to believe participants are new to the country and
are often merely tenants naive about what they are actually involved in.

The potential for an economic loss on these properties based on disclosure
of grow house operations will also add to the penalty that is deserved for
tarnishing our neighbourhoods and our kids.

Our local judges have implied that their hands are tied until the lawmakers
in Ottawa provide them with better options for sentencing. They have also
stated publicly that the Crown must build their cases based on the impact
of the crime and do their homework better about hydro theft, risk of fire,
explosion and the community impacts of these grow houses.

Change begins with each one of us, and I write this in support of two
members of Parliament, Dan McTeague and Karen Redman, because they have
recognized the possibility for another potential public health hazard
associated with these houses. Their proposals, if accepted, would protect
unsuspecting buyers and their families from a list of potentially chronic
and possibly unnamed airborne diseases of an allergic nature -- remember
the fears of exposure to urea formaldehyde within our homes?

While the largest source of urea formaldehyde in the household has been
debated, the risk of repeated exposure resulted in a standard clause in all
real estate purchase transactions in Ontario prohibiting the sale of
properties without disclosure of urea formaldehyde insulation in homes.
This legislation provides protection for otherwise unsuspecting purchasers
to reduce any potential health hazards associated with exposure to urea
formaldehyde.

The article states that Chris Eby, a spokesman for Tim Hudak, the
provincial minister of consumer and business services, didn't know about
health concerns associated with grow houses. Perhaps further investigation
will provide insight into the health risks associated with chemical
exposure and mould presence within these homes.

A comparison to this issue has been the identification of occupational
respiratory conditions that have been identified due to airborne moulds
found in portable school units. Eby's response suggests that little action
will likely be taken to affect changes in the legislature because, "from
our perspective, this is an issue that is not crying out for attention."

Why wait until a problem arises; we can make a difference. Write a letter
or e-mail a response to the office of Hudak, the minister of consumer and
business services, or write a short note to support the efforts of our
local MPs.