RCMP tragedy

[kimmy]

Most people who have travelled in Alberta's northern areas probably recognize the Rochfort Bridge by sight; it's one of the longest wooden-trestle bridges in the world and it's quite scenic. I'll post a picture of it later. However, Rochfort Bridge is now famous for a different and sad reason, as 4 RCMP officers were killed during a bust at a marijuana grow-op. 4 officers armed only with pistols were slain by a suspect with a high-powered rifle, a man they'd had trouble with in the past.

In following days there will probably be many people using this horrible incident to show that decriminalizing marijuana is a mistake.

I will pre-emptively offer my response to that line of thinking. If marijuana were legal in Canada, it would be grown by legitimate businessmen instead of gangsters, criminals, and Hell's Angels. If marijuana were legal in Canada, grow operations would be the domain of Revenue Canada instead of the RCMP. If marijuana were legal in Canada, grow operators would protect their investments with accountants instead of rifles.

That's my view. What's yours?

-kimmy

[Newfie Canadian]

First off, let me say my thoughts and condolences go out to the RCMP and the families of those brave officers.

If marijuana were legal in Canada, grow operators would protect their investments with accountants instead of rifles.

Perhaps you may be right kimmy,

There was a thread a while ago in which this was covered, not long after I joined and I believe it was August and/or Black Dog that made some compelling arguments about this issue.

I have a concern about the criminal element. How can we as a society know that they will not simply go on to other lucrative illegal drug operations?

Criminals are in it to make money.

The higher the financial stakes, the more dangerous they become, and in a year or 2 or 3 or 5 we're talking about legalizing or relaxing the laws concerning another potentially dangerous drug.

[August1991]

That's my view. What's yours?

My first reaction was to ask whether the lives of four men are worth having marijuana illegal.

Well, that is sort of the question. How many people would die if we were to legalize marijuana?

[I miss Reagan]

I knew this would be politicized to no end. The fact is Jim Roszco was a bad guy. Bad people will exist no matter what. It doesn't make a difference if MJ was legal or not. The guy also had stolen cars. If it wasn't MJ it'd be crystal meth. We can spin this into drugs, gun control, police, crime and punishment, society etc. The fact is bad people have always existed and always will.

[Black Dog]

I have a concern about the criminal element. How can we as a society know that they will not simply go on to other lucrative illegal drug operations?

Criminals are in it to make money.

I expect that your big-time drug operators already have their fingers in other pies, be it meth/coke, prostitution, racketering etc etc. That's why it's called "organized" crime. However, legalizing weed would knock out one particularily lucrative pillar of the criminal element.

The higher the financial stakes, the more dangerous they become, and in a year or 2 or 3 or 5 we're talking about legalizing or relaxing the laws concerning another potentially dangerous drug.

It's not the drug that's dangerous, but the circumstances under which it is is grown, bought and sold that create the danger to society. Those circumstances are product of the laws against growing, buying and selling the drug, not the drug itself.

I knew this would be politicized to no end. The fact is Jim Roszco was a bad guy. Bad people will exist no matter what. It doesn't make a difference if MJ was legal or not. The guy also had stolen cars. If it wasn't MJ it'd be crystal meth. We can spin this into drugs, gun control, police, crime and punishment, society etc. The fact is bad people have always existed and always will.

Agreed.

[August1991]

It's not the drug that's dangerous, but the circumstances under which it is is grown, bought and sold that create the danger to society. Those circumstances are product of the laws against growing, buying and selling the drug, not the drug itself.

That was my question. Marijuana is dangerous. (We don't know how dangerous because we have never had a society where it is legal.) But making marijuana illegal is also dangerous. We don't know which danger is greater.

I knew this would be politicized to no end. The fact is Jim Roszco was a bad guy. Bad people will exist no matter what. It doesn't make a difference if MJ was legal or not. The guy also had stolen cars. If it wasn't MJ it'd be crystal meth. We can spin this into drugs, gun control, police, crime and punishment, society etc. The fact is bad people have always existed and always will.

Your argument is that your death due to heart disease is irrelevant because you were also ill with terminal cancer.

But how about this argument: "Even if 20% of the population dies of cancer, there's no point in seeking a cure. People will just die of heart disease anyway."

Making marijuana illegal causes many additional costs to society that would not exist if marijuana were legalized. I don't know if these four men specifically would be alive today if our marijuana laws were diffferent. But people have died solely because of those laws.

I see nothing wrong in polticising this issue. How else are we supposed to deal with it? Is it wrong to point out the costs to society of our laws?

[I miss Reagan]

Aug,

All I'm saying is, with respect to this situation, I don't think there was anything that could've prevented it. The natural human instinct is to assign blame to try to make sense of a senseless tragedy. The story seems to be that this guy was a nut who ambushed police officers. In the news I hear people blaming the RCMP for having junior officers on the scene, people blaming marijuana grow ops, people blaming the justice system. Maybe we need to back off of our "jump to conclusions mats".

[Stoker]

I will pre-emptively offer my response to that line of thinking. If marijuana were legal in Canada, it would be grown by legitimate businessmen instead of gangsters, criminals, and Hell's Angels. If marijuana were legal in Canada, grow operations would be the domain of Revenue Canada instead of the RCMP. If marijuana were legal in Canada, grow operators would protect their investments with accountants instead of rifles.

That's my view. What's yours?

Though I tend to agree with you in theory, in that if you make a crime legal, crime rates will go done. (Duh)

What I have a problem with is the principle. I feel that it's giving in to crime, even though it would likely hurt organised groups for a while....I don't think it's permanent

soultion........look at prohibition in the States. After it was lifted, crime didn't go away, if anything the crime rated increasd in the States.

I also feel that giving in to crime will lead to backing down in other areas......Let's legalize all drugs, how about prostution well we are at it. Does that end all crime related problems associated with these two vices, or just sweep them under the rug?

Making drugs and prostution legal worked so well in bringing down crime rates, lets legalize all petty crimes.....no more vandalism and shop lifting...etc etc etc

When and where do we draw the line? Murder and Rape?

First off, let me say my thoughts and condolences go out to the RCMP and the families of those brave officers.

Ditto.

I have a concern about the criminal element. How can we as a society know that they will not simply go on to other lucrative illegal drug operations?

Criminals are in it to make money.

The higher the financial stakes, the more dangerous they become, and in a year or 2 or 3 or 5 we're talking about legalizing or relaxing the laws concerning another potentially dangerous drug.

How's the saying go....great minds think alike i just don't like the precendet it could set....

My first reaction was to ask whether the lives of four men are worth having marijuana illegal.

Are the lives of police officers worth having any crime illegal? Which crimes are worth human life to enforce? Is principle worth enforcing?

I knew this would be politicized to no end. The fact is Jim Roszco was a bad guy. Bad people will exist no matter what. It doesn't make a difference if MJ was legal or not. The guy also had stolen cars. If it wasn't MJ it'd be crystal meth. We can spin this into drugs, gun control, police, crime and punishment, society etc. The fact is bad people have always existed and always will.

I agree with you on your post in general, but if we make a crime, no longer a crime, will that get rid of "bad people"? Or will it just give "bad people" more freedom?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Well, I feel bad for the families and the dead.

But this is a kind of a weird story, isn't it?

If this was a grow op bust, why did the marijuana squad leave the premises (leaving the four dead to guard the site)? And are there any reports of marijuana seized?

Meanwhile, how did one guy kill four armed mounties? Sniping? Then how did he die himself?

Also, generally, I'm kind of disgusted with the way public prohibition advocates have latched on to this tragedy for political advantage.

[Black Dog]

What I have a problem with is the principle. I feel that it's giving in to crime, even though it would likely hurt organised groups for a while....I don't think it's permanent

soultion........look at prohibition in the States. After it was lifted, crime didn't go away, if anything the crime rated increasd in the States.

Prohibition lead to a dramatic increrase in crime. the crime rate dropped following prohibition's end.

Prohibition was a failure.

America had experienced a gradual decline in the rate of serious crimes over much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. That trend was unintentionally reversed by the efforts of the Prohibition movement. The homicide rate in large cities increased from 5.6 per 100,000 population during the first decade of the century to 8.4 during the second decade when the Harrison Narcotics Act, a wave of state alcohol prohibitions, and World War I alcohol restrictions were enacted. The homicide rate increased to 10 per 100,000 population during the 1920s, a 78 percent increase over the pre-Prohibition period.

The Volstead Act, passed to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment, had an immediate impact on crime. According to a study of 30 major U.S. cities, the number of crimes increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. The study revealed that during that period more money was spent on po-ice (11.4+ percent) and more people were arrested for violating Prohibition laws (102+ percent). But increased law enforcement efforts did not appear to reduce drinking: arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrests of drunken drivers increased 81 percent. Among crimes with victims, thefts and burglaries increased 9 percent, while homicides and incidents of assault and battery increased 13 percent. More crimes were committed because prohibition destroys legal jobs, creates black-market violence, diverts resources from enforcement of other laws, and greatly increases the prices people have to pay for the prohibited goods.

Instead of emptying the prisons as its supporters had hoped it would, Prohibition quickly filled the prisons to capacity. Those convicted of additional crimes with victims (burglaries, robberies, and murders), which were due to Prohibition and the black market, were incarcerated largely in city and county jails and state prisons.

Any of this sound familiar?

But what heppened next?

The number of violations of Prohibition laws and violent crimes against persons and property continued to in- crease throughout Prohibition. Figure 4 shows an undeniable relationship between Prohibition and an increase in the homicide rate. The homicide rate increased from 6 per 100,000 population in the pre-Prohibition period to nearly 10 per 100,000 in 1933. That rising trend was reversed by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, and the rate continued to decline throughout the 1930s and early 1940s

...

The most telling sign of the relationship between serious crime and Prohibition was the dramatic reversal in the rates for robbery, burglary, murder, and assault when Prohibition was repealed in 1933. That dramatic reversal has Marxist and business-cycle crime theorists puzzled to this day. For example, sociologist John Pandiani noted that "a major wave of crime appears to have begun as early as the mid 1920s [and] increased continually until 1933 . . . when it mysteriously reversed itself." Theodore Ferdinand also found a "mysterious" decline that began in 1933 and lasted throughout the 1930s. How could they miss the significance of the fact that the crime rate dropped in 1933?

As for the idea that decriminalizing or legalizing weed is "giving into crime", well, there's plenty wrong with hat.

For one thing, soemthing should only be a crime if it has a negative impact on society that necessitates the intervention of the state. Given that pot use, like smoking or alcohol, is essentially a private matter, why is it illegal in the first place? As I pointed out, all the negatives associated with the drug trade are consequnces of the drug laws and not the drugs themselves. So why stick with a set of laws that are clearly causing more problems than they are solving?

It's not "giving in" to recognize that a bad idea has run its course.

I also feel that giving in to crime will lead to backing down in other areas......Let's legalize all drugs, how about prostution well we are at it. Does that end all crime related problems associated with these two vices, or just sweep them under the rug?

Well if you legalize drugs and prostitution (and, one assumes, regulate then the same way tobacco and alcohol are regulated) then you put an end to

the violence associated with attempts to control these previously illicit markets.

Making drugs and prostution legal worked so well in bringing down crime rates, lets legalize all petty crimes.....no more vandalism and shop lifting...etc etc etc

This brings us back to the question of why certain activities are illegal. Murder, rape, vanadlism and other property crimes are crimes because they infinge on the rights of others. But if I smoke a joint, who's rights are being infringed upon? Similarily, if someone wants to do a bump of cocaine with a hooker (who thanks to the newly regulated prostitution industry, is there under his or her own free will), who's being harmed?

I agree with you on your post in general, but if we make a crime, no longer a crime, will that get rid of "bad people"? Or will it just give "bad people" more freedom?

The point is, bad asses will be bad asses no matter what. But sweeping drug laws have meant a lot of people who've not done anyone any harm are feeling the force of the law. To me, that's the mark of a bad law.

Why should we have to spend any more lives or money fuighting a futile war against something that, ultimately, poses no threat to society? Wouldn't the resources that we're expending in the fight against drugs (a fight we've been losing since Day One) be better directed to safeguarding society from the genuinely "bad people" IMR is talking about?

[I miss Reagan]

Given that pot use, like smoking or alcohol, is essentially a private matter, why is it illegal in the first place? As I pointed out, all the negatives associated with the drug trade are consequnces of the drug laws and not the drugs themselves.

I'm open minded about de-criminalizing pot but I have reservations. It could have a negative effect on society. If it were legal its usage among kids would skyrocket, it does have negative health effects which cost society money, and people are pretty lazy on pot. And alcohol has a hugely negative impact on society and is related to domestic violence, 50% of traffic fatalities, addiction and hangovers resulting in lost productivity at work. A cop told me 90% of crime is alcohol/drug related.

Wouldn't the resources that we're expending in the fight against drugs (a fight we've been losing since Day One) be better directed to safeguarding society from the genuinely "bad people"

Ya, I agree. From what I understand the majority of inmates in the US prison system are in for drug crime. The money might be better spent on drug rehabilitation and education programs. I'd much rather the resources be used to put away violent offenders for good.

[Stoker]

Well Black Dog, I have to admit you make some convincing points on personnal freedom......though I still hold some reservations which I believe IMR outlined, and I admit, they are based on personnal prejudice and the fear of the unknown.

[B. Max]

I finally had to turn it off. The media here is cranking it through the roof,to the point Rutherford is sounding like a liberal and news casters are turning into poets.

Like joe friday used to say. Just the facts please.

[Black Dog]

If it were legal its usage among kids would skyrocket, it does have negative health effects which cost society money, and people are pretty lazy on pot

Well, alcohol usage spiked after prohibition. If something is legal, it is therefore easier to obtain so more people will use it. But that's a case for regulation, not outright prohibition. In any case, are current drug laws making it difficult to get drugs? Not really. Kids are still getting pot (probably with greater ease than they do alchol, thugh that's just speculation on my part).

I wonder if legalization would also lead to the demysification. Kids are drawn to drugs, alcohol etc partly because of the "forbidden fruit" aspect. I'd liek to see a comparison between rates of alchol us ebetween North AMerican kids and those in Europe, which generally has more relaxed booze laws.

But again it comes down to asking: are the costs of legalizing pot greater than the costs of maintaining tae status quo? I doubt it.

From what I understand the majority of inmates in the US prison system are in for drug crime.

The U.S. has mor epeople in prison for drug crime than the European Union has for all offenses. That, to me, says the laws aren't working.

[Newfie Canadian]

If this was a grow op bust, why did the marijuana squad leave the premises (leaving the four dead to guard the site)? And are there any reports of marijuana seized?

Meanwhile, how did one guy kill four armed mounties? Sniping? Then how did he die himself?

From CBC:

The RCMP said the ordeal began Wednesday, when two of their members went to Roszko's residence with a court order to seize property but discovered a marijuana grow operation.

Two officers remained overnight to secure the area and wait for members of the Edmonton RCMP Auto Theft Unit to search the property for stolen goods.

Around 9 a.m., the two RCMP officers were joined by two other members from their force. Fifteen minutes later, two officers from the Edmonton RCMP Auto Theft Unit arrived. When they got out of their car, they heard shots fired inside a Quonset hut.

The RCMP say that Roszko, armed with a rapid fire assault rifle, exited the quonset and began firing at the Auto Theft members, who returned fire.

Roszko ran back inside the Quonset.

Shortly around 2 p.m, after emergency response teams had secured the scene, four slain RCMP officers were found inside the Quonset, along with Roszko.

[I miss Reagan]

Well, alcohol usage spiked after prohibition.

The difference is alcohol was previously legal and has been a part of our culture for millenia. Legalising a new drug could carry some negative consequences. Take for example the introduction of alcohol to our aboriginal population.

I wonder if legalization would also lead to the demysification. Kids are drawn to drugs, alcohol etc partly because of the "forbidden fruit" aspect.

Ya I can see how this would be true.

[August1991]

But again it comes down to asking: are the costs of legalizing pot greater than the costs of maintaining tae status quo? I doubt it.

All things considered, I have to agree with you BD.

One of the problems right now is that while we condone marijuana consumption, we make it illegal to produce it. That's tantamount to making it illegal to steal but not to possess stolen property.

As to this particular incident:

The point is, bad asses will be bad asses no matter what. But sweeping drug laws have meant a lot of people who've not done anyone any harm are feeling the force of the law. To me, that's the mark of a bad law.

I disagree. There are degrees to "bad ass". If the police were there for stolen vehicles alone, would the result have been the same? When marijuana is illegal, alot of money is involved. The stakes are higher.

As to the four police officers, I noticed that the flags in front of Quebec police stations are at half-mast now.

Anybody who joins a police force knows the risk they are taking. There are consequences to our choices. But that doesn't make the loss any less.

[Black Dog]

The difference is alcohol was previously legal and has been a part of our culture for millenia. Legalising a new drug could carry some negative consequences. Take for example the introduction of alcohol to our aboriginal population.

But pot and alcohol are very different. They affect people differntly (when was the last time you heard of a "pot-fuelled brawl", for example?)

Pot has been around for a long time too: it was described in a Chinese medical compendium traditionally considered to date from 2737 BC. It wasn't until the 1930s that "reefer madness" took hold and pot use was prohibited. Not that stopped it, obviously. In canada, cannabis use has doubled in the last 13 years. So we're not dealing with an unknown quantity.

Frankly, I think anyone who wants to try pot can do so relatively easily today. I doubt a significant number of people will start sparking up should it become legal, simply because it is legal.

I disagree. There are degrees to "bad ass". If the police were there for stolen vehicles alone, would the result have been the same? When marijuana is illegal, alot of money is involved. The stakes are higher.

I don't think we can read too much into this case. By most accounts, this guy was a total nutter. I fear the results would have been the same if this was a traffic violation or noise complaint.

But if we are to think about organized crime, not many organized criminals would risk a confrontation with police. Better to cut your losses and go free to grow another crop than to end up jeapordizing your whole operation.

[August1991]

If Canada were to legalize marijuana, our relations with the US would become even messier.

Canada was largely wet during US prohibition and as a result, bootlegging became big business.

----

Here's an interesting factoid. Canada held a referendum on prohibition in 1898 and it passed but Laurier disallowed it. (So in 1995, Chretien had a precedent.)

By 1898 the temperance forces were strong enough to force a national plebiscite on the issue, but the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier felt the majority of 13 687 in favour of prohibition was not large enough to warrant passing a law, especially since Québec had voted overwhelmingly against.

Canadian Encyclopedia

I see a parallel between the temperance movement and modern political correctness. The temperance movement was connected to suffragettes and presented itself as morally superior and "progressive".

[Black Dog]

If Canada were to legalize marijuana, our relations with the US would become even messier.

But can you imagine the toursim boom? Hell we could convert Alberta's livestock operations into weed farms!

[caesar]

Marijuana did not kill those officers. A high powered rifle in the hands of a person with known problems with the police. Gun registration and keep guns away from persons with records or unstable character.

[August1991]

Marijuana did not kill those officers. A high powered rifle in the hands of a person with known problems with the police. Gun registration and keep guns away from persons with records or unstable character.

Money did not kill the thief. A gun in the hand of the bank security guard with a known tendency to do his job. Money safe in vaults and keep money away from thieves.

[caesar]

August; don't be dense.

Look at the man's record. Why were those mounties there with only revolvers (or so it was said) The man has a record of threatening people with guns and run ins with authorities.

According to a 1993 news report, the younger Mr. Roszko was charged in December of that year with 12 offences, including: impersonating a police officer, unlawful confinement, obstruction of justice, trespassing on school property, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon dangerous to the public, counselling a person to commit an indictable offence, failing to comply with bail conditions and careless driving.

This is another case on too lenient courts allowing dangerous people to roam free. Why was this man allowed to openly threaten neighbours. Why was he allowed to have guns????

[caesar]

I disagree. There are degrees to "bad ass". If the police were there for stolen vehicles alone, would the result have been the same? When marijuana is illegal, alot of money is involved. The stakes are higher.

Marijuana growing was not his biggest problem. I believe the man had serious mental health and anti social tendencies.

However, if marijuana was legalized to be grown for one's own use; these grow ops would cease to be quite so profitable.

[Stoker]

Marijuana did not kill those officers. A high powered rifle in the hands of a person with known problems with the police. Gun registration and keep guns away from persons with records or unstable character.

The man had either a semi-Automatic rilfe or Automatic.......if he had a gun like this (which is illegal in Canada) do you really think the registration and gun laws would protect against illegal guns? Give me a break.

August; don't be dense.

Look at the man's record. Why were those mounties there with only revolvers (or so it was said) The man has a record of threatening people with guns and run ins with authorities.

The RCMP gave up their thirty eight police revolvers years ago...the S&W 9 mm is the standard side arm of the RCMP, hardly a revolver.

This is another case on too lenient courts allowing dangerous people to roam free. Why was this man allowed to openly threaten neighbours. Why was he allowed to have guns????

You want to know the god's honest truth as of to why our courts and laws are the way we are? It's because of people like YOU that vote in Liberal governments, which seem bent on "treating" criminals as opposed to punishing them. It's also people like YOU that demonize people like the Conservatives for wanting tougher laws.

WRT him having firearms, do you think those firearms were legal?

Marijuana growing was not his biggest problem. I believe the man had serious mental health and anti social tendencies.

However, if marijuana was legalized to be grown for one's own use; these grow ops would cease to be quite so profitable.

And whats to say they won't be replaced by Crack houses and meth labs?