C-10’s Mandatory Minimums Built On Ignorance, Say Cops and Judges

Law Enforcers Say Government Fails To Justify Cannabis Sentences in Bill C-10

 VANCOUVER, BC – Last month, a group of American members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) warned the Canadian government to eliminate sections of Bill C-10 that create mandatory minimum sentences for minor cannabis-related crimes lest the mistakes of the U.S.’s “war on drugs” be repeated here. Now, on the eve of C-10’s being signed in to law, LEAP’s Canadian members are also speaking out.

“The good news is that government was forced to respond to our neighbors to the south who have experience with these harsh laws,” says William Vandergraaf, a member of LEAP Canada’s board and a retired Winnipeg police detective. “But the government’s reasons for these mandatory minimums are fundamentally flawed: Prohibition is a proven failure in the real world.”

John Anderson, LEAP Canada’s vice president, said, “We heard the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice say that Canada has a parole system, while the US federal system doesn’t, which it clearly does. Then the government keeps saying that cannabis should be illegal because organized crime produces and sells a lot of it. Obviously, this is reasoning in the reverse: The only reason why organized crime is in the business of trafficking is because marijuana is illegal. When we legalize cannabis, legal businesses will take over the vast bulk of the market, just as they did when alcohol prohibition ended.”

“Their arguments for mandatory minimums on cannabis are inconsistent with the evidence. Making Canadian taxpayers cough up millions of dollars for new prisons seems to be a solution in search of a problem”.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, federal agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence. For more information, visit http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.

###

CONTACT:  Steve Finlay – (778) 554-3267 or steve.finlay@leap.cc

                        Tom Angell – (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc

U.S. Law Enforcement Officials Call on Canadian Prime Minister to Legalize Marijuana

 Canada Risks Repeating ‘U.S. Mistakes‘ with Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Bill C-10

 WASHINGTON, DC —A high-profile group of current and former law enforcement officials from the United States is calling on the Canadian government to reconsider the mandatory minimum sentences for minor marijuana offenses proposed in Bill C-10, arguing that the taxation and regulation of marijuana is a more effective policy approach to reducing crime.

On Wednesday, the law enforcers released a letter outlining their concerns, addressed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Canadian senators. It is signed by more than two dozen current and former judges, police officers, special agents, narcotics investigators and other criminal justice professionals, all of whom are members of the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). The letter strongly reinforces the failure of U.S. crime policies that those proposed in the Canadian federal government’s Bill C-10 legislation seem to be modeled on.

“Through our years of service enforcing anti-marijuana laws, we have seen the devastating consequences of these laws,” the letter states. “Among the greatest concerns is the growth in organized crime and gang violence. Just as with alcohol prohibition, gang violence, corruption and social decay have marched in lockstep with marijuana prohibition.”

“We were deeply involved with the war on drugs and have now accepted, due to our own experience and the clear evidence before us, that these policies are a costly failure,” the letter continues. “Marijuana prohibition drives corruption and violence and tougher laws only worsen the problem.”

Bill C-10, titled “The Safe Streets and Communities Act,” is currently being heard by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Among other proposals, the bill calls for stricter mandatory minimum sentences for minor marijuana offenses, including minimum six-month sentences for growing as few as six marijuana plants.

“The Canadian government believes the answer is to get tougher on criminals,” said Norm Stamper, retired chief of police in Seattle, Washington. “But as we’ve learned with our decades-long failed experiment with the ‘war on drugs,’ the stricter sentencing proposed in the bill will only serve to help fill jails. It will not reduce harms related to the illicit marijuana trade, make Canadian streets safer or diminish gang activity.”

Said retired Washington State Superior Court Judge David Nichols: “Policies similar to those in the U.S. and now under consideration in Canada have been costly failures in the United States, wasting tax dollars and bankrupting state budgets. Following our path presents obvious and significant risks to Canadians.”

Among the 28 signers of the letter are many law enforcement officials working in border areas. They pointed to the illegal cross-border marijuana trade as sustaining gang activity in the region.

“Organized crime groups move marijuana to the U.S. from British Columbia and return with cocaine and guns,” said Stamper. “Prohibition continues to fill the coffers of organized criminals, making communities on both sides of the border less safe.”

Eric Sterling, who helped the U.S. Congress write the federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws, cautions: “As counsel to the U.S.  House Judiciary Committee during the 1980's, I played a major role in writing the mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws which later turned out to not only be ineffective in reducing drug use, but which directly contributed to the disastrous overincarceration problem in this country. I urge policy makers in Canada to learn from our mistakes.”

Canadian Senator Larry Campbell, a member of LEAP’s advisory board and a former member of the RCMP and its drug squad, added: “I am hopeful that my Senate colleagues will listen to the voice of experience, and take into account the advice from leading U.S. law enforcement officials to avoid mandatory minimum sentences. The U.S. and many of its citizens have suffered greatly due to the inflexible and dogmatic nature of mandatory minimum sentences, and Canada would be wise to learn from and avoid that costly and socially destructive mistake.”

U.S. Becoming More Progressive than Canada with Marijuana Policy

While Canada moves towards stricter sentencing with Bill C-10, many states in the U.S. are shifting in the opposite direction, toward control and regulation of the marijuana trade. The law enforcement officials pointed to the 16 U.S. states and the District of Columbia that have already passed laws allowing medical use of cannabis, the 14 states that have taken steps to decriminalize marijuana possession and the initiatives to fully tax and regulate marijuana that are likely to appear on statewide ballots this November in Washington State, Colorado and possibly California.

“We assume this news will not make you consider closing the borders with the United States,” the law enforcement officials write in their letter.

For a copy of the law enforcement letter, please visit http://www.leap.cc/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/regulation-in-canada.pdf

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, prison wardens, federal agents and others who want to legalize and regulate marijuana and other drugs after fighting on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence. More info at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.

#       #       #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 22, 2012
CONTACT: Tom Angell – (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc
                      Steve Finlay – (604) 315-5635 or steve.finlay@leap.cc

Cops and Judges Applaud Canadian Liberal Party’s Marijuana Legalization Resolution

Current and former law enforcement officers offer to meet with party officials

VANCOUVER, BC -- An international organization of police officers, judges, prosecutors and drug enforcement agents welcomes the approval of Resolution 117 at the Liberal Biennial Convention. Resolution 117 calls for the legalization and regulation of marijuana, as well as a pardon for those previously convicted of simple possession. Delegates to the convention passed Resolution 117 by an overwhelming vote of 77% to 23%.

“We do not endorse political parties or candidates,” says David Bratzer, president of the Canadian branch of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). “However, we do support actions that lead to good drug policy. The Liberal convention delegates have done this by calling for an end to the destructive and wasteful policy of marijuana prohibition.”

Bratzer emphasizes the importance of this policy initiative: “Some commentators have suggested that the delegates wasted their time on a side issue, but nothing could be further from the truth. Prohibition costs Canadian taxpayers well over $2 billion per year, and does nothing except make organized crime rich. The delegates have proven that they are serious about using tax money responsibly and intelligently.”

Bratzer is a serving police officer in British Columbia who participates in LEAP while off-duty. His personal views do not represent those of his employer, but they are shared by many other Canadians. According to an Angus Reid poll conducted in November 2010, 50% of Canadians support the legalization of marijuana, while 44% are opposed.

“LEAP is an educational organization. In this capacity, we extend an open invitation to elected officials and party members from across the political spectrum. Please contact us if you or your organization would like to meet and learn about the failure of drug prohibition,” says John Anderson, vice-president of LEAP Canada and a former correctional officer. Dr. Anderson is also a professor of Criminology at Vancouver Island University.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, federal agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence. LEAP does not endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. For more information, visit http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.

#     #     #

For immediate release: January 16, 2012
CONTACT:  Steve Finlay – (604) 315-5635 or steve.finlay@leap.cc

                       Tom Angell – (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc

LEAP Commends Liberal Party of Canada for Opposing Mandatory Minimums (Press Release)

Cops and Judges Commend Liberal Party Leaders for Opposing Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences

Law Enforcers Say Increased Penalties Won’t Reduce Drug Use

OTTAWA, ON -- An international organization of police officers, judges, prosecutors and federal agents is cheering the announcement by leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada that they will oppose Bill S-10, which would create new mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana and other drugs. The Liberal Party’s opposition seriously jeopardizes the bill’s chances of being enacted into law.

Although Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), the police group, does not endorse or support any political parties or any candidates for office, it does oppose Bill S-10 and the criminalization approach to drug control in general.

"The Liberal party has correctly pointed out that Bill S-10 would impose an enormous burden on taxpayers,” said Randie Long, a former prosecutor and LEAP spokesman, “but that is not the worst aspect of the bill. The bill’s supporters claim that it would increase public safety. As law enforcement professionals with decades of personal experience attempting to enforce drug laws, we in LEAP know that this is absolutely false. In fact, mandatory minimums for growing marijuana would strike hardest at the “small fry” – at friends, neighbours and relatives who simply do not belong in prison. Prison spaces are expensive and scarce: We might well be forced to release violent criminals early to make room for those who receive mandatory minimums. How would that make us safer?”

Among other things, Bill S-10 proposes to require mandatory minimum sentences for anyone convicted of growing as few as six marijuana plants.

“It is ignorant and dishonest to call the Liberal party and the other opponents of Bill S-10 ‘soft on crime,’ as some supporters of the bill have,” says Long. “Mandatory minimums are not tough on crime; they are dumb on crime. If Bill S-10 became law, the worst and most powerful gangsters would celebrate. Mandatory minimums, like other intensified enforcement efforts, do nothing but remove their competitors.”

“Mandatory minimums have been tried for decades here in the US, and have failed miserably,” adds Neill Franklin, the executive director of LEAP and a former narcotics cop in Baltimore, Maryland. “They have helped drive state governments to the edge of bankruptcy, and have left critical public services such as education starved for money. Even worse, they have ruined the lives and futures of thousands of people, while making organized crime even stronger and doing absolutely nothing to reduce drug abuse. It is unbelievable that any other country would consider imitating this disastrous experience.”

Eric Sterling, the primary author of America’s federal mandatory minimum laws, testified before the Canadian Senate last year in opposition to a previous version of the bill, emphasizing the failure of these laws in the US. Video of Sterling’s testimony is online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xobbgyr2OQs

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, federal agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence. For more information, visit http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.

### 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 11, 2011

CONTACTS:  Steve Finlay – (604) 255-7741 or s_k_finlay//at//yahoo//dot//ca

Tom Angell – (202) 557-4979 or medi//at//leap//dot//cc

Black police officers? You can't talk about them here.

The moderators over at the Blue Line forums have locked my post about the National Black Police Association's endorsement of Proposition 19 in California. This means further discussion is prohibited as no one can add any responses.

I certainly respect the rights of the moderators to make such decisions. It's their web site, after all, which is why I am posting my response here on the LEAP blog.

Now, I love Blue Line. It's Canada's national law enforcement magazine. I wrote a couple of opinion essays for the magazine last year. And I've learned a lot from the Blue Line discussion forums. As a junior police officer, I feel it is important to keep up to date with the latest developments in the complex world of law enforcement.

The forum in which this post appeared is called The Rant. It's supposed to be a grab all for subjects that don't fit any of the other sections of the web site. Here's a few of the hot topics debated in the forum:

Maryland man arrested after recording of T-stop surfaces

RCMP commissioner uses his BlackBerry at Mountie memorial

Strangle your kid to death, get a suspended sentence.

LAPD Unlawfully Detains Photographer

Child Porn ISNT art

... and my personal favourite:

Even Robert Munsch is on Blow!!!

Clearly, in this context, an article about black cops who want to regulate cannabis is way over the line. (Sarcasm intended.)

This is not any group of black police, mind you. It's the National Black Police Association, representing some 15,000 black law enforcement officers in the United States.

This brings me to the heart of the reason why I don't post more often on Blue Line. Like policing itself, the forum is dominated largely by social conservatives. Without getting into my own political beliefs too much, suffice to say I'm not a fan of an ideology that insists, "it is the role of the government to enforce traditional values because __________."

My problem is that I rarely see anything logical in the last part of that sentence. Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is a big tent organization and we welcome folks from across the political spectrum. But my personal feeling is that locking a thread on a discussion forum is a knee jerk reaction from someone who is afraid of the issue. It doesn't even come close to the kind of intellectual rigour needed to defend social conservatism.

In fairness to social conservatives, I have seen one strong argument advanced in their name that favours drug policy reform. You won't find it on the Blue Line forums though. It was articulated by "Inspector Leviathan Hobbes," the pseudonym for the founder of the Thinking Policeman blog. He was kind enough to let me write a guest post back in August 2009 about Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

The post generated a number of comments and eventually Hobbes himself waded into the discussion:

I've kept reasonably quiet throughout this debate. In fact, I've been reading through the links Officer Bratzer provided, as well as the one-stop-shop of complete information provided by 200 Weeks. Not only have I been reading, but I've been thinking. It's difficult as a police officer to agree with the legalisation and regulation of drugs. Why? It's because we see the evil ruination that it has upon addicts. Not only that, but those who are the real dealers, the Mister Bigs, are extremely difficult to bring to justice. Add to this the consequential victims, the ones who have their property stolen to fund habits, and it seems difficult to say to all of them that what LEAP proposes is the way forward. However, after nigh on 20 years of reading philosophy, I've fallen foul of the Platonic adage I swore I never would - 'an expert is someone who knows nothing at all.'

What I mean by this is, just because as police officers or MOPs we see the full impact that drugs misuse has on the wider community, not only on the user themself - and because we know the law inside and out regarding drugs - we can sometimes become blind to the alternatives. Just because the law and societal opinions have been the same throughout the lives of almost all of us, it doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't mean the law was devised because it works. Sometimes it's wrong. I can point to many examples, as I am sure many of you can. Think about it this way - if drugs WERE legalised and regulated, the Mister Bigs would suffer - the ones who deserve to suffer. Prostitution, a drug-reliant trade, I'm guessing would halve at the very least, as would most ascquisitive crime. You can't get away from the fact that the majority of acquisitive crime is committed by habitual drug users. Yes, there are issues around the practicalities of this proposal, but they're not unachievable in the overall aim.

-- snip --

So, I'll subscribe to LEAP. Sometimes what appears radical actually isn't. It's a conservative reaction to restore order to that similar to times gone past. My only hope is that if we ever did take on the experiment, the current government would be long gone, because otherwise they'd screw it up. As with everything else.

Thank you, Inspector. You said it better than I ever could.

Take Action to Defend Pro-Legalization Cop's Free Speech

Active duty police officer and LEAP speaker/blogger David Bratzer was planning to accept an invitation to speak about drug policy and harm reduction at an official city government-sponsored event this week...until his police department's leadership stepped in and ordered him not to show up.

If you think such censorship is unfair, please add your name to LEAP's petition at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com/freespeech to show your support for cops like David who speak out against unjust and ineffective drug polices even while they risk their lives enforcing them.

There are more details in the press release that follows.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 2, 2010
CONTACT: Tom Angell, LEAP – (202) 557-4979 or media //at// leap //dot// cc

B.C. Police Officer Ordered Not to Discuss Drug Policy and Harm Reduction

Civil Liberties Advocates File Complaint With Victoria Police Board

VICTORIA, BC – An international group of cops, judges and prosecutors who oppose the “war on drugs” is criticizing a gag order from the Victoria Police Department that limits the freedom of expression of one of its officers. The officer, David Bratzer, who volunteers with the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) while off-duty, has been ordered not to speak at an official City of Victoria-sponsored event on harm reduction scheduled for this Wednesday, March 3 at 7:00 P.M.

Even though the event is scheduled outside of his regular work hours, management from the Victoria Police Department, without Bratzer’s knowledge, informed city staff that he was being withdrawn from speaking. Then on February 24, a senior officer at the department directly ordered Bratzer not to participate in the event.

In response to these developments, Bratzer stated: "I will not be attending this event, but I would like to thank the City of Victoria for the invitation to be part of an honest and open discussion about harm reduction. I will try to find other venues to present my views about drug policy."

Upon learning of the department’s order, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association filed a complaint with the Victoria Police Board.

Bratzer has always taken pains to state that his opinions are his own and do not reflect the views of his employer. He has participated in a number of credible venues related to drug policy during the past year, including delivering testimony to the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in Ottawa (video available from LEAP).

“The voices of front-line officers who are charged with enforcing the drug laws are incredibly important to the public debate on drug policy issues,” said Jack Cole, a retired American undercover narcotics detective who serves as executive director for LEAP. “Preventing an officer from sharing his firsthand perspective about the harms of our current drug laws with policymakers is a disservice to the entire democratic process.”

LEAP is hosting an online petition at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com/freespeech where people can speak up in support of law enforcers' rights to exercise their freedom of speech and criticize drug polices that they disagree with.

As the above matter is now a sensitive labour issue, Bratzer will not be commenting further for the time being. Please contact LEAP for further information.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is an international non-profit organization of cops, prosecutors, correctional officers and other criminal justice professionals who believe the War on Drugs is a tremendous failure. Its members believe that a system of regulation and control would be more ethical and less harmful than drug prohibition. More info at www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.

# # #

Don't forget to add your voice in support for David and other cops' free speech rights at LEAP's petition.

Save our Police Budgets: Legalize and Tax Marijuana

The following article appeared in the November 2009 issue of Blue Line (Canada's national law enforcement magazine). It was titled "Save our Police Budgets: Legalize and Tax Marijuana." This is my second article in Blue Line. The first one was published in June and it was titled The Failure of Drug Prohibition: A Law Enforcement Perspective. In this new essay I am using some of the arguments promoted by SAFER (ie. marijuana is safer than alcohol, so why are we driving people to drink?). If you like this article please Digg it!

---

Save our Police Budgets: Legalize and Tax Marijuana

Michael Klimm raised a number of excellent points in his letter published in the August issue of Blue Line. Although he argued against legalizing and regulating drugs, several of his statements were compatible with drug policy reform. First, he acknowledged the status quo is not working. Second, he stated that the damage caused by tobacco - a dangerous but legal substance - has been reduced through education. Third, he asserted the best way to tackle organized crime is to remove the profit motive from the black market. Finally, he emphasized that the legalization and regulation of drugs has not yet been tried anywhere in the world. With these key points in mind, perhaps it is time for a new approach?

Marijuana policy would be a good place to begin as 53 percent of the population supported legalization in a 2008 Angus Reid poll. Approximately 44 percent of Canadians have used cannabis at some point in their lives according to the Canadian Addiction Survey. Despite heavy enforcement, it remains the largest illegal drug market in the country with over two million citizens using cannabis on a recreational basis. A legal and regulated cannabis market would therefore eliminate the majority of all domestic drug trafficking in Canada.

Marijuana is not a benign substance, but it is substantially safer than alcohol. Assaults against peace officers, sexual assaults and incidents of domestic violence are frequently traced back to liquor consumption but rarely to cannabis consumption. Many of us know friends or colleagues whose personal and professional lives were ruined through alcohol abuse. Upstanding citizens have committed terrible crimes while drunk, and yet Canadians remain legally bound to abstain from using marijuana. It is time to present the public with a safer, legal alternative to alcohol.

Unfortunately, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police / Canadian Police Association joint resolution on drug abuse in 2002 insisted on the status quo. Now, seven years later, federal, provincial and municipal governments are broke. Police organizations are facing budget cuts, although leaders in law enforcement can still increase the long term financial health of their respective agencies by supporting an end to marijuana prohibition. It is the least painful concession to make, especially compared to wage rollbacks, hiring freezes and training cutbacks.

Critics might point to the Netherlands and offer anecdotal reports of a failed drug policy, but the facts show otherwise. The country adopted de facto decriminalization in 1976. Adults can buy personal amounts of marijuana in licensed outlets known as cannabis coffee shops. Alcohol is banned in the coffee shops and advertising is prohibited. Overall the system works well, although one problem is that the actual production and distribution of marijuana remains illegal. Organized crime is still involved in that part of the industry which is why it is important for Canada to legalize the entire supply chain.

The Netherlands has a cumulative lifetime incidence of cannabis use that is half that of the United States (19.4% versus 42.4%). Its cumulative incidence of cocaine use is one eighth that of the United States (1.9% versus 16.2%) according to data from the World Mental Health Surveys as compiled by the World Health Organization. The United States uses a tough justice approach with drug offenders, and yet per capita drug use rates, overdose deaths and HIV infections are significantly lower in the Netherlands. Why is this?

It appears the Netherlands’ tolerant attitude toward drugs has reduced the forbidden fruit effect. There is nothing rebellious about smoking marijuana in Amsterdam. In addition, they have separated the cannabis market from other drugs. Cashiers in the coffee shops don't lace marijuana with crystal meth or give away free samples of cocaine. In contrast, Canadians face a multitude of dangers when purchasing marijuana on our city streets.

At the end of the day, it is easy to look into our past and determine which social policies were just and effective. For example, contraception was legalized forty years ago with the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-1969. Prior to the Act it was illegal to advertise or sell condoms or other forms of birth control. The Pill was only prescribed to women who needed help regulating their menstrual cycle. In other words, it could only be used for medicinal purposes. (Does this kind of language sound familiar?) Today, few officers could imagine using criminal law to prevent the sale of birth control pills, in spite of their harmful side effects.

It is more difficult to look forty years into the future and consider how our children and our grandchildren will judge our actions as law enforcement officers. Institutional inertia is not a good enough reason to maintain a prohibition on marijuana or any other drug. Regulating cannabis would provide a safer alternative to alcohol, eliminate most domestic drug trafficking, generate tax revenue, free up police resources and reduce abuse by young people.

What are we waiting for?

----------
David Bratzer is a police officer in British Columbia, Canada, and he also manages the blog for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://copssaylegalize.blogspot.com). The opinions expressed in his essay are entirely his own.

A day for remembrance

Today is Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day in Canada. Let's put aside drug policy for a moment, and take time to think about the officers who gave their lives to uphold the law, preserve the peace and protect life and property across Canada. Approximately 700 officers have given their lives in the performance of their duties. In thinking of them I would like to echo the words inscribed on the memorial in Ottawa:

"They are our heroes. We shall not forget them."

Tousaw Law blog

Kirk Tousaw has started blogging again, after a six week hiatus over the summer. The blog focuses mostly on Canadian drug policy, although his clear and cogent arguments will be appreciated by many outside the country as well.