Another eruption at Crackatoa

[james_davis_nicoll]

Ford in happier days.

Project Brazen 2 detectives have established that Mayor Rob Ford’s frequent communications and meetings with Alexander "Sandro" Lisi are "indicative to that of drug trafficking," according to new police documents released in court.

Comments

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

Which could basically amount to "when do I get my weed?" and not necessarily anything more sinister, right?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Sure, or where to dispose of Carly "Charli" Scott's body. We don't know at this point.

[graydon saunders (from livejournal.com)]

Metro report says there's lots more, by page count, not being released yet; Star still in court trying to get it released.

I will note that the package sizes reported in the original document drop aren't consistent with personal-use amounts of weed.

[doc-lemming.livejournal.com]

Of course, the laws being structured as they are, you shouldn't go out and buy weed for the whole family. When your wife says, "Hey, I need an ounce to make me feel better after the last beating and you get so violent when I touch yours," you have to tell her to buy her own.

(I hope that's exaggeration and satire.)

[graydon saunders (from livejournal.com)]

While I am not expert in the subject, the impression I have is that the package sizes are consistent with amounts that would explain why the Ford-hosted backyard barbecues are so very popular.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

That is certainly a point.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

Yes. We don't know. The guy hasn't even been charged with anything yet, despite the all the press conferences, mud slinging, assignations, and hi-jinxeries. That doesn't mean I don't think Ford's a creep: he certainly seems like a creep to me. I just don't know that he's a criminal.

[graydon saunders (from livejournal.com)]

Convicted of DUI in Miami, no?

Nigh-certain to have done so since.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

The conviction in Miami is on the books, and has been known about for some time, certainly. "Nigh-certain" is probably the case, since he was asked directly if he had once driven while intoxicated (or, more specifically as far as I remember, he'd been asked if he had driven "after drinking" which is potentially a different matter), and he admitted to at least a "probably yes" which I'd reasonably take for a confession. Admitting to smoking crack I'd also take for a confession of criminal activity. All I mean to point out is that there's a whole lot of people who are very eager to throw this guy under a bus, and why shouldn't they, he behaves like an odious blowhard, and he's only likeable along a very thin axis to a very particular demographic.

But this whole "indicative of drug dealing activities" wording is cleverly couched to be defensible and nigh-on meaningless. It could mean that the police are investigating drug dealers who have a high-profile client for the odd spliffy here or there¹. Or it could mean something more. We just don't really know. Nor, really, do we have a "right" to know anything ahead of the guy getting charged, tried, and the court's deciding on it.

The public certainly has the right to look hard into this situation, since he holds public office; but I don't think there's much utility or public interest in making up our mind before due diligent "looking into it" is done.

"Where there's smoke, there's fire" is a very, very, very seductive path to slip down.

---

¹ -- This is rhetorical understatement. Based on the amounts that have been reported, but not proven, I assume, it's pretty clear we're talking about quantities more than "the odd spliffy" level of volume.

[graydon saunders (from livejournal.com)]

Two things, then.

Ursula Vernon wants to rename Japanese Honeysuckle (a vicious invasive in the Carolinas, where Ursula happens to live) "Screaming Buttweed", so people will react to it more appropriately. I want to rename DUI as "couldn't care less murder", so people will react to it more appropriately. So I think the DUI serves to entirely and lastingly qualify Rob Ford as a criminal. I think it's a shame and embarrassment that anyone even considered voting for Rob Ford, and that it says something very bad about the people of Toronto that anyone at all voted for someone with a DUI conviction. DUI should function as an inescapable lifetime ban from political activity, and it says something really bad about us that it doesn't work that way.

Second thing is, if you go by a particular thread of public opinion, this is all kabuki; Rob is the village idiot. The real target, and the real danger from the point of view of the established power structures, is Doug.

Doug Ford is rumoured and alleged to still be running the drug trade in (at least) Etobicoke; it gets really hard to pass off all these beatings and stabbings and murders as unconnected. They're very likely unconnected to *Rob*, no one with any sense would expect Rob to lie convincingly about anything. So the police want Doug Ford's head on a metaphorical stake, and what they're looking for is the means to get it there.

For my own part, the beatings and stabbings and so on passed out of "plausible co-incidence" a long time ago. Something's clearly going on as ought not to be.

[dewline.livejournal.com]

You may have an informative point there.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

I agree that my guts tell me that Doug is the dangerous one, too. Rumoured and alleged is how we got here, so I won't comment on that.

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

It could mean that the police are investigating drug dealers who have a high-profile client for the odd spliffy here or there

As he's admitted to crack use but not smoking pot, it seems odd to think of pot first when "drug dealing activities" are reported.

Also, his constituents probably do have a right to know prior to criminal charges, simply because they should know if someone who is elected to serve the public and, in part, uphold the law is not thinking clearly thanks to substance use. I get the slippery slope bit -- you don't want to be digging into someone's private life to make sure they only have a glass of wine with dinner -- but in this individual case, we've long since passed that point.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

For some reason, I thought from information revealed elsewhere that we were, in fact, specifically talking about weed here, but sadly I don't remember where.

[agent-mimi.livejournal.com]

Actually, a day later, I do have a vague memory that he said he smoked a lot of pot at some point after slamming growers, and people calling him a hypocrite. I was thinking only of the decriminalization stance Ford took a few weeks ago, which he then backed off of, but now I think you're right. Google isn't helping much here, probably because smoking pot is pretty low on the list of things Rob Ford is being given the side-eye for.

I'd hope that the police aren't going into this kind of investigation just because of him possibly smoking pot, and that they have more info to indicate bigger problems.

ETA: Finally found an article about it:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2013/09/05/Toronto-Mayor-Rob-Ford-Loves-Weed-Not-Growers

[doc-lemming.livejournal.com]

He's a self-admitted lawbreaker, isn't he? "Yes, I have smoked crack cocaine." I was under the impression that crack cocaine use was still illegal, even though gently handled in some jurisdictions.

Perhaps that admission is on the level of "I drive faster than the posted limit" -- that is, a common enough failing with little disapproval of the lawbreaker's morals.

Now, I do think he's a creep, and I disagree with him with those few things where I know his opinion, and I think he's a fool (three sets that don't necessarily overlap). I also think that his behaviour in the past while is such that I am inclined to my own human failing, which is to think worse of him rather than better.

[doc-lemming.livejournal.com]

I also remind you (because I know you know) that this is one instance where the police are not going to bring charges unless they know they can make it stick, and it doesn't affect their cases against those higher up in the drug trade.

While individual police officers might indulge in a certain amount of profiling and jumping the assumption hurdles (which I have seen), my impression is that when it comes to making high-profile accusations, the system is very parsimonious about expensive court room time. Nobody to my knowledge says, "Well, let's accuse the prominent person as a lark."

[(Anonymous)]

Especially when said prominent person is wealthy (ie. can afford very good lawyers), well-connected, and has some control over things like your budget.

[viktor-haag.livejournal.com]

Which, I believe, since having his powers shorn back, he no longer does, re budget. On policy, I though he no longer had any more power than any other sitting council member, but I'm not sure on that point.