Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Illegal pot shops raise taxing questions

Here I go again writing about marijuana. Apparently, I just can’t stop myself.

Here I go again writing about marijuana. Apparently, I just can’t stop myself.

In case you missed it, my colleague Mike Howell wrote a story in last Friday’s paper about the Vancouver Police Department’s laissez-faire attitude toward 29 illegal marijuana dispensaries in the city. According to the VPD, none are licensed by Health Canada, endorsed by any medical body or associated with any legitimate health service provider.

I can understand the police not getting too bothered if only half a dozen of these dispensaries were operating in the city, but 29 (at last count) is a whopping number. Clearly there are profits to be made.

The VPD, as Howell reported, is not making these shops a priority, preferring to focus their resources on violent drug activity. Fair enough, but surely the police have considered that some of these “dispensaries” could be gang-owned with profits used to purchase harder drugs like heroin and cocaine or to purchase weapons.  But I find comfort at least in the fact that the police are keeping track of how many are opening.

The VPD’s current attitude is a far cry from how it once dealt with similar shops. Do you remember the 2004 brouhaha over the Dutch-style Da Kine café on Commercial Drive?

Dozens of undercover cops, weapons drawn and clad in balaclavas, raided the popular pot shop and arrested owner Carol Gwilt and seven employees on charges of possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. Gwilt was also charged with possessing proceeds from a crime.

Talk about overkill. Fastforward nine years and the VPD has had a seismic shift in attitude. The police report Howell cited in his Friday story included this statement: “criminal enforcement could be very damaging to employees of the dispensaries, who are generally young, entry-level employees who could face criminal charges and the possible impact that would have on other future employment or their ability to travel.”

Sensible words. But I’m not really bothered that these places are operating — as long as they’re being good neighbours, are filing tax returns, and deducting CPP, EI and income tax from their employees paycheques like my employer does on my mine? Forget the police. It’s the tax man I’d be worried about. If these businesses are allowed to operate, as the VPD and city are allowing them to, I hope the CRA is paying close attention to these illegal businesses to ensure they are complying with the federal laws requiring them to file income tax returns. But apparently it’s a very hazy area at the moment.

But back to the city’s involvement. What I find odd is why the city can’t answer a simple question as to whether these shops obtained a business license in order to operate.

Instead of replying to Howell’s straightforward question he asked last week, the city emailed a prepared statement about these dispensaries being a “larger Health Canada issue” with “a lack of clarity around the regulations.”

We all know that massage parlours pay the city to obtain a business license to operate so what was with the city’s fecklessness in answering Howell’s question on pot dispensaries?

According to Howell’s story on page 1 in Wednesday’s issue (Oct. 23), a pot shop on East Hastings called Weeds doesn’t have a business licence and has never been visited by a city inspector. Heck, the owner has a sandwich board outside advertising marijuana for $5 a gram. If the police and city are going to allow these shops to operate as if pot were legal, then they should be required to follow the same rules and regulations as every other business in town. Or are they just letting rules slide until April 1 when Health Canada introduces its new policies on medical marijuana? Whatever the reason, the city is ragging the puck on answering certain questions.

At the moment, it appears some illegal pot dispensaries are given a free pass while legal businesses must jump through hoops to comply with stringent city regulations, especially concerning window fronts. Take for example the storefronts of WestCoast Medcann at 2931 Cambie St. or Medpotnow at 4170 Fraser St.

Frosted pane windows cover more than half the windowfronts of these dispensaries making it impossible to see activity inside. Why is that allowed when a friend who recently opened a small café/eatery on the West Side was told in no uncertain terms that she couldn’t put anything on the windows that would obscure the view inside?

I’m all for the clear window policy as per C1-C2 zoning regulations given it’s about creating a friendly street atmosphere. I’d just like to see the rule applied fairly. The city says it will investigate — but only if it gets a complaint. So dear citizens, call 311 if you question any business in your neighbourhood commercial zone whose windows are covered preventing you from seeing inside. But I surmise the city is fully aware of the pot shops’ window coverings. There are 29 of them after all.

Fhughes@vancourier.com

Twitter.com/HughesFiona