Out of the Blue
Norml News 1994 Winter
Mike Meyrick has long been known as a controversial cop. Until his resignation last year he was Huntly's Senior Sergeant with a reputation for unorthodox policing. He also publicly supports marijuana law reform...
Norml News Why do you think the marijuana laws should change?
Mike Meyrick I think that having cannabis illegal is counterproductive for two reasons. One is that a large number of the people who use it are those who can least afford to buy it. I believe that it is more prevalent, it is more regularly used and more widely used, by people who don't have high incomes. Maybe cannabis is cheaper in the long run than a dozen beer, I don't know. But the enforcement of cannabis laws means the continued arrest of this group of people for laws which they don't see as wrong. It continues the alienation between middle-class society and its institutions like the police, and this group of people who are less well equipped to look after their own interests in this sort of area. I mean with regard to their legal interests.
Secondly, I think that we should look very carefully at the prohibition era and look at the lessons that were learned there. One of the things that the cannabis laws do is turn sometimes quite large sums of money into criminal hands.
There are two groups of criminals involved in the cannabis business. There are those who are already there because they like the cannabis business. They are not criminals per se, but they become criminals because of their involvement with an illegal substance, namely cannabis. There is another group who is going to get involved in any criminal activity. They're 'burglars, they're aggravated bank-robbers, they'll do anything and they get involved in all sorts of criminal activity. Because cannabis is illegal and there is no formal control of the cannabis distribution, if they can effect some sort of control they can make a lot of money. So it attracts criminals into it. The criminals who are attracted into it could be attracted out of it by having it decriminalised. And the ones who become criminals because they are involved with an illegal substance wouldn't be criminals. So again there's an alienation towards middle class society.
So there's two arguments. The police argue that we have to enforce cannabis laws vigorously because of the criminal involvement in it. It's a very simple logical step to say, though, that if it wasn't illegal there would be no criminal involvement. I suppose you can extrapolate that argument to all sorts of drug laws. And in some ways I don't see why you shouldn't.
NN I read an article you wrote for the local Rundy newspaper where you put forward your opinions in favour of marijuana decriminalisation. What response did you get from the police hierarchy from that?
MM The police hierarchy is an extremely cautious bunch of people. Most of them are ambitious. They don't really want to get into a position where they are seen as being offside with the accepted norms of the police, but very few of them actually picked a scrap with me about it. Most of them erred on the side of caution because I think they realised that if it came to a scrap I was fairly well equipped to look after myself. There was no merit whatsoever in them picking a fight and losing it to someone junior to them in the hierarchy.
I know from informal comments made to me over the years that most, but not all, senior police disagreed with me. But it's surprising how many people within the police, while they don't campaign on the issue, are prepared to admit that there is merit in the argument.
NN What about younger police officers?
MM You would probably find more support there.
Lets face it, I know that there are police that smoke cannabis. I have been to parties where I have seen police men smoking cannabis. You get the same range of views on any issue in the police as you get outside. Cannabis is widespread in society. You get people in the legal profession and the medical profession smoking it, you get people in all sorts of professions that smoke cannabis. No one's going to be so naive as to expect that no one in the police service smokes cannabis.
NN What would be the response of most police officers in that situation? It must put you in an interesting position.
MM It puts you in a difficult position. I've always valued my integrity. What I did was turn a blind eye. I mean they're your friends. What are you going to do?
There is a very strong concept of loyalty in the police - you stick by your friends, you stick by your work mates. And that's understandable. I had the situation where some police came to my house one day and started smoking cannabis in a group. My response to them was I didn't care if they smoked cannabis or not but I felt they were doing me a great discourtesy by doing it in my house. They put it out and I asked them to remove it from the house. Not that I cared whether they smoked or not, but I was a policeman and part of what I was paid to do was enforce the cannabis laws.
But it's really a non issue. People think that the police spend half their time scouring the streets for cannabis smokers. Within the police I'd be surprised if there were very many frontline police men and women who really care.
There's a joke amongst the police that the worst offence that you can commit is annoying a police officer. So if a policeman comes across to you and you've got cannabis in your possession, if you get uptight and come on strong or aggressive towards the cop its very likely that you will get prosecuted. But if you don't get aggressive and you retain your cool and you are courteous in your dealing with the police then it is likely that the cop's going to give you a formal warning and toss it in the rubbish tin. Maybe I'm being a bit facetious in saying that the offence is annoying a policeman, but really that's what it is.
NN As a dreadlock Rasta I used to get stopped by the police fairly regularly. Then I would talk with my Pakeha friends who say they have never been stopped on the street in their lives. How do you decide who you're going to question?
MM Real good question. It's such a curious job that you develop almost a sixth sense. I mean, I'll stop a car and talk to the occupant. Now if you'd asked me why did I stop that car and not the car in front of it I probably couldn't tell you. Something said to me "let's stop this car". Whether it was because of my training or my experience or whatever, I can't really say.
When it comes to you, for example, a lot of police men and women are very conservative people. It's the sort of job where you are defending and enforcing the status quo. I imagine there's a tendency within the police to concentrate more on people whose physical appearance doesn't meet accepted norms, who look different.
A lot of people who have Rastafarian hairstyles do tend to smoke cannabis, so if a policeman was looking for someone who might have cannabis on them they would probably stop that person in preference to someone else. Like, if you're going to stop a riot you don't put the taskforce outside the Remuera golf club do you?
NN Tell us about your resignation from the police force. The Herald quoted you as saying that you felt the service was too inflexible. Was there a particular incident that affected your decision?
MM Well, there were quite a few really. A couple of them concerned my personal life and the lives of my family, where the police were intruding upon, our lives for reasons which I never really understood. But basically I left because I'd been a policeman for 23 years and there are a lot of other things I wanted to do. Being in charge of a busy police station meant so many demands on my time.
NN Why did you join in the first place?
MM I needed a job! The police paid quite well. I called at a police station and the senior sergeant persuaded me to give it crack so I joined in Napier. I spent all my police service before Huntly in Auckland: South Auckland, Mangere, Otara, Ponsonby and the downtown area - the Wharf police station.
NN It's said to be rough down there.
MM It certainly had its moments, which had a lot to do with it being the red light area. I worked there in the late 70's when it was fashionable for prescription drugs to be peddled around the streets. The most popular ones were barbiturates, because when barbiturates are mixed with alcohol the effect is not dissimilar to heroin - very strongly addictive, very traumatic withdrawal symptoms. Poor man's heroin. There were about half a dozen doctors around central Auckland that the Auckland drug squad described as legalised drug dealers. If you wanted barbiturate drugs all you had to do was reel off a set of symptoms and you could go get a months supply every day, day after day after day. These doctors must have known the drugs were being sold.
I saw a lot people die using those drugs. There was a group of transvestites in the downtown area working as prostitutes and I saw a number of them die from an overdose of barbiturates.
NN I imagine that a lot of police would stereotype people in this kind of situation.
MM I think most do. I mean there are definitely racist attitudes within the police. You talk to some police and they'll tell you that, for example, Maoris are criminals and that most crimes are committed by Maori. If you ask them why that is, you get some stupid argument that makes me think that they believe that Maori are more inclined to be criminals. Criminals just because they're Maori. That's a ridiculous thing to say. There are a lot of Maori that, are criminals, but the reasons for that, I think, are economic ones. All over the world the people who get arrested for those sorts of crimes: robberies, burglaries and the rest of it, are people in that bottom 10 percent of your economic class in terms of income levels. The question we have to ask ourselves is why, in New Zealand, do Maori still make up such a disproportionate number of that group? There are historical reasons for it that need addressing.
NN Do you think it's because so much focus is put on those kind of crimes, whereas the resources aren't put into investigating white-collar crime?
MM Yes I do, and in fact it's a source of great embarrassment to the New Zealand police the way the Serious Fraud Office operates. As far as I can understand the only reason the Serious Fraud Office exists is because the NZ police was doing a very bad job of investigating white collar crime, which was becoming a major problem. So the Serious Fraud Office is part of the justice department. I have no doubt that the NZ police these days would like to put far more effort into white collar crime and would like to control the serious fraud office. but, of course, the government is resisting that.
NN There is a petition going around at the moment to make the Police Complaints Authority more independent.
MM I'm bloody pleased you brought that up. I've had dealings with the police complaints authority and I have very strong objections to it. It's almost a fraud.
The Police Complaints Authority is almost... I was going to say power less, but useless is the word that comes to mind. I'll tell you why. Say for example I'm a policeman and you are a terrible cannabis smoker. I come up to you and I push you against a wall and I search you illegally and arrest you. You complain to the police complaints authority that you've been dealt with illegally. What will happen is the police complaints authority will refer your letter to the police commissioner, who will then forward your letter down the chain of command until it reaches, nine times out of ten, my immediate supervisor who will then investigate the incident. Now my immediate supervisor is most likely a person I drink with after work, is likely to come round to my place on a Sunday evening with his wife and kids for a barbecue, he's a person that nine times out of ten, especially in smaller communities, I work with all the time and I'm going to get on with. If I don't get on with that person I'm likely to shift until I find somewhere in the police that I feel comfortable. So your complaint that you've been dealt with unfairly or unjustly is going to be investigated by that person. That person is a good investigator. The investigation will be documented thoroughly, forwarded back up the chain with series of recommendations. If the police commissioner agrees that the investigation has been done fully, and he won't know because he's only going to have someone else's word, but just as long as there is no gaping holes in it, the police commissioner will then write to the Police Complaints Authority saying "This is the situation, and this is our recommendation on how the incident should be dealt with". The Police Complaints Authority will take the file, read it, and then write back to the police commissioner taking the police commissioner's recommendation and using it as his own. In other words he is sending the police's recommendation back to the police with a recommendation to act on it. The Police Complaints Authority will then write to you saying "We've investigated, and our recommendation is... ". I mean the whole thing is just a farce, it really is.
For minor complaints I think that system is probably as good as you're going to get, for pragmatic reasons. Because you get countless investigations against the police, and 90% of them are totally unjustified. They're used by people who have been rightly arrested as a way of, I don't know, attacking as the best form of defence. You try and discredit the people who have arrested you. But very often there will be substance to the complaint and those complaints get absolutely rubbished because the police close ranks.
It isn't a fair system. In fact it's a waste of time if they are going to keep it as it is.
And the other thing is, if they're going to keep having a police complaints authority they should stop dredging rest homes for people to run it.
NN My own experience of writing complaints is that even though I haven't been happy with the findings, it is very difficult to keep pushing, You think "nothing is going to happen anyway, why bother".
MM If you look at the law that governs the way that the police complaints authority works you'll find that they're not answerable to anybody. You can complain to the Minister of Justice that the police complaints authority isn't doing a good job and he will not be interested. That's been done, I can tell you. He will probably write back and say something like "thanks for your letter, full stop." So the police complaints authority is answerable to no one. The police complaints authority's word is final, even if he is just parroting what the police have told him. It's really a system of just wrapping it up and throwing it away.
I think there is a place for an organisation like that, but it has to be run by people who are actually interested in ensuring that justice is done. I don't think those doing it are. I think they're just interested in ensuring that the proper procedures are followed, that the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted. As long as that is done it doesn't really matter if you've been treated fairly. And the answer is no, you haven't.
NN Getting back to what you were saying before about alienation between especially young people and the police. NORML encourages people to stand up for their rights, but a lot of officers seem to take it as a personal affront to have their authority questioned. There is a polarisation going on and it seems to be getting worse. Do you think that a resolution is possible?
MM I agree with you, there is an alienation between authority and lots of people. Maybe that's inevitable. But I think you can reduce it a lot. One way to reduce it is to not have too many laws which are just arbitrary definitions. That sort of arbitrary law is almost guaranteed to alienate people. Drug laws fall into that category - they tend to be laws,over individual lifestyle choices, don't they?
nandor.net.nz is not responsible for the content of external links.
