According to my local paper it was 30 years ago today that Keith was arrested in Canada for Heroin Possesion. A little bit of Rock n'Roll History. How it could have all turned out so differently!

Does anyone have the interview with Keith telling the story about his arrest that they can share with us online, it always makes me laugh.

"bam bam bam, Oh he's awake....You are under arrest"

"See you in seven years babe"

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

... the arrest in February 1977 at Toronto's Harbour Castle Hotel (Talk:Keith Richards/Archive 1#Regina v. Richards 49 C.C.C. (2d) (1980)) when Richards was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for heroin and cocaine possession (he had two ounces of each at the time of his arrest), and was charged with importing narcotics, an offence with a minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment according to the Criminal Code of Canada.

For the next three years, Richards lived under threat of criminal sanction as he sought medical treatment in the U.S. for heroin addiction. During this period, The Rolling Stones released their biggest-selling album (eight million copies), Some Girls, which included their last North American number-one pop chart single, "Miss You". After the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Richards' original sentence, he paid his debt to society by performing two benefit concerts for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, at the cannabis smoke filled Oshawa Civic Auditorium on April 22, 1979. Both concerts featured The Rolling Stones and The New Barbarians, a band Ron Wood had formed to promote his album Gimmie Some Neck.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-28 00:10 by Bingo.

that was a very scary part.
but in the immortal words of LYL Side 3: "ohh yeah, everything gonna be all right!"

It is still disturbing that Keith got off and didn't spend the rest of his life in jail. Celebrity justice. It just egged on the fans who thought it was cool to be in possession of that much junk and get off free. How many of THEM are rotting away in jail now, thanks to Keef's example?

... i guess you're trying to be funny, and failing, but it's worth noting that
in those days in Canada *most* convictions for possession, when no other crime was involved,
ended with a conditional sentence, rehab and community service,
which normally involves doing something related to one's usual line of work.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... i guess you're trying to be funny, and
> failing, but it's worth noting that
> in those days in Canada *most* convictions for
> possession, when no other crime was involved,
> ended with a conditional sentence, rehab and
> community service,
> which normally involves doing something related to
> one's usual line of work.

exactly

I wonder if Keith actually remembers the date of his arrest.

Has anyone heard Keith (recently) talk about that time in his life?

oh i'll bet he remembers...

but i would doubt he talks about it much lately ... ancient history you know

Cool story in rock history although I doubt he had any one liners ready. He was probably very scared.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... i guess you're trying to be funny, and
> failing, but it's worth noting that
> in those days in Canada *most* convictions for
> possession, when no other crime was involved,
> ended with a conditional sentence, rehab and
> community service,
> which normally involves doing something related to
> one's usual line of work.


For FOUR OUNCES of narcotics, smuggled into the country? Look I didn't want to see Keith go to jail, but HELIOOBAAS is correct about "celebrity justice". A different set of rules obviously applied.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-28 14:59 by KSIE.

Keith was tried for possession, not smuggling, because there was no evidence of smuggling;
the original charge of trafficking was blatantly absurd and was duly dropped.
i doubt that you have any evidence that he was smuggling either, or that he had the junk for anything but personal use.
Keith's case was treated like the majority of such cases in Canada at that time -
the only things that were really unusual about it were the publicity and the fact that
Keith's line of work is what it is, and led to an unusual form of community service.

there were voices at the time insisting that since Keith was a celebrity he should be treated *more* harshly
than a normal person - a la Redlands 1967 - and to me that way of thinking is a lot more "disturbing"
than a legal system that regularly took a humane approach to people found guilty of addiction.

Keith's done a pretty good job of illustrating that the rehab/community service route
can lead to quite commendable results.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-28 15:47 by with sssoul.

Keith busted on Brian's birthday? That's gotta be some kind of conspiracy, hasn't it?

the bust was february 27th - the first poster is in Canada, so it was still the 27th there when he posted.
close enough to smell a conspiracy, though! especially since the Redlands bust was also in february.

Amen to sister sssouls compassionate comments. In my opinion, the best sentence for a junky is treatment, rehab,.....not punishment......save the prison space for violent criminals.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keith was tried for possession, not smuggling,
> because there was no evidence of smuggling;
> the original charge of trafficking was blatantly
> absurd and was duly dropped.
> i doubt that you have any evidence that he was
> smuggling either, or that he had the junk for
> anything but personal use.


Well of course it's only my opinion, and I'm not familiar with Canadian laws, but having 4 ozs. of (probably pretty pure) dope is not considered "personal use quantity" for the average Joe. It's quantity that matters, regarding sentencing. Intent to distribute does not need to be proved. If it was a consideration in the sentence, then I would see that as a double-standard by itself. Proof that the dope was smuggled-in to Canada is/was probably not available, but wasn't Anita busted at the airport when they arrived?

>> I'm not familiar with Canadian laws <<

a lot of people seem not to know that this kind of sentence wasn't that unusual in Canada at the time -
that's why i'm pointing it out. and of course Keith had very very capable lawyers,
who successfully - and rightly - made the point that he was not a drug dealer.
and yes, Anita was busted at the airport for a piece of hash and a suspicious spoon -
but Anita is not Keith, and it was possession that he was tried for, not smuggling,
nor for trafficking or intent to traffick.

sorry but the line of thinking that he (or anyone else) should have been punished for things he wasn't on trial for
reminds me of the Redlands bust, and the way the Establishment got briefly carried away
with their yearning to lock those dirty Stones up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-28 18:27 by with sssoul.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the bust was february 27th - the first poster is
> in Canada, so it was still the 27th there when he
> posted.
> close enough to smell a conspiracy, though!
> especially since the Redlands bust was also in
> february.

I'm not in Canada, I'm in the UK. I posted at about 10pm last night but I assume this board must be Central European time and I'm on GMT. I've never noticed that before!

Anyway, yeah, I beleive the date of the 'bust' was the 27th.

How long was it before Keith was actualy convicted? Could he leave Canada in between or was he locked up?

I think I've bust a button on my trousers....

I'll defer to your knowledge of Canadian customs/laws Ms. ssoul.

But I still have to believe that Keith's celebrity (or maybe his high-priced lawyers) got him off a hook a less-famous person wouldn't have survived. Not saying it was right or wrong, just stating my view.

I guess, given ticket prices today, a free Stones concert was quite a substantial payment to society.

hey: it was TWO Stones concerts, with the New Barbarians as a warm-up at that.

and if you have to believe what you do, i can't stop you.
i agree that having excellent attorneys was no doubt crucial.

i remember the story breaking, the photos they dug up and the headlines screeching about him being a dealer -
it was very hard and scary, but some of the stuff going on that wasn't publicized at the time
was even more hair-raising. Chet Flippo's account of it (he was in Toronto at the time)
is still excruciating to read, even knowing that it all works out for the best in the upcoming episodes.

"ohh yeah, everything gonna be all right"

Great article about it in MOJO last year. I'll see if I can properly operate my scanner and put it up.

>> article about it in MOJO last year <<

i wrote a letter to the editor, actually, over that copy-and-paste job of assorted errors from older accounts.
it was like they went out of their way to reprint all the misinformation they could find.

I REMEMBER IT WELL.. very sad time for all stones fans....i never believed he get off that one...well he sure has 9 lives...and even better he was sent free, cleaned himself up and gave us one of the stones best albums..SOME GIRLS!!

February 27, a day to remember. My second daughter was born the day Keith was arrested in Toronto, Pink Floyd released their first record Arnold Layne in 67, Liz Taylor was born on this day 1932.

KSIE wrote: ... having 4 ozs. of (probably pretty pure) dope is not considered "personal use quantity" for the average Joe. It's quantity that matters, regarding sentencing.

The average Joe certainly has not enough money to buy such a quantity. But Keith Richards sure had in 1977. I'm sure he wasn't traficking but just had
b(r)ought (along) his personal use quantity for the Mocambo concert series (there were a few more planned than played).

Keith's defence in this case was that he was a tortured artist with a corresponding drug addiction - names such as Picasso etc. were actually brought up at the trial.

Keith sought rehabilitation before the case came to trial.

Chet Flippo who covered the trial for Rolling Stone suggests that the prosecutor in the case did not pursue it as one might have expected probably suggesting that the Stones had worked it all out in advance - money probably changed hands.

Do they have the drug busts on the scrolling timeline thingy at RS.com?

Is it me?... or is that timeline scrolling thingy hard to control? When you're looking for a particular year, for instance.

yeah, Chet Flippo's take on it is that strings were pulled. i don't claim they weren't -
why wouldn't they be? - but that doesn't mean Keith somehow "should have been" tried for intent to traffick.
the fact that he *could* have been, if effort hadn't gone into it, doesn't mean it was unjust that he wasn't.

also, as far as i know Chet Flippo didn't follow the case through april 79, when there was an attempt
on the prosecution's side to appeal the sentence and have Keith locked up anyway.
it's not like no one was trying to make sure those dirty Stones got what was coming to them.

and sorry but what's outlandish about his being presented as an artist with a drug addiction?
it's an accurate description.

Miss Soul chill out and make some popcorn.

Keith had 4 ounces of hard dope on him.
No doubt his celebrity and / or money helped him get off (not to mention the Blind Angel...).

Do YOU have evidence he wasn't trafficking or that the 4 ounces was ALL for personal use? I doubt you do.

Not looking to pick a fight but KSIE (and HEILOOBAAS) was just stating his opinion - and I agree with his opinion.
It's obvious Keith has done, and can do, no wrong in your eyes but that's not reality.

Pass the popcorn please.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... i guess you're trying to be funny, and
> failing,

Hardly, son. Let me restate my point as it obviously went straight over your dim little head: if it had been you or I who was arrested the outcome would have been entirely at variance w/Keef's sentence.

If you don't understand this time, stay after class and get extra credit.

i don't need to present evidence, nellcote71 - the evidence was presented at the pre-trial hearings,
and the charges of trafficking were duly dropped. it's a matter of record, not a matter of opinion.
yes, the fact that he was a millionaire with no need to deal drugs was a big part of the argument
that convinced the court to drop those charges. so what? it was the facts.

but if you want to maintain that Keith was in fact a drug dealer, go right ahead,
by all means. i'm not stopping you, or anybody else, from posting whatever they want.

and yes, i'm aware that Keith has been guilty of all kinds of things -
addiction, possession of assorted illegal substances, carrying weapons, not going to the dentist,
ending up with his friend's woman, wearing no underwear, cursing, having a dirty laugh,
starting the wrong number, running off at the mouth, saying "me" when "i" is called for,
making stuff up, being a credit hog, dropping his pick and all kinds of other reprehensible things.
your perception of my perception of him is way off - i don't require that people be without flaw.
especially not the Rolling Stones. [passing popcorn]