In the British Columbia Court of Appeal’s decision in
R. v. Le,  B.C.J. No. 716, 2016 BCCA 155, 385 B.C.A.C.
267, at para. 65, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused  S.C.C.A.
No. 272, the court noted that much discussion in the appeal
turned on whether the undercover officer investigating the dial-
a-dope scheme had asked the appellant “Can you hook me up?”
or “Can you hook me up with an eight ball?” (emphasis added),
which is a more specific request for drugs. However, the Court
of Appeal concluded that the specific language made no differ-
ence: Le, at para. 66. The court expressed the following concern,
at para. 93:
Defence counsel argued that there is a meaningful distinction between
veiled statements asking if the other party is a drug dealer and more specific
requests for types, quantities, or values of drugs. It was argued that the for-
mer statement is an investigatory step while the latter is an offer to commit
an offence. Parsing the language of undercover drugs calls in dial-a-dope
investigations in this way takes an unnecessarily narrow approach. It ignores
the surrounding circumstances, but more importantly, it strays far from the
core principle underlying Mack.
 The majority in the cases at bar agrees with this concern,
at para. 39 of their reasons, where they state that “an overly
technical approach to the entrapment doctrine risks detaching
the doctrine from its purpose and unduly restricting police con-
duct”. In MacKenzie, at para. 73, the Supreme Court took a simi-
Assessing whether a particular constellation of facts gives rise to a reasona-
ble suspicion should not — indeed must not — devolve into a scientific or
metaphysical exercise. Common sense, flexibility, and practical everyday
experience are the bywords, and they are to be applied through the eyes
of a reasonable person armed with the knowledge, training and experience of
the investigating officer.
 As Le indicates, it is inconsistent with the core principles
underlying Mack to try to parse the language of undercover officers by distinguishing veiled statements asking if the other party
is a drug dealer from specific requests for quantities of drugs. In
other words, there is no meaningful distinction between asking
someone “Can you hook me up?” — which is not an opportunity
to commit a crime (see Imoro, at para. 16; and Le, at para. 92) —
and specific requests such as “I need 80” or I need “two soft”.
Accordingly, it is my view that an opportunity to commit an
offence was not provided when the undercover officers in the
cases at bar stated that they needed “80” and “two soft”. Neither
had an opportunity been provided prior to that point.
 A comparison of the officers’ statements in Ralph and
Mr. Williams’ case illustrates the artificiality of attempting to