Police Priorities: War on Drugs, or Violent Crime?

[Fletch]

Betcha know where this one is going...

Driven By Drug War Incentives, Cops Target Pot Smokers, Brush Off Victims Of Violent Crime

GG, WOD

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yeah, it's unfortunate but we see it every day. So much money to be made in drug enforcement.

Maybe just maybe it will get to a tipping point and we'll end the war and release the prisoners.

 

[radonc73]

Not suprised by the report. Pot smokers are not as likely to shoot back or run. Where is Jessie Jackson? I am sure that alot higher percentage of there arrests were in minority communities.

 

[justjoe]

once again the problem is caused by the misuse of our tax dollars. The pols will do anything that will get them a few votes, no matter how much it costs the taxpayers

 

[mrjarrell]

It's always easier for them to go after low hanging fruit. They get to be all macho, breaking doors down, letting the aggression flow and getting some kicks. Can't really do that with violent criminals who have the wherewithal to fight back. Add in the money factor and you have a recipe for what we currently have on the stove. If it looks like drug war driven corruption it probably is.

 

[Kutnupe14]

the effects of legalization aside... uhhhh drugs and violent crime go hand in hand. Is anyone going to dispute that?

 

[Stickfight]

I'm not sure how you can leave the effect of decriminalization aside and ask a question like that, since the criminalization is actually the main causal factor in creating an environment for the violence to flourish, but the cops in the above story aren't fighting the cartels or traffickers. That is where the violence is which they of course want to avoid.

Much safer and more lucrative in terms of asset seizure to go after individual users or some small time distributor.

 

[phylodog]

It's always easier for them to go after low hanging fruit. They get to be all macho, breaking doors down, letting the aggression flow and getting some kicks. Can't really do that with violent criminals who have the wherewithal to fight back. Add in the money factor and you have a recipe for what we currently have on the stove. If it looks like drug war driven corruption it probably is.

Says the expert on all things LE

It'd be a shame if you actually had one frame of reference for all of the LE posts you make claiming to have an understanding of the job. Instead you combine your hatred of cops with the lapping up of whatever the media wants to spoon feed you and regurgitate the end product as if you have a clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm not sure how you can leave the effect of decriminalization aside and ask a question like that, since the criminalization is actually the main causal factor in creating an environment for the violence to flourish, but the cops in the above story aren't fighting the cartels or traffickers. That is where the violence is which they of course want to avoid.

Much safer and more lucrative in terms of asset seizure to go after individual users or some small time distributor.

Why can't you? The vast majority of serious violent crime is drug related. If the purpose of law enforcement is to prevent violent crime, why not start there?
The article is pretty faulty in that it implies that pot smokers have no hand in the violent crime that occurs in our streets. We can argue decriminalization, but it should be noted that the article doesnt do it either.

 

[Stickfight]

Because decriminalization is the only solution that stops the violence?

People want drugs and they are going to get them regardless of the efforts of the police. If the entirety of the War on Drugs hasn't proven that I don't know what will. All of the power that has been signed over to cops, all of the technology employed, all the man hours put in, hasn't slowed down the drug industry. Worse, it has made the supply side richer and more powerful than the governments of the countries it operates in. In every large city in the US there are neighborhoods where drugs are openly sold on the street. Even here it isn't economically possible to stop it.

It isn't a question of should the police have the power to stop drugs. They can't stop them.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Because decriminalization is the only solution that stops the violence?

People want drugs and they are going to get them regardless of the efforts of the police. If the entirety of the War on Drugs hasn't proven that I don't know what will. All of the power that has been signed over to cops, all of the technology employed, all the man hours put in, hasn't slowed down the drug industry. Worse, it has made the supply side richer and more powerful than the governments of the countries it operates in. In every large city in the US there are neighborhoods where drugs are openly sold on the street. Even here it isn't economically possible to stop it.

It isn't a question of should the police have the power to stop drugs. They can't stop them.

Put on your tinfoil hat, but I'm not sure that the "powers that be" want to stop them. We're always making comparisons to Prohibition right? Well, I'm of the opinion that no one really want to stop booze from flowing either. The "failure" of these wars, very often, appears to be by design.

 

[level.eleven]

the effects of legalization aside... uhhhh drugs and violent crime go hand in hand. Is anyone going to dispute that?

Why do they go hand in hand?

 

[jeremy]

the effects of legalization aside... uhhhh drugs and violent crime go hand in hand. Is anyone going to dispute that?

Is this driven in this way in certain locals?!

 

[cobber]

Put on your tinfoil hat, but I'm not sure that the "powers that be" want to stop them. We're always making comparisons to Prohibition right? Well, I'm of the opinion that no one really want to stop booze from flowing either. The "failure" of these wars, very often, appears to be by design.

Why the "hat" comment? Seems like a fair question.

Re "no one" wanting Prohibition to succeed, how do you get that? A constitutional amendment accompanied by an extraordinary law enforcement effort. This didn't happen without some popular support and political will. People eventually put 2 + 2 together, however, so we're not still feathering the nests of the bootleggers.

Why would you state that the failure is by design (as opposed to inevitable failure)? You mean Congress and the state legislatures actually don't want the War On Drugs to succeed? Or do you mean they knew the WoD was doomed from the start?

If either premise is true (design v. doomed), then what are we to make of the indirect and direct costs of the WoD in terms of human life lost, money diverted to organized crime, tax revenues directed away from other social purposes, and overcrowded prisons?

If this failure is by design, then somebody's got some real 'splainin' to do.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why the "hat" comment? Seems like a fair question.

Re "no one" wanting Prohibition to succeed, how do you get that? A constitutional amendment accompanied by an extraordinary law enforcement effort. This didn't happen without some popular support and political will. People eventually put 2 + 2 together, however, so we're not still feathering the nests of the bootleggers.

Why would you state that the failure is by design (as opposed to inevitable failure)? You mean Congress and the state legislatures actually don't want the War On Drugs to succeed? Or do you mean they knew the WoD was doomed from the start?

If either premise is true (design v. doomed), then what are we to make of the indirect and direct costs of the WoD in terms of human life lost, money diverted to organized crime, tax revenues directed away from other social purposes, and overcrowded prisons?

If this failure is by design, then somebody's got some real 'splainin' to do.

It's the creation of an underclass, a bogeyman, disenfranchised persons.

 

[cobber]

It's the creation of an underclass, a bogeyman, disenfranchised persons.

"It" being the WoD? Or the drug issue itself?

 

[rw496]

Says the expert on all things LE

It'd be a shame if you actually had one frame of reference for all of the LE posts you make claiming to have an understanding of the job. Instead you combine your hatred of cops with the lapping up of whatever the media wants to spoon feed you and regurgitate the end product as if you have a clue as to what you are talking about.

That was a great post

 

[rw496]

Wow. That story was one of the most sensationalized pieces of crap I have read in a while..even for the media that was bad. First, seizing assets is not that easy. It has to be proven that it is proceeds from illegal activity..selling drugs, illegal gambling, or any other illegal activity. Nobody is seizing your car because you smoke weed in it. Second, that girl was housing a drug dealer. The search warrant said they were searching for NATE..so it was an arrest warrant..right? Which means a judge found probable cause to charge him with a crime..a felony if they were doing all that. I could go on forever, but I thought most people on here were the type that didn't buy into journalistic sensationalism.

 

[NYFelon]

the effects of legalization aside... uhhhh drugs and violent crime go hand in hand. Is anyone going to dispute that?

Why can't you? The vast majority of serious violent crime is drug related. If the purpose of law enforcement is to prevent violent crime, why not start there?
The article is pretty faulty in that it implies that pot smokers have no hand in the violent crime that occurs in our streets. We can argue decriminalization, but it should be noted that the article doesnt do it either.

It's difficult to separate the two because the fact that trade in these substances is illegal, and so tightly regulated gives rise to the violence the industry is prone to. When you create a black market for a product, you do nothing to control the demand, you just effect the amount of means of supply. By criminalizing the sale and use of these substances, you have made the only means possible to sate the demand an illegal one. With that, the administration of the business also becomes prone to violent means. When so much is at stake, not just money, but the freedom and lives of those involved in illicit trade, violence is only the natural outcome of the situation. You have created an atmosphere by which illegal, and often brutal means of administration are the only means with which to remedy transgressions in the industry. It's not like Juan Pablo the Distributor can take Mike the low level dealer to small claims or other civil court to seek remedy for Mike failing to fulfill his end of the contract. So alternative (read: extralegal) means of enforcement and administration must be used to keep the business flowing smoothly.

 

[level.eleven]

Wow. That story was one of the most sensationalized pieces of crap I have read in a while..even for the media that was bad. First, seizing assets is not that easy. It has to be proven that it is proceeds from illegal activity..selling drugs, illegal gambling, or any other illegal activity. Nobody is seizing your car because you smoke weed in it. Second, that girl was housing a drug dealer. The search warrant said they were searching for NATE..so it was an arrest warrant..right? Which means a judge found probable cause to charge him with a crime..a felony if they were doing all that. I could go on forever, but I thought most people on here were the type that didn't buy into journalistic sensationalism.

If that is all you took from the article, I would suggest giving it another read. Maybe even give the author a little research focus. Or, you can catch him on...*gasp*...Fox News. He makes some pretty regular appearances.

The War on some Drugs is losing steam. Former officials are coming out of the woodwork calling for its end.

George Shultz, former US secretary of state, Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico and Javier Solana, former European Union high representative for foreign and security policy.

FT.com / Comment / Columnists - We should end our disastrous war on drugs