Setbacks Newsbrief: This Week's Corrupt Cops Story 5/21/04 While this feature has taken a brief hiatus, cops corrupted by the drug war have not. And they've been particularly busy lately, so without any further ado: Third prize this week goes to a so-far unnamed chemist employed until last week by the Missouri Highway Patrol. According to the Springfield News-Leader, the chemist resigned May 10th after being accused of stealing methamphetamine from the samples he was supposed to be testing. Prosecutors told the newspaper "several hundred" drug cases are jeopardized because "his credibility is gonna be shot." The chemist, a civilian employee of the patrol for six years, worked at the state's crime lab at Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield. Springfield Police, the Greene County Sheriff's Office, and Troop D of the Highway Patrol are undertaking criminal investigations, they told the News-Leader. In second place is former Georgia police officer Brandon McDonald, sentenced Monday to six years in prison after pleading guilty to selling drugs. McDonald, who had worked for law enforcement agencies in Rockdale, Newton, Walton, Jasper, and Morgan counties, repeatedly sold methamphetamine to undercover officers working for the Atlanta-area East Metro Drug Enforcement Team in 2002. McDonald had another former cop, Greg Rogers, as an accomplice in his off-duty drug dealing business. Rogers, who has pleaded not guilty and faces 76 years in prison, has been jailed since October, when both men were denied bond after Rogers reportedly threatened agents involved in arresting them, Atlanta TV-station WSB-TV reported. But this week's winner is a former corrupt cop of the week, Sheriff Gerald Hege of Davidson County, North Carolina (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/303/geraldhege.shtml). Hege, a self-promoting drug war macho who made humiliating prisoners part of his schtick. Hege last graced these pages in September, when he was indicted by a federal grand jury on 15 felony counts, including embezzling money from the department's "drug buy" fund to be used on his reelection campaigns. Better make that "ex-Sheriff Hege," because as part of a plea agreement announced Monday, Hege resigned as sheriff. But while he lost his status as a tough, drug-fighting lawman, he gained the new status of convicted felon. He pled to two counts of obstruction of justice. Unlike the prisoners who formerly languished under his stewardship of the Davidson County jail, Hege will not wear a striped uniform nor reside in a jail painted pink. Instead, the man who used to sell posters of himself in paramilitary get-up saying "Do the crime scumbag, and you'll do the time," got two suspended six-month sentences and will do three years on probation, the first three months on house arrest with an electronic monitor wrapped around his ankle. The 15 counts Hege had faced included charges of racial profiling, brutality toward inmates at the jail, and attempting to intimidate officers he suspected of cooperating with investigations into his affairs, as well as stealing $6,200. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/338/mo.shtml
As long as we have prohibition, we will have officials (both elected and hired) like police, judges, DEA agents, Customs agents, and other people who will be corrupted by the massive profits available. If we were actually tracking how much of every drug was traveling through the country (in a regulated market), we would be able to track people who try to profit personally from drugs.
Andy let me ask you a serious question. Do you think some illegal drugs should be legalized? Just a yes or no will suffice.
What makes one drug ok and Another Not? I mean Andy I know u all about the Mary Jane but their maybe and ANDYSUN that is all about the Heroin or an ANDYSTAR that is all about the Crack How do we tell them . . . they wrong and u right What makes thier drug of choice any worse or better? Rocket River just curious
There are plenty of metrics that we can gauge the answer on because each drug differs in its potential for abuse, physical addiction, psychological addiction and physical damage just to name a few factors. No drug is simply bad in and of itself, each has its pros and cons. The real question is, what makes a drinker OK and a stoner not? Why does someone who likes to do a bump of coke once in a while get punished in the same way as a hardcore blow monkey? We need to get over our petty prejudices and come together on a drug policy that is economically feasable AND which actually makes progress toward the goal of reducing drug availability to minors. We can have it, but it will require a drug policy that is a healthcare and education based policy as opposed to one driven by the criminal justice system. Excuse me, but if I am "about" anything, it is about reform of our OVERALL drug policy. They could legalize and tax pot tomorrow and next week I would be posting from www.stopthedrugwar.com about the travesty of our cocaine laws. ...would be much better served by a drug policy that allowed them to live crime-free, productive lives as we have seen is possible in Switzerland. ...would be much better served if cocaine was only available in reasonable doses, like in the original Coca-Cola recipe. if cocaine was legal, crack would go away as a primary means of ingestion within 10 years. Crack was invented as a result of the harsh cocaine laws that were passed in the shadow of Len Bias death. We say unequivocably, with one voice, that you DO NOT USE DRUGS UNTIL THE AGE OF CONSENT. Then, after the age of consent, you fully educate people and allow them to choose their own intoxicants. You track usage rates so that you can target offers for treatment, you open up and maintain treatment centers, and you pay for the whole kit and caboodle with taxes on the drugs themselves.
I guess . . is the solution no drug illegal? I mean for all people over 18? 21? Rocket River are we ready anarchy [which is not a bad thing but are we ready]
Depends on the drug. Some should be 23 or 25 in order to keep them out of colleges, too. The point is that these questions should be answered by SCIENCE, not politicians. Politicians only know how to posture and only pay attention to science when it meets their needs. This issue is too important to be left to the politicians. Once again, I would not describe the system that I have in mind (http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63243) as anarchy. I would call it tight regulation and control of the most dangerous and addictive chemicals that exist. I am talking about a system that reduces the access that our young people have to drugs as one of the metrics that seems to correlate to low levels of drug addiction is the age at which one first tries mind altering substances. The older you are, the less likely you are to develop physical addiction or even problem usage. If the price for removing drugs from the hands of our children is that adults can purchase them legally, then I say the price is more than worth it.
I just thought of one way that this statement is 100% accurate. My wife's name is Mary Jane Moon, no kidding. In that context, I am all about the Mary Jane.
Andymoon, I'll trade you - tobacco for canabis. Also, crack was invented as a safe alternative to freebase after Richard Pryor and many others blew themselves up. Crack is non-flamable freebase. Have you ever done cocaine or heroin? I've never done heroin, but I've used cocaine and Oxycodone (aka hillbilly heroin) and I guarantee you that if you haven't experienced the subtle way in which they alter your desires by directly affecting satisfaction and desire, you don't have any real idea about addiction. There are very few "casual cocaine users" in the world, just as there are very few people who smoke occasionally. Individual hubris would cause many people to try these things under the "I'm better than addiction". Also, if cocaine & meth become universly legal there would be tons of people with paranoid toxic psychosis out there, and there would be a large increase in violent murders and assaults. Finally, some things like sodium pentathol (which has 0 addiction potential) and paramethoxyamphetamine should be universly illegal because LD50 is real close to ED50. In any case, I guarantee you that in your scenario, there would be a dramatic increase in overdose deaths. How do you balance that in the equation? What the relative value of one life?
The question that Andy (and I to a lesser extent myself) have been asking is simple. Is prohibition worse than the actual problem it was created to solve? In our both our cases, the answer is a resounding yes. Police have the ability thanks to the "War on Drugs" to seize private property among other things and this has led to a way for them to gain more money by selling that which they confiscate. The reason why you have all the law that states that banks must notify the Federal Govt when you walk into a bank with more than a few thousand in cash to do any business is the drug war. It's a waste of Federal dollars and a serious threat to liberty. Legalize every drug there is.
This I understand This allows Cops to harrass people that FIT THE PROFILE etc . . who just sitting in their car, Drive or otherwise or sitting on the corner all in the name of stopping the drugs Rocket River
Sorry you took offense to the statement it was more of a off the cuff semi joking statement but To me Anarchy is not wild chaos. . it is basically everyone governing themselves I don't think people are ready for self government Rocket River
The thing I like about allowing people maximum freedom is that it requires maximum responsibilty. I'd much rather have responsibility over my own affairs than having a parental govt. looking over my shoulder. Andy, you're not getting about that one? You're really in love with Mary Jane? My funk band Funky Japanese Brother does that tune. What a weird, weird world we live in.
Crack was invented so that drug dealers, particularly in the inner cities, would have a portable, easily measured dose of smokeable cocaine, but it had very little to do with Pryor. People had been freebasing for decades before Pryor "blew [himself] up." Crack was created after Bias death in part because the laws on powder became so draconian. We have the opposite problem now. Not that it is any of your business (just as it was nobody's business that GWB was a blow monkey in the '70s), but I found myself addicted to cocaine at the age of 16. I went through a long process of recovery during which I became a drug counselor and helped hundreds to escape the clutches of addiction both in a theraputic environment (in drug treatment facilities) and in various self help programs (AA, NA, PDAP, etc.). If you would look at the statistics and studies rather than relying on your assumptions, you would find that there are FAR more "casual cocaine users" than problem users. If every single person who used cocaine in the US was a "problem user," then I might be on board with prohibiting it's sales, but it is a truly small percentage (somewhere around 5%) that actually become addicted. I can hardly understand those people at all because I cannot use cocaine successfully, but I know several people who have the ability to do a line on Friday or Saturday night and not even consider doing another for weeks or months. I know a person for whom a $40 purchase lasts over a month. Those are the people who comprise the lion's share of the cocaine users in this country, but it is the Len Bias, Richard Pryors, and other problem users who get the press. Again, there is a pretty small percentage of "problem users" out there. Most people do not avoid cocaine because it is ILLEGAL, but because it is addictive. Studies show that if you can increase the age at which one first experiments with these drugs, the less likely they are to use the harder ones. Some people would have their moments of pride and weakness, sure, but if you think that those people are not getting cocaine right now today, then you are fooling yourself. In addition, in a regulated system, the delivery mechanism for cocaine would change over time and eventually it would be primarily distributed in much safer doses, like in the original recipe for Coca-Cola or in wine like a product called Vin Mariani. Most people would consume cocaine in very small, relatively safe doses. In addition, part of this system would be educating the users as to the signs of addiction as well as a tracking system so that "problem users" could be targeted for treatment. As far as your claim about "violent murders," (is there another kind?) when cocaine was freely available in apothecary jars at the general store, there was virtually no violence associated with it. But it is SCIENCE that should decide this, not politicians. Politicians will rape this issue for the press they can get out of being "tough on drugs" and not care that their policies are killing people. Once again, I would invite you to look at the statistics. When cocaine and heroin were freely available, there were virtually ZERO deaths due to overdose and cross reaction. Everybody was aware of the dangers and moderated their use as a result. In addition, if there were no fear of drawing a visit from the police, there would be ZERO reason for people to avoid calling an ambulance, hospital, or doctor during an overdose crisis. Virtually every overdose and cross reaction victim can be saved if they get medical attention in time. In fact, they have almost double the time of a heart attack victim. Sans criminal justice penalties, we could save every single overdose and cross reaction victim AND we would see far fewer of them as a result of educating the users before allowing them to purchase.
I didn't take offense and didn't mean for you to think that you had offended me. I just wanted to make it clear that I am anti-prohibition, not pro-pot. But even in the system that I have in mind, it would not be strict self-governance, there would be plenty of controls on drug sales. But again, I will refer to a time when these drugs were legal and freely available to pretty much anyone. There were virtually no deaths due to overdose or cross reaction, there was no violence associated with the drug trade, and the only people who had a problem with drugs were those in the "temperance" movement (the same people that eventually got the Volstead Act or Prohibition I started). They got the ball rolling with alcohol prohibition and when we rolled back alcohol prohibition, the drug laws just stayed. It is time to roll back the drug laws for the same reasons that we rolled back alcohol prohibition. Prohibition is expensive, counterproductive, and kills far more people than drugs ever have.
A couple of points... #1 You argue that people will opt for safer delivery methods if given the opportunity. The history of drug use shows that people have always and consistently sought and used quicker and faster delivery methods & analogs as a.)scientific knowledge has advanced, and b.)drug users progress in their use. For instance, the progression from opium->morphine->heroin->fentanyl, and the change in delivery method from teas, to smoking, to IV use. People in Peru can still chew coca leaves without any major addiction potential, but this is not so for IV users and the like. #2 You make statements about when these drugs were legal - you fail to take into account the fact that a.)the nature of the world was such that these things weren't readily available everywhere, and the general basis of knowledge was such that people were not sophisticated about these maters. In places were they were actively marketed, the addiction rates were insane, as in China before the opium wars. See Pandora's box. #3 Look at opium addiction rates throughout SE Asia, Iran, etc. where the drug is currently tolerated. For instance, after the recent earthquake in Bam, Iran one of the major concerns was that roughly 30% - 50% of the population addicted to opium. This situation is a result of, among other things, the fact that opium is readily available and easily accessible. #4 Different drugs do inspire different behavior patterns. In rats or monkeys, for instance: Studies have also shown a correlation in monkeys between cocaine addiction and dominant/aggressive behavior. Alpha-males are significantly less susceptible to addiction, whereas subordinate males are susceptible to addiction and display alpha-male dominance behavior after taking the drug. #5 Look at the anticidotal but overwhelming information from people who have tried to quit heroin & tobacco. They will overwhelmingly report that quitting tobacco is more difficult. This is because it is much more difficult to avoid places where you can buy tobacco or encounter the visual cues that inspire a craving. Heroin is ghettoized, and therefore requires more concerted effort to use and aquire. #6 You chide me for not looking at statistics and then provide antidotal evidence from a couple of people about casual cocaine users. In Amsterdam, for instance, statistics show that 10% of respondents who have tried cocaine had used it continuously for the past month. #7 - In short, you surmise that people will respond logically and wisely if given the opportunity to use drugs, but the entire history of drug use shows that the last thing that controls addicts and users is logic. P.S. Len Bias died on June 19th, 1986, whereas DEA statistics show the number of arrests began it's growth in 1984.
This "history of drug use" leaves out the fact that people have sought these methods as a result of criminalization. Most people who used opium in the late 1800s moved on to morphine and then heroin after their drug of choice became criminalized. Since it is easier to transport and smuggle heroin than opium (since the effective dose is a much smaller volume), heroin use became more prevalent among those who wanted to use opioids. People in Peru DO chew coca and if cocaine were legal, most people would consume it in concoctions like the original Coca-Cola recipe or in wine mixtures, one of which was called Vin Mariani. The goal would be to reduce problem users as much as possible, something which we would be MUCH more effective at if we could track as user's usage patterns. First, they start with Cocaine-Cola, then they progress to powdered cocaine, which would trigger a visit from a healthcare professional who would offer treatment. Higher levels of usage would continue to draw offers of treatment and if one started commiting crimes for or because of drugs, treatment could be mandated. They were available at the general store. They could not have been MORE available and people were highly aware of the damage they could cause. This is the biggest reason there were few deaths as a result of drugs. Drugs users were socially stigmatized, which tended to reduce usage, but were not criminalized. Everyone was aware of what to do when someone overdosed or cross reacted and nobody hesitated ot call the doctor when this happened. Opium addiction rates are nowhere NEAR what you are trying to claim. If you have anything to back up this outrageous comment, please post a link here. Besides, if you think that drugs are not readily available and easily accessible right now in America, you need to go to high school again. The real point is that we need to take drugs out of the hands of our children at all costs. If the cost is that adults need to be able to legally purchase them, I think it is a small price to pay for a drug-free school system. So what? There is at least as much of a correlation between alcohol usage and violence and yet alcohol is available at convenience stores. I am not trying to create a system where heroin is shot up in bars, just one which reduces criminality and deaths. In Switzzerland, they have a prescription heroin program which has taken heroin users off the streets and turned them into responsible, taxpaying members of society. Their criminal behavior has been minimized and their rates of recovery are higher than users in the US. Link please? As for my "evidence" (I was not meaning for you to apply it to every single cocaine user), I was simply pointing out that I personally know several people (chances are that you do too) who use cocaine successfully. I cannot say that I completely understand it as I cannot use coke successfully, but if you look at the statistics, it is a small minority of cocaine users that become addicted or even experience problem use. You paint with a brush that says that successful cocaine use is simply not possible and that anyone who uses it will become addicted. That is simply not true. Again, this is simply not true. The VAST majority of drug users use in moderation and never develop a problem. I understand that once a person becomes addicted, logic goes out the window, but a regulated system would make dealing with those people FAR less expensive, considerably more effective, and much more logical. Besides, the people who become addicts, by and large, start their addictive behaviors as youngsters. By creating a system where kids cannot get drugs but adults can, we will lower addiction rates dramatically as educated adults, for the most part, make intelligent decisions about drugs. Exactly. The Bias comment was made in relation to crack, which began to become a primary means of ingestion in the inner city in the late '80s.
