# Some proof the drug war doesn't work **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2000, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856 "2000-03-12T11:23:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![CliffSchaffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@CliffSchaffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CliffSchaffer)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/41 "2000-03-17T03:13:00Z")
Kent4mmy wrote: > [@](#): > > The war on drugs, like most policing activities, is reactive in nature. That is why it is failing. No, it is failing because it was based on ignorance and absolute lunacy from the very beginning. See [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer) - Historical Research – particularly the two items listed above. > [@](#): > > Agencies are doing next to nothing to prevent crackhouses from springing up, only raiding them after they’re there, endangering innocents within proximity. That’s because drug dealers don’t apply for business and liquor licenses, so there is no way of knowing where they will set up shop nexxt. > [@](#): > > IMO, if the focus was redirected to a proactive attitude i.e. somehow stopping the dealers before they set up shop, we’d be in better shape. Right. We just invent a mind-reading machine that will tell when someone is contemplating a crime and . . . . > [@](#): > > The illegal drug business is a “get rich quick” business and potential dealers know there’s nothing to stop them from initially setting up operations anywhere the market may look good. They know they’re gonna make some quick money. Yep. That is pretty much guaranteed by the price support system for illegal drugs that we have in place. Same as during alcohol prohibition. > [@](#): > > If they get greedy, and most do, they’ll attempt to expand and draw attention to their operation. I haven’t seen any of these people taking out ads in the newspaper for their crack houses. No, they don’t attempt to draw attention, they usually seek to avoid it. > [@](#): > > That’s when reactive policing comes into play. But it’s already too late. > Proactive policing is the key. Right, all we need is that mind-reading machine and we will be all set. ## Why don’t you try reading the major research on the subject? I guarantee you will find it fascinating and surprising. Most of what you think you know about the subject is probably wrong. See [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer) World’s Largest Online Library of Drug Policy - [http://www.druglibrary.org](http://www.druglibrary.org) ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/42 "2000-03-17T03:37:00Z")
“Evil everywhere flourishes under oppression.”- Jimmy Breslin ‘The Gang that couldn’t shoot straight’ We have surrendered a lot of freedom to morally questionable, armed thugs in the name of protecting us from the evils of drugs. The drugs and thugs have multiplied exponentially as a result. (especially if you live in L.A.'s Rampart Division patrol area) ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/43 "2000-03-17T04:10:00Z")
Ben Franklin said: “Anyone willing to give up their rights for safety deserves neither.” I don’t have the exact quote but that’s close. It’s something to think about. As soon as a society starts justifying abridgeing certain rights or portions thereof for what ever reason, the first step has been taken down the road to elimination of those rights. Right this minute in Baltimore, there is a week long search for a multi murderer going on, and as part of the search, police are stoping cars without reason and searching them. Now, don’t get me wrong, I want this guy caught, but I would prefer he get away for ever, rather than be used as a justification to abridge my ( and your ) “inalienable rights.” THEY ARE **INALIENABLE**. That means that they can not be taken away, no matter the justification. Sorry, sore subject with me. More to the point of the OP, drug abuse is not a criminal issue, it is a social issue. The “war” on drugs is a dismal failure. if you do not believe this, find yourself a 14 year old. They are not hard to find, they’ll probobly be wearing fashons that we all realized looked goofy in 1979. Ask this 14 year old what is easier for him/her to get, beer or pot.? I guarantte you that 7 out of 10 will say pot if they answer honestly. Alcohol is a drug that is controlled through a leagal production and distribution process designed to prevent underage kids from getting it. Pot is a drug controlled by laws making it illeagal. What does this tell you about the relative effectiveness of each process? * * * Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/44 "2000-03-17T04:49:00Z")
weirddave, I’m not sure of Ben Franklins actual quote, but the character of Ben Franklin in the musical “1776” said ‘A man who would trade liberty for security deserves neither’. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/45 "2000-03-17T06:25:00Z")
What do you mean the “drug war” isn’t working? Look at the statistics!! Why, just last year the emergency room admissions for marijuana overdose was virtually ZERO! This can only be credited to our fervent and relentless pursuit of evildoers! Who are we kidding? Booze kills by the thousands, especially kids who drive somewhere to drink and then drive back. Cigarettes kill by the HUNDREDS of thousands. See anybody from P. Lorrilard undergoing a body cavity search? Can anyone give me ONE good reason why they shouldn’t be in Cell Block D with the other sociopaths? Civil penalties, advertising restrictions, lawsuits, BULLSHIT!!! They KNEW they were committing murder, knew it every day they went to work, every memo they signed, and they did it for money. Put on a suit and tie, and you can sell addictive poison with impunity. Those guys had better HOPE there isnt a God. It might be worth going to Hell just to stick a fork in them! “In their eyes there’s something lacking, what they needs a damned good whacking!!” - Lennon/McCartney ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Dave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Great\_Dave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Dave)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/46 "2000-03-17T06:54:00Z")
To follow up on elucidator’s ideas: It’s all about the money. The three most popular mood altering drugs had industries delivering them to the American public by the turn of the century (1900, for those who believe we are now in the 21st C). Coca-Cola, Philip Morris, Anhueser-Busch. The currently illegal drugs had no such support to lobby the government. * * * It’s not how you pick your nose, it’s where you put the boogers ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/47 "2000-03-17T13:27:00Z")
Cliff: To be honest, I have no real interest in the “Should drugs be legalized?” debate, or the “Is the drug war right or wrong?” debate. It doesn’t interest me in the slightest. What does interest me in this thread is the notion that “no knock” raids are a bad thing and should never be used. So, that being said… Then I take it you haven’t read the major research on the subject. I suggest you start with the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm) > [@](#): > > If you do enough reading, you will discover soon enough that the drug war was a fraud from the very beginning at it has never made sense at any point in history. (And there’s nothing “on the fence” about that conclusion – it is cold, hard fact.) I’ll take you word for it. It honestly doesn’t interest me either way. > [@](#): > > “high risk warrants” with regards to what particular set of crimes? High risk warrants have existed for a long time. As stated I have no doubt that many of them THESE days are for drug dealers. However, high risk warrants would also include for example busting in on a group of suspected bank robbers in their hideout. The number of examples is FAR to numerous to list. Essentially, any group of suspects that have hostages, or are likely to have _easy and immediate_ access to firearms (in particular SMGs or other weapons) might be considered high risk. It varies immensely from situation to situation. But this notion you seem to have that “no knocks” are only used against drug dealers is not consistent with typical police policy as it has existed for DECADES! Long before the drug war. > [@](#): > > So what is the only set of crimes where the imminent destruction of evidence which might be avoided with a sudden, unannounced entry is even a potential problem? I didn’t miss anything. It is absolutely obvious that my meaning was with regards to drug raids. But it is a secondary goal. The primary goal of the “no knock” is the safety of the police officers in executing ANY high risk warrant. Period. The fact is that police also realize that this minimizes the chance of the suspects destroying evidence in drug raids. Although important, it is secondary to the primary issue. > [@](#): > > As stated above, that is a clear sign that you aren’t familiar with the most basic research on the subject. Let’s start with the basics: You are absolutely right. I have no interest in the subject. If I had unlimited time, I would study it with great vigour but I do not have unlimited time. So, I proclaim “no contest” to anything related to the validity of drug laws or the drug war. Once again, my interest is simply in keeping the facts straight with regards to “no knock” raids, their use, their history and their practicality. Some Reasoning: 1. Currently, whether right or wrong, many narcotics are illegal. 2. The drug dealers who sell them tend to be heavily armed. 3. This makes any raids on them dangerous. 4. Therefore, the police use “no knock” raids on drug dealers, as they would in ANY high risk warrant. The fact that all “no knock” raids in one jurisdication were against drug dealers is irrelevent. The “no knock” was NOT done because there was drugs involved, the “no knock” was done because it was a HIGH RISK WARRANT. There is no policy that says “For drug dealers we will use a no knock raid.” Police policy is “If the warrant is going to be unreasonably dangerous to implement, we will use a no knock raid.” Can you see the difference? The correlation you are seeing between drugs and "no knock"s is the correlation of drug dealers to danger. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/48 "2000-03-17T14:18:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The fact that all “no knock” raids in one jurisdication were against drug dealers is irrelevent. The “no knock” was NOT done because there was drugs involved, the “no knock” was done because it was a HIGH RISK WARRANT. There is no policy that says “For drug dealers we will use a no knock raid.” Police policy is “If the warrant is going to be unreasonably dangerous to implement, we will use a no knock raid.” Can you see the difference? The correlation you are seeing between drugs and "no knock"s is the correlation of drug dealers to danger. I think you’re assuming that all cops act only ethically all the time. The collateral information from the various reports in the Denver area seem to indicate that they are almost doing it because it is fun. They are securing warrants on the flimsiest excuses. They are coming up with almost exclusively the sort of low-level “doing it for the spare change” drug dealers that are _not_ typically armed. They are not being too careful in which targets they select. I would not say that “no knock” should be prohibited. There are cases where it will be the only prudent approach. In Denver, however, it looks as though there are a few cops who have seriously abused it and I think that it ought to be a lot harder for those cops to get that sort of warrant. (I also suspect that a couple of those cops should be disciplined for their abuse of the system. I won’t hold my breath.) * * * Tom~ ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/49 "2000-03-17T14:51:00Z")
As stated above, yes, the current policies towards conducting a raid at all because there are drugs involved is terrible. I don’t agree with the notion that a warrant of any kind should be done based on information that might be sufficient at best for a stop & detain. It is here where the complaint should lie, which is my point. The current, typical judicial/police policy on warrants for suspected drug selling is terrible. I don’t agree with it in the slightest. However, this is not a strike against “no knock” warrants. The two are seperate issues (see my first post). The Issues Are: 1. The policy of issuing ANY warrant on flimsy information because there are drugs involved. 2. The policy of using of “no knock” raids in high risk warrant situations. The first I disagree with. The second I agree with. I am simply trying to keep the issues seperated. Of course, if a high risk warrant is issued wrongfully on flimsy (IMO) evidence then the result will be a wrongfully executed “no knock” raid, but again we need to see the ROOT cause, which is the issue of the warrant on flimsy evidence in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![CliffSchaffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@CliffSchaffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CliffSchaffer)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2000, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/50 "2000-03-18T06:11:00Z")
Glitch wrote: > [@](#): > > Cliff: To be honest, I have no real interest in the “Should drugs be legalized?” debate, or the “Is the drug war right or wrong?” debate. It doesn’t interest me in the slightest. What does interest me in this thread is the notion that “no knock” raids are a bad thing and should never be used. > So, that being said… Without the drug war, it would hardly be an issue. > [@](#): > > I’ll take you word for it. It honestly doesn’t interest me either way. Well, if you think the drug war is not the basis of most of the problems in this area, then you are in denial. Actually, it is by far one of the most interesting stories in our history. In short, most of what you think you know about the subject is probably wrong. > [@](#): > > High risk warrants have existed for a long time. As stated I have no doubt that many of them THESE days are for drug dealers. By far the majority. > [@](#): > > However, high risk warrants would also include for example busting in on a group of suspected bank robbers in their hideout. The number of examples is FAR to numerous to list. The possibilities may be far too numerous to list, but they don’t bust in on bank robbers with any regularity. It is overwhelmingly drug busts where they are used. > [@](#): > > Essentially, any group of suspects that have hostages, or are likely to have easy and immediate access to firearms (in particular SMGs or other weapons) might be considered high risk. It varies immensely from situation to situation. But this notion you seem to have that “no knocks” are only used against drug dealers is not consistent with typical police policy as it has existed for DECADES! Long before the drug war. I didn’t say “only”, but obviously, the vast majority are for drugs and not for other crimes. > [@](#): > > I didn’t miss anything. It is absolutely obvious that my meaning was with regards to drug raids. But it is a secondary goal. The primary goal of the “no knock” is the safety of the police officers in executing ANY high risk warrant. Period. Yeah, nice explanation. The facts on the street are that something better than 90 percent of them are for drugs. > [@](#): > > The fact is that police also realize that this minimizes the chance of the suspects destroying evidence in drug raids. Although important, it is secondary to the primary issue. The secondary concern seems to account for by far the majority of the raids. > [@](#): > > You are absolutely right. I have no interest in the subject. If I had unlimited time, I would study it with great vigour but I do not have unlimited time. You seem to have enough time to discuss its results. > [@](#): > > So, I proclaim “no contest” to anything related to the validity of drug laws or the drug war. Once again, my interest is simply in keeping the facts straight with regards to “no knock” raids, their use, their history and their practicality. The story of these laws is far more entertaining than you might imagine. In fact, entertaining enough to make it valuable for the entertainment value alone. > [@](#): > > Some Reasoning: > > 1. Currently, whether right or wrong, many narcotics are illegal. The fact that they are illegal is clearly wrong. Like for instance the fact that marijuana was outlawed because “All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy.” As a result, we have lots of no-knock raids today. That kinda goes to the heart of the question of whether they really need to do them, don’t you think? > [@](#): > > 1. The drug dealers who sell them tend to be heavily armed. Just like Al Capone during alcohol prohibition. In short, the negative effects of the policy are being used as the justification for the policy/ > [@](#): > > 1. This makes any raids on them dangerous. And fundamentally unnecessary in 90 percent of all the cases if we had a more sensible policy in the first place. The question was whether they were justified, wasn’t it? Well, if the law created the problems, then they really aren’t justified, are they? > [@](#): > > 1. Therefore, the police use “no knock” raids on drug dealers, as they would in ANY high risk warrant. Which still leaves the question of why the vast majority of them are for drugs. > [@](#): > > The fact that all “no knock” raids in one jurisdication were against drug dealers is irrelevent. You can choose any jurisdiction where you can get figures if you want to do some comparisons. Let me know if you find any city where less than 90 percent of the no-knock raids are for drugs. > [@](#): > > The “no knock” was NOT done because there was drugs involved, the “no knock” was done because it was a HIGH RISK WARRANT. No, that’s not clear at all from the stats. What is clear is that they were all for drugs. > [@](#): > > There is no policy that says “For drug dealers we will use a no knock raid.” Which police department are you talking about? It seems to be the case in Denver. > [@](#): > > Police policy is “If the warrant is going to be unreasonably dangerous to implement, we will use a no knock raid.” . . or if we want to try out that neat new SWAT equipment we bought. > [@](#): > > Can you see the difference? I can see a theoretical difference. Curiously enough, however, 90 plus percent are still for drugs. I have known a lot of drug users, and a fair number of dealers, some of whom have been “no-knocked”. From the ones I have seen, there wasn’t any great risk to the LEOs in those cases. > [@](#): > > The correlation you are seeing between drugs and "no knock"s is the correlation of drug dealers to danger. ## No, the no-knock routine is far more consistent than the actual danger to cops. And, there is no great danger in surrounding the house and waiting them out. In fact, that’s what is recommended in most hostage situations. World’s Largest Online Library of Drug Policy - [http://www.druglibrary.org](http://www.druglibrary.org) ---
**Author:** ![Silo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@Silo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silo)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2000, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/51 "2000-03-18T06:31:00Z")
I think the war on drugs is a joke. If you took the drug business and turned it into a company. It would be the #1 Fortune 500 company by a ridiculous margin. You can’t stop something like that, it’s futile. I used to be a user and have done most everything (thirty to forty different illegal drugs), I would say that crack and heroin are the biggest problem. I have seen a lot of people die and screw up their lives with those particular drugs. (sorry if I went a little of topic, must be that past drug use) ``` Later... ``` * * * If at first you don’t succeed you’re about average. ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2000, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/52 "2000-03-18T13:28:00Z")
Cliff: You seem to like saying I am completely unfamiliar with the subject of the drug war. You are right. I have admitted that. I have tried to avoid returning any implied insults but it seems to me that you are not terribly uninformed about police policy and procedures. You also seem to have a preconceived notion about police. I am not going to try to convince you about the reality of police policy since it is quite clear you have already made up your mind. So one last time, take it or leave it. Police policy for “no knock” raids is to use them for high risk warrants. In the modern day, this primarily has equated to drug busts. This is because drug dealers tend to be dangerous. Police, in general, do not tend to want to “try out that new SWAT” equipment, or any of the other myriad of negative reasons you seem to attach to the police (no, they don’t tend to bust in on bank robbers hideouts because the situation doesn’t present itself all that often; HOWEVER, the point was that IF the situation presented itself that is EXACTLY how they would proceed. It like drug busts would be done in the same manner as any high risk warrants). Again, your preconceived notion of the police seems to be blinding you that since they are enforcing a drug war you don’t agree with then they must be the bad guys. It is hardly surprising that most “no knock” raids are against drug dealers because the politicians have ordered this focus on anti-drugs. Your correlation between the drug war and police policy is gravely mistaken. If we didn’t have the drug war, then police would be free to pursue other crimes more vigourously. You know what would happen? They would do “no knock” raids on THOSE crimes instead of the drug busts whenever they would be a high risk. Ta da. ---
**Author:** ![Freedomx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4af34b/32.png) [@Freedomx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freedomx)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2000, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/53 "2000-03-18T13:54:00Z")
I am willing to say right here, right now, that this country would be better of with ZERO no-knock raids than continueing the current policy. Drop them all. Yes there will be cases where innocent people get hurt, but innocent people are getting hurt right now. Far less people would get hurt by stopping no-knock raids, and our rights would be far better served. ---
**Author:** ![CliffSchaffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@CliffSchaffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CliffSchaffer)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2000, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/54 "2000-03-19T01:11:00Z")
Glitch wrote: > [@](#): > > Cliff: You seem to like saying I am completely unfamiliar with the subject of the drug war. You are right. I have admitted that. Then you would naturally not be terribly familiar with the justification for the majority of the no-knock raids. > [@](#): > > I have tried to avoid returning any implied insults but it seems to me that you are not terribly uninformed about police policy and procedures. Such a statement is not an insult, it is a statement of fact, like saying someone is not trained in brain surgery (and therefore should use some care when they try to render an opinion on brain surgery). That kind of statement is, of course, easily rebuttable simply by demonstrating that one is familiar with the subject. I think you meant to say that I am not terribly well informed about police policy and procedures. If that is your statement (that’s not an insult, by the way) then you could certainly show superior knowledge (if you have it) and easily carry the argument. I think you will find, however, that I am pretty well informed on most areas of this subject, and that I will consistently present more reliable research on most subjects than the people who are trying to argue with me. The present debate is a case in point, for example. > [@](#): > > You also seem to have a preconceived notion about police. I have preconceived notions about a lot of things. In the case of my notions about police, it hasn’t kept me from being invited to conferences of chiefs of police as a special guest. > [@](#): > > I am not going to try to convince you about the reality of police policy since it is quite clear you have already made up your mind. In other words, you really don’t have any evidence you can show, so you look for an out. > [@](#): > > So one last time, take it or leave it. Seeing as how I have seen nothing but an unsupported opinion from you, I think I will leave it, thanks. > [@](#): > > Police policy for “no knock” raids is to use them for high risk warrants. In the modern day, this primarily has equated to drug busts. This is because drug dealers tend to be dangerous. No, there isn’t any significant danger in the vast majority of them. I am still waiting for you to name any jurisdiction in which less than 90 percent of the raids are drug raids. Like I said, if it wasn’t for the War on Some Drugs, which was a mistake in the first place, we wouldn’t even be talking about this issue. Nobody has ever really had a problem with them busting in on bank robbers. > [@](#): > > Police, in general, do not tend to want to “try out that new SWAT” equipment, or any of the other myriad of negative reasons you seem to attach to the police I guess you didn’t catch the 60 Minutes show a couple of years ago about the militarization of the police forces in the US. One thing they pointed out was that nearly every police force in the US now has a SWAT team, and military surplus equipment enough to stock a small army – even though the majority of those communities have never had a SWAT team incident. It’s toys, believe me. > [@](#): > > (no, they don’t tend to bust in on bank robbers hideouts because the situation doesn’t present itself all that often; So we might say that for every couple of thousand no-knock drug busts there might be one bank robber or similar person. Are you beginning to pick up a real pattern here? > [@](#): > > HOWEVER, the point was that IF the situation presented itself that is EXACTLY how they would proceed. But, as you said, it rarely does, so nearly all the no-knocks are for drug busts, where the risks to police are really pretty minimal, at best. > [@](#): > > It like drug busts would be done in the same manner as any high risk warrants). I think you lost it somewhere in the middle of that sentence. > [@](#): > > Again, your preconceived notion of the police seems to be blinding you that since they are enforcing a drug war you don’t agree with then they must be the bad guys. Then I guess you would find it a bit difficult to explain why I got along so well with the collection of Chiefs of Police at the conference at Stanford University last November. It might interest you to know that I received a special invitation to attend from the former Chief of Police who organized it. I was the only person invited who was not connected to some major institution. > [@](#): > > It is hardly surprising that most “no knock” raids are against drug dealers because the politicians have ordered this focus on anti-drugs. Your correlation between the drug war and police policy is gravely mistaken. It seems like your first sentence directly contradicts the second one. > [@](#): > > If we didn’t have the drug war, then police would be free to pursue other crimes more vigourously. You know what would happen? They would do “no knock” raids on THOSE crimes instead of the drug busts whenever they would be a high risk. Ta da. So, comparatively speaking, how many no-knocks would that result in? As near as I can tell, you haven’t yet offered anything but your unsupported opinion for anything you have said. ## And your reasoning is a bit off the beam. If those crimes are being committed now, and deserving of a no-knock, then I don’t see any real reason why they wouldn’t do it. As it turns out, however, no-knocks for non-drug offenses are exceedingly rare. Like I said, I would still like to see you name any community where less than 90 percent of the no-knocks are for drugs. World’s Largest Online Library of Drug Policy - [http://www.druglibrary.org](http://www.druglibrary.org) ---
**Author:** ![Kent4mmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/34f0e0/32.png) [@Kent4mmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent4mmy)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2000, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/55 "2000-03-19T16:44:00Z")
Cliffschaffer on proactive policing: > [@](#): > > Right. We just invent a mind reading machine that will tell us when someone is contemplating a crime and… and > [@](#): > > Right, all we need is that mind reading machine and we will be all set. A time machine is not needed, Cliff… common sense will do the trick. Common sense would tell me that, if people started visiting my neighbors at all hours, and for 5 minutes at a time, some drug dealing was going on. As a member of that neighborhood, it is my responsibility, along with the strength of my other neighbors, to let that wayward neighbor know their activities are not welcome. There are many ways to accomplish this, and most don’t involve the police (which invites violence IMO). You misunderstood my remark about dealers wanting to draw attention to themselves. That is probably because it was poorly written (I was going to add a second post clarifying it but thought enough would get the point). Of course drug dealers want to remain low key!! There activities are (currently) illegal. It is the draw of greed, the quick dollar, that forces them to make sales around the clock, thus alerting neighbors and, eventually, police. You cite a lot of research but your argument suggests you have no real life, up-close experience in dealing with this problem. I hope I’m right about that. I also hope that you, and everyone, would become involved should the situation present itself. Be proactive. ---
**Author:** ![Kent4mmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/34f0e0/32.png) [@Kent4mmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent4mmy)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2000, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/56 "2000-03-19T17:33:00Z")
A time machine would be fun but what I meant to say, of course, was “mind reading machine”. ---
**Author:** ![CliffSchaffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@CliffSchaffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CliffSchaffer)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2000, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/57 "2000-03-19T19:11:00Z")
> [@](#): > > A time machine is not needed, Cliff… common sense will do the trick. Oh, I usually love these explanations. > [@](#): > > Common sense would tell me that, if people started visiting my neighbors at all hours, and for 5 minutes at a time, some drug dealing was going on. And what if it wasn’t quite so obvious? It usually isn’t. In case you weren’t aware, most drug dealers are aware that sort of thing looks suspicious so they keep it cool. That would only get the obvious crack houses. > [@](#): > > As a member of that neighborhood, it is my responsibility, along with the strength of my other neighbors, to let that wayward neighbor know their activities are not welcome. There are many ways to accomplish this, and most don’t involve the police (which invites violence IMO). And what if your neighbors are like the great majority of drug dealers and smart enough not to have people coming and going every five minutes at all hours of the day and night? > [@](#): > > Of course drug dealers want to remain low key!! There activities are (currently) illegal. It is the draw of greed, the quick dollar, that forces them to make sales around the clock, thus alerting neighbors and, eventually, police. So, like I said, the majority of them would not present this situation, because they know it will tip off the neighbors. Your “common sense” will only catch the most stupid and flagrant dealers. > [@](#): > > You cite a lot of research but your argument suggests you have no real life, up-close experience in dealing with this problem. I hope I’m right about that. You aren’t. You aren’t even within ten miles of right on that assumption. If you will check my web site, you will find that I work on a regular basis with some of the world’s leading experts on drug addiction, including the heads of several major addiction research centers. My library is known and used worldwide by such people. I will offer a guess here. I would guess that you have never visited my online library and never read the most basic items in it. YOu can start with the history of the marijuana laws at [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm) You will find it quite entertaining and amusing. Then I suggest you read the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs at [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm) That is probably the best book ever written on the subject. You will find things you didn’t know on every single page. I will say this, also. The hallmark of people who support the current policies is that they have never read the most basic research on the subject and can’t answer any factual questions about it. That’s a simple fact, which can be demonstrated any time someone says they support the drug war. [quote] I also hope that you, and everyone, would become involved should the situation present itself. Be proactive. [/quote} I am the world’s largest publisher of serious research on drug policy and have been proactive for at least ten years now. In fact, I have published more of the US Government’s best research than they have. But, just for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that I was wrong about everything. Let’s further suppose that you were able to construct a magic mind reading machine which you could use to instantly tell who was using or selling illegal drugs. All you have to do is point it at them and arrest them. How many millions of people do you think we would have to jail to solve the problem? That’s a serious question, by the way. I would love to hear your answer. * * * World’s Largest Online Library of Drug Policy - [[http://www.druglibrary.org](http://www.druglibrary.org)] ([http://www.druglibrary.org](http://www.druglibrary.org)) ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/58 "2000-03-20T13:42:00Z")
I have asserted the following: 1. “No Knock” raids are performed, as per police policy, when the warrant is considered high risk (i.e. to the safety of the officers). 2. Most drug dealers are armed and hence dangerous. Busting in on them typically constitutes a dangerous situation. 3. Therefore, it is reasonable to predict that a large number of drug busts involve high risk warrants and hence “no knock” raids. Some evidence. From “Survey of Felons” (1998) > [@](#): > > Virtually all drug dealers carry or own a firearm. … They, as a criminal class, have the highest percentage of firearm ownership. I think this establishes #2 above. From a police training guide (I won’t identify which one since that would identify me): > [@](#): > > A peace officer shall enter and clear a residence without prior identification if the suspect or suspects can reasonably be thought to have immediate access to a firearm or firearms. Note, nothing about drugs, only weapons. From a former student on mine on the LAPD: > [@](#): > > Osu Shihan, > > I am more than happy to answer your question. It is our policy to bust into a suspect’s home only if the situation is likely to be dangerous. I don’t know about any stats on how often it is a drug bust. Sorry. ☹ I know personally from experience that many times when we are doing raids we probably will find drugs even if that isn’t what we were there for. Does that make it a drug bust to a statisician? I don’t know. > > … personal letter continues … From a former student of mine on the NYPD: > [@](#): > > Osu Shihan, > > [Glitch - This is concerning drug raids and whether they do “no knocks” on drug raids as policy] I am not sure. I don’t do drug busts or raids. I’ll ask some guys in narcotics and let you know when I find out. > > I do know that if we think the suspect might be armed we bust down the door and then identify ourselves. I think that satisfies #1. #3 logically follows. QED ---
**Author:** ![CliffSchaffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@CliffSchaffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CliffSchaffer)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2000, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/59 "2000-03-20T20:33:00Z")
Glitch, That’s nice stuff, but the fact is that nearly all the no-knock raids are for drugs – more than 90 percent easily, and clearly virtually 100 percent for many jurisdictions. That’s more than a coincidence. As for the assertion that drug dealesrs are always violent and they need to do it to protect themselves: 1. There are far more no-knocks than the number of dangerous drug dealers 2. Drug dealers were not dangerous until the drug prohibition laws were passed. 3. They could do just as well by surrounding the place and waiting out any violent people. They do it all the time in hostage situations. The reason they don’t do that is because the drugs would be flushed down the toilet in that period of time. 4. Without the drug war, they would be so rare that they wouldn’t even be an issue. 5. IN the no-knock raids for drugs specifically, they have, in some cases, killed more people than the drugs themselves. That isn’t true with any other type of crime. I suggest you learn something about the drug war so you have a little more insight from that direction. * * * World’s Largest Online Library of Drug Policy - [http://www.druglibrary.org](http://www.druglibrary.org) ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2000, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856/60 "2000-03-21T02:16:00Z")
(re #2) Funny how you keep bringing up the merits of the drug war? I mean of course there would be no drug raids if drug were legal, that is kind of a no-brainer isn’t it? Since I participated in this thread I have been discussing the police policy behind no knock raids no the rightness or wrongness of the drug war. Maybe you are right and drugs should be legal? I don’t know, really. I don’t know enough about the subject, and as mentioned earlier I do not have the time to get as much of an education as you clearly have on it. I have to pick and choose the things I decide to know about. (re #3) As for creating a siege situation, how exactly would that be safer? Bullets being fired into the steet by criminals? If they have plenty of food they could be in their for days. Should the police block off the whole street for days? Sure, that might not be what happens every time but I bet it would happen. Also imagine the manpower that would be tied up holding the siege while it lasted and if they wanted to hold the siege they would need an overwhelming numerical advantage (such being the nature of sieges). It sounds nice, but it is unlikely to work in practice. There is 1 police officer on duty for 10 square miles at any one time (stat is a from 1990 so it is somewhat old). So, to pull 10-20 officers to a multi-hour or multi-day siege leaves 100 to 200 square miles unprotected. Lets assume that the number of police officers has quintupled since 1990 that still leaves 20 to 40 square miles unprotected. (re #4 & #2) Concerning the high number of “drug raids”, I am interested in how the stat for 100% of all raids are for drugs was attained. I can’t help but wonderful if whoever compiled that statistics included all raids in which drugs were found as suggested by the officer above. The other officer suggest as well that they are more common for other crimes than you seem to realize. Are they being properly counted? Again, I am very interested in the methodology used to get this stat. It seems highly in question. I got letters from two more former students turned police officers (one in the Miami PD, the other also in the LAPD). They also state that they have been involved in non-narcotic related drug busts (neither works in narcotics). The officer in Miami also wonders if if the person who got the stat included all raids which happen to turn up drugs, since he said “We almost always find illegal narcotics”. (re #1) As for the violent nature of drug dealers. According to the “Survey of Felons”, drug dealers carry firearms for the following reasons (in order from their highest priority to least): 1. Protection from other drug dealers 2. Protection from buyers 3. Protection from rival gangs 4. Protection from police 5. Self protection from other criminals (re #5) Concerning the danger of drugs. Nice assertion care to back it up? According the CDC, ~15,000 drug related deaths. DoJ says police kill 1,000 people per year. Hmmm… I sense an error. All in all, I have to say I am finding your statistics to be highly questionable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-proof-the-drug-war-doesnt-work/17856.md?page=4)