You didn’t happen to take note of the title of this thread, did you?
More specifically, there would be virtually no “no knock” raids. That is, “no knock” raids only occur often enough to be an issue because of the drug war.
I ask again. Did you happen to notice the title of the thread? Should I repeat it here for you?
That’s easily remedied with the wonders of the Internet these days.
You could have gotten a pretty fair education already just in the time you spent here trying to deny the drug war is the prime motivator for these raids.
So you don’t necessarily feel compelled to know something about the subject before you choose to discuss it? So noted.
In the vast majority of situations, it seems that waiting the criminals out is a viable option, particularly under some of the scenarios you specifically mentioned.
I think you also said that, without the drug war, there would be just as many no-knock raids, but for other crimes. I would like to see a little corroboration for that before I take your word on anything, thanks.
As long as you are compiling stats, why don’t you find some place where drug raids account for less than 90 percent of all no-knock raids. If you are all that concerned about tying up police resources, then it seems logical to question why 90 plus percent of this situations happen in the first place.
I believe it was the count of the Denver PD themselves.
Well, the figures seem to come from the police themselves. You can run any counts you want, in any manner you want. As I said, I would certainly be interested in hearing about any locality where less than 90 percent are drug raids. Frankly, I don’t think there is such a place. But, if you can find one, I would be interested to hear about it.
I have seen lots of reports over the years. In all cases, the figures seem to come from the cops themselves. Like I said, I would be interested in any place where you could explain away any more than ten percent of them with your hypotheses.
That doesn’t say anything about the percentage of drug offenders who actually carry weapons, or their supposed danger to police officers.
Sure. See, among other things, Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy under http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer There you will find a collection of the full text of the largest studies of the subject ever conducted, including the largest study ever done by your own US Government.
Specifically, the Federal Government itself says that marijuana has never caused a recorded human death. However, the police have shot to death several people in raids for marijuana – like, for instance, Donald Scott, who was shot because they wanted his property under the forfeiture laws. No drugs of any kind were ever found on his property.
You can always go to my online library, where you will find the full text of numerous government documents detailing all kinds of statistics and facts. Most of them relate directly to the subject of the drug war – you know, as mentioned in the title of this thread.
You mean a thread got off subject? Wow, not like that has ever happened before. Besides as stated over and over by me, in my view, there were different issues being discussed. One of which would be the merits of the drug war, the other would be the merits (and policies) of “no knock” raids. The two are seperate issues. If it bothers you so much to have two different subjects in one thread, why not start a new thread?
Concerning the frequency of raids in a legal drug world.
I got percentages of raids from the LAPD. Still waiting to hear from NY and Miami.
However these are the stats for the primary cause. The officer notes that this is only one report given to his supervisors. Another report deals with what was found.
He feels it is quite possible that your 90%+ stat comes from a report like this rather than the other.
Concerning this siege thing.
From an officer in NY:
The LAPD had similar sentiments. They also noted:
Concerning the violence level of drug dealers:
As previously noted,
“Survey of Felons”
Concerning the dangers, or lack thereof, of drugs:
A VERY nice try. So, we are off drugs now and on to just marijuana? Very nice attempt at trickery there. But sorry you stated police cause more deaths than the DRUGS themselves. So, is it drugs or marijuana? Are you arguing for drug legalization or marijuana legalization?
But okay here are some health hazards associated with marijuana (from the NCADI):
Now, personally as with tobacco I am inclined to say if you want to destroy your body knock yourself out, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking this stuff is ever so harmless.
Concerning the supposed dangerous nature of “no knock” raids (i.e. in that they are SO dangerous we should replace them with sieges):
Officer Fatalities (1989-1998) (in order from highest to lowest):
Investigating suspicious persons/situations - 112
Traffic Stops - 93
Arrests (Robbery in progress or in pursuit) - 93
Arrests (Other Arrests) - 80
Disturbance (Family quarrels) - 69
Ambush (unprovoked attack) - 51
Disturbance (Bar fights) - 42
Arrests (Drug related) - 40
Ambush (premeditated) - 35
Transporting Prisoners - 30
Arrests (Burglary in progress) - 26
Mentally Deranged - 11
Civil Disorder - 0
#8 out of 13. I wonder why? Could it be that because the police raid a residence so quickly so as to not give the suspects time to arm themselves that police don’t tend to get killed during drug arrests?
Take a look at the top causes. 1,2,5,6 & 7 are all situations where the suspect won’t be taken by surprise and hence if they feel so inclined get to arm themselves and fight the officers. (3 and 4 could be as well but without breaking down robbery further and without knowing the particulars of other arrests it is impossible to say).
And then taking into account that police kill 1,000 people a year (from all causes not just on raids) then it is pretty safe to conclude that “no knock” raids aren’t all that dangerous after all.
With all due respect, you are the one who seems to have a problem with staying on the topic above, so it would be up to you to start a new thread.
Thanks for the interesting info. You will note that majority, by their measure, is drugs by better than a 2 to 1 margin over the next cause. Thus, it makes it reasonable to question the reason for the majority of them, don’t you think?
That might apply in NY, it wouldn’t apply in most other cities. And, of course, there is still the problem of explaining why the majority of them are for drugs in the first place.
But I can’t recall any such case ever actually happening as he describes.
I have known quite a few myself over the years, thanks. Very few of them carried a firearm with any regularity. Since the majority of them are not running down to report their habits to the police, anyway, this piece of supposition rests on evidence which is just as shaky as any other attempt to survey an underground market.
You will note that I said in specific cases, marijuana being one of the drugs.
I am arguing for more sensible drug laws. I rarely use the word “legalization” because it has no real meaning.
So does alcohol. Of course, that just says there are changes. It doesn’t say anything at all about whether the changes from THC are necessarily harmful. I grant you that they do their best to imply it without actually saying it. Think about it while you enjoy your next cup of coffee or beer, both of which do the same thing.
There is harm from smoking anything. With the vast majority of users, however, it causes no significant health problems.
Marijuana smokers usually smoke less than tobacco smokers, so it balances out somewhat, even if true. But, even if true, that would place it in the category of cigars as far as dangers.
…
[quote]
Effects on Heart Rate and Blood Pressure
Recent findings indicate that smoking marijuana while shooting up cocaine has the potential to cause severe increases in heart rate an
Personally, I don’t mind discussing different topics in the same thread. Nobody else seemed to mind, and nobody else thought it all that unusual. You seem to be the only person having difficulty understanding that there are two issues (or more) at hand. One is the merits of the drug war, the other is the policies behind “no knock” raids.
With regards to the merits of the drug war, it is irrelevent to me. The fact is various narcotics are illegal and the people who possess them are generally armed and dangerous as shown by at least the “Survey of Felons” (yeah, I know the drug dealers you know are the salt of the earth).
Did you note that in 97% of the raids in LA they found a firearm or other weapon? That means, on average, that 97% of drug dealers (i.e. those people who were raided on drug busts) were in possession of at least one firearm or other weapon. Lo and behold that matches with what the “Survey of Felons” said (I finally found the percentage and it was 98%).
Therefore as a matter of policy police when attempting to apprehend said criminals (note, that whether they should be criminals or not is irrelevent as a matter of policy) the use of a “no knock” raid is justified as a matter of policy. The same is true for any dangerous criminal. This has been my point all along.
This entire point of the drug bust shouldn’t be happening in the first place is irrelevent from my point of view. The drugs are illegal, therefore the drug busts are happening. A good arguement for legalizing drugs is not that the police are doing unjustified drug busts (is a compelling arguement for doing away with speed limits that the police are giving out speeding tickets?). The drug busts are perfectly justified. They match the two key criteria:
The drugs are illegal. You can’t blame the police for that. They are responding to public policy. Take me, for example, I think prostitution being illegal is silly. As a police officer I would find it difficult to arrest a john or prostitute, but I would do it, it IS against the law. As a citizen if a vote were taken on the matter I would vote for legalization, but until that time I would still arrest johns and prostitutes.
The drug dealers are overwhelmingly typically armed and dangerous. Recall please that the #1 reason drug dealers carry a gun is for protection from *other drug dealers[/]i. Why? Because drug dealers like killing each other for their drugs, for their money and for their turf. This suggests to me that drug dealers are pretty violent guys if they are willing to kill over drugs, money and turf.
I like the way Massad Ayoob (veteran police officer, author of column the “Ayoob Files” and various books, crime survival expert) puts it:
I suppose that would be mouse instead of pen these days.
You are the one who seems to have trouble seeing the connection.
As you said yourself, the drug war is the excuse for the majority of the no knocks. Therefore, if there is no justification for the drug laws, then there is no justification for the majority of no knocks.
Who, besides you, ever said such a silly thing (that they were the salt of the earth)?
Now you have stretched it by saying that the people who possess drugs are generally armed and dangerous. There are, as you may know, an estimated (minimum) 13 million illegal drug users to perhaps 40 or 50 million. I don’t know of any evidence that they are generally armed and dangerous.
Lots of homes have weapons. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the people possessing them are any greater danger than the average citizen. I know you would like it to mean that, but it really doesn’t.
Let’s try it again. If the law which is the excuse for the no knock was never justified, then the majority of no knocks are not justified. That’s easy enough to understand, isn’t it?
If the rationale for the bust is erroneous, then the no knock raid is a mistake and shouldn’t be done. That would account for the great majority of them.
So who, besides you, made that argument? There are lots of other reasons to repeal the drug laws – like the fact that they were lunacy from Day One and there never was any evidence they were a good idea. Since the drug laws are the justification for the majority of no knocks, then there is no rational justification for the majority of no knocks.
Only if you assume the drug laws themselves in their present form were justified.
Yes. Now the question is: Why?
So who blamed them? I would blame them for blindly supporting a policy that does a lot of harm when the great majority of those police have never bothered to read the most basic research on the subject, but I don’t blame them for enforcing the law as written.
Of course, that still doesn’t mean that there is any justification for the majority of no knocks.
Well, good for you. I wouldn’t expect anything different from you, and I certainly wouldn’t blame you for the unjustified no knocks. Of course, that still doesn’t mean that there is any justification for the majority of the no knocks. The police may be following orders, but you already know that just following orders doesn’t necessarily mean the orders are right.
As stated before, no one really has any reliable surveys of the personal habits of drug dealers. But, to the extent that your supposition is correct, that is simply an effect of prohibition, just the same as liquor dealers carried guns during alcohol Prohibition. As I stated before, the effects of the prohibition law are being used as an excuse for the law.
I am familiar with Massad, because he writes a lot for gun magazines. I know he knows quite a bit about guns. I never got the impression that he really knew very much about the drug situation in this country.
Did the parallel with alcohol Prohibition ever cross your mind?
Let’s take it slowly:
Before alcohol prohibition liquor dealers did not carry guns and there were no no-knock raids for liquor. After prohibition went into effect, the liquor dealers got both violent and extremely rich, and there were lots of no knock raids. After prohibition ended, the dealers didn’t carry guns anymore, and there weren’t any no knock raids for liquor anymore.
Now, if you would care to compare the history of the currently illegal drugs with the history of alcohol, you will pick up a pattern here.
Excuse. Interesting choice of words. I think that pretty much says it all right there.
The justification for the drug laws are irrelevent, because the “no knock” policy is NOT because of the drug laws. It predates the drug war. The use of “no knock” raids in the drug war was a natural extension of the existing policy on “no knock” raids.
Who said drug users? I said drug dealers. I have presented evidence to the contrary (that they are armed and dangerous), if you wish to refute it you will have to do better than stating it doesn’t exist.
Now you are getting humourous. I am a gun owner. I teach a course in firearm self defense. I am decidedly pro-gun. Nice try.
Guns owned by average citizens do not make them more dangerous. Guns owned by criminals do. Roughly 50% of all armed suspects when confronted by the police will try to attack them. This stat was seemingly unaffected by just about any factor like the numerical superiority of the police, the crime in question, the tactical surprise, etc. From Sanford Strong, veteran police officer, SWAT member and police instructor. Therefore, on average drug dealers, being criminals afterall, will, if armed which they would be if the police didn’t overwhelm them, would 50% of the time attack the police. Sounds more dangerous to me than an unarmed criminal.
Except that the rationale for the bust isn’t erroneous. Drugs are illegal. The rationale for drugs being illegal may be faulty but that isn’t a part of the decision making or policy making process for the police with regards to the “no knock” raids. The police are completely justified in making drug busts by the illegal nature of the drugs. If tomorrow computers were illegal the police would be justified in making computer busts (whether they should be "no knock"s or not would depend on the violent nature of computer dealers).
Note, the definition of justify is:
1 a : to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done b : to qualify as bail or surety
Proof please. Please quantify “a lot”. Would you agree that the support of any other policy which does “a lot” of harm by the same measure should be abolished?
Proof please. I have stated evidence to such. If you wish to refute it you will have to do better than stating it doesn’t exist. Please show the flaws in the manner in which the data was gathered.
If by dealers you mean the mobsters I require proof of that assertion that they weren’t carrying guns before or after prohibition.
Mobsters were involved in plenty of criminal rackets before and after prohibition and were carrying guns both before and after.
I am interested in applying your “no justification for the law = no justification for the enforcement of the law”.
I think the justification of the laws against prostitution are ridiculous. Christian puritanical beliefs are certainly behind it, which is a silly basis for a secular society. Therefore, I think it is completely unreasonable for police to enforce the prostitution laws. Furthermore, I think it is up to the police officers themselves to decide whether the justification is solid or not when developing their policies for the enforcement of laws.
Does that make any sense?
That’s why we have politicians, judges, lawyers and the entire system for making laws. It isn’t the police officer’s job to decide whether the rationale is right or wrong. That isn’t how police officer do or should be writing police policy. The police’s job is to enforce the laws that have been legally put into the system. Drugs are illegal, the police are justified in enforcing those laws. The politicians may not have been justified in making them, and they may not been justified in keeping them on the books, but the police are certainly justified in enforcing them.
By your own figures, at least 55 percent of the no knocks are because of the drug laws.
Yes, and the no knocks for drugs now account for 55 percent of all of them, so if you are going to consider whether they are worthwhile or justified, you should naturally look to the justification behind the majority of them. But, I take it you are only interested in addressing those policy issues which would apply to a minority of the problems involved in no knocks.
You did. Read it yourself.
Not in that case, you didn’t.
You have presented evidence that many of them are in possession of firearms, just like millions of other people. That is not proof that they are all violent criminals.
So am I, thanks. Gun owner and NRA member for about forty years now, off and on.
Depends on how you define “criminal”. As you may know, we have a pretty fair number of people in jail for drugs who have never committed any violent crime.
Well, I think we are back to the fact that the prohibition laws cause most of that problem, just like they did during alcohol prohibition.
I never said the police pick and choose which laws to apply. However, if you are concerned about solving the issues with the no knocks (as you have professed to be) then you have to consider the causes behind 55 percent of them, whether the cause is generated by the police or some other source. If you have made the police the agent of a bad law, that is fully as damaging as the police implementing a bad policy.
From the standpoint that they are just taking orders, yes. Of course, as you know, the defense that you are just taking orders has natural limits.
But, I don’t blame the police for making drug raids when drugs are illegal. Yes, to a certain extent, they have a job to do and should do it. But, if you are going to solve the problems of no knocks, then you are going to have to address the reasons for the no knock in the first place, whether that originated at the police level, or the legislative level.
And the computer dealers would probably be violent and the prohibition policy would be just as successful.
Well, under that standard, if you will care to read the history of the drug laws, they never met the requirements under part 1a. The full history is on my web site, and nowhere in there do they have any rational reason for the drug laws.
Oh, for openers, you might try 34 million chronic pain patients who have trouble getting adequate pain medication, the spread of AIDS, 5 million drug addicts who need treatment and can’t get it, etc., not to mention the more than half a million arrests for marijuana every year, or the drug epidemics among kids which were triggered by these policies. See my web site, http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer - Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy, for a more complete list of the harms caused by our drug laws.
That the support should be abolished? I am not clear on what you are asking here. Certainly, if a policy does more harm than good, it should be changed.
The data is flawed by the fact that 1) most of the drug dealers are actively trying to hide their activities, and 2) (from any reasonable estimate of the drug dealers’ numbers) it is clear that you are only sampling (arresting) a small minority at any given time. The great majority of them go without being arrested for years or decades, from what I have seen. See Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy, above, for various discussions of the problems with getting accurate statistics on any illegal activity.
By liquor dealers, I mean “the people who sold liquor”. Before prohibition started, liquor was sold by legal business people who did not engage in violence. During prohibition, it was sold by gangsters who raised the murder rate to record levels. When prohibition was repealed, the violent element was no longer so well-funded, and the murde
This post was originally much larger in reply to lots of different stuff. But I think a lot of it is highly tangental now, because we have hit the core of the discussion, so I am dropping the bulk of the issues.
Maybe in your opinion, but not generally in mine. Especially when the policy used to uphold it is consistent with the history of law enforcement policy and function.
For example, if they pass a law that police officers should execute jaywalkers on the street, this would be a bad policy to implement because it is highly inconsistent with police history and function. The police are not supposed act as a judge and jury and execute people. This would be enacting a police state.
If tomorrow, the decide that computers are illegal than the police should start making computer busts. This is consistent with police history and function. They investigate crimes, apprehend the suspects and gather the incriminating evidence (the computers).
The police should NOT say “Wait a second, making computers illegal is stupid. I am not going to enforce this law.” That is NOT the police dept function. If they don’t like the law and if their personal ethic cannot let them enforce it they should leave the job. However, the police agree to enforce the laws mandated by the will of people through their representatives. Period. Whether you like it or not the representatives of the people have passed laws making various drugs illegal. There is a process for removing those laws. You either elect different representatives or you have it declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the USA. However, if that law is deemed fit by the courts and has the support of the people (you will note that not everybody is clammoring to have drug laws stricken regardless of the original reason) then it is enforced by the police.
Note, it says lawful reason not rational reason. The police have a lawful reason for “no knock” raids. Just like they have a lawful reason for arresting prostitutes, arresting computer dealers (under my fictional example), handing out speeding tickets, and/or enforcing any other law. It isn’t the police officer’s job to examine the rational reasons behind the laws, we have a process for that (having police decide on the rightness or wrongness of the law has a term, its called a police state). We want and expect the police not to let their personal judgement interfere with the enforcement of the law. If the officers feel it is wrong they should vote accordingly. They could even exercise their rights as citizens and publically voice their disapproval. But they don’t (well, shouldn’t) carry that onto the job. That isn’t the social function.
Well, you’re the one who keeps saying that the drug busts are unjustified or unreasonable (i.e. having no reason behind them). You tell me.
Well, this is apparently what you want. You seem to want police to stop conducting drug busts because they are not justified. Therefore, you want the police to decide that the rationale behind the laws is non-existent and therefore not enforce the law in the manner which is consistent with police history and function.
See above. The police should not carry their personal feelings about particular laws onto the job. As citizens they can voice their disapproval and vote accordingly, but it isn’t their function to be the arbitrator of the rightness of the law when on the job.
Perhaps you need to detail exactly what it is you want from the police.
If the police are implementing a bad policy, the negative results are the same regardless of whether the bad policy originated at their level or above them.
A police policy which upholds a bad policy imposed on them from above still produces bad results.
And, of course, the drug laws were based on the same kind of bad reasoning as the example you gave. That makes bad results on the streets, and the police the agent of those bad results.
Your examples are getting a bit far afield. How about reading up on the actual history of the drug laws and see whether they really are consistent with police history and function.
Up to a point. As you probably know from the Nuremburg trials, the excuse that they were only following orders is a limited defense.
Yes, and as already pointed out, there was no sane rationale for the laws, and most of the no knock problems which cause bad press and public relations for police are due to those laws. You won’t solve the problem of people criticizing police for these actions until the laws are changed.
I guess you thought I didn’t know this. I took Poli Sci, thanks.
The public is pretty well ignorant of the facts behind the laws, as you admit from your own situation. And, I also take it you really aren’t keeping up on the clamor. As far as clamor goes, the situation is quite different than it was just a few years ago.
I didn’t say the police should pick and choose which laws to enforce. I did say that, if you are concerned with all the heat the police are taking over these issues, then you ought to clearly recognize the cause of the great majority of that heat, and the fact that there was no rationale behind it when the laws were passed. Thus, police are put in a situation where they cannot win. If you are concerned with the image of the police then you ought to be concerned with getting them out from under situations where they cannot win.
Unjustified from the standpoint that the laws never did have any rational basis, which then puts the police in a position where they will do harm and often get blamed for it (perhaps unfairly). If you are concerned with improving the image of the police then you should be concerned with the laws which put them in an untenable position for no good reason.
Let me give you a tip. Please stick to what I say, and don’t supply your own suppositions about what other people want. The only thing you know about what I want is what I said, and I didn’t say that.
There is more than one way to get the drug busts stopped. Either the police can stop it, or the legislature can stop it. So your “therefore” doesn’t hold water.
And I would still like you to show me where the drug laws were ever consistent with police history and function.
Who, besides you, said they should?
Well, here is the message to you and any other LEOs – if you are concerned about the heat the police are taking over these issues, then exercise your rights as a citizen and find out something about the issue and then join the people who are calling for reform.
With your approach, that you are only concerned about the narrow issue of how police implement bad laws, you will never solve the problem which accounts for the majority of the problems on the street.
I gotta give you credit here. Asking the question is better than making erroneous assumptions.
The police should recognize the fact that they are taking a lot of heat from one particular set of laws. In fact, the majority of the heat they take arises from those laws.
As citizens, yes. As police officers, no. When a police officer acts in an official capacity they are to act in a manner which is apparent from their personal feelings. They are to act as agents of laws which have been lawfully passed.
You will note that this is EXACTLY what I said. A police officer who has personal feelings about a law can exercise their rights as a citizen when they are not acting in an official capacity. They may vote for change, or actively protest change. It is not the police’s political or legal function to examine the law. They are simply to enforce it.
Let us review the political process. You are already familiar with it so I will stay out of all the details.
The people lawfully elect fellows to represent them in gov’t. They should, but are not required to, elect those representatives which most closely match their own ethics, beliefs, etc.
The representatives lawfully pass laws with the tacit approval of the people as they are lawfully elected to represent them. Note, that the people have at their disposal a method for removing a representative who fails to represent them appropriately.
The judical system may repeal the law if they deem it unconstitutional or that the rationale is not sound.
The police enforce the laws trusting that they represent the will of the people as lawfully passed by the representatives.
A future set of representatives, elected by the same or different set of people, may repeal or modify the law so as to more closely represent the will of the people who elected them.
It is not the function of the police to second guess the will of the people or to second guess that the representatives have not faithfully represented the people. There is a term for when the police do this, it is called a police state.
So,
Were the representatives who passed the drugs laws lawfully elected by the people or not?
Did the representatives follow the correct procedure for passing the laws or not?
Did the judicial system uphold the laws or decline to hear a review of them (which translates into their agreeance with the law)?
Has a future set of representatives repealed the drug laws?
The laws have been lawfully passed and survived the lawful judicial process and the lawful political process to repeal them. It is not the function of the police to second guess this process (again, unless you live in a police state). It is not the function of the people to do so. Until such a time the police are charged with enforcing the laws in a manner consistent with the duty with which they have been charged. Raids, including “no knocks”, is just such a method of enforcement when the police have been charged with enforcing a law concerning an illegal material.
I can understand how somebody might say:
The law is silly and should be repealed.
The police shouldn’t have to enforce this law.
The police are getting a bum rap for enforcing these stupid laws.
or some other variation on the theme. I could quite possibly agree with these three above. However, to claim that the police are not justified in enforcing the law is ridiculous. That is their duty, and they are supposed to do their duty without bias and without second guessing the process which made the laws that they have been charged with enforcing (again, when police do this as a matter of public policy it is called a police state).
Yes. To go further, you said that you are 1) concerned with the bad PR the cops get from no knocks but 2) not really interested in analyzing the reasons behind the majority of the problems in that area.
Yes, that would (to a certain extent) excuse them from blame for enforcing bad laws. However, as you may note, the police as citizens often vigorously support the same laws which result in the majority of their PR
problems. That is akin to shooting themselves in the foot. If someone supports the drug laws, they shouldn’t be surprised if the police take a hell of a lot of heat for the actions taken to enforce the laws.
Yes.
Not exactly. The bills were pretty much railroaded through Congress without the chance for comment from interested parties. Technically, it was probably legal, but it clearly violated the spirit of what we generally think of as a fair legislative process. Furthermore, no real evidence was ever presented at any of the hearings to show that these drugs were actually harmful. What evidence was presented was lunacy. Neither was there any real debate on the subject.
No, actually the USSC stated unequivocally (9-0) on at least one occasions that the laws themselves were wrong, and the police had no business interfering in some of those areas. The result was that the Federal Bureau of Narcotics took actions in direct opposition to the Supreme Court ruling, disseminated false information about the law to doctors, and arrested thousands of doctors but never brought them to trial. The FBN knew they would lose the cases in court due to the previous SC ruling, but the arrests alone were enough to intimidate the doctors into doing whatever the FBN said.
That’s on my web site, BTW.
So, in short, the answer to your question is that the FBN systematically violated the laws as determined by the USSC for decades.
Furthermore, the FBN and its successors have engaged in a blatant propaganda program to lobby for these laws – using government funds in a way which would probably not be permitted in any other area of government.
How can a future set of representatives do anything in the past or present?
No, that is not entirely true, as you would know if you had read the references already cited.
If they are taking extreme heat from one particular problem, they should take steps to analyse the reasons for all that heat, strictly from their own self-interest. That is, if they are really concerned with all that heat they are taking – as you profess to be.
I think you missed it there.
Let me see if I can summarize your position. 1) you are concerned with the heat the police are taking over no knocks but 2) You are not concerned enough to really address the reasons for the majority of the problems in that area.
All of that is true.
OK, then, if you read up a little on the subject, you will probably come up with a solution for eliminating the majority of the problems in this area. Convince some of your LEO friends to support changes, and we may actually have a solution within our lifetime.
If the law is not justified, then the no knocks are not justified. It matters little whether the problem arises at the police level or the legislative level. You still have unjustified no knocks and all the problems associated with them. If you are really concerned with the bad rap the cops are getting, then you have to look a little more deeply than the statement “It’s just their job.”
Are you now saying that citizens in the US are not entitled to support the laws of their choice? So what if police, as citizens, choose to support the drug laws. That is their right. Maybe they know something you don’t. Maybe the initial intent of the laws were flawed, but that there is some merit in them none-the-less.
If it was in such clear violation of the will of the people than the people should have made it clear that they were not happy with the new laws. They could have recalled their representatives and forced a new election. They also could have elected new representatives who promised to repeal the laws.
Then how exactly have the MANY drug convictions managed to stand? If the laws were declared by the Supreme Court as wrong, then it seems to me that even a novice defense attorney could have a conviction overturned. You would think that at least some of the lower level courts would have listened to the Supreme Court and not convicted drug dealers/users.
sigh Do I really have to spoon feed you everything? You seem more intelligent than that.
The point was that once a law has passed a future set of representives may respond to the will of the people and modify or repeal the law. By future set, I mean from the perspective of the time when the laws were first passed. The legislative branch hasn’t heard such a call from the people, or they have and choosen not to act on it. If the former this is a good thing, if the latter than the people have the right and, IMO, the duty to make their civil wrath felt, by recalling their local representatives and make them pay at the voting booths.
Yes, they should. And the results of that analysis might be that they should make the public more aware of why they enforce the laws, and enforce the laws in the manner they do. They should as always make their superiors aware of the problems (this is one way that politicians can become aware of public policy problems). The result of the analysis should never be a ceasation in the enforcement of the law. The only reason why the police should stop enforcing a law is the law is repealed, or if they receive orders from very high in the law enforcement branch that the law is under review and there will be an imposed moratorium. Do you have any evidence that the police are not reviewing their policies and making them known to their superiors?
correct.
not correct. I do wish to address the reasons, I just happen to not to agree with you opinion as to what the problems are. This doesn’t make me wrong, ill-informed, ignorant, or a fool. It means I disagree with you.
There are only two problems:
A lack of public perception as to why police use “no knock” raids.
Police doing raids on very flimsy evidence.
The solutions:
More explanations to the public as to why “no knock” raids are used (i.e. for police safety).
They should stop doing this.
Again, the law is justified. There is a process for having a law repealed and that has not occured. It is not the function of the police to usurp that process. While the law is on the books they are to enforce it (again, barring an order that there is to be a moratorium on the law while it is under review).
[quote}Are you now saying that citizens in the US are not entitled to support the laws of their choice? [/quote}
When did I say that?
[quote}So what if police, as citizens, choose to support the drug laws. That is their right. [/quote}
So, if they do, then they should expect to take tremendous heat from no knocks, as well as a host of other social problems, related and unrelated.
[quote}Maybe they know something you don’t. [/quote}
I haven’t run into such a case yet on this subject. You are a case in point, I might add. If you know of any LEO whom you think knows more than I do about the subject, I would like to meet him. Or any group of them, if you have that many.
[quote}Maybe the initial intent of the laws were flawed, but that there is some merit in them none-the-less.[/quote}
OK, nice hypothesis. Let’s take one particular case, for the sake of brevity. Marijuana was originally outlawed because “All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy.” I have lots of history on my web site and I haven’t been able to find the day when these laws started to make any more sense than that. I would be glad to hear about when you think the reasons for the law changed.
For the most part, the people didn’t even know about the laws and, if you had read the history, there was a concerted propaganda campaign by the FBN and others to convince people of the most ludicrous things – which still continues today.
That’s an interesting legal question in itself, the answer to which I am certain you would never guess. People were convicted of tax violations, which was a constitutional issue in itself – an end run around the obvious restrictions of the Constitution. But you would know that if you read even the one piece I described as quite entertaining.
The particular case I described above dealt with heroin maintenance. Have you ever wonderered why we don’t have heroin maintenance programs? The answer lies in the FBN’s violations of Supreme Court rulings.
As I said, they indicted doctors but never brought them to court. The indictment alone – along with the attendant legal fees – was enough to bring the doctors into line.
It was doctors prescribing narcotics to their patients in a legitimate medical manner, not dealers and users as such. And, as stated, the FBN indicted them but never brought them to trial. That’s all on the web site, BTW.
So “future” meant “assuming we were in 1914”? Sorry, if you are going to make assumptions that we have gone back in time eight decades or more, you will have to make that clear.
There has been a concerted and quite vigorous disinformation campaign by the FBN and friends to support these laws. It continues today.
Let’s hope it happens, but there are huge industrialist interests making a ton of money off of this drug war, as well as bureaucrats protecting their job, so they engage in a lot of disinformation to keep the facts from people.
That won’t solve the fundamental problem of the bad laws in the first place, it will just keep them explaining their PR problems forever. Not a solution, thanks.
On this issue? Certainly. If you will check my web site, you will find the Resolution for a Federal Commission on Drug Policy. It simply asks for the Federal Government to hold an open, honest, and comprehensive review of all the evidence behind our current drug policy – and to make that evidence public. Now you would think that an open and honest evaluation of the law, with a a chance to speak for all interested parties, would be supported by everyone, wouldn’t you? Not so. The antipathy to that idea starts at the very top and runs throughout government, into the police. The US Drug Czar wouldn’t even sign it, even when directly asked by one of his good friends. I could go on with examples, right down to local cops on the beat. The hallmark of the people who support this policy is that they know nothing of the subject, and don’t want the facts examined.
By your own statement, at least 55 percent of all no knocks are for drugs. It therefore stands to reason (unless you can show otherwise) that the majority of the problems arise out of the majority category.
“Ignorant” means “lacking knowledge” (as opposed to “stupid” which means “lacking brainpower”). On the subject of drug policy, you clearly admit that you lack knowledge.
Most of them are for drugs, and there seems to be a concerted government effort to educate them about the need for the drug war. If the concerted campaign to educate them on the need for the drug war doesn’t convince them that shooting Donald Scott was just the price of doing business, then you will have to look for Plan B.
They seem to do that most often with relationship to drugs. I can’t rec
Anyway, I have about enough of the pompous attitude. You know the “I know everything, and you know nothing and because I supposedly know better, and my knowledge matches my opinion, therefore you must be wrong” that has been such a common theme (Before you even try to twist this around to point it back at me, you will kindly note that I have stated that you have valid points on some issues, i.e. whether the drug laws should exist at all, just not the particular issue at hand with regards to how the police set and implement their policies).
The history of the various drug laws isn’t relevent to police policy since as stated above numerous times, the social function of law enforcement isn’t supposed to consider the history or rationale behind the laws. You seem to want them to, which would be fine if you could recognize that as your opinion on how things could work rather than something which actually exists or even is supposed to exist under our current social structure.
As I have stated numerous times, I am always eager to hear new information on the subject. I notice you haven’t come up with much.
I think you are confused. I can’t recall many significant differences in how we view police setting policies. The only significant difference I can recall is that I think they ought to use their God-given intelligence as citizens to critically examine the one item which (by your figures) accounts for at least 55 percent of their problems with no knocks.
It seems that it would be if it is directly involved in 55 percent of their no knocks, and the resulting problems.
BTW, I think I asked you to explain your statement that the laws were justified. I can’t find the time in history when that was true. I notice you didn’t answer.
Yes, they are supposed to blindly execute the laws given them. But, as pointed out, as citizens, they ought to have the intelligence to analyse the real source of the majority of their problems with no knocks.
I want them to be intelligent citizens and educate themselves on the sources of their own problems. You have some problem with that? (And why is it you can’t explain your own statement about the laws being justified?)
No, I don’t. In fact, I agreed with it several times. As citizens they are free to support or not support whatever laws they feel are approriate. As police officers they are to enforce the laws that are passed and remain passed.
This sure has been a long thread for something we apparently agree on.
