|
|
|
Drug WarRant
 |
Saturday, February 2, 2008 |
6 month operation leads to huge drug bust in major county
17 people were arrested early yesterday morning and charged with multiple counts of selling marijuana and crack, with 11 more warrants outstanding and the possibility of even more.
Yes, this was an operation out to get the biggest of the drug kingpins in...
Twiggs County, Georgia?
Now I don't know too many of the details of this particular story in Twiggs County -- I've merely read the article in the paper. But how much more do I need to know?
Let's look at some information about Twiggs County. The major metropolis in Twiggs County is the county seat: Jeffersonville, with a population of ... 1,208. Nearby is bustling Danville with 373 people. The population of the entire county is 10,184, down from 10,590 in 2000. They would all fit in my local university's basketball arena in Normal, Illinois. Yep. 17-28 major drug dealers.
You can drive clear across Twiggs County in about 20 minutes on I-16.
Now, if you want to get some auto repair done in Twiggs County, you'll want to go to Jeffersonville Collision Center on Church Street. If you want another option, you'll have to go clear to Macon or Warner Robins, 'cause there's only one auto repair place in Twiggs County. But apparently, there were 17-28 major drug dealers (and those are just the ones they caught).
Of course, you know how this goes. Someone decides to clean out a "bad" section of a town or two, and they get an informant to make friends with "those" people and the informant asks them to "help him out" by scoring some pot or crack for him. Being friendly people, they do. That becomes trafficking. Maybe the informant is getting paid for the number of people he nails, so he makes some stuff up, too.
One thing that will be interesting to discover. Twiggs County is 58% white. I wonder how many of those arrested are white.
Those arrested and charged with various violations of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act include: Christavious Bloodsworth, Demerio Brown, Jolly James Jones, Arthur Dewayne Height Jr., Anterio Brown, Tramarcus Brown, Woodrow Dupree, Regie Jenkins, Bobby Andrew Burns, Isaac Jones, Timothy Blackshear, Anthony Dion Height, Rodriguez Williams, Thomas Mase, Winfred King and Gregory King.
Can you say "Tulia" or "Hearne"? I knew you could.
11:28:23 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Friday, February 1, 2008 |
Just kill them all
Howard Wooldridge passes on the words of an aide to a major, Republican candidate still running for President:
...my personal belief is that you should just keep killing every drug dealer arrested. Eventually you're going to run out. I'm not sure we can make a real dent in the problem under our current justice system that allows people to deal drugs with little penalty.
12:30:25 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Decriminalization and Legalization - what do they mean?
Much has been made around the drug policy blogosphere in the past day regarding a gotcha moment with Barack Obama regarding decriminalizing marijuana.
The Washington Times, in a backhanded hit piece on Obama found a video statement from 2004 where he said he supported decriminalization (but not legalization), and then the article pointed out the fact that Obama raised his hand in last fall's debate saying he didn't support decriminalization.
Asked about the two different answers, Mr. Obama's presidential campaign said he in fact has "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana as he answered in 2004, meaning the candidate mistakenly raised his hand during the presidential debate last fall.
This led a number of people naturally to get somewhat excited that Obama was supporting decriminalization, both from our side, and the opposition (the Times was pretty quick to get that in an editorial and tar him as left-liberal for it).
And then, a short time later...
When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations to The Times in less than 24 hours. At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting that his 2004 statement was correct. Then after The Times posted copies of the video on its Web site, www.washingtontimes.com, yesterday, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use.
"If you're convicted of a crime, you should be punished, but that we are sending far too many first-time, nonviolent drug users to prison for very long periods of time, and that we should rethink those laws," Mr. Vietor said.
The spokesman blamed confusion over the meaning of decriminalization for the conflicting answers.
So it's a lot of hoopla, but nobody seemed to have a clue what language they were speaking.
It's true -- decriminalization is a pretty messy word. I avoid it like the plague.
Decriminalize: To reduce or abolish the criminal penalties for
Not much clarity there. Reducing the penalty somewhere for marijuana possession from 2 years to 18 months would be decriminalization.
I've heard some people say that decriminalization means you wouldn't be arrested for using marijuana (but you would for selling it). Some say it means a fine instead of jail time. Still others use it as a way of meaning "legal and regulated" and then consider legalization to mean completely unregulated.
I think drugs should be legal (through legalization or re-legalization, if you prefer). So it behooves me to identify exactly what that means.
So here's the definition I propose:
When a drug has legal status, it means that a responsible adult may, in some way, openly obtain and use the drug for recreational purposes with no legal penalties. There may, however, be regulations regarding the purity/quantity of the drug, and the time/place/manner of its sale or use.
I think that this is a good template for defining the legalization of any drug. It allows for a wide variety of options with different drugs, and clarifies that legalization doesn't have to mean a free-for-all (although unregulated would be one of many options).
Now of course, such a definition would allow some legislators to over-regulate ("Marijuana smoking can only occur in a single-family home with the blinds closed and only on the 29th day of any month that begins with the letter 'F'"), but we'll always have to contend with idiots.
What do you think? Any changes to the definition?
10:25:20 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Open Thread
 Needled to Death Excellent editorial in the Houston Chronicle slams District Attorney Susan Reed for prosecuting health workers.
That's an abusive use of her prosecutorial office. Reed might not care for needle exchange programs and all the good they can do in a community to reduce the spread of infectious disease. But overzealous prosecution of three people who clearly had no intention of profiting from the sale of drug paraphernalia is a gross misapplication of the law.
More here
I'm with Alec on this one:
Okay, I have basically zero interest in this story, but that just shows how poor I am at tapping into the public zeitgeist, because the media has gone crazy with the thrilling tale of a vending machine that sells medical marijuana. As far as I can see, it raises absolutely no important issues, legal, moral, or otherwise. But it's something new and different.
The ONDCP won't be satisfied until they make every part of the world a mess. America educates Europe on drug policy (via Jennifer Kern).
Good luck to Jerry Paradis, representing LEAP at a U.N. sponsored international drug policy conference in Vancouver next week. Update: LEAP's Hunter McDonald and Jack Cole will be there as well, and they'll be doing some media events in conjunction with it.
The administration does one thing right, and then we can count on Congress to step up to try to undo it: Senators' plan would restore funding for anti-drug effort.
Phillip Smith gives us a good story about justice perverted, and how Eric Sage Fights Back
Quotable
The thing that makes the war on drugs so insidious to me as a black man is not the fact that it has increased the number of black felons or that it has turned our neighborhoods into war zones. No, to me the one factor that has caused the most damage to us as a people is how it has removed us from the process of democracy.
Sometimes the internet can be the source of incredibly useful information. Then there's WikiAnswers. Here's their answer to the question Why is Marijuana Illegal?
Marijuana has affected many lives. Take mine for example. My ex spouse used marijuana habitually, and contrary to remarks stating that it makes you relaxed and peaceful, it made my spouse violent. He also could not drive well and put himself, me, and others on the road at great risk. Many people who are high think they drive fine. But it is an illusion to them because they are high. Also, I have yet to meet anyone who has tried hard drugs who did not start off with marijuana. Although I have never met anyone who has smoked marijuana before cigarettes. And many people drink alcohol before they try anything else. Therefore, I have a very hard time believing that it is not a gateway drug. I agree that alcohol is just as bad. However, I don't think marijuna should be legal just because alcohol is. Two wrongs don't make a right. Marijuana severally affects your motor functions, awareness of surroundings, and sensory perceptions. How can that not be dangerous to you and those around you? So why dont we prohibit alcohol, cigarettes and driving? Driving is dangerous, it kills many people every single year. Not only that but we should also prohibit cancer, its a leading cause of death.
My head hurts.
12:59:10 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 31, 2008 |
Freedom is the default position
I just saw a fun interview on the Colbert Report with Judge Andrew Napolitano (author of A Nation of Sheep)
I haven't read the book, so I can't necessarily recommend it, but he sure knows how to say some great common-sense stuff (some paraphrasing here):
Freedom is the default position. Anything the government does takes away freedom, so we must be vigilant to limit its ability.
In his book, he asks:
- Why are Americans not challenging and questioning the government as it continues to limit more and more of our freedoms?
- What part of "Congress shall make no law..." does the government not understand when it criminalizes speech?
- Whatever happened to our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that are proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, guaranteed by the Constitution, yet ignored by the governments elected to protect them?
- Why does every public office holder swear allegiance to the Constitution, yet very few follow it?
- Don't we have rights that are guaranteed and cannot be taken from us?
Pretty good questions -- I don't know if he has the answers.
It's one of the things that always annoys me in drug policy conversations with idiots. So often I hear the "Why should we legalize..." or "Why is it so important that we legalize..." or "Do we really need another legal..." and I want to bang my head against the wall and ask why so many people fail to realize that basic fact: Freedom is the default position.
11:35:07 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
The White House doesn't trust U.S. science, so it turns to New Zealand
Two studies:
- A major study by a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years. Funded by the United States National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse. Largest study of its kind involving 2,240 people. Conclusion: No evidence of any association between marijuana and lung cancer, and even a suggestion of a protective effect
- A tiny study by a relatively new research institute in New Zealand. A grand total of 79 patients studied for both marijuana and tobacco. Reported conclusion: greater risk of cancer from one joint a day of marijuana than a pack a day of tobacco.
Guess which one the White House likes.
I haven't had access to read the second study (although I'm suspicious based on other flawed studies related to marijuana from the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand). But, of course, unless they can possibly explain the lack of bodies from marijuana smokers with cancer, the study of 79 people is pretty much worthless.
Transform gets quoted in the BBC article, pointing out the potential problems related to the mix of tobacco and marijuana. On the other hand, nobody was mentioning the definitive Tashkin study, which is disturbing.
7:42:35 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 30, 2008 |
Elevator Arguments
Tonight, I gave my Elevator Arguments presentation to the Illinois State University chapter of SSDP. It's always a lot of fun.
The idea is to develop the skill of being able to make an argument for drug policy reform quickly (in the time you might have riding with someone on an elevator). And not only that -- but to target your argument to the interests of your audience.
Whenever I give this presentation, I start by letting the audience put me on the spot. They can yell out a description of a person, and I have to immediately give a short argument for why that person should support drug policy reform.
Tonight they hit me with:
- Treatment Specialist
- Conservative Parole Officer
- Mother who lost a child to drug overdose
- Tobacco Company Executive
- Restaurant Owner
There were a couple of others, I believe. Then I have the group break up into small groups and create their own 30-second arguments (they get a little more time than I do to prepare) and then have one person come up and give the presentation.
If you've got a group (or just some friends), this is a fun thing to do, and it makes you better at speaking on the fly when an opportunity comes along.
Here's a simple handout (pdf) that I pass out to provide some starting points.
If you're interested in listening to the Elevator Arguments workshop that I helped present at the International Drug Policy Conference in December, you can listen to the entire workshop here (scroll down to Elevator Arguments). My part starts at 18:30 into it, and I do some of the on-the-spot arguments as well. (If anyone listens to it, let me know how it is -- I can't bear to listen to myself.)
On a separate note, the Illinois State University SSDP will be hosting the Midwest Regional conference in April. They will hold a Hempfest on the Quad on Friday April 18, and then the conference on Saturday, April 19 (to conclude on 4/20) If you attend a school in the midwest, consider organizing a group to come. Of course, everyone is welcome to attend any of the conference sessions (and I'll have more information available here later). We have some good presenters lined up (but would love to hear suggestions for more).
10:53:11 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
Ryan Frederick update
Radley has the update:
Ryan Frederick was arraigned today. He was charged with first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and . . . simple possession of marijuana.
That's right. Though police still haven't told us how much marijuana they found, it wasn't enough to charge Frederick with anything more than a misdemeanor. For a misdemeanor, they broke down his door, a cop is dead, and a 28-year-old guy's life is ruined. Looks like the informant mistook Frederick's gardening hobby for an elaborate marijuana growing operation, and those Japanese maple trees for marijuana plants.
10:12:08 PM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 |
Drug War Victim - Jarrod Shivers
Although Radley Balko's been on top of this one, I haven't talked about it yet. I've been waiting for a little more information, and it's coming painfully slow. That, in itself, can lead one to suspect that there is some fishiness in the case. Regardless, it appears certain to me that police officer Jarrod Shivers is a Drug War Victim.
Shivers was shot and killed (shot once in the chest) while serving a drug warrant at the home of Ryan Frederick. Frederick has been charged with first-degree murder.
Here are some details that are surfacing to date:
- Frederick claims to have been defending his home, having had a break-in the previous week (and says the police told him they knew he had a break-in and knew who did it).
- The warrant, based on information from an informant (it's looking a lot like the informant was the one who broke into Frederick's house), was for a large sophisticated marijuana grow operation in a detached garage. The police, after a very long delay and a second search, claim to have seized some lights and some marijuana (but no indication of seizing any quantity -- a sure sign that they only found some smokables).
- Frederick is into gardening and landscaping and was growing both tomatoes and young Japanese Maple trees (which look like this).
- Frederick has no record, and admits to being a recreational pot smoker and having a small amount (3 joints) in his home. This is in general supported by statements of family and neighbors.
- Police say that they announced before their forced entrance. Neighbors never heard it.
- The city manager today will apparently announce that the police department "will undergo a top-to-bottom examination including looking into procedures, policies and equipment used by the force."
This one is looking really ugly.
So in Lima, Ohio, we have a mother shot to death by a cop. In Chesapeake, Virginia, we have a cop shot to death by a homeowner. Both of these are cases of drug war victims.
Quite frankly, I'm not qualified to judge whether Frederick was in the right or not, in the context of the situation, when he shot and killed Jarrod Shivers. I'm also not qualified to judge whether Sgt. Joseph Chavalia was in the right or not, in the context of the situation, when he shot and killed Tarika Wilson. I wasn't there, and I don't have all the facts.
However, I am qualified to judge that a major, despicable crime occurred. In both cases, the system of justice and the social contract was twisted, perverted and subverted in ways that predictably caused the deaths of innocent people.
We need to root out those criminals, those organized criminals who prey upon our country by creating laws where none should exist and then enforcing them with military tactics against their own people with no accountability.
Radley's posts to date on the Chesapeake tragedy (and the source for all the details above) in reverse chronological order:
9:51:28 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
Monday, January 28, 2008 |
Open Thread
Communities that feed on prisons. Jeralyn at TalkLeft talks about the New York Times article. Unions, the prison industry, and prison communities are fighting to keep prisons open and stocked because they've got their entire existence pegged to prison income.
Count me among those with no sympathy. America's over-incarceration policies mean corporations make billions and the federal government throws millions to these communities in subsidies.
Careful with the hand sanitizer. They purposely make that stuff to smell good. But if you're 14 and you put some on your hands in school, don't notice that it smells good, or you may be fingerprinted and charged with delinquency for inducing "a condition of intoxication, hallucination and elation."
Mark Draughn riffs off my FEAR card post and creates his own FEAR credit card.
A man wins the lottery (just $1,000) and the police seize the ticket, saying it was purchased with drug money. This could be quite a scam -- if they get away with it, you can bet that the big lottery winners will be getting some major scrutiny from police.
8:24:20 AM | drug policy | Related | permalink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
