DC Police Force Struggling To Keep Up

[cclaxton]

For the Forum To Consider: DC Police Force Struggling To Keep Up
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/dc-police-force-falls-under-3800-for-first-time-in-a-decade/2015/12/26/80095554-9db1-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_dcpolice-650pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

The couple of DC police I know personally say leadership is one of the big issues.
They also think marijuana legalization was a good thing, allowing them to focus on more serious crimes.
Cody

[Dagga Boy]

You like to hear that marijuana legalization is a good thing. Did that add the other part that goes with that? Also....there wasn't a street cop worth their salt arresting folks with a couple joints or a small Baggie of weed. Those were always a means for probable cause to dig deeper, and rarely an arresting offense (unless the violator was a total ass or it solved another problem).

As far as the rest....news flash, older leO's see the writing on the wall and are hanging it up as soon as the can, especially in places with people like Lanier running the ship.

[SLG]

In years past, I had to deal with DC PD a fair bit.

Anyone who thinks that legalizing marijuana is the right way to go is really not smart. Or observant.

[TGS]

In years past, I had to deal with DC PD a fair bit.

Anyone who thinks that legalizing marijuana is the right way to go is really not smart. Or observant.

Can you expand on this?

I ask because most of the arguments I've heard against legalizing Marijuana aren't very convincing.

[cclaxton]

You like to hear that marijuana legalization is a good thing. Did that add the other part that goes with that? Also....there wasn't a street cop worth their salt arresting folks with a couple joints or a small Baggie of weed. Those were always a means for probable cause to dig deeper, and rarely an arresting offense (unless the violator was a total ass or it solved another problem).

As far as the rest....news flash, older leO's see the writing on the wall and are hanging it up as soon as the can, especially in places with people like Lanier running the ship.
I only have two DC cops I know so it is just anecdotal.
It does reinforce my view that spending tax dollars to arrest, prosecute and jail weed users and dealers is a waste. Just so you know I also think chronic weed use is bad for people and they need to seek help and stay sober. As long as they don't get behind the wheel or the stick or be in a critical job, and use it in moderation, I don't see the issue.

But I was more interested in the changes going on inside police forces. Is getting a younger generation of police going to change policing?
Cody

[SLG]

Arresting people for minor amounts of weed is dumb, and real cops almost never do, unless there is something else going on, or an outside motivation for the cop (OT, or something like that).

I don't study drug use in America, so I don't have any scholarly arguments to point to. I did live in a state that legalized marijuana. Turned it to shit pretty quick. between the druggies themselves, the stores that opened up to sell it, and the influence all that had on younger people, you'd have to have something wrong to think that condoning drug use is a good thing.

It's fine to say "non-critical job", or some other such nonsense, but people are people. If you think otherwise, I suggest that you are living in a bubble.

I'm sorry if I sound like a dick about this, but there really is no middle ground here. I'm a libertarian in most ways, but people are irresponsible and cannot be trusted when it comes to regulations and the stuff they ingest. Why is drunk driving such a problem? Alcohol is legal, isn't it? If guns simply disappeared, we would still have crime. If pot and other illegal drugs disappeared, we would have a better society. Wishful thinking, of course.

[TGS]

I don't study drug use in America, so I don't have any scholarly arguments to point to. I did live in a state that legalized marijuana. Turned it to shit pretty quick. between the druggies themselves, the stores that opened up to sell it, and the influence all that had on younger people, you'd have to have something wrong to think that condoning drug use is a good thing.


That sounds like what the teetolaters said about prohibition, yet the sun has still come up every morning. I don't see that as legal justification, being it's essentially an opinion....and, respectfully, you even admitted an uninformed one.

I also don't see "well, I can find pot and use the SIA to find greater evil" as legal justification for criminalizing something on its own....especially when that something is absent any harm, and something that most of society partakes in without being associated with other legitimate criminal activity.

[SLG]

That sounds like what the teetolaters said about prohibition, yet the sun has still come up every morning. I don't see that as legal justification, being it's essentially an opinion....and, respectfully, you even admitted an uninformed one.

I also don't see "well, I can find pot and use the SIA to find greater evil" as legal justification for criminalizing something on its own....especially when that something is absent any harm, and something that most of society partakes in without being associated with other legitimate criminal activity.

The sun has come up every morning? That's your argument for it? At least mine is based on first hand observation.

Be grateful the line of LE you are going into will keep you from having to worry about these types of issues on a professional level. I have to deal with it everyday.

[Wondering Beard]

The sun has come up every morning? That's your argument for it? At least mine is based on first hand observation.

Be grateful the line of LE you are going into will keep you from having to worry about these types of issues on a professional level. I have to deal with it everyday.

How much of what you have to deal with is the result of weed being illegal? or put another way, if weed were legal would you still have the same things to deal with or just the ones any LEO has to deal with when for example dealing with alcohol abuse?

I am no expert on the matter and I don't like marijuana (tried it once before college and it gave me the worst headache of my life), however, it seems to me that legalization (effectively removing it from criminal enterprise -not totally, I know- and putting it in regular stores, just like alcohol) would have more benefits than drawbacks. I'm no fan of people drugging themselves (with whatever) and realize that whether the drug is legal or not those who get high (or drunk or whatever) can still very much be a danger to themselves and others, but eliminating a whole segment of a criminal market is far from a bad thing and if the effect on society is the same as the legalization of alcohol was, I don't see the problem. But then again, I don't deal with the same populations that you LEOs do, so .. just my opinion :-)

[Hauptmann]

My experience with marijuana users is that they tend to have a lot more going on than just pot smoking. The marijuana charge is almost always stacked with other violations. This generally applies to all drug and alcohol use......likely due to the effects of an altered mental status causing the subject to do things they would likely not do while sober.

In locations that I have worked where alcohol has been prohibited due to excessive crime related to health and safety, the criminal activity has dramatically dropped. So, prohibitions when they are "mostly" enforced do work from my experience on mind altering substances. Would legalizing marijuana increase the use of it......most likely. Would increased use put the public at higher risk for health and safety issues?.....most likely.

[SLG]

I completely agree with the concept of decriminalizing things. In concept, it is great. Application can be another story.

Little known fact, NYC decriminalized marijuana many years ago. That means that if you have a "user" amount at home, you are not committing a misdemeanor or a felony. If you put it in your pocket and walk outside, it is a criminal court summons. Good cops know the difference between "criminals" and "just pot smokers".

Unfortunately, legalizing things is the same as condoning them. When your teen starts smoking weed, because it's legal, good luck convincing them not to. Too many americans think if the gov't says it's ok, then it can't be bad. Sugar, while never illegal, is a good example.

[41magfan]

The only thing worse than a dumbed-down American is a stoned American. Legal MJ use has eroded productivity in every area of the country where it's been tolerated and our domestic production markets don't have enough wiggle-room to tolerate preventable losses without suffering a consequence.

[BehindBlueI's]

I completely agree with the concept of decriminalizing things. In concept, it is great. Application can be another story.

Little known fact, NYC decriminalized marijuana many years ago. That means that if you have a "user" amount at home, you are not committing a misdemeanor or a felony. If you put it in your pocket and walk outside, it is a criminal court summons. Good cops know the difference between "criminals" and "just pot smokers".

Unfortunately, legalizing things is the same as condoning them. When your teen starts smoking weed, because it's legal, good luck convincing them not to. Too many americans think if the gov't says it's ok, then it can't be bad. Sugar, while never illegal, is a good example.

Legalizing isn't condoning. Tobacco is legal, but look at the social pressures against smoking tobacco. TV ad campaigns, reduced public smoking areas, plentiful information on health risks, etc. Has tobacco smoking increased or decreased?

If you want to reduce weed use, social movements, removing " cool factor" in music and pop culture, etc will work better then funding organized crime and sending moron suburban kids into sketchy areas to get robbed.

[FNFAN]

The only thing worse than a dumbed-down American is a stoned American. Legal MJ use has eroded productivity in every area of the country where it's been tolerated and our domestic production markets don't have enough wiggle-room to tolerate preventable losses without suffering a consequence.

We're like 1 out of 5 people on antidepressants, consume 80% of the world's legal pain meds and some are ACTUALLY THINKING THAT BERNIE SANDERS OR HILLARY FREAKING CLINTON are viable candidates for President of The United States.

People use dope because they want to alter their reality, because they know modern society has gone wrong and they want some escape.

Through this means of "escape" we'll all likely end up in chains.

[11B10]

That sounds like what the teetolaters said about prohibition, yet the sun has still come up every morning. I don't see that as legal justification, being it's essentially an opinion....and, respectfully, you even admitted an uninformed one.

I also don't see "well, I can find pot and use the SIA to find greater evil" as legal justification for criminalizing something on its own....especially when that something is absent any harm, and something that most of society partakes in without being associated with other legitimate criminal activity.


"Most of society partakes in?" I'm sure you have proof, a study - something - in order to make that statement, right?

[SLG]

Legalizing isn't condoning. Tobacco is legal, but look at the social pressures against smoking tobacco. TV ad campaigns, reduced public smoking areas, plentiful information on health risks, etc. Has tobacco smoking increased or decreased?

If you want to reduce weed use, social movements, removing " cool factor" in music and pop culture, etc will work better then funding organized crime and sending moron suburban kids into sketchy areas to get robbed.

There is no comparison between tobacco and other drugs.

Do you know how much effort it has taken to get hollywood to stop glamorizing cigarette use? And still, my understanding is that teen use is still on the rise. Maybe educated people have stopped using it, but tobacco's popularity doesn't seem to be going anywhere to me.

The critical difference though, in case I'm wrong about the above, is that other than the people in a smoker's family, no one really suffers for it. If you want to slowly kill yourself, I don't care at all. Smoking cigarettes does not lead to car crashes.

[cclaxton]

There are a lot of things that should fall into the category of: Tolerated, and legal but not encouraged, and treated when out of control: Alcohol, gambling, porn, weed, teenage pregnancy, prostitution, foul language, even addiction, etc. The deciding factor for making it a treatable condition is whether the behavior interfere's with their ability to be self-reliant and well-bahaved otherwise. The deciding factor for when it becomes criminal is their ability to obey all the other laws, and avoid harming or abusing others, and not putting others at serious risk (like driving or flying or working in a critical job.).

There are millions of people who drink socially every year and other than throwing up on someone don't create a problem. A lot of LEO's drink socially and keep it under control. There are millions of people who smoke weed every year and hold a job and raise a family, and keep it under control.

The measure of America should be the maximum amount of personal freedom, not the most restrictive. I don't choose to engage in most of them, but criminalizing behavior that has no serious consequences makes no sense socially or financially.
Cody
Cody

[voodoo_man]

To the OP article - yeah welcome to policing in 2016 where the street cops know they need to do as little as possible because no one will back them up and the old timers are finishing up, meanwhile the top brass is looking to make as many examples as possible. What does all of this do? Creates the worst type of atmosphere for aspiring officers.

My PD is at the lowest numbers on record, we run skeleton screws and no one cares, not the brass, not the immediate supervisors. Only the street officers complain and no one listens. The general public wonders why crime is on the rise and why we tell them to not call for auto accidents, we arent coming because there is no one to show up and if you want to wait for someone itll be hours.

The media, the obvious disconnect policr brass have and the ridiculously difficult and biased hiring process are all serious issues that have created this situation.

As to legalization of Marijuana, my city defacto decriminalized it. You need to either be caught selling it or have something crazy like 30 dime bags on you in order to be arrested and even then itll be just a slap on the wrist.

What do we have a statistical increase in? DUI accidents where Marijuana is the only factor. Increased juvenile use and statistically more hard drug arrests - which isnt surprising since officers dont and never have focused on Marijuana but now they really dont.

Someone should source some factual statistics from legalized states on DUI arrests and accidents. I have a feeling its through the roof.

[BehindBlueI's]

There is no comparison between tobacco and other drugs.

Do you know how much effort it has taken to get hollywood to stop glamorizing cigarette use? And still, my understanding is that teen use is still on the rise. Maybe educated people have stopped using it, but tobacco's popularity doesn't seem to be going anywhere to me.

The critical difference though, in case I'm wrong about the above, is that other than the people in a smoker's family, no one really suffers for it. If you want to slowly kill yourself, I don't care at all. Smoking cigarettes does not lead to car crashes.

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/images/smoke-daily-1975-2014.png

The point isn't tobacco is equal to any given drug. The point is legal =/= condoning. Social norms = condoned.

As fas as how much effort..so what? Legalization based on whats easy?

[SLG]

There are a lot of things that should fall into the category of: Tolerated, and legal but not encouraged, and treated when out of control: Alcohol, gambling, porn, weed, teenage pregnancy, prostitution, foul language, even addiction, etc. ...

The measure of America should be the maximum amount of personal freedom, not the most restrictive. I don't choose to engage in most of them, but criminalizing behavior that has no serious consequences makes no sense socially or financially.
Cody

You have a very progressive list. I'm sure it sounds good to you, but ask any investigator who has worked prostitution long enough. People smuggling is very real problem, often used to feed the prostitution industry. Many of them die in the process. TGS will have the opportunity to see it first hand. I wonder what his opinion will be then? The people smugglers usually tie into drug smugglers/weapons smuggler and even terrorists. There is nothing benign or consensual about that. You live in a utopia in your head, no doubt fueled by marijuana (it sounds like).

Gambling is a very destructive practice, but again, only to those involved. If you want to bankrupt your family (and all the problems that entails), have at it. The only problem for me is that my taxes usually go to fixing people like that. Same with many of your examples.

I really am all for as much freedom as possible. The problem is, people like me then have to clean up the mess made by people like you. Both actually (professionally) as well as through my taxes. It's not "freedom" when it encroaches on everyone else who is not involved in it.

[SLG]

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/images/smoke-daily-1975-2014.png

The point isn't tobacco is equal to any given drug. The point is legal =/= condoning. Social norms = condoned.

As fas as how much effort..so what? Legalization based on whats easy?

That is a very area specific graph. In my area, it is on the rise, regardless of what "the nation" is doing. I'm not much on stats, as I'm sure we all know where to find some that support our ideas.

My point was not the ease/difficulty issue, it was that hollywood doesn't subscribe to our idea of a good place to live. Legalizing something, and then convincing people it's bad for them is very difficult and slow going, and only works when hollywood gets behind it. They won't want to do what you suggest, and they'll quote all sorts of studies showing that there is no connection.

[voodoo_man]

You have a very progressive list. I'm sure it sounds good to you, but ask any investigator who has worked prostitution long enough. People smuggling is very real problem, often used to feed the prostitution industry. Many of them die in the process. TGS will have the opportunity to see it first hand. I wonder what his opinion will be then? The people smugglers usually tie into drug smugglers/weapons smuggler and even terrorists. There is nothing benign or consensual about that. You live in a utopia in your head, no doubt fueled by marijuana (it sounds like).

Gambling is a very destructive practice, but again, only to those involved. If you want to bankrupt your family (and all the problems that entails), have at it. The only problem for me is that my taxes usually go to fixing people like that. Same with many of your examples.

I really am all for as much freedom as possible. The problem is, people like me then have to clean up the mess made by people like you. Both actually (professionally) as well as through my taxes. It's not "freedom" when it encroaches on everyone else who is not involved in it.

Completely agree with everything above.

The smuggling game is so serious and so under the radar its amazing once you really understand how intricate it is.

[UNK]

Just out of curiosity, Have much is a given volume of legal Marijuana vs the same amount of illegal mariuana?
Where I am going with this is if illegal marijuana is cheaper, and I think it would be, then the same people selling the illegal marijuana are also selling other things.
If you have illegal actions going on then you are exposed to criminals. Regardless of what you are doing that can't be a good influence. Especially for youth.
Also our government has a history of legalizing activities that are harmful. Not exactly confidence inspiring in my opinion.

[SLG]

The smuggling game is so serious and so under the radar its amazing once you really understand how intricate it is.

Repeated, for those viewers coming in late.

[UNK]

I am truly curious if you have someone close to you, and I don't mean an acquaintance or some former co worker. Close enough that you have personally been seriously impacted, perhaps to the point of trying to hold things togather?


There are a lot of things that should fall into the category of: Tolerated, and legal but not encouraged, and treated when out of control: Alcohol, gambling, porn, weed, teenage pregnancy, prostitution, foul language, even addiction, etc. The deciding factor for making it a treatable condition is whether the behavior interfere's with their ability to be self-reliant and well-bahaved otherwise. The deciding factor for when it becomes criminal is their ability to obey all the other laws, and avoid harming or abusing others, and not putting others at serious risk (like driving or flying or working in a critical job.).

There are millions of people who drink socially every year and other than throwing up on someone don't create a problem. A lot of LEO's drink socially and keep it under control. There are millions of people who smoke weed every year and hold a job and raise a family, and keep it under control.

The measure of America should be the maximum amount of personal freedom, not the most restrictive. I don't choose to engage in most of them, but criminalizing behavior that has no serious consequences makes no sense socially or financially.
Cody
Cody

[BehindBlueI's]

That is a very area specific graph. In my area, it is on the rise, regardless of what "the nation" is doing. I'm not much on stats, as I'm sure we all know where to find some that support our ideas.

My point was not the ease/difficulty issue, it was that hollywood doesn't subscribe to our idea of a good place to live. Legalizing something, and then convincing people it's bad for them is very difficult and slow going, and only works when hollywood gets behind it. They won't want to do what you suggest, and they'll quote all sorts of studies showing that there is no connection.

Ok. So social pressure won't work. Illegality sure hasn't, either. How much money and time spent on weed? Effect? Worth it?

Stats are worthless compared to anecdotal evidence of what you see locally? Ok.

The simple fact is some illicit drugs have gone up, others down, while all remaining illegal. Social norms, economics, etc. matter. I have never tried marijuana, but I drank booze at 15. Both illegal. The difference was booze was accepted in my house. Dope was portrayed as a waste of money. Buy beer, you know it's beer. Buy a baggie of leaves, maybe it's dope, maybe it's not.

[SLG]

Ok. So social pressure won't work. Illegality sure hasn't, either. How much money and time spent on weed? Effect? Worth it?

Stats are worthless compared to anecdotal evidence of what you see locally? Ok.

The simple fact is some illicit drugs have gone up, others down, while all remaining illegal. Social norms, economics, etc. matter. I have never tried marijuana, but I drank booze at 15. Both illegal. The difference was booze was accepted in my house. Dope was portrayed as a waste of money. Buy beer, you know it's beer. Buy a baggie of leaves, maybe it's dope, maybe it's not.

I agree with you. I'm not saying that local observations are more accurate than well done studies. However, without knowing how a given study was done, I don't give it much credence.

Social pressure works two ways. In healthy households, it prevents the kids from trying drugs. Not all households are healthy.

Education and money go hand in hand with health and good decision making. I'm not saying you have to have an education to be a good person, of course not. Unfortunately, I see plenty of poor, uneducated making bad decisions everyday.

[TAZ]

WRT the article and DC being a skeleton crew: I don't find it surprising at all. Current events and longer term trends within the legal system are seriously reinforcing the theory that LEO jobs are low paying, high risk, high stress and unrewarding affairs. It's hard to get all excited about going to work knowing you will either be tossed under the bus or have your arrestee get a simple slap on the wrist for some Social Justice Cuckold judge. I don't blame those choosing to go into other careers and those choosing to retire at the earliest possible moment. We will undoubtedly see far more of this trend across the country, especially in large liberal metro areas. Folks better get their heads out of their asses, cause the whole when seconds count LEO are minutes away is going to get a lot worse.

As for the legal pot thing, I'd love to see some long term numbers on what actually happens when you decriminalize pot on a larger than city scale. IMO it needs to be numbers from more than a year or 2 into it. As with everything taboo that is no longer taboo folks will experiment at the onset and then stabilize. I'd like to see the stabilize me numbers not the initial spikes at the onset. Similar thing for larger scale experiments than just cities. Small areas that decriminalize/legalize will draw the potheads and skew numbers a bit. Colorado may become a decent case study over the next 5 years or so. IMO decriminalization needs to be coupled with increased expectations of personal responsibility. You can't just say drugs are legal and society will fix you up when you screw up. Punishments for criminal activities associated with drugs, alcohol... need to seriously hit those who abuse these items. DUI and the like must have consequences other than a slap on the wrist. Loss of tax based benefits for a conviction such as no section 8 housing, no unemployment benefits if you loose a job due to substance abuse... We just don't have the balls to do those cause it would piss off a lot of voters.

[pablo]

We've had major problems with the proliferation of synthetic cannabis, i.e. K2 and Spice, over last few years. People on that stuff exhibit a lot of the same behaviors as people PCP, meth, and/or crack. Once in a blue moon we would get someone with serious mental problems who'd smoke some marijuana, go all out crazy and exhibit symptoms of being on a 5-6 days meth and crack bender. Now it's almost nightly with someone on K2 or Spice.

I hate to sound like I'm throwing in the towel, but I'd would have rather decriminalized possession of marijuana for "personal use" a few years ago and the problems associated with that, than deal with people on the synthetic stuff. Reality is though that K2 and Spice have gotten a foot hold and since there is no effective way to test for its ever changing chemical compositions, it's here to stay.

There are lots of problems associated with Marijuana use, trafficking and distribution. I think there's been a rather short sighted approach to people's penchant to use drugs and that has opened the door for worse things.

As far as DC police go, they are like a lot of big departments and operate in Crisis Mode. There's high level micromanagement, incompetent management at that, and the department as a whole stumbles from one crisis to the next. Supervisors and officers aren't allowed to nip small problems in the bud, like a couple gang related robberies at the mall, because that isn't a current command staff priority. That allows the problem to turn into a crime spree that gets national news attention, so a crisis, and the an overwhelming man power response to the crisis, "See we are doing something!". That's robbing to pay Paul to pay Peter on manpower, and call times start to suffer. That problem isn't addressed, because it's not a command staff priority, until the media starts looking into it. There's a new crisis, and Paul gets robbed again to pay Peter. This time it's detective's getting pulled to work patrol. Cases don't get worked and there's a new crisis. It just turns into the hugely demoralizing pattern of reacting to crisis after crisis. It's like a sports player that makes millions of dollars and is still broke, it isn't an income problem it's a management problem. No amount of hiring is going to fix DC police's underlying management issues.

[cclaxton]

I am truly curious if you have someone close to you, and I don't mean an acquaintance or some former co worker. Close enough that you have personally been seriously impacted, perhaps to the point of trying to hold things togather?
I have.
Cody

[voodoo_man]

We've had major problems with the proliferation of synthetic cannabis, i.e. K2 and Spice, over last few years. People on that stuff exhibit a lot of the same behaviors as people PCP, meth, and/or crack. Once in a blue moon we would get someone with serious mental problems who'd smoke some marijuana, go all out crazy and exhibit symptoms of being on a 5-6 days meth and crack bender. Now it's almost nightly with someone on K2 or Spice.




I deal with people high on K2 and other synthetic crap nearly once a week. The state house made it a felony to possess a synthetic drug and did that stop people from doing it?

Nope.

[cclaxton]

As far as DC police go, they are like a lot of big departments and operate in Crisis Mode. There's high level micromanagement, incompetent management at that, and the department as a whole stumbles from one crisis to the next. Supervisors and officers aren't allowed to nip small problems in the bud, like a couple gang related robberies at the mall, because that isn't a current command staff priority. That allows the problem to turn into a crime spree that gets national news attention, so a crisis, and the an overwhelming man power response to the crisis, "See we are doing something!". That's robbing to pay Paul to pay Peter on manpower, and call times start to suffer. That problem isn't addressed, because it's not a command staff priority, until the media starts looking into it. There's a new crisis, and Paul gets robbed again to pay Peter. This time it's detective's getting pulled to work patrol. Cases don't get worked and there's a new crisis. It just turns into the hugely demoralizing pattern of reacting to crisis after crisis. It's like a sports player that makes millions of dollars and is still broke, it isn't an income problem it's a management problem. No amount of hiring is going to fix DC police's underlying management issues.

It seems to me this is a watershed moment for Law Enforcement at the local and state level. As LEO's here point out there is disillusionment and low morale due to many factors, the public is pressuring LE to make fewer lethal mistakes, the public still expects cops to be there in a crisis, civilians are poorly trained in how to manage an encounter with police, and cops are getting arrested at higher rates than in the past. Policy-making for LE is fraught with problems and bureaucracy, and training budgets are inadequate, mental health patients are roaming the streets instead of being treated, and we aren't willing to write a blank check to LE.

Will smarter and better policing emerge from this mess?
Cody

[HCM]

There are a lot of things that should fall into the category of: Tolerated, and legal but not encouraged, and treated when out of control:, porn, ...... prostitution


Cody, This ^^^^. really demonstrates your ignorance and naiveté.

Human trafficking is what fuels prostitution in the United. States. It is real and occurs regularly all over the country. Drugs are inexorably linked to domestic human trafficking in the United States.

If you think otherwise, you are living in a fantasy land.

Do some research on human trafficking in the United States then come back and tell me how prostitution and drugs are harmless vices.

[HCM]

It seems to me this is a watershed moment for Law Enforcement at the local and state level. As LEO's here point out there is disillusionment and low morale due to many factors, the public is pressuring LE to make fewer lethal mistakes, the public still expects cops to be there in a crisis, civilians are poorly trained in how to manage an encounter with police, and cops are getting arrested at higher rates than in the past. Policy-making for LE is fraught with problems and bureaucracy, and training budgets are inadequate, mental health patients are roaming the streets instead of being treated, and we aren't willing to write a blank check to LE.

Will smarter and better policing emerge from this mess?
Cody

This is nothing new. This sounds exactly like what was going on in policing in the 1970's. It will continue until crime reaches intolerable levels. Then the tide of public opinion will turn and proactive policing will make a comeback.

That Santayana guy was pretty smart .....

[TGS]

Regarding the generalized comment, "No good cop will give people trouble over a joint...", can we just stop fucking saying that? When people say that, 1) it sounds like they're admitting that the criminalization is bullshit anyway and trying to minimize it, and 2) The American experiment is not based upon relying on the benevolence of our elected or appointed officials. Stop using the excuse that a "good cop wouldn't do such and such anyway" as an excuse to criminalize something.

______________________



The sun has come up every morning? That's your argument for it? At least mine is based on first hand observation.

That's not my argument for it.....it's me trying to make a simple point that the teetotalers thought the world would turn to shit without prohibition, yet it hasn't. Likewise, it's the same old tired argument that we see with gun control. Gun control advocates said the streets would run red with blood if we had shall-issue CCW, the end of the AWB, ect...yet none of it materialized.


You have a very progressive list. I'm sure it sounds good to you, but ask any investigator who has worked prostitution long enough. People smuggling is very real problem, often used to feed the prostitution industry. Many of them die in the process. TGS will have the opportunity to see it first hand. I wonder what his opinion will be then?

Well, I haven't given you my opinion one way or the other on prostitution. If you're referencing my opinion on drugs, see below.....


The people smugglers usually tie into drug smugglers/weapons smuggler and even terrorists. There is nothing benign or consensual about that. You live in a utopia in your head, no doubt fueled by marijuana (it sounds like).

Yeah, of course the drugs are often tied in with other black market items. That's how the black market works....they import what you can't have. Another item that's tied to the same people as drugs, terrorism, arms trafficking, human trafficking, is antiquities. That doesn't mean we ban antiquities, and use the illegal trafficking of such as a reason to do so.

Correlation does not equal causation. The way I see it......and many people who are indeed smart individuals unlike what you claim, is that if we control the production and sale of marijuana then it will hurt the arms/drugs/human traffickers and terrorists. Take away the majority of their weed business, and this does two things:

1) It shrinks the income for the cartels, meaning they shrink. That means their power and sphere of influence shrinks. That means that power vacuum is filled by governments, meaning those governments can now have a little breathing room and regain power. They can become legitimate again. They can actually effectively use resources on what cartels remain.

2) It creates lawful cash flow in the US, which can be taxed. We kinda need that. It allows government resources to be more thoroughly concentrated on combating cartels. This would be a natural result of the USG wanting to protect its cash flow from cartel encroachment.

So, I don't see it the same way as you. Of course there's still going to be black market drugs, specifically stuff that isn't going to be legalized like heroin, meth, ect.


It's not "freedom" when it encroaches on everyone else who is not involved in it.

The simple act of smoking a joint does not encroach on others' freedom. And, actually, most of the indirect encroachment that you're pissed about (via the illicit drug trade) is the direct result of marijuana being illegal in the first place. It's no different than the 18th Amendment, in that regard.

_____________

I really, really do want to hear a good argument about why we shouldn't legalize marijuana. I'm hearing the same stuff I've already heard, which is generally poorly hashed out, ridiculous arguments based on it being an evil substance that ruins humanity, or at the very least representative of personal experience in LE that is poorly conveyed. If anyone can actually coherently tie the legalization of marijuana to broken window theory, or some other criminal context, please do so. I want to hear it and learn. It's really why I asked.

[okie john]

What do we have a statistical increase in? DUI accidents where Marijuana is the only factor. Increased juvenile use and statistically more hard drug arrests - which isnt surprising since officers dont and never have focused on Marijuana but now they really dont.

Someone should source some factual statistics from legalized states on DUI arrests and accidents. I have a feeling its through the roof.

In Washington State, we're seeing little kids ingesting edible marijuana because their stoner parents leave weed brownies and candy lying around. And I'm not talking about high-school kids--I'm talking about kids barely out of diapers. They see what looks like candy or sweets, they eat it, and they end up in the emergency room. Meanwhile Mom and Dad are too high to handle what's going on. http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/news/2015/July/15-edible-marijuana.aspx

It's happening in Colorado, too: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25807342/childrens-hospital-sees-surge-kids-accidentally-eating-marijuana

Another problem is that marijuana today is so strong that users remain impaired--slowed reactions, slurred speech, general stupor--for days after using. So it's not just the stupid stuff they do when they're high, it's a second order of stupid stuff that they do when they think they've come down but they haven't. If you have to work with any of these idiots, you'll see what I mean. It's like they're under water, but they're out in public thinking that they're operating at full capacity when they're not--some of them have trouble summoning the coordination to fumble through their pockets when it's time to pay for a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

So yeah, legal marijuana looks OK on paper, but it's a very different thing if you have to live around it.


Okie John

[TGS]

As for the legal pot thing, I'd love to see some long term numbers on what actually happens when you decriminalize pot on a larger than city scale. IMO it needs to be numbers from more than a year or 2 into it. As with everything taboo that is no longer taboo folks will experiment at the onset and then stabilize. I'd like to see the stabilize me numbers not the initial spikes at the onset. Similar thing for larger scale experiments than just cities. Small areas that decriminalize/legalize will draw the potheads and skew numbers a bit. Colorado may become a decent case study over the next 5 years or so. IMO decriminalization needs to be coupled with increased expectations of personal responsibility. You can't just say drugs are legal and society will fix you up when you screw up. Punishments for criminal activities associated with drugs, alcohol... need to seriously hit those who abuse these items. DUI and the like must have consequences other than a slap on the wrist. Loss of tax based benefits for a conviction such as no section 8 housing, no unemployment benefits if you loose a job due to substance abuse... We just don't have the balls to do those cause it would piss off a lot of voters.

That sounds reasonable to me.

[SLG]

TGS,

Many LEO'S here have told you what you're asking. There are even article links. Your ideas are based on theory. We are talking about what we are actually seeing in our communities. That may not be the most accurate, double blind way of studying the issue, but it is what we do for a living. I'm sorry I'm not coherent enough for you, I'll stop bothering your extremely informed view now.

BTW, I've gotten some texts during this discussion, from some of your experienced co-workers. They watch this stuff. They have worked these issues and have come to the same conclusions that I and most of law enforcement have come too. We'll see where you fall on these issues in a bit. I'm sure you're old job would have thought smoking weed was not a detriment either?

[cclaxton]

Cody, This ^^^^. really demonstrates your ignorance and naiveté.

Human trafficking is what fuels prostitution in the United. States. It is real and occurs regularly all over the country. Drugs are inexorably linked to domestic human trafficking in the United States.

If you think otherwise, you are living in a fantasy land.

Do some research on human trafficking in the United States then come back and tell me how prostitution and drugs are harmless vices.
Oh, I believe you. But in European countries we don't see the trafficking problems like we have here. When Alcohol was illegal, we had a huge problem with violence and bootlegging and associated crime to protect those industries. You don't see that now. The same would happen if we legalized and decriminalized them. By taking the focus on the behavior itself, it allows more resources to focus on the trafficking itself. By forcing the behavior underground, it just makes it all harder to control.
Cody

[cclaxton]

This is nothing new. This sounds exactly like what was going on in policing in the 1970's. It will continue until crime reaches intolerable levels. Then the tide of public opinion will turn and proactive policing will make a comeback.

That Santayana guy was pretty smart .....
You make it seem like we haven't learned anything new or better policing methods or how to use technology better or how to do better intelligence or how to deal with mentally ill better or how to better avoid death and injury. That is what I mean by a watershed moment.
Cody

[SLG]

Oh, I believe you. But in European countries we don't see the trafficking problems like we have here.
Cody

Not true at all. No, I have nothing to cite. I've only worked with them on it.


TGS and cclaxton,

I have no interest in fighting about this (home sick with lots of computer time, which is likely making me cranky), so i'm going to bow out.

[TGS]

TGS,

Many LEO'S here have told you what you're asking. There are even article links. Your ideas are based on theory.

The 21st Amendment and its results aren't theory. The 18th Amendment was the direct cause of the illicit alcohol trade and the wave of associated violence....the war on drugs isn't much different.


We are talking about what we are actually seeing in our communities. That may not be the most accurate, double blind way of studying the issue, but it is what we do for a living.

Which obviously isn't working in the first place. Not to the fault of any LEO, but fighting the drug war in its current state is a losing enterprise to begin with. That also brings up the other issue....literally the only people I've ever heard be in favor of the criminalization of marijuana fall into two camps, 1) People with a religious bent to cure humanity of their vices, and 2) LEOs who have been fighting the drug war for their entire career, and have even lost friends to it. To even agree to the decriminalization of marijuana would be a hard fucking pill to swallow for guys and gals in this camp, being what they've given, spent and lost in the process. I get that you believe people have "told me what I'm asking," but I'm not seeing it. I think I'm seeing more of what I just described as opposed to any substantial conveyance of information on why decriminalization would not work.


BTW, I've gotten some texts during this discussion, from some of your experienced co-workers. They watch this stuff. They have worked these issues and have come to the same conclusions that I and most of law enforcement have come too. We'll see where you fall on these issues in a bit. I'm sure you're old job would have thought smoking weed was not a detriment either?

Being high on duty would definitely be a detriment in my old job, just as being drunk on duty would have been, or texting while driving, or any number of things. I don't quite see what that has to do with the criminalization of what someone does in their own home that doesn't directly harm another human being.


TGS and cclaxton,

I have no interest in fighting about this (home sick with lots of computer time, which is likely making me cranky), so i'm going to bow out.

No need to fight about it. We're just people having a discussion. I'm not a pot smoker, I've never even tried a god damned marlboro....but the best way to learn is converse with people and challenge points....don't feel like we're fighting because of that.

[SLG]

Being high on duty would definitely be a detriment in my old job, just as being drunk on duty would have been, or texting while driving, or any number of things. I don't quite see what that has to do with the criminalization of what someone does in their own home ...


...that doesn't directly harm another human being.



No need to fight about it. We're just people having a discussion. I'm not a pot smoker, I've never even tried a god damned marlboro....but the best way to learn is converse with people and challenge points....don't feel like we're fighting because of that.

I agree. I'm bowing out of the discussion because I really have nothing else to add and I'm cranky. Bolded the root of our disagreement.

[Wondering Beard]

You have a very progressive list. I'm sure it sounds good to you, but ask any investigator who has worked prostitution long enough. People smuggling is very real problem, often used to feed the prostitution industry. Many of them die in the process. TGS will have the opportunity to see it first hand. I wonder what his opinion will be then? The people smugglers usually tie into drug smugglers/weapons smuggler and even terrorists. There is nothing benign or consensual about that. You live in a utopia in your head, no doubt fueled by marijuana (it sounds like).

Gambling is a very destructive practice, but again, only to those involved. If you want to bankrupt your family (and all the problems that entails), have at it. The only problem for me is that my taxes usually go to fixing people like that. Same with many of your examples.

I really am all for as much freedom as possible. The problem is, people like me then have to clean up the mess made by people like you. Both actually (professionally) as well as through my taxes. It's not "freedom" when it encroaches on everyone else who is not involved in it.

I understand what you see but can you say with any certainty that it would be worse if it became non criminalized? this is essentially the question I asked you earlier. People smuggling and the abuse that comes with it is the type of thing that really get my dander up, but how much of the awfulness of it all comes from the fact that it is done by people who do not give a fig about human lives, who are often just plain stupid and in general are, to put it kindly, bad people, in other words it's done by criminals. Now if it were legal, if criminals controlled only a tiny percentage of that commercial endeavor (i.e. people moving from country to country for purposes of prostitution was done on a legal commercial basis), would the treatment of those unfortunate people be worse, equal or better? I'm betting it would be immeasurably better, though I actually don't know that for a fact.

I think, though I could be proven wrong, that a lot of the horrors you LEOs see about the "list" that Cody put out comes from the fact that the whole endeavor and related endeavors are criminal in the first place, meaning it requires dealing with the dregs of society. Put a legal commercialization and profit motive on it, and I would bet that you will see less horrors with those businesses; of course, the bad guys will still be bad guys, the idiots still idiots and so on but the consumers of products on Cody's list will deal much much less with the criminal element and that should make a tremendous difference.

Of course, I could be quite wrong.

[HCM]

You make it seem like we haven't learned anything new or better policing methods or how to use technology better or how to do better intelligence or how to deal with mentally ill better or how to better avoid death and injury. That is what I mean by a watershed moment.
Cody

Technology changes as do tactics like CISM but at a strategic level, times change but people don't. We are not special.

Jeff Cooper had a good if somewhat dated quote about this: Abraham would be shocked by the Electric Light Bulb but not by Gorbachov.

[Wondering Beard]

Human trafficking is what fuels prostitution in the United. States. It is real and occurs regularly all over the country. Drugs are inexorably linked to domestic human trafficking in the United States.

That's certainly true but what if the people involved in prostitution moved around legally without dealing with smugglers, what if the people doing drugs didn't have to buy from criminals? what if all the "innocents" (I put quotes so as to differenciate them from hardcore bad guys / they're not actually innocents but they don't have to be real bad guys either) didn't have to deal with the criminal class in order to get their pleasures or make a living (irrelevant of what we think of their pleasures or their mode of obtaining income), wouldn't that make an important difference?

I don"t think we can look at how things would become only through the lens of how they are now. All the horrible things you LEOs see (and I don't discount any of them) exist for a multitude of reasons and decriminalization of pot and prostitution is never going to be a cure all but the assumption that the horrible actions taken by people in those illegal businesses would remain the same (or even that the people in those businesses would remain the same) if things were decriminalized is, I think, a mistake. Legalization creates a whole new slew of economic incentives that would dramatically change the businesses and the people in it, and I think for the better. However, I'm just guy thinking about this and it's just my opinion.

[HCM]

Oh, I believe you. But in European countries we don't see the trafficking problems like we have here. When Alcohol was illegal, we had a huge problem with violence and bootlegging and associated crime to protect those industries. You don't see that now. The same would happen if we legalized and decriminalized them. By taking the focus on the behavior itself, it allows more resources to focus on the trafficking itself. By forcing the behavior underground, it just makes it all harder to control.
Cody

Actually human trafficking / sex trafficking problems are worse in European countries.

Sex trafficking and commercialized prostitution are inherently violent and coercive.

It is on a whole other level from everything else on your list. I'm no Puritan but it takes a great deal of hate discipline to deal with these people on a professional level.

[SLG]

I understand what you see but can you say with any certainty that it would be worse if it became non criminalized? this is essentially the question I asked you earlier. People smuggling and the abuse that comes with it is the type of thing that really get my dander up, but how much of the awfulness of it all comes from the fact that it is done by people who do not give a fig about human lives, who are often just plain stupid and in general are, to put it kindly, bad people, in other words it's done by criminals. Now if it were legal, if criminals controlled only a tiny percentage of that commercial endeavor (i.e. people moving from country to country for purposes of prostitution was done on a legal commercial basis), would the treatment of those unfortunate people be worse, equal or better? I'm betting it would be immeasurably better, though I actually don't know that for a fact.

I think, though I could be proven wrong, that a lot of the horrors you LEOs see about the "list" that Cody put out comes from the fact that the whole endeavor and related endeavors are criminal in the first place, meaning it requires dealing with the dregs of society. Put a legal commercialization and profit motive on it, and I would bet that you will see less horrors with those businesses; of course, the bad guys will still be bad guys, the idiots still idiots and so on but the consumers of products on Cody's list will deal much much less with the criminal element and that should make a tremendous difference.

Of course, I could be quite wrong.

You're making it hard for me to sit quietly on the couch, bowed out.

With regards to prostitution and human trafficking, my point is that very, very few people actually want to be prostitutes. Some percentage are forced, some percentage are at the end of the line, some tiny percentage wants to (they usually have mental issues, surprise surprise).

The horrors of the American prostitution scene pale when compared to much of the rest of the world. As the father of little girls, the last thing I want is for them to grow up thinking that is a professional option.

With regards to decriminalization, which is different than legalization, we have seen it get worse, in terms of the acceptability of the behavior. Legalization takes that acceptability and magnifies it many times over.

Do you want to walk down the street with your children and pass pot heads coming and going in their favorite legal head shop? Missoula, MT, a fairly dirty place to begin with once the Californians took over, is now like this. Head shops all over the place, and the resulting traffic that a low quality booze joint attracts. That's not how I want my city to be.

I realize that legislation is rarely the cure for society's problems. I wish I had a better solution, but I don't and neither does anyone else I've heard. The war on drugs is a huge suck, no question, and there is no winning. When I was a young street cop, I was all for legalization. I thought I was so much smarter than the high school educated cops who'd been around the block. "Let us use all those wasted LE resources on something else." I know now that even though the fight can't be won, we still have to fight it. Society doesn't get better by giving in.

Education and peer pressure is needed, but so is the strongest condemnation we as a society can muster.

[Wondering Beard]

But in European countries we don't see the trafficking problems like we have here.

Quite the contrary, I think (though I don't have numbers to back it up) that it has gotten even worse.

[HCM]

You're making it hard for me to sit quietly on the couch, bowed out..

SLG,

REELZ is showing. Dirty Harry Movies all day. I'm just say'n ...

[SLG]

SLG,

REELZ is showing. Dirty Harry Movies all day. I'm just say'n ...

Ha! I'm not that salty...but i do love me some Dirty Harry. Movies ahead of their time.

[Wondering Beard]

You're making it hard for me to sit quietly on the couch, bowed out.

With regards to prostitution and human trafficking, my point is that very, very few people actually want to be prostitutes. Some percentage are forced, some percentage are at the end of the line, some tiny percentage wants to (they usually have mental issues, surprise surprise).

The horrors of the American prostitution scene pale when compared to much of the rest of the world. As the father of little girls, the last thing I want is for them to grow up thinking that is a professional option.

With regards to decriminalization, which is different than legalization, we have seen it get worse, in terms of the acceptability of the behavior. Legalization takes that acceptability and magnifies it many times over.

Do you want to walk down the street with your children and pass pot heads coming and going in their favorite legal head shop? Missoula, MT, a fairly dirty place to begin with once the Californians took over, is now like this. Head shops all over the place, and the resulting traffic that a low quality booze joint attracts. That's not how I want my city to be.

I realize that legislation is rarely the cure for society's problems. I wish I had a better solution, but I don't and neither does anyone else I've heard. The war on drugs is a huge suck, no question, and there is no winning. When I was a young street cop, I was all for legalization. I thought I was so much smarter than the high school educated cops who'd been around the block. "Let us use all those wasted LE resources on something else." I know now that even though the fight can't be won, we still have to fight it. Society doesn't get better by giving in.

Education and peer pressure is needed, but so is the strongest condemnation we as a society can muster.

I have no problem with condemnation, I just think we're doing it wrong and have made things worse than they needed to be (just my opinion of course).

I realize I have made a mistake in my previous replies, I have used decriminalization and legalization interchangeably, what I really mean to say is legalization.

I understand your point of view on this and where you're coming from. I don't have any of your experience in that matter, what I mean to do is question the assumptions we (and that includes me of course) make about how things could be. Using your example of Missoula, we don't see that sort of behavior outside of all the bars that serve alcohol; though we do see it in rundown neighborhoods and around clubs on weekend nights. If pot were treated like alcohol (in other words, you have bars and you would have 'pot bars'?) wouldn't laws against public intoxication still apply? Apparantly, they don't apply to Missoula for reasons I couldn't guess at but would this type of behavior be truly all over the country or is this a particular case? I don't know.

I don't really have an answer to the problems we're talking about, but I do think that basic economics and our experience with prohibition should make us choose a different path than the one we are on presently. I think we need to start thinking about this differently.

[Wondering Beard]

SLG,

REELZ is showing. Dirty Harry Movies all day. I'm just say'n ...

Ooh, that would be nice.

Sadly, I can't get that where I am presently.

[SLG]

I have no answers, as I've said before. I'm all for re-thinking this issue, but legalization really isn't re-thinking it. It's just applying what we did to alcohol, to drugs.

I wonder how many people died during prohibition, of alcohol related crimes, compared to the numbers today who die because of drunk drivers and alcohol fueled domestic abuse. Rapes as well.

Obviously there are productive members of society who consume alcohol. I wonder what the percentage is compared to the people who ruined themselves with it? Just thinking out loud, not saying that it is society's responsibility to make everyone a productive member.

[cclaxton]

You're making it hard for me to sit quietly on the couch, bowed out.

With regards to prostitution and human trafficking, my point is that very, very few people actually want to be prostitutes. Some percentage are forced, some percentage are at the end of the line, some tiny percentage wants to (they usually have mental issues, surprise surprise).

The horrors of the American prostitution scene pale when compared to much of the rest of the world. As the father of little girls, the last thing I want is for them to grow up thinking that is a professional option.

With regards to decriminalization, which is different than legalization, we have seen it get worse, in terms of the acceptability of the behavior. Legalization takes that acceptability and magnifies it many times over.

Do you want to walk down the street with your children and pass pot heads coming and going in their favorite legal head shop? Missoula, MT, a fairly dirty place to begin with once the Californians took over, is now like this. Head shops all over the place, and the resulting traffic that a low quality booze joint attracts. That's not how I want my city to be.

I realize that legislation is rarely the cure for society's problems. I wish I had a better solution, but I don't and neither does anyone else I've heard. The war on drugs is a huge suck, no question, and there is no winning. When I was a young street cop, I was all for legalization. I thought I was so much smarter than the high school educated cops who'd been around the block. "Let us use all those wasted LE resources on something else." I know now that even though the fight can't be won, we still have to fight it. Society doesn't get better by giving in.

Education and peer pressure is needed, but so is the strongest condemnation we as a society can muster.
I don't want the discussion on prostitution to sidetrack the main point I have been making....that the "cure" of criminalizing this list is worse than the disease. The fact that prostitution is a more difficult problem doesn't mean that marijuana decriminalization, gambling, etc. are the same. As with any social problems, it is difficult to discuss in generalities, and the details are important. Here is an example of a study about European prostitution. http://tampep.eu/documents/TAMPEP%202009%20European%20Mapping%20Report.pdf. It makes the point that repressive criminalization has not stopped the level of prostitution because of demand for the services. There may be some that like the sex business, but I agree nobody goes into it as a career move. But, like many jobs that people take, it pays the bills and there is a demand for the service. Since a certain number of people are going to provide sex services, we should find a way to prevent abuse, provide access to health services, prevent the spread of disease, and provide ways to get out.

The real question on all of these is whether the current criminalization of the behavior is helping or making it worse. It's pretty clear the war on drugs has failed and has made it worse by just about every measure. At this point the war on weed is no different than prohibition.

To get back to the discussion of law enforcement force retirement and attrition: How will Law Enforcement change? What will the new generation of LEO's bring to the business? What has LE learned over the past 20 years? What changes need to be made to keep LEO's motivated, the public satisfied, fewer LEO's killed and injured, and fewer civilians killed and injured? What does the evolution of law enforcement look like?
Cody

[HCM]

"Briggs, I hate the God Damn system but until someone one comes up with some changes that make sense I'll stick with it"

Harry Callaghan in a Magnum Force.

[cclaxton]

Something to chew on about alcohol consumption: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141656/drinking-rate-edges-slightly-year-high.aspx
Cody

[pablo]

You make it seem like we haven't learned anything new or better policing methods or how to use technology better or how to do better intelligence or how to deal with mentally ill better or how to better avoid death and injury. That is what I mean by a watershed moment.
Cody

We are no where near watershed moment. A few years ago, in the media, Tasers were the great evil of the police world. In response a lot of departments tightened up there Taser policies to where Taser use was placed right below deadly force. A place where they are rarely effective. We now have officers killing "unarmed" individuals and EDPs, in situations where a few years ago would have likely been solved with a Taser deployment at a low level of resistance. One of law enforcement's best tools for quickly taking an EDP that displays signs of excited delerium into custody and getting them immediate medical intervention was taken away. The current CIT model for taking a EDP into custody is a 5 man take down. That roughly translates for pig piling and beating the shit out of the person, sometimes taking minutes and then after getting him into cuffs getting them medical attention. That's huge step backwards over using a Taser, and potentially taking them into custody and getting them medical attention in a matter of seconds. It doesn't always work and sometimes it's not pretty, but it gave the EDP a much better chance of surviving the encounter. But what's important is perception not a human life.

If there's a watershed moment, it's that police policy is now driven by emotions and media pressure, instead of rational thought and discussion.

[BehindBlueI's]

I sure don't have the answers but I think legalization is an experiment worth trying. Criminalization hasn't worked, its created economic incentive to create an underground marketplace. Targeting users is rarely effective...addicts tend to lack forethought or they wouldn't be addicts. Targeting suppliers just makes job openings. Economics are a bitch. With limited ways to effect supply and demand, bringing the marketplace into the light may be the next best option.

Back to tobacco, cost is one big factor in declining use. There is black market tobacco, but what percentage runs through it? There's a sweet spot where, via taxation, its expensive enough to deter but not so expensive to push to underground economies. I would suggest a combined approach of regulation, cost manipulation, and public education/social pressure would result in the best long term results.

[pablo]

Back to tobacco, cost is one big factor in declining use. There is black market tobacco, but what percentage runs through it? There's a sweet spot where, via taxation, its expensive enough to deter but not so expensive to push to underground economies. I would suggest a combined approach of regulation, cost manipulation, and public education/social pressure would result in the best long term results.

Everyone I know that smokes or dips, still does, but have replaced most of their tobacco use with one of those e-vapor things. Not sure how much it contributes to the decline though.

[Wondering Beard]

I have no answers, as I've said before. I'm all for re-thinking this issue, but legalization really isn't re-thinking it. It's just applying what we did to alcohol, to drugs.
I don't think it turned out that badly with alcohol, rather the opposite. The problem is that just criminalization cuts off most other approaches since it allows little room for few alternatives (if it's illegal, it requires some form of punishment which only gives economic incentives to bad guys) while legalization experimentation allows for more ways to deal with it, as incentives can be given to plenty of people who have no criminal outlooks at all.


I wonder how many people died during prohibition, of alcohol related crimes, compared to the numbers today who die because of drunk drivers and alcohol fueled domestic abuse. Rapes as well.
That's a good question and I'll add one of my own, how many of the deaths and/or physical damage from the consumption of alcohol only (not the business around it) were due to well below par products which were inherently dangerous and how much did the fact that the business was purely black market contributed to that? I don't have the answer.


Obviously there are productive members of society who consume alcohol. I wonder what the percentage is compared to the people who ruined themselves with it? Just thinking out loud, not saying that it is society's responsibility to make everyone a productive member.
I don't know what the proportions are but if I were to hazard a guess, I would think the percentage is quite high.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

It's anecdotal, of course, but after some careful checking, I discovered that I consumed no alcohol during the prohibition era, whereas now I consume it regularly.

So if that's any indication, legalization could be a disaster.

[SLG]

Something to chew on about alcohol consumption: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141656/drinking-rate-edges-slightly-year-high.aspx
Cody

This chart has nothing to do with anything we are discussing, but I note that they surveyed 1000 people. I would think that 1000 is way too small a number to be significant when looking at the U.S. population, but I really have no idea.

[Wondering Beard]

It's anecdotal, of course, but after some careful checking, I discovered that I consumed no alcohol during the prohibition era, whereas now I consume it regularly.

So if that's any indication, legalization could be a disaster.

Going by your name, that makes sense ;-)

[voodoo_man]

I'd also like point out that legalized alcohol hasn't been a huge success either...


young drivers - Among drivers with BAC levels of 0.08 % or higher involved in fatal crashes in 2013, one out of every 3 were between 21 and 24 years of age (33%). The next two largest groups were ages 25 to 34 (29%) and 35 to 44 (24%)

ref - http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

Same group will now drink and smoke or just smoke or just drink....where as a few beers or a few shots may get someone buzzed (buzzed driving is drunk driving) now a joint will be just as problematic...

#1 cause of LE deaths have been accidents for a while, one of the highest contributing factor is DUI's to this.

[11B10]

[QUOTE=SLG;386759]There is no comparison between tobacco and other drugs.

Do you know how much effort it has taken to get hollywood to stop glamorizing cigarette use? And still, my understanding is that teen use is still on the rise. Maybe educated people have stopped using it, but tobacco's popularity doesn't seem to be going anywhere to me.

The critical difference though, in case I'm wrong about the above, is that other than the people in a smoker's family, no one really suffers for it. If you want to slowly kill yourself, I don't care at all. Smoking cigarettes does not lead to car crashes.[/QUOTE


Until 2008 in my home state of Pa., you could light up anywhere - at ay time, as many times a day as you wanted to. I'm sure you've heard of secondhand smoke. I grew up in a house where both my parents were heavy smokers, then worked in several environs where there was much smoking taking place. That lasted from the late '60's until 2008, 48+ years of breathing in other people's smoke. Fortunately for me, beginning in 2008, a law was passed in Pa., restricting WHERE you could smoke. Does it help? It sure does, BUT, you & I both know no one can escape cigarette smoke - 100% - 100% of the time. That is because there is always some smoker, close enough to make me inhale his/her smoke, making a totally useless, for show effort (waving their hands is popular)to magically make THEIR smoke disappear. No, it's not just "the people in a smoker's family" who suffer.

[GardoneVT]

We shouldn't be surprised when kids are either not raised at all or raised in majorly dysfunctional households then turn into maladjusted adults in need of chemical escapism.

Part of the reason The Ghetto is The Ghetto is because no ones around to raise the kids. Moms at work or in the drug game, dads an ex/current/felon who's either on the run , dead, or in jail. The boys grow up with only their friends and Easy-E for life guidance, and they end up meeting a girl with similar non-parentage.She punches out several kids, the dad being a hothead teenager pulls some illegal crap which gets him locked up and/or shot, and the cycle repeats with that generation.

Banning drugs or legalizing them won't fix social and cultural cycles of dysfunction. Atop this , the media keeps villifying the LEO and legal community when containing this messy damage gets violent. Between those two forces, unless we fix the underlying social causes legalization one way or the other is irrelevant.

[cclaxton]

We shouldn't be surprised when kids are either not raised at all or raised in majorly dysfunctional households then turn into maladjusted adults in need of chemical escapism.

Part of the reason The Ghetto is The Ghetto is because no ones around to raise the kids. Moms at work or in the drug game, dads an ex/current/felon who's either on the run , dead, or in jail. The boys grow up with only their friends and Easy-E for life guidance, and they end up meeting a girl with similar non-parentage.She punches out several kids, the dad being a hothead teenager pulls some illegal crap which gets him locked up and/or shot, and the cycle repeats with that generation.

Banning drugs or legalizing them won't fix social and cultural cycles of dysfunction. Atop this , the media keeps villifying the LEO and legal community when containing this messy damage gets violent. Between those two forces, unless we fix the underlying social causes legalization one way or the other is irrelevant.
Wow, I agree. Although I think changes to Law Enforcement should be implemented based on real facts and tested methods and appropriate funding.
Cody

[SLG]

[QUOTE=SLG;386759]There is no comparison between tobacco and other drugs.

Do you know how much effort it has taken to get hollywood to stop glamorizing cigarette use? And still, my understanding is that teen use is still on the rise. Maybe educated people have stopped using it, but tobacco's popularity doesn't seem to be going anywhere to me.

The critical difference though, in case I'm wrong about the above, is that other than the people in a smoker's family, no one really suffers for it. If you want to slowly kill yourself, I don't care at all. Smoking cigarettes does not lead to car crashes.[/QUOTE


Until 2008 in my home state of Pa., you could light up anywhere - at ay time, as many times a day as you wanted to. I'm sure you've heard of secondhand smoke. I grew up in a house where both my parents were heavy smokers, then worked in several environs where there was much smoking taking place. That lasted from the late '60's until 2008, 48+ years of breathing in other people's smoke. Fortunately for me, beginning in 2008, a law was passed in Pa., restricting WHERE you could smoke. Does it help? It sure does, BUT, you & I both know no one can escape cigarette smoke - 100% - 100% of the time. That is because there is always some smoker, close enough to make me inhale his/her smoke, making a totally useless, for show effort (waving their hands is popular)to magically make THEIR smoke disappear. No, it's not just "the people in a smoker's family" who suffer.

I totally get that, and feel the same way. I was just being short and providing numbers that are more easily measurable. Of course, I think that raising a kid in a smoky environment is child abuse.

[TheRoland]

Is there really a large number of LEOs who aren't sure if ending alcohol prohibition was a good idea? I suppose you're exposed to the costs every day, but that's really just not a historical position I've ever been exposed to before. I guess I'll have to think about it.

[SLG]

Is there really a large number of LEOs who aren't sure if ending alcohol prohibition was a good idea? I suppose you're exposed to the costs every day, but that's really just not a historical position I've ever been exposed to before. I guess I'll have to think about it.

I don't think anyone has actually said that. Knowing the cops that I know, I doubt any of them would want alcohol to be illegal. I mentioned it as an example. Yes it's now legal and we have less crime associated with the manufacture and consumption, but at what cost? Our DUI deaths are astronomical. Let's not even look at all the other death and suffering that alcohol contributes to. I have a very hard time believing that more people were killed during prohibition than in the years after it ended.

Try telling a parent that their baby is dead because a drunk driver swerved across 3 lanes and hit them head on. He walked away without a scratch.

One death every 51 minutes from drunk driving. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

there is no way we are better off now.

[TC215]

As someone who has "fought the drug war their entire career" as another poster said, I'm pretty amused by all this.

If anyone thinks that legalization will fix anything, I believe they're incorrect. We had legal dope here for a while, sold in stores (synthetics). It was a disaster. Nothing Ive seen leads me to believe legalizing marijuana will be any different.

And if you really think drug sales or use are victimless crimes, you're out of touch with reality.

But what do I know?

[TGS]

As someone who has "fought the drug war their entire career" as another poster said, I'm pretty amused by all this.

If anyone thinks that legalization will fix anything, I believe they're incorrect. We had legal dope here for a while, sold in stores (synthetics). It was a disaster. Nothing Ive seen leads me to believe legalizing marijuana will be any different.

And if you really think drug sales or use are victimless crimes, you're out of touch with reality.

But what do I know?

Yeah, drug sales are because it's a violent black market.

That's sort of a fucked up round about way of justifying the criminalization, no?

[TC215]

There is certainly more to it than that. There are a lot of families suffering over addiction and everything that goes with it.

Even if it is legalized, the black market will still be there. The legal stuff will be taxed, and it will be mor expensive, and the black market will still thrive.

Even when the synthetic drugs were legal, robberies went up, burglaries went up, shootings went up. All over "legal weed".

[HCM]

Yeah, drug sales are because it's a violent black market.

That's sort of a fucked up round about way of justifying the criminalization, no?

Take the black market sales aspect out of it and you still have huge issues with addiction and abuse destroying families, lives, and careers, not to mention the associated property crime.

[Nephrology]

Take the black market sales aspect out of it and you still have huge issues with addiction and abuse destroying families, lives, and careers, not to mention the associated property crime.

This is true of alcohol, for what that is worth.

I live in Colorado and am doing my clinical training in a very large, very busy ER of one of the 4 level 1 trauma centers in the state. We have lots and lots and lots of alcohol related injuries. Lots of motor vehicle but also lots of assault, self-inflicted injuries (accidental and deliberate), plus the usual "too drunk to function." Without alcohol the ER would probably be out of business.

I see very few people in whose primary problem is THC. If it is, usually it's some idiot who ate too much pot food and was having a bad time, or who were arrested on other charges and wanted to go to the hospital to prolong their time before jail.

[psalms144.1]

I'll throw my two cents in. I'm not a street cop (never have been), and I'm not really a "dope guy," though I've worked more than my fair share of those cases. In my unfortunately unique niche investigative world, however, I see a little of everything - from drug dealing to child abuse (and child sexual abuse) to sexual assaults/rapes, suicides and murders (not to mention all kinds of white collar and national security work). What I have experienced, over the last 15 years, is that just about every one of the violent crimes I've been called out to have been alcohol or drug involved - meaning the Subject was under the influence of SOMETHING when he broke bad. (The exception, unfortunately, is the child molesters, who appear to be broken in a whole different way). While I used to buy into the CONCEPT that legalizing narcotics would somehow undercut the "street violence" problem, I now FIRMLY believe that there is simple NO WAY that introducing MORE "legal" narcotics into our society is going to have ANY positive effect. None, zip, nada.

This isn't a new problem - growing up in a VERY quiet suburban town on Long Island, our house was broken into twice while my family was on vacation. The kids who did it were caught in both cases; all admitted to the break in, and stated they were stealing stuff to hock to buy weed. These weren't "ghetto" kids, these were the kids of Yuppie middle to upper class families, looking to get disposable income to get weed. I can tell you, it didn't feel "victimless" to us.

Now, back on this hell hole of an island, I worry every day if my kids are going to be introduced to the heroin pushers who infest the public school here. Because weed wasn't enough for the junkies on Long Island, nor cocaine, nor stolen prescription meds, we're seeing kids all over the Island with needles in their arms.

In case you can't tell, I'm NOT a fan of legalizing marijuana. And, if I could wave a magic wand and make every drop of alcohol on the planet disappear, I'd do that too.

[SLG]

There's a rather obvious trend here among cops. I'd call that a clue but then, not everyone likes that term.

The only people who disagree are more academically oriented to the problem, it seems. That old saying about theory and reality just keeps proving itself true.

[BehindBlueI's]

There's a rather obvious trend here among cops. I'd call that a clue but then, not everyone likes that term.

The only people who disagree are more academically oriented to the problem, it seems. That old saying about theory and reality just keeps proving itself true.

Well, not the ONLY people. I see plenty of addicts and plenty of suppliers as both suspects and victims in Homicide & Robbery. I've yet to have the Budweiser rep shoot the Miller guy.

Nobody calls the cops to show how well they are functioning with occasional drug use. I worked construction for awhile and saw plenty of folks who smoked a little dope but worked, didn't steal, etc.

If someone is robbing stores to pay for dope, lock them up for robbery. I'd note drug store robberies are big business here, and those drugs are legal. I'm not saying legalization is some panacea. I'm saying it's worth exploring.

[GardoneVT]

Well, not the ONLY people. I see plenty of addicts and plenty of suppliers as both suspects and victims in Homicide & Robbery. I've yet to have the Budweiser rep shoot the Miller guy.

Their 1920s forebears didn't exactly settle business disputes in court.

Which brings me to another thorny problem with legalization ; uncharted external costs . It's frequently cited that repealing Prohibition reduced the power of the mob and civic corruption in Chicago and other places.

But legalization is no free lunch. Instead of criminals gunning each other down in the street over illegal booze , and the cops raiding and responding to that LEOs instead respond to DUIs, assaults, rapes and other crimes fueled by alcohol abuse.

If we had an Alternate History where Prohibition was never repealed, we could probably see that the same cops who respond to modern day DUIs and alcohol related crimes committed in separate places and times would instead be working a booze-smuggling ring in the Alternate History America. Six in one hand, half dozen in the other.

What we have is not a choice of "Legalization good, Prohibition Bad" but "Consequences of Legalization vs Consequences of Prohibition". There are serious downsides to both choices.

[BaiHu]

As a non-academic & non-LEO, I'd like to take a crack at this.

People, sex, alcohol, tobacco, weed (or the mind altering equivalent) and guns (or the equivalent) have been around since the dawn of time (remember this along the way). Nothing has changed except population density and our (mainly the Western world) relationship to reality (remember this too).

Some people want to get high, most people want to have sex, some do both at the same time, but everyone wants to be/feel safe. But how do we trim the edges of 'imposing' upon others?

Guns. That's one way to keep others from imposing their will upon you/others. So let's take that out of the 'if we treat drugs the way antis treat guns, then we're hypocrites' column. Guns are the great equalizer against bad men. Let's take this premise a bit further, but simpler. A bad guy with a gun (who is high/drunk/rapey) can be stopped by a good guy with a gun. Let's carry this through a KISS metric.

A bad guy using sex, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes irresponsibly cannot be stopped by a good guy using the same responsibly. Influenced? Maybe, but not stopped.

Now that we've established this, let's look at how people have sex, get drunk or high.

Sex is typically private, even in an alleyway rape or John. Either way it takes at least 2 people or maybe an animal if that's your thing. However, since at least 2 people are involved, rarely a secret is kept unless 2 people know it and one is dead/drugged. Enter the human trafficking quotient. Sex has to be consensual and I'm not talking hippie, PC, microagression 'he stared at me for 7 seconds' crap. I'm talking about two people of consenting age willingly engaging in it and not for money, drugs, etc. If legalizing the sex trade worked so well, then how did it become illegal?? Remember that this is the oldest profession.

Alcohol does not require consent nor another person to engage in in order to work. However, it does take more volume/time than other harder drugs, so although I drink socially, I would not lose my quality of life without it. That being said, alcohol could be considered the doorway to the gateway that is MJ. Alcohol, at the very least, should be regulated, but like HCM (IIRC) said, all of these alcohol/drug problems should come with the 'pain' of a reduction or removal of state/federal assistance. If not regulating it in some way went so well, then how did it ever become regulated?

Drugs typically work faster and more intensely than alcohol. That being said, they are harder to get control of than alcohol. I've seen enough people fall into the allure of drugs fail in life at an early age, die at an early age or continue to exist depending on the crutch they believe it to be. This is not to say that people don't do this with alcohol, it's to say that the speed and intensity here is different. If not regulating/prohibiting went so well, then why is it prohibited?

Tobacco is just a protected crop. It's a crop that would be ruined by the MJ trade. It's a crop that was the drug of choice in a more gentler substance abuse time where killing each other or surviving off the land was a more likely problem. If not regulating it went so well, then why is this regulated?

Wrapping this up in the 'war against X'. It's all the same. We're never going to stop 'warring against X, Y, Z', but if we give in (as I think SLG said), then we're just going to make the next fight harder.

I look at all 'cultural habits' as 'individual habits', b/c it's easier for me to make sense out of it and find solutions.

If we had a friend, family member, or neighbor that had a really bad habit like drinking and driving around the neighborhood, what would we be willing to do in order to stop it? Get him to rehab? Take away his keys? Call the cops or just restrain him?

Even though we live in a society that is willfully burying reality, we still recognize that one (car) has a utility and the other (booze) does not, so we'd try to make the car safer and lower the BAC. So what's the next step? Continue to condone or continue to wedge society towards better habits?

I don't have a particular answer, but I do know that personal freedom isn't free and it also isn't free of consequences. If we are to be a sign of a better future, then we'd better start choosing our personal habits wisely; because we need to set the tone/example whether we're talking about gun safety, driver safety, alcohol consumption safety, drugs etc.

If we instead start finding more ways to equivocate or condone, then I'm sorry to say that we've lost our way as a species.

[pablo]

Sometimes the only thing worse than the way things are, is trying anything new.

Decriminalization and legalization haven't worked, but the current law enforcement strategy isn't working either. In a lot ways I see the war on drugs as the quintessential example of society's overwhelming reliance on police to solve its problems, whether it's a police matter or not. Crime related to drug use is a police matter, the underlying causes of drug use and addiction aren't something that the police can effectively address. Yet somehow drug use is almost entirely a police matter in this country.

[Dagga Boy]

Like many things, the police rarely see the responsible folks. We don't see the guy like my dad who used to come home from work and drink exactly one beer with dinner. We don't see the guy who smokes a joint like many of us smoke a cigar....simply as a means to relax at home a couple times a month. I laughed early when Cody mentioned cops as social drinkers. Not hardly. I am one of the few I know who truly drink socially (translated to rarely). Most are drinking medically. Most are self medicating, just like folks do with drugs. It is mostly self medication. At this point, why do we need prescriptions if everyone is so responsible with weed and booze at self medicating, why should I need a doctor for Vicodin? Or any other drugs for that matter? I thought if we just make it legal, them we will stop crime problems. Okay, let's start making medicine un regulated as well. Shouldn't be a problem. I have always been for real doctors prescribing marijuana and it handled by real pharmacy's. LE folks see that a large part of the populace is unable to self regulate their vices well. Our current "me" society seems to have an especially difficult time with very high levels of personal responsibility, and I do not see self administering depressants or stimulants being a positive.

As far as policing in this era. The newer cops are great with technology, which CAN be a huge help. The problem is that government agencies tend to suck horribly at selecting and managing technology (just look at Obamacare.....police computer world is worse). So this is one area that has a chance of getting better with some changes and work. As far as personnel. I am having a hard time seeing a generation of "me" people replacing those who came into police work as a true calling (pre gen X), or simply as a good job for those who didn't like the constraints of office work, but could be adapted to the work without the passion for it (gen X's). The Gen. "Why's" are very ill equipped for the work, and without guidance from those who are, or heavy use of prior military people...it is going to be fairly ugly, and not for the cops. This is a generation of adapting to not having hardship on themselves. Also, as long as the idea that people with zero clue about police work should be making policy and dictating police procedures, I do not see a good end there either.
The future I see is a new era in which highly efficient documentation of crime becomes the theme. Use of technology to mange the documentation to use it to place "guardians" efficiently in an effort to deter through presence alone will be what "proactive" looks like. I also see a very heavy future lean towards revenue generation enforcement as the only real pro active work for cash strapped agencies.

[Nephrology]

The newer cops are great with technology, which CAN be a huge help. The problem is that government agencies tend to suck horribly at selecting and managing technology (just look at Obamacare.....police computer world is worse).

Just as a point of education, electronic medical record (EMR) software is 100% privately developed and 100% privately selected by all non-gov't end users.. The ACA (Obamacare) provided massive tax incentives for both the produces and purchasers of EMR, but never specified which software package or really any of its features at all. They all still suck. This is just a reality of computer software being developed/bought/implemented by non-computer people.

back to the drugs, living in CO I really don't see a huge problem with legal marijuana at the public health level. I am confident in stating that marijuana is one of the physiologically safer drugs out there (doesn't incline people to violence, no evidence that it causes cancer or serious organ damage, little/controversial evidence about potential long-term cognitive effects, etc). I would state unequivocally from a (amateurish, baby-doc) medical perspective that it is healthier than tobacco or alcohol in basically every way measurable.

I have no comment on what it is like to deal with it from an LEO perspective, but I generally feel that scumbags will be scumbags. Again, on a given overnight in the ED, I see tons of people in police custody from driving drunk/getting into fights while drunk/etc, have never seen anyone cuffed to a bed because of something they did that can be directly attributed to THC. So from my limited perspective, the only difference between living in a state where pot is legal vs. where it isn't legal has been that the state is raking in cash hand over fist for activity that was already going on anyway. I do often see older (60+ y/o) people coming out of dispensaries and wonder if they would be smoking pot were it still illegal, but at any rate they certainly don't wind up in our ED because of it.

[TC215]

The old Mexican skunk weed that everyone had for years pales in comparison to the high-grade bud that we see now (comes to my state from CO and CA). The THC levels in it are much, much higher. We won't truly know the effects of it for several more years.

Nephrology- I'd be curious to hear from a CO LEO as to what their perspective is on it. From what I've heard from people out that way, legalization isn't going nearly as well as you describe.

[Nephrology]

The old Mexican skunk weed that everyone had for years pales in comparison to the high-grade bud that we see now (comes to my state from CO and CA). The THC levels in it are much, much higher. We won't truly know the effects of it for several more years.

Nephrology- I'd be curious to hear from a CO LEO as to what their perspective is on it. From what I've heard from people out that way, legalization isn't going nearly as well as you describe.

TC - I am in medicine, not in law enforcement. As far as I can tell the effect of more potent marijuana is simply that people have to smoke less of it to get stoned. I don't think it is qualitatively much different beyond that.

[fixer]

I am mostly against decriminalization and out right legalization because a lot of the regulated substances are very easy to get addicted to. Addiction at some point controls/compels human behavior and not the rational mind. Addiction too can vary in its intensity.

Any substance that can easily create a hostage situation for someone's mind should be viewed with extreme caution.

Legal crack? Legal Heroin? Legal meth? These are powerful narcotics. Not tobacco, not alcohol.

My prediction is that the number of 'Intervention' quality addicts would skyrocket. This would lead to a huge increase in crime which I want no part of. Simultaneously, the amount of resources (human, financial, raw material) directed at addiction treatment will increase substantially. It is easy to argue for simply flipping the switch and making narcotics legal, but the resources needed to handle the consequences are not in place.

Is this what we want? Expending all the energy and capital to deal with the consequences of legal narcotics? Can't we put these resources into more productive and healthy endeavors? Are we prepared to have a trillion dollar addiction treatment and recovery industry? Pretty shameful and wasteful in my opinion.

We can do better. I'm just not sure experimenting with legalization or even decriminalization is going to be all that enlightening.

[Erick Gelhaus]

The old Mexican skunk weed that everyone had for years pales in comparison to the high-grade bud that we see now (comes to my state from CO and CA). The THC levels in it are much, much higher. We won't truly know the effects of it for several more years.

Quite true. Even when I worked narcotics the THC levels were significantly higher than the perception was from then ten to twenty years before. Anecdotally, a friend's wife worked as an oncology nurse. She was adamant that they saw odd cancers attributed to chronic marijuana use (no pun intended). Have not paid attention to whether or not anyone is researching that.


TC - I am in medicine, not in law enforcement. As far as I can tell the effect of more potent marijuana is simply that people have to smoke less of it to get stoned. I don't think it is qualitatively much different beyond that.
It that is the case, then it'd be a hard liquor / wine / beer comparision for evaluating impairment. Not sure that's going to be the case - from a cop perspective trying to evaluate or determine impairment.
One area I do not see being discussed or reported is the frequency of THC driven impairment in suspects involved in OIS. There have been a couple handful of news worthy shootings where the toxicology reports were released. In those, iirc, a significant number had rather high (again, no pun intended) or off the chart THC levels.

[TC215]

TC - I am in medicine, not in law enforcement. As far as I can tell the effect of more potent marijuana is simply that people have to smoke less of it to get stoned. I don't think it is qualitatively much different beyond that.

That's not consistent with what I've heard from users, who have said that the high with more potent marijuana is much more intense and lasts much longer.

Here's an article I found talking about that talks about what high-THC level marijuana does to the brain:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/11/28/does-high-potency-marijuana-damage-the-brain/

There are many more references out there, I just found that with a quick Google search.

Just to add, marijuana isn't even close to the biggest problem we have in my area. I pretty much never actively work weed cases, but sometimes get them handed over to me from patrol. Our DA's office will give probation for any amount of weed, and we'd have to have at least half a ton for the US Attorney's Office to take it.

Crack is still king where I'm at, and we've had an unreal explosion in crystal meth over the last 6 months. Heroin has made a comeback here just like it has everywhere else. Weed is the least of our problems, but it's all tied together, and legalization will help nothing.

[TCinVA]

It's worth remembering that the Volstead act did not descend from the heavens unprovoked. It was a response to massive social problems with alcohol at the center. As SLG pointed out, the discussions about alcohol prohibition/legalization are often very narrow and do not consider the social ramifications of legal alcohol. The vast majority of people consume it in a pretty responsible manner. The relatively small percentage that don't, though, cause a lot of damage.

Legalization does not fix problems...it maybe slightly changes the manifestations a bit. In countries that have legal prostitution it's still a seedy business and every now and then you'll see an article pop up about a legal brothel that was being run by gangsters and all the girls in it were essentially sex slaves. Because the nature of the thing, even if legal, doesn't really change.

That's not really an argument for or against legalization of drugs/prostitution. Ultimately I don't think public policy on the issues matters a whole lot in terms of general outcome.

[RoyGBiv]

Ultimately I don't think public policy on the issues matters a whole lot in terms of general outcome.
The argument Portugal makes is that keeping it illegal drives users underground but decriminalizing it helps bring users into the sunlight and abusers into treatment rather than prison. I don't know whether Portugal's experiment has proven itself on all fronts, but continuing down the unending path we've chosen here hasn't led us to successfully defeating drug abuse to any large degree. Keeping the status quo will yield status quo results. More rich criminals, more casual users losing their futures and little in the way of reducing the abuser population before they spiral down low enough to cross the line with law enforcement.

I'm pleased to see 10th Amendment laboratories looking for different ways to deal with the issue.
Another reason I'll never vote for Statist Christie. Always funny to note that the "evangelical" Cruz is also among the most open to 10th Amendment experimentation.

[TCinVA]

Of course, stuff like this doesn't help:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/12/28/federal-judge-drinking-tea-shopping-at-a-gardening-store-is-probable-cause-for-a-swat-raid-on-your-home/

[BaiHu]

Of course, stuff like this doesn't help:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/12/28/federal-judge-drinking-tea-shopping-at-a-gardening-store-is-probable-cause-for-a-swat-raid-on-your-home/
Just a smidgen SMH

[voodoo_man]

Of course, stuff like this doesn't help:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/12/28/federal-judge-drinking-tea-shopping-at-a-gardening-store-is-probable-cause-for-a-swat-raid-on-your-home/

While that reads really bad, no judge would sign off on a warrant that was supported by weak probable cause of gardening equipment and no detective would submit such a BS warrant. Something is fishy and was obviously left out of the media story

[TGS]

Written by Balko?

Yeah, I'm sure that article is very accurate and fair reporting at its finest...

[TCinVA]

Everything at the WaPo should be taken with a bucket or two of salt, but the article claims that the original garden store list taking led to collecting garbage which was then tested for THC...with a testing kit that apparently gives off a shitload of false positives. Present a judge with what turned out to be tea leaves that tested positive for THC and the judge isn't likely to ask too many questions about exactly what testing method was used and what the reliability of that method is, right?

Because "science"...and it's not until after they've done a SWAT raid that they figure out "Oops!"

Of course, even more sophisticated tests done at the lab may not be as reliable as we'd like...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachusetts-lab-tech-arrested-for-alleged-improper-handling-of-drug-tests/

[BehindBlueI's]

Like many things, the police rarely see the responsible folks. We don't see the guy like my dad who used to come home from work and drink exactly one beer with dinner. We don't see the guy who smokes a joint like many of us smoke a cigar....simply as a means to relax at home a couple times a month.

Yup. The availability heuristic, what we can call to mind in memory most easily is what we believe is the most prevalent. That's why I mentioned working construction. On a non-union gig with over 20 workers, 3 of us didn't smoke dope. Hell, the boss PAID in cash or weed as you liked. Only one guy on the crew used hard drugs, he was the owner's brother, and a lot of the guys had families, kids, took care of aged parents, etc. They weren't thieves, thugs, or whores, just regular working guys who preferred weed to booze. Growing up in a very poor rural area, petty crime like dope was pretty rampant. I just took the booze route.

[BWT]

The best outcome I've seen in situations with controlled substances is nothing bad happened. Someone didn't get in a car or someone didn't cause some sort of drama.

I've genuinely never felt in my life that alcohol or drugs have improved anything. My brother's a month and a half sober. My dad met my step Mom in AA and I have a laundry list of relatives that's lives have not either met their potential or have been seriously been inhibited by exposure to controlled substances (one was raped at a party after either being drugged or being passed out drunk). Every single one of our lives in my family that didn't use narcotics/alcohol was directly affected by the decisions of those that did.

Heck, I saw a woman struck and killed on a moped by a drunk driver.

Do I think our current system isn't working? Maybe it is. It's all we've ever known in our lifetimes (taking some liberties with the age demographic here). So we can't say it's not because in my opinion; we don't really know.

I just don't think giving someone access to some of the world's most powerful substances (opiates such as heroine/morphine or things like meth or cocaine based drugs) when only 10% of people that participate in Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous can get and remain sober (keep in mind that's people that are in a support group about getting sober which a small percentage of people do).

I sat there with a co-worker in her sixties and talked to her about her son who just finished his Master's Degree in counseling for substance abuse (I think he was either Summa Cum or Magna Cum Laude), and we talked about how he had one guy tell him (that was in AA) he could handle having a drink again; he was mature. Guess where he is now? Last I heard his wife had put a restraining order on him, she was getting back with her old boy friend while the divorce paperwork was going through, and this guy who had just finished piecing his life back together and graduating school was in a half-way house and no one in the family will talk to him because he's manipulative after selling most of the personal effects he had.

My co-worker can't speak to him because he'll beg for money but he won't get clean; he knows what to do and he knows what it takes. She's confined it to just praying for him and being there when he's clean again.

Can I seriously look anyone in the face and tell them "Yeah, you can handle it"? No, I really can't because frankly I care about those people. Because what I've found about the people that can't handle substances is by the time a person finds out they can't control it, if they're lucky; it's cost them something. If they're not so lucky; it's cost them just about everything and perhaps everything (reference drunk driver above).

I've offered anecdotes, but I think the increased availability of narcotics isn't going to do us any favors as a nation.

I think proper parenting and advising kids would be great but reality is we need that and to try to contain the problem with drug abuse at this point.

That's my take on it.

God Bless,

Brandon

ETA: My experiences aren't isolated; I bet if you ask anyone here they either know someone or know of someone who's had similar experiences.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Yup. The availability heuristic, what we can call to mind in memory most easily is what we believe is the most prevalent. That's why I mentioned working construction. On a non-union gig with over 20 workers, 3 of us didn't smoke dope. Hell, the boss PAID in cash or weed as you liked. Only one guy on the crew used hard drugs, he was the owner's brother, and a lot of the guys had families, kids, took care of aged parents, etc. They weren't thieves, thugs, or whores, just regular working guys who preferred weed to booze. Growing up in a very poor rural area, petty crime like dope was pretty rampant. I just took the booze route.

That's my experience as well, both working construction and later on commercial telecom projects. I know a bunch of guys who do commercial network troubleshooting for major industries that probably smoke up near daily after work; some of them were the guys I used to contact when I couldn't figure out a problem doing that stuff, and I'm pretty good at that job myself. One of them in particular was unusually good at programming phone systems purely from memory; he'd pick up a handset and program a lot of the PBX systems about as fast as I type (70 wpm).

I never got into any drugs at all myself, but playing in rock bands I've seen plenty of guys who hold down regular jobs, even pretty high-paying ones, and have moderately demanding hobbies, while smoking marijuana at least a couple of times a week. Hell, the drummer in my last band cracked six figures handily while smoking up every weekend, minimum (and I suspect much more). He's cut back a lot or maybe entirely, last I heard, but then he's also in a less stressful job now.

And our bassist was the same, and he makes about what I do and the lead guitarist (a red seal welder and fabricator) does. Meanwhile his wife runs her own business, and they've got two kids who are fine, and he's a regular competitor in local fishing derbies and her dad's a cop on the verge of retirement, and everybody's doing just fine.

I mean maybe I just live in a dream world here in the socialist republic of People's Canada, but locally I really do not see a strong correlation between use of marijuana and being a total fuckup. The main thing that prevents me from taking an interest is simply not needing another vice to interfere with me accomplishing things in my spare time.

[Nephrology]

Quite true. Even when I worked narcotics the THC levels were significantly higher than the perception was from then ten to twenty years before. Anecdotally, a friend's wife worked as an oncology nurse. She was adamant that they saw odd cancers attributed to chronic marijuana use (no pun intended). Have not paid attention to whether or not anyone is researching that.


I can tell you that there is very little evidence to suggest it is driving cancer in the vast majority of users. They did a very large study a few years back on heavy pot smokers in the LA area and found essentially no link to cancer of any kind. Of course this research is very much still ongoing, and I would never say there are 0 negative health consequences to using pot, but as far as drugs go it is pretty damn close to harmless, especially if you choose a route of ingestion besides smoking (like eating the pot foods that are now legal for sale in CO).


That's not consistent with what I've heard from users, who have said that the high with more potent marijuana is much more intense and lasts much longer.

Here's an article I found talking about that talks about what high-THC level marijuana does to the brain:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/11/28/does-high-potency-marijuana-damage-the-brain/


Likewise, I can tell you that there is very little solid evidence conclusively linking THC to long-term neurological impairment. The research that is out there (like the article that you linked) is sketchy and shouldn't be taken as gospel. That doesn't mean it does not, but the research that has been done bas been controversial and of mixed quality. We will have to wait and see what comes from the CO experiment.

For whatever it's worth, I know several older physicians who are now strong advocates for the use of cannabis in a medical context - usually to relieve suffering in those who are chronically ill with cancer or something similar. These are not "pill mill" docs but highly respected physicians who work at the best hospital in the state of Colorado. Just a data point.



Legal crack? Legal Heroin? Legal meth? These are powerful narcotics. Not tobacco, not alcohol.

I take issue with this. Alcohol is an extremely powerful narcotic in the right doses. In addition to all of the social ills that we are familiar with (drunk driving, violence, addiction, etc), the abuse of alcohol can and will lead to multiple end stage organ failure (liver, pancreas, kidneys, among others) that will eventually kill alcoholics whose drinking has gotten out of control.

In my first ever shift in the ER we had a patient come in who could not walk because his alcohol abuse had caused such an extreme electrolytic imbalance that the muscles of his legs simply could not function. In contrast, the most serious of heroin abusers will have relatively few physiological side effects from their dope outside of constipation, assuming they have clean needles and good dope (most do not). Not to say heroin should be legal, but to say alcohol isn't a potent narcotic is just plain wrong.

[Hambo]

Written by Balko?

Yeah, I'm sure that article is very accurate and fair reporting at its finest...

The article didn't make sense until I got down to the byline. :rolleyes: If gardening purchases or gardening in general were the impetus for warrants, the raid on my wife and I would have made CNN. She buys garden stuff like I buy ammo.

[45dotACP]

I'd like to see some research on the long term effects of marijuana use...my thought is that it's associated with a decline in mental faculties, but I'm curious about specific end organ damage (lungs, liver, kidney, brain etc...).

As far as legal/criminal/smart, I've got no clue. There are a lot of overdoses that'll kill you...anything in sufficient quantity is toxic, but I've not been a nurse very long and I've seen people very nearly drop dead from alcohol withdrawal. I have seen people actually dead from DUI. Alcohol is legal so what the hell?

I'm also confused that Marijuana a schedule 1 substance. I think at the least, it should be re-thought, as I've seen anecdotal cases (seizures mostly) where marijuana has reduced the number from hundreds daily. The component causing altered mental status is removed, but legally it's still marijuana. I'd be interested in this research as well.

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[Dagga Boy]

Did anyone address why not make all drugs available over the counter? Why should I need a prescription to buy drugs? If the public can be trusted with Marijuana and Alcohol (which many folks are using to medicate rather than socially), why the heck should I need a prescription for my blood pressure medication, thyroid meds, or why should I be limited to marijuana......what if I wanted to self prescribe Prozac? Wouldn't this be much better?

[BehindBlueI's]

Did anyone address why not make all drugs available over the counter? Why should I need a prescription to buy drugs? If the public can be trusted with Marijuana and Alcohol (which many folks are using to medicate rather than socially), why the heck should I need a prescription for my blood pressure medication, thyroid meds, or why should I be limited to marijuana......what if I wanted to self prescribe Prozac? Wouldn't this be much better?

When I worked in Doha, it was fairly close to that. Pharmacists could prescribe meds OTC that require a doctor visit here. If you wanted to use steroids just to bulk up, no problem. A reputable pharmacist would prescribe it in reasonable doses for you. Allergy meds? You could test right in the pharmacy and get a script. Birth control? Answer the questions about other drugs that might cause interactions and no doctor visit needed. Their were a lot of advantages in terms of cost and ease of access, as well as not tying up doctors for things doctors don't really need to be tied up for. I can't say I saw a lot of steroid use (other than some American contractors) and going to a real pharmacist instead of a bro-doc in the locker room surely had to be safer.

My wife was a pharmacist there and the only things she couldn't proscribe were psych meds, pain killers, and antibiotics. Antibiotics was a recent change due (at the time) due to concerns of antibiotic resistant diseases.

As far as self prescribing pysch meds...given the power of drug companies and drug reps I would suppose the "ask your doctor" marketing has pretty much gotten us there anyway. You're just cutting out a middle man.

[JodyH]

Same way in Juarez.
Oh, they make you pretend to see the Doctor (who just happens to have an examination room inside the Pharmacy) but in reality it's just another $20 fee you pay to get whatever meds you want from Viagra to Oxy.
And even if the Dr. isn't in, his "assistant" will write you a script and take your examination fee.
As jacked up as Mexico is, the pretty much unlimited access to prescription meds doesn't seem to add to the chaos.

[Dagga Boy]

When I worked in Doha, it was fairly close to that. Pharmacists could prescribe meds OTC that require a doctor visit here. If you wanted to use steroids just to bulk up, no problem. A reputable pharmacist would prescribe it in reasonable doses for you. Allergy meds? You could test right in the pharmacy and get a script. Birth control? Answer the questions about other drugs that might cause interactions and no doctor visit needed. Their were a lot of advantages in terms of cost and ease of access, as well as not tying up doctors for things doctors don't really need to be tied up for. I can't say I saw a lot of steroid use (other than some American contractors) and going to a real pharmacist instead of a bro-doc in the locker room surely had to be safer.

My wife was a pharmacist there and the only things she couldn't proscribe were psych meds, pain killers, and antibiotics. Antibiotics was a recent change due (at the time) due to concerns of antibiotic resistant diseases.

As far as self prescribing pysch meds...given the power of drug companies and drug reps I would suppose the "ask your doctor" marketing has pretty much gotten us there anyway. You're just cutting out a middle man.

Wait....why is it up to a pharmacist on prescribing a "reasonable" amount. Who the hell do they think they are to deny whatever folks want to do. No pain meds....WTF? The greatest thing EVER made for cops and firemen is OxyContin. Why should I need to talk to anyone about it? I know it makes me a much happier person and the one time in the last two decades I was pain free in my body (outside of the shoulder I had surgery on) was the packs of Oxy I was on (did not use the third because addiction was easily a possibility....it was wonderful stuff). Why is it anyone's business if I want to take Prozac? Don't I have a right like Booze or Marijuana to take whatever I want to feel better about life in the true Libertarian utopia? If folks are fighting for legalization of MJ, Cocaine Meth and heroin! then screw it, I want a choice in that as well. I have no interest in anything like that. I want Oxy! That would make my life better, no matter what the cost or detriment to anyone else, as long as I want it and think I can be responsible. I am sure that is a formula that works.

[SLG]

I think Nyeti makes some good points there. If illegal drugs are now legal and readily available, why not all the rest?

[TCinVA]

I think Nyeti makes some good points there. If illegal drugs are now legal and readily available, why not all the rest?

That's an interesting question.

On the one hand, it would free up some docs who spend an absurd amount of their time dealing with pill seekers. One of my relatives was on Demarol for the better part of twenty years for no good reason.

On the other, I'm sure a number of people would kill themselves in short order because they think a google search and a pill is all they really need...but these people are doomed anyway and at best the docs are just slowing the process.

On the antibiotic front, a lot of the prescription antibiotics can be had with no prescription whatsoever. A good many of them are manufactured as pet medications, too. If you don't want to do that you can order them from various online outfits...along with just about anything else you can get by prescription only here in the states. I think those online outlets may draw a line on the more popular stuff like Oxy and methodone, but I don't know.

[Wondering Beard]

I think Nyeti makes some good points there. If illegal drugs are now legal and readily available, why not all the rest?

That's a perfectly valid question and while I believe that Nyeti is using reductio ad absurdum to make a point (though I could be wrong), there is some validity to taking him literally. I don't have an answer but it just goes to show that we do need to be thinking about this beyond our reflexive reactions.

[Wondering Beard]

Wait....why is it up to a pharmacist on prescribing a "reasonable" amount.

Because there aren't enough opportunities for graft otherwise. ;-)

[Nephrology]

That's an interesting question.

On the one hand, it would free up some docs who spend an absurd amount of their time dealing with pill seekers. One of my relatives was on Demarol for the better part of twenty years for no good reason.

On the other, I'm sure a number of people would kill themselves in short order because they think a google search and a pill is all they really need...but these people are doomed anyway and at best the docs are just slowing the process.

On the antibiotic front, a lot of the prescription antibiotics can be had with no prescription whatsoever. A good many of them are manufactured as pet medications, too. If you don't want to do that you can order them from various online outfits...along with just about anything else you can get by prescription only here in the states. I think those online outlets may draw a line on the more popular stuff like Oxy and methodone, but I don't know.

Antibiotics (ABx) should remain Rx only because of the very serious and very real impending crisis of antibiotic resistant bacterial infections. Methicillin resisitant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a common one, but the rampant use of antibiotics in both humans and farm animals has pushed bacteria to rapidly evolve countermeasures that make them next to useless in protected strains of the bugs. Because pharmaceutical industries don't find much profit in the development of ABx, very few truly novel ABx exist and even fewer are in the pipeline. We are not far off from reaching (or returning to) an age in which people start dying of bacterial infections that for now are readily treatable. Keeping them Rx only and having physicians gateway their use is the only way to effectively combat this problem, IMO.

As for the other drugs, well, it's a good point. It's not just Mexico where some opiate narcotics are OTC. In France and much of western europe, codeine cough syrup is OTC. Also, quite frankly, there are some Rx drugs that truly shouldn't be Rx only (Zofran (ondansetron) jumps to mind) and there are some OTC drugs that can be extremely dangerous if taken in excess (tylenol being one for sure). It's also worth reminding people that cocaine and heroin were both OTC less than a century ago.

That said we can go on this merry go round absurdum (why not make caffeine/alcohol/tobacco Rx only?) At the end of the day we have to draw a line somewhere.

[Dagga Boy]

So wait, if we gave people access to simple antibiotics, they may not use them responsibly....weird.

Big picture because I am the way I am....yea, make it ALL over the counter, and cheap. We could use a good Darwinian wash. I would also get rid of the whole rehab industry as an insurance thing.....get yourself hooked because of rights, get un hooked on your own. Only drug I would want banned once we make EVERYTHING legal is narcan.

Opposing view....make it all RX, and with some real doctor stuff, or none of it. We have as much of a prescription pill black market as anything else...ideally, some classifying some things together with a balance of freedom of choice and responsible adults, with the reality that lots of folks use their freedoms irresponsibly with massive effect on other folks rights and freedoms. I am good with out of the box thinking. I like the idea of Colorado being an experiment. That is what states rights are for. Equally, I would like places to have the same right to try things like legal suppressors, and some other things like educational reforms outside the permission of Uncle Sam.

[Nephrology]

So wait, if we gave people access to simple antibiotics, they may not use them responsibly....weird.

Big picture because I am the way I am....yea, make it ALL over the counter, and cheap. We could use a good Darwinian wash. I would also get rid of the whole rehab industry as an insurance thing.....get yourself hooked because of rights, get un hooked on your own. Only drug I would want banned once we make EVERYTHING legal is narcan.

Opposing view....make it all RX, and with some real doctor stuff, or none of it. We have as much of a prescription pill black market as anything else...ideally, some classifying some things together with a balance of freedom of choice and responsible adults, with the reality that lots of folks use their freedoms irresponsibly with massive effect on other folks rights and freedoms. I am good with out of the box thinking. I like the idea of Colorado being an experiment. That is what states rights are for. Equally, I would like places to have the same right to try things like legal suppressors, and some other things like educational reforms outside the permission of Uncle Sam.

Well, re: ABx, it is a very different problem. This isn't a case in which individual abuse causes personal consequences or incidental but limited public consequences (i.e. drinking/drunk driving). This is a "problem of the commons," where individual abuse has virtually 0 personal consequences but potentially catastrophic public consequences. Like overfishing of a lake, as a simple analogy.

Here is a good article that is germane to this discussion - how DEA practices are making life difficult for chronically ill patients prescribed opiate narcotics for pain control.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/12/dea-crackdown-on-pain-meds.html

[BehindBlueI's]

I think Nyeti makes some good points there. If illegal drugs are now legal and readily available, why not all the rest?

Given the amount of prescription drug abuse, I've no idea. We see a lot of pharmacy robberies. If I was going to run a dope ring, I'd do Oxy and the like. Logistics are way simpler. The drug stores don't fight back, there's no shady connection in a sketchy neighborhood, and cost of acquisition is really low (assuming you don't get caught....). QC is excellent, pills are easily partitioned, seems way simpler than heroin, meth, etc.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/07/22/indiana-hiv-outbreak-has-peaked-officials-say/30524621/

For pretty much everyone here who doesn't know where Austin, Indiana is, it's a tiny little shit hole of a town that straddles I-65 about 35 miles north of Louisville, Ky. The two major industries are dope and whores. In a town of roughly 3,000 people there have been 175 HIV infections in the last year or so due to needle use and whore use. Opana is the main drug being used since Oxy is harder to get. Granny gets an Opana prescription and parcels it out to the young'uns to sell or use. If the local culture permits it, laws aren't going to have any effect on stopping it. It simply drives it underground.

As far as antibiotics, I would say the easy answer there is because of the danger of drug resistant infections, which could be devastating. As you're probably aware, this didn't stem from recreational use. It stemmed from overprescribing by doctors who were basically using them as placebos because patients expected SOMETHING be done about their viral infection...and what's the harm? Then we found out what the harm was and the medical community responded.

[45dotACP]

That's an interesting question.

On the one hand, it would free up some docs who spend an absurd amount of their time dealing with pill seekers. One of my relatives was on Demarol for the better part of twenty years for no good reason.

On the other, I'm sure a number of people would kill themselves in short order because they think a google search and a pill is all they really need...but these people are doomed anyway and at best the docs are just slowing the process.

On the antibiotic front, a lot of the prescription antibiotics can be had with no prescription whatsoever. A good many of them are manufactured as pet medications, too. If you don't want to do that you can order them from various online outfits...along with just about anything else you can get by prescription only here in the states. I think those online outlets may draw a line on the more popular stuff like Oxy and methodone, but I don't know.

NO

Those people would not kill themselves because of a lack of common sense. They'd kill themselves because a weak pharmacology knowledge base is fairly normal for most people.

Most people don't own a 12 lead ECG and aren't aware that some antidepressants and other various medications (there's quite a list) can prolong the QT interval, increasing the chance an errant beat hits you right on the T wave and stops your heart. Right there, you die. Most people don't know that ACE inhibitors (common blood pressure medications) can progress from a slight cough, to suffocating to death from angioedema in some people. Most people aren't aware that Prozac and other SSRI's, if not dosed correctly can lead to a Serotonin Syndrome...a fatal imbalance of same neurotransmitter. Most people are not aware that not correctly dosing Synthroid can lead to thyroid storm...also fatal. Do most people have the ability and wherewithal to check their BUN/Creatinine or LFT's? Then why would you give them aminoglycoside type antibiotics which will turn their kidneys into hardened little balls of scar tissue? Even if they were aware that the ringing in their ears that whole time was indicating that their kidneys were failing? I could literally do this all day long but for the sake of brevity I'll slow it down some and address the biggest hole in this theory.

Most people aren't aware that if Pharmaceutical grade antibiotics were available to the public, there is a significant jump in the risk of MDRO infections...most concerning to me is Multiple Drug Resistant TB because of how lethal and infectious it could be. To say nothing of the chances that the cost of treating such cases of what I'd call "Knowledge Deficit" will significantly increase strain on the healthcare system, possibly collapsing it, possibly not. I'm not usually the one to go all doomsday, but we're about due for another Spanish Flu...it won't be ebola, but do we really want to tempt fate by sending TB to the gym to buff up and learn how to MUC with Rifampin and Isoniazid? Also, I work with isolation patients regularly. TB patients require the works: Negative pressure, specially fitted masks...that stuff spreads like a wildfire and if infected, in some cases, you can be compelled by government to take your medications because as a TB patient, you are a risk to the public.

Social Darwinism is one thing: I'm all for removing warning labels and letting idiots win idiotic prizes.

But seriously: Fuck no

And please for God's sake, don't take your Dog's Gentamicin ;)

[voodoo_man]

Plus 1 for pill use being way more profitable and more prevalent than hard drug use.

I see way more pill abuse than others, especially in the last few years its gotten pretty rampant.

[RoyGBiv]

Social Darwinism is one thing: I'm all for removing warning labels and letting idiots win idiotic prizes.

But seriously: Fuck [I]no
Why do we need to save stupid people from doing stupid things?
Yes... drunk/drugged driving should be illegal because it kills innocent people.... but.. why does government need to stop me from killing myself or wasting my life with opiates? If I'm too stupid to know that abusing oxy is bad for me, well, tough shit on me. The world will be better off without me. Another win for Darwin. Why does there need to be government intervention to save me from myself?

The whole mindset of asking government to legislate fixes social problems has to change. I don't think it ever will. Not in my lifetime.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[SLG]

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/opinion/actually-prohibition-was-a-success.html

Interesting article.

[Dagga Boy]

For anyone interested in how bad the cocaine world is, I highly suggest reading Zero,Zero,Zero by Roberto Saviano. He has been in living on a military base with ten cops for years because of his last book about organized crime in Naples. I bodyguarded him in the U.S. His work is very well detailed and researched. It is a lost level of journalism.

[Nephrology]

I have a question for LEOs - do you ever see abuse of Rx stimulants like adderall, dexedrine, etc? Or is it purely Rx opiates?

Also first time I've heard of widespread Opana abuse. Haven't seen it prescribed much. Oxy flows like water, though. That said working in the ED I only see it given out to people who truly need it. The vast majority of the pain meds that we prescribe go through an IV.

[pablo]

Snorting Ritalin and Adderall has waned in popularity around here, but I run across it on a somewhat regular basis. IME, CNS deppressants like xanax are second to narcotic pain killers.

It amazes me out how passionate people get about the violence and brutality of ISIS, and have ignored the atrocities of the narcotic trafficking organizations in Mexico. Anything that ISIS has done, has been done ten times over by the cartels. Beheadings, torture, dismemberment, rape, bombs, etc, etc. It's largely ignored by the media because it would undermine their pro-drug and pro-immigration stance.

[BehindBlueI's]

I have a question for LEOs - do you ever see abuse of Rx stimulants like adderall, dexedrine, etc? Or is it purely Rx opiates?

Also first time I've heard of widespread Opana abuse. Haven't seen it prescribed much. Oxy flows like water, though. That said working in the ED I only see it given out to people who truly need it. The vast majority of the pain meds that we prescribe go through an IV.

I wouldn't even know what to look for to be honest. For the Opana, I think it was regional specific because the Oxy abuse got so bad doctors were under a microscope if they prescribed much of it. So, they simply moved to Opana. Heroin seems to be the most common OD drug by a long shot locally.

[secondstoryguy]

As much as I am for legalization I tend to think that Marijuana has subtle qualities that make it much more eroding to society than the more time proven alcohol. Over the eons humans have experimented with many different mind altering chemicals including marijuana and alcohol has always come to the forefront as a happy-medium of sorts. Does alcohol present problems...oh hell yea. But any layman can detect it, it's metabolized out at a very regular rate, and it actually has some proven health benefits. Many humans need a chemical escape of sorts and time has proven alcohol to be a good one.

One of the major issues I have with pot is a large percentage of habitual users tend not to consider it as a serious drug. The same person who wouldn't take a couple of shots of booze before operating heavy equipment around coworkers would have no problem taking a couple of hits of pot before work to "even out". I also tire of all the marijuana wonder-cures stating that marijuana will cure cancer, asthma and every other human ailment...

[Nephrology]

I also tire of all the marijuana wonder-cures stating that marijuana will cure cancer, asthma and every other human ailment...

Those are overstated but somewhat real. I don't think THC/marijuana has any well demonstrated effects against cancer, but it is known to be a good painkiller. In fact, here in CO the pot shops sell these creams that contain high amounts of cannabinoids (CBD), another class of chemicals in marijuana. These creams when applied locally to joint pain, etc, are supposedly very good at alleviating inflammation and pain but do not cause the user to get stoned. I haven't tried them myself but I am certainly curious.


Snorting Ritalin and Adderall has waned in popularity around here, but I run across it on a somewhat regular basis. IME, CNS deppressants like xanax are second to narcotic pain killers.

It amazes me out how passionate people get about the violence and brutality of ISIS, and have ignored the atrocities of the narcotic trafficking organizations in Mexico. Anything that ISIS has done, has been done ten times over by the cartels. Beheadings, torture, dismemberment, rape, bombs, etc, etc. It's largely ignored by the media because it would undermine their pro-drug and pro-immigration stance.


Yeah, the stuff that the cartels do is awful and they certainly are not far off from ISIS in their brutality. I have no idea why it isnt a higher priority for our country given that it is happening next door and not 8,000 miles away...

Definitely see a lot of benzodiazapine abuse out here too. They are extremely addictive and withdrawal can be fatal. Scary drugs. Glad they are not prescribed chronically nearly as often as they once were.


I wouldn't even know what to look for to be honest. For the Opana, I think it was regional specific because the Oxy abuse got so bad doctors were under a microscope if they prescribed much of it. So, they simply moved to Opana. Heroin seems to be the most common OD drug by a long shot locally.

The drugs of abuse I'd expect to see with Rx stimulants would be Dexedrine (dextroamphetamine), Adderall (levoamphetamine), Ritalin/Concerta (methylphenidate), Vyvanse (lisdexamfetamine), Provigil (modafinil). These are all commonly prescribed for learning disorders like ADD/ADHD but have stimulant effects that are similar to methamphetamine, especially at higher doses. Modafinil is a little different but I could being abused similarly.

As for heroin ODs, it might be helpful to know that heroin overdoses are rarely caused by heroin alone (or more accurately, 'pure' heroin). Most of the time, fatal or otherwise catastrophic heroin ODs occur in the setting of either intentional polydrug abuse or heroin that has been adulterated with other narcotic contaminants like fentanyl or Rx opiates/benzos. Fentanyl is especially dangerous because it is many many times more potent than any other opiate by mass. Dealers will often take transdermal fentanyl pain patches and scrape the gel off and dump it into their junk to increase its potency without realizing that they can easily kill their customers by doing so.

[pablo]

The drugs of abuse I'd expect to see with Rx stimulants would be Dexedrine (dextroamphetamine), Adderall (levoamphetamine), Ritalin/Concerta (methylphenidate), Vyvanse (lisdexamfetamine), Provigil (modafinil). These are all commonly prescribed for learning disorders like ADD/ADHD but have stimulant effects that are similar to methamphetamine, especially at higher doses. Modafinil is a little different but I could being abused similarly.

Apparently tolerance is built up fairly quickly to those types of amphetamines, and probably explains why abuse is rather limited.

[LittleLebowski]

It amazes me out how passionate people get about the violence and brutality of ISIS, and have ignored the atrocities of the narcotic trafficking organizations in Mexico. Anything that ISIS has done, has been done ten times over by the cartels. Beheadings, torture, dismemberment, rape, bombs, etc, etc. It's largely ignored by the media because it would undermine their pro-drug and pro-immigration stance.

Excellent point.

[RoyGBiv]

It amazes me out how passionate people get about the violence and brutality of ISIS, and have ignored the atrocities of the narcotic trafficking organizations in Mexico. Anything that ISIS has done, has been done ten times over by the cartels. Beheadings, torture, dismemberment, rape, bombs, etc, etc. It's largely ignored by the media because it would undermine their pro-drug and pro-immigration stance.

Mexican cartels aren't blowing up innocent Americans having an office Christmas party, or innocent Parisians out listening to live music.

[TC215]

Mexican cartels aren't blowing up innocent Americans having an office Christmas party, or innocent Parisians out listening to live music.

Yeah, they're actually a bunch of pretty good guys.


U.S. authorities are reporting a spike in killings, kidnappings and home invasions connected to Mexico's cartels, and at least 19 Americans were killed in 2008. Another 92 Americans were killed between June 2009 and June 2010.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/08/12/mexican-drug-cartel-violence-spreading-to-rural-us-as-police-crackdown-in-major/

[GardoneVT]

Mexican cartels aren't blowing up innocent Americans having an office Christmas party, or innocent Parisians out listening to live music.

ISIS are a bunch of radicals ten thousand miles away. The Cartels share our continental landmass and are entrenched in the American social , political, and economic landscape .

Yeah, ISIS is totally a bigger threat to our national survival.

[11B10]

ISIS are a bunch of radicals ten thousand miles away. The Cartels share our continental landmass and are entrenched in the American social , political, and economic landscape .

Yeah, ISIS is totally a bigger threat to our national survival.



I thought Roy was being sarcastic? His point was inline with pablo's.

[RoyGBiv]

I thought Roy was being sarcastic? His point was inline with pablo's.

Actually, I wasn't... but I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt. :o

Let me 'splain... The question was why is ISIS different from the drug cartels... My reply was about "perception"...

Joe the Plumber hears Mexican Cartels and thinks... "Crime".
His pretty white boy neighbor might try to rape his daughter or sell his son crack, just like the cartels. Toss them in jail. Cartel = Crime.

But to Joe, ISIS plots mass murder at random locations.... Coming soon to a theater near Joe... "Terror".

Hence the different coverage in the media.

Please note that I am not Joe, nor do I have the same beliefs as Joe. Just trying to reply to the question asked. Tough to type all this on my phone, so, you got the one liner the first time.

Peace.

[BehindBlueI's]

The drugs of abuse I'd expect to see with Rx stimulants would be Dexedrine (dextroamphetamine), Adderall (levoamphetamine), Ritalin/Concerta (methylphenidate), Vyvanse (lisdexamfetamine), Provigil (modafinil). These are all commonly prescribed for learning disorders like ADD/ADHD but have stimulant effects that are similar to methamphetamine, especially at higher doses. Modafinil is a little different but I could being abused similarly.

Yeah...but I have no idea what to look for as far as how it affects behavior, physical clues, etc. I know what a drunk looks and acts like. I know what someone who's stoned looks and acts like. I have no idea how someone abusing Adderall would present. I could have dealth with zero or a thousand and had no idea.

[Nephrology]

Yeah...but I have no idea what to look for as far as how it affects behavior, physical clues, etc. I know what a drunk looks and acts like. I know what someone who's stoned looks and acts like. I have no idea how someone abusing Adderall would present. I could have dealth with zero or a thousand and had no idea.

Serious abuse would look like meth, but as someone mentioned earlier it's possible they aren't really in favor because they are sort of chump change compared to the real deal. They would be twitchy, irritable, sleep deprived, maybe some weight loss, etc. Actually, as a side note, methamphetamine was (and maybe still is) sold as an Rx under the trade name Desoxyn.

Honestly you'd probably see it more in middle to upper class people, especially college kids, as those prescriptions are often obtained by college kids looking for an edge in school. I guess I'd be a little surprised if it was as popular as meth given that that stuff is so cheap to begin with.