War on Drugs: A danger to the public and police alike

Publius · 08-01-2007, 01:09 PM

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

The map in the link above shows 296 incidents of botched police raids in relation to the U.S. government's drug war, which resulted in one or more of the following:

1) death of an innocent
2) death or injury of a police officer
3) death of a nonviolent offender
4) raid on an innocent suspect
5) other examples of paramilitary police excess
6) unnecessary raids on doctors and/or sick people

In total 22 cases involved the death or injury of at least one officer, and 41 involved the death of an innocent person. In total that's 63 of 296 cases, more than 21%, that involved casualties. If you include other non-"botched" raids I'm sure that the casualty figure, for both police and suspect, rises significantly.

Further, several of the cases on that list show that the police have willingly engaged in raids that endanger completely innocent children, which is unacceptable whether the suspect ends up being guilty or innocent. For example:

In July 2005, a Sarasota, Florida SWAT team conducts a drug raid on a home where several children are playing in the front yard.

The SWAT team descends from a van, deploys flashbang grenades, then swarms the home. 44-year-old Michael Meluzzi, who had a criminal record, begins to flee as he sees the armed agents exit the van. Police chase Meluzzi down and fire a Taser gun at him, partially hitting him.

According to Officer Alan Devaney, Meluzzi then reached into his waistband, leading Devaney to believe he was armed. Devaney opened fire, killing Meluzzi.

Police would find no weapon on or near Meluzzi's body.

and:

38 medical marijuana patients file simultaneous lawsuits against state law enforcement agencies in California for seizing marijuana from their homes in violation of state law.

One petitioner is Lisa Swartz, who was raided at gunpoint. Swartz tells the online magazine Alternet: "They came with a narc SWAT team, pointing semi-automatic weapons at my grandkids' heads...I used to believe the police were there to protect and defend us. It is just so bizarre that they do this to people."

Swarz would spend 18 months and $50,000 defending herself before authorities dropped the charges. "They never apologized and they never gave me my medicine back," she says.

How many people have to die, and how many police officers and innocent children must be needlessly put in the line of fire, before this war against our own people is given up? Drugs remain easily accessible in the United States, so all of those people that have died or been injured, police and suspect and innocent, were completely ineffectual casualties.

The War on Drugs is a failure, and costs massive amounts of money and a huge number of lives. Why continue it?

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 01:11 PM

Hmmm. This is a repost and was pretty much torn apart on the last thread. I don't remember if it was here or DIACF.

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 01:17 PM

Here is one. I know we had another because I remember posting in it.

Hey Now, interviewing someone from CATO in a few hours

Publius · 08-01-2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Here is one. I know we had another because I remember posting in it.

Hey Now, interviewing someone from CATO in a few hours

The information is up to date through the end of '06 in the link I posted, and that thread is really only tangentially related to this topic.

Scrum · 08-01-2007, 01:23 PM

They should legalize all drugs right now. I can't really see a downside to doing it.

Publius · 08-01-2007, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

They should legalize all drugs right now. I can't really see a downside to doing it.

I'm not sure if this post is sarcastic or not.

With the current "driving under the influence" laws remaining in place in much the same way as the "driving while intoxicated" laws, I really see no reason for the government to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body.

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 01:33 PM

Looking at the Death of innocent chart. It looks like 5 deaths in the last 5 years. 1 was pointing a weapon at officers when they entered. 1 shot at officers when they entered. 1 was a criminal and was running away. When tazed he reached into his wasteband and they thought he was reaching for a weapon. 1 had a heart attack from the flash bang. And one was "accidentally" shot when an officer tripped while running.

While these are all bad and it's obvious more care needs to be taken. 5 deaths in 5 years out of probably thousands and thousands of raids a year isn't looking too storm trooperish to me.

As long as drugs are illegal police need to take action. Illegal drug use has been going down for the past 10 years. Let's keep it that way.

Scrum · 08-01-2007, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I'm not sure if this post is sarcastic or not.

Not sarcastic at all.

Originally Posted by Publius

With the current "driving under the influence" laws remaining in place in much the same way as the "driving while intoxicated" laws, I really see no reason for the government to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body.

Agreed.

Punish the crackhead for breaking into cars for feeding his addiction. Spending millions on trying to keep the crack out of his hands is obviously not working.

If people want to do drugs they will. Legal or not. Prohibition is idiotic. It only drives buyers and sellers underground and puts more people in danger.

Publius · 08-01-2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Looking at the Death of innocent chart. It looks like 5 deaths in the last 5 years. 1 was pointing a weapon at officers when they entered. 1 shot at officers when they entered. 1 was a criminal and was running away. When tazed he reached into his wasteband and they thought he was reaching for a weapon. 1 had a heart attack from the flash bang. And one was "accidentally" shot when an officer tripped while running.

The term innocent is here meant as innocent of the drug charges they were being raided for. The point is that if these people weren't being mistakenly targeted for a police raid, they'd never have been killed by the police because they'd never have been in the situation.

On the one hand, I question any police officer that claims a gun was pointed at them upon entry when a raid is botched, it smacks of trying to cover their own ass. On the other hand, I can absolutely see why a person who has committed no crime would brandish a firearm when their home is busted into by people claiming to be police, ESPECIALLY since there have been numerous cases across the country of criminals masquerading as police officers in order to gain entry into a home.

While these are all bad and it's obvious more care needs to be taken. 5 deaths in 5 years out of probably thousands and thousands of raids a year isn't looking too storm trooperish to me.

I'm not saying it is "storm trooperish" ... all I'm saying is that these deaths were completely and utterly avoidable if only the police weren't being sent into homes of nonviolent drug users. I'm not blaming the police for going there, I'm blaming a system that sends them there. The only blame I give the police is the excessive use of SWAT in completely unnecessary circumstances.

ANY avoidable death as a result of unnecessary police action is unacceptable (whether it is a police officer or a civilian), in my eyes. When does it become too big a number for you? 50? 500? 5,000?

As long as drugs are illegal police need to take action. Illegal drug use has been going down for the past 10 years. Let's keep it that way.

I question the statistics that say illegal drug use is going down, because it seems every week I'm hearing about some new drug on the streets. I think the use probably isn't changing so much as the black markets and street dealers that sell them are becoming more sophisticated and harder to track.

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Not sarcastic at all.

Agreed.

Punish the crackhead for breaking into cars for feeding his addiction. Spending millions on trying to keep the crack out of his hands is obviously not working.

If people want to do drugs they will. Legal or not. Prohibition is idiotic. It only drives buyers and sellers underground and puts more people in danger.

Wrong. People steal and kill to get alcohol. It would only get worse if you make heroin, crack, etc legal. More people would get addicted because it's freely available. Ruin their lives because of their addiction and turn to crime to keep their addiction fed.

Fuck that. These things do not need to be legal. And never will be.

Publius · 08-01-2007, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wrong. People steal and kill to get alcohol. It would only get worse if you make heroin, crack, etc legal. More people would get addicted because it's freely available. Ruin their lives because of their addiction and turn to crime to keep their addiction fed.

Fuck that. These things do not need to be legal. And never will be.

The vast majority of drug users are not the "down and out" criminal addicts that are the stereotype. There are literally tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of drug users that live normal lives in addition to their drug use, and no one is even aware of their drug use. I suspect that the people that would steal and kill in order to get a drug when it is legal would be no more than would steal and kill to get it now, in fact it might be less because if the drug is legalized it will be much less dangerous to transport and thus likely to be far less expensive.

Further, a lot of these drugs are less addictive than your average every day nicotine-filled cigarette. Yet cigarettes are completely legal. What sense does that make?

WickedLou9 · 08-01-2007, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wrong. People steal and kill to get alcohol. It would only get worse if you make heroin, crack, etc legal. More people would get addicted because it's freely available. Ruin their lives because of their addiction and turn to crime to keep their addiction fed.

Fuck that. These things do not need to be legal. And never will be.

You make the assumption that the only reason people do not take drugs is because they are illegal. If we make them legal people, despite the vast public knowledge about thier effects, would forget that drugs can be bad for them and turn into meth heads and herion addicts. I just don't think that is the case.

Scrum · 08-01-2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wrong. People steal and kill to get alcohol. It would only get worse if you make heroin, crack, etc legal. More people would get addicted because it's freely available. Ruin their lives because of their addiction and turn to crime to keep their addiction fed.

Fuck that. These things do not need to be legal. And never will be.

People steal and kill to get all kinds of things. Money for instance. Should we make that illegal too?

Who are you to tell me what i'm allowed to put in my body if I choose to?

Scrum · 08-01-2007, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You make the assumption that the only reason people do not take drugs is because they are illegal. If we make them legal people, despite the vast public knowledge about thier effects, would forget that drugs can be bad for them and turn into meth heads and herion addicts. I just don't think that is the case.

Agreed.

Like people are all drug addicts and they just don't know it yet.

If someone wants to use drugs, they will. The laws don't stop them.

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

The vast majority of drug users are not the "down and out" criminal addicts that are the stereotype. There are literally tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of drug users that live normal lives in addition to their drug use, and no one is even aware of their drug use. I suspect that the people that would steal and kill in order to get a drug when it is legal would be no more than would steal and kill to get it now, in fact it might be less because if the drug is legalized it will be much less dangerous to transport and thus likely to be far less expensive.

Further, a lot of these drugs are less addictive than your average every day nicotine-filled cigarette. Yet cigarettes are completely legal. What sense does that make?

Pot is the only thing I could see and understand maybe being legal. To me it's not as bad as drinking. But then again, it's been a long time since I have smoked and i hear the new stuff is much, much more powerful then anything I used to smoke.

Cigarettes won't ruin a persons life after the first use like Heroin or Crack can. Trying to compare the two is just diversional and stupid.

Watch Intervention sometime and tell me that peoples lives being addicted to Heroin are just the same as peoples lives being addicted to nicotine.

If Heroin was legal you would get a HUGE number of people trying it that normally never would have. After that you would have countless more people addicted to it. Our health system would be inundated. Families lives would be ruined. There would be even more drug related crime.

But the drug companies would love it. They would be making a fortune because if it was legal the government would obviously not allow Jose down the end of the road to produce it. Government would get a lot of tax revenue from it which they will say is going to the health system of the US. Then they will be dependent on it, just like Tobacco taxes, and have to keep it legal no matter how unhealthy it is for our society.

But I'm rambling. As much as you would like, these drugs will never, ever be legal in the United States. So we are really just wasting our time.

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

People steal and kill to get all kinds of things. Money for instance. Should we make that illegal too?

Who are you to tell me what i'm allowed to put in my body if I choose to?

It's not just me. It's people who vote for the people who govern and make laws. A HUGE majority will always know that drugs are bad (mmmkay) for our society and will never vote for anyone that would want to put more drugs on the street then there already are.

Hate it for you though!

lew · 08-01-2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Pot is the only thing I could see and understand maybe being legal. To me it's not as bad as drinking. But then again, it's been a long time since I have smoked and i hear the new stuff is much, much more powerful then anything I used to smoke.

WickedLou9 · 08-01-2007, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Pot is the only thing I could see and understand maybe being legal. To me it's not as bad as drinking. But then again, it's been a long time since I have smoked and i hear the new stuff is much, much more powerful then anything I used to smoke.

Cigarettes won't ruin a persons life after the first use like Heroin or Crack can. Trying to compare the two is just diversional and stupid.

Watch Intervention sometime and tell me that peoples lives being addicted to Heroin are just the same as peoples lives being addicted to nicotine.

If Heroin was legal you would get a HUGE number of people trying it that normally never would have. After that you would have countless more people addicted to it. Our health system would be inundated. Families lives would be ruined. There would be even more drug related crime.

But the drug companies would love it. They would be making a fortune because if it was legal the government would obviously not allow Jose down the end of the road to produce it. Government would get a lot of tax revenue from it which they will say is going to the health system of the US. Then they will be dependent on it, just like Tobacco taxes, and have to keep it legal no matter how unhealthy it is for our society.

But I'm rambling. As much as you would like, these drugs will never, ever be legal in the United States. So we are really just wasting our time.

Perhaps there needs to be control not simply outlawing anything. I mean we control alcohol, we control ciggarattes to some extent.
Marijuana and other non-narcotic drugs like mushrooms and such don't need to be illegal and no one would ever get addicted to them.
Heroin is really no different than Morphine and Codine, etc. Those should simply be medically controlled drugs.

I still don't think that huge numbers of people would rush to try something as terrible as Heroin.
I also think you need to look at the flip side of it too. What are we gaining by outlawing these drugs? Our prisons are litterally stuffed full of people who's only crime was taking drugs. They didn't hurt anyone. They did nothing to deserve to be seperated from society. So we have law enforcement totally tied up arresting and processing non-violent drug users, we have the judicial system swamped and the prison system well over it's capacity. What happens to those people? It's not like the system cures them. They come out just as addicted to drugs as they were before, but now they have criminal records and are even less likely to be able to assimilate back into society.