Police Priorities: War on Drugs, or Violent Crime?

[jsharmon7]

It's so obvious as to not need an argument to see that it is the illegality of drugs that creates the violence. Anyone who can't see that as obvious is too ignorant too argue with, or they have some personal stake in the matter. Everything illegal that people want anyway exists in a violent market. No legal markets in anything generate the violence that an illegal market in anything will cause. The closest is alcohol, but that's not a function of the market, but of the drug's effect. In fact, alcohol is the one drug for which there is any argument for illegality, since it does make one more prone to violence after ingesting it. Yet, we tried to make it illegal, largely for that very reason - it was women's groups who led the fight against it because of domestic abuse - and it didn't work.

I don't disagree with this. The problem is that the laws need to be changed by those who enact them rather than expecting the police to ignore them. I can assure you that police discretion is not unlimited. If I decide that drug laws are bad and just let a guy go driving down the road with a flatbed truck full of marijuana, I will not be employed much longer. I would expect that lrahm, denny347, phylodog and many other good and respected officers here on INGO wouldn't be around much longer either. So once you've gotten all the officers with a conscience fired for doing what you believe was right, what kinds of officers are you left with? I'd rather have those guys out there doing their best to make a difference until you and any others who are against drug laws can get things changed.

I haven't really made up my mind where I stand on the issue of complete drug legalization. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what I think, or phylodog, or lrahm, or kutnupe or any other officer thinks. If a change is to be made it has to be through legislation rather than saddling it on the backs of the officers to make it right for you at the risk of their livelihood.

 

[NYFelon]

I don't disagree with this. The problem is that the laws need to be changed by those who enact them rather than expecting the police to ignore them. I can assure you that police discretion is not unlimited. If I decide that drug laws are bad and just let a guy go driving down the road with a flatbed truck full of marijuana, I will not be employed much longer. I would expect that lrahm, denny347, phylodog and many other good and respected officers here on INGO wouldn't be around much longer either. So once you've gotten all the officers with a conscience fired for doing what you believe was right, what kinds of officers are you left with? I'd rather have those guys out there doing their best to make a difference until you and any others who are against drug laws can get things changed.

I haven't really made up my mind where I stand on the issue of complete drug legalization. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what I think, or phylodog, or lrahm, or kutnupe or any other officer thinks. If a change is to be made it has to be through legislation rather than saddling it on the backs of the officers to make it right for you at the risk of their livelihood.

I'm not aware of anyone in this thread having laid it on the backs of officers in the field. If they have, that's not proper. Most of us understand that your discretion only goes so far, and that your job is to enforce the laws as they are written, not as you, or I, or anyone else wants them to be. So, we agree that if change is to happen, it must happen at the polls first, wherein representatives with whom our principles are shared can enact such change.

I think the major contention here revolves mostly around the connection to violent crime as it relates to the drug trade. As many have stated, the violence is a condition of the illegality of that trade. As I noted earlier, the demand is not curtailed by the law, only the means of supply. Basic economic principles state that if a demand exists, a supply/supplier will emerge. The illicit nature of that trade is from whence the overwhelming majority of that violence stems. I'm not so naive as to believe that if all drugs were decriminalized tomorrow, there still wouldn't be some degenerate soul willing to do anything to satisfy his addiction. By creating a channel of legal commerce though, you will effectively eradicate the supply side violence, which I'm sure we can agree is the area where the most brutal, and most commonplace events where such violence is initiated. Pfizer and Astra-Zeneca aren't about to wage a gun battle in downtown Chicago over who controls the distribution of pharmaceutical grade cocaine. Instead they'll use legitimate means such as price manipulation (and maybe even lawsuits) to garner market share. These are avenues of competition that the Major cartels do not have available as means to become a dominant player.

I'd like to ask you a question, and by all means if you feel that answering would harm your professional reputation, I would understand. It's in regards to your discretionary power. If you were to come across a 19 or 20 year old kid, college student or whatever with no previous criminal record, but he happened to have a gram or so of marijuana on him, what would you do? Would you run him in, or confiscate the contraband and issue him a verbal warning? Would you use some other means available to you? Please understand this isn't meant to entrap you into a position one way or another, and I will respect your answer no matter what it might be. I'm just curious to know what your take on that particular situation would be.

Thanks in advance, and stay safe out there.

 

[rw496]

@rw496

Since you specifically used marijuana as an example, what would be the "cost to society", if cannabis was decriminalized?

I mention marijuana specifically because, at least at this time, it is the only one being mentioned realistically for legalization. You kind of missed the point of what I said. The point was that government didn't suddenly realize that they were infringing on people's rights and begin to disuss it out of their own benevolence; it is to generate more tax dollars to waste. If you follow that thinking through its logical progression harder drugs(i.e. heroin, cocaine, etc.) would be next. That is something I believe would harm society by way of increased crime, addiction etc. Some don't agree that would happen, but I do.

 

[level.eleven]

The individual is the final judge of right and wrong. More than this, since only individuals act, only individuals can act unjustly. When the government knocks on the door, it is an individual in the form of a postman or tax collector whose hand hits the wood. Before Thoreau’s imprisonment, when a confused taxman had wondered aloud about how to handle his refusal to pay, Thoreau had advised, “Resign.” If a man chose to be an agent of injustice, then Thoreau insisted on confronting him with the fact that he was making a choice. As Thoreau explained,

[It] is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel, — and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government.

Henry David Thoreau and "Civil Disobedience," Part 2
​

 

[jsharmon7]

The individual is the final judge of right and wrong. More than this, since only individuals act, only individuals can act unjustly. When the government knocks on the door, it is an individual in the form of a postman or tax collector whose hand hits the wood. Before Thoreau’s imprisonment, when a confused taxman had wondered aloud about how to handle his refusal to pay, Thoreau had advised, “Resign.” If a man chose to be an agent of injustice, then Thoreau insisted on confronting him with the fact that he was making a choice. As Thoreau explained,

[It] is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel, — and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government.

Henry David Thoreau and "Civil Disobedience," Part 2
​

Does the taxman's resignation solve the problem for Thoreau? Does it fix the system?

 

[level.eleven]

Does the taxman's resignation solve the problem for Thoreau? Does it fix the system?

Well, HDT spent time in the clink, else we would have never gotten the famous quote “Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?”

None the less, that wasn't the driving force behind the excerpt. Rather, a man is responsible for his actions. In modern terms, following orders is a cop-out. If you are unsure about something or it runs counter to your principles, don't do it and then blame someone else.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Does the taxman's resignation solve the problem for Thoreau? Does it fix the system?

It circumvents the injustice from being perpetrated at that time... for the act to be completed, someone else would have to carry it out.

Does it fix the system? As long as others are willing to carry out the unjust act - no. This is kind of the old "what if war was declared and nobody went" - it is not realistic to believe that nobody will be willing to carry out an unjust act, but it illustrates that in the end the individual who actually commits the act is responsible, even if they justify it by claiming they are just doing their job.

I think I agree with your main point... it is unrealistic to believe that the drug war will come to an end due to LE discretion... I just also believe that in the end everyone is responsible for their actions, and blaming the system is not a valid justification for an individuals actions.

 

[level.eleven]

It circumvents the injustice from being perpetrated at that time... for the act to be completed, someone else would have to carry it out.

Does it fix the system? As long as others are willing to carry out the unjust act - no. This is kind of the old "what if war was declared and nobody went" - it is not realistic to believe that nobody will be willing to carry out the an unjust act, but it illustrates that in the end the individual who actually commits the act is responsible, even if they justify it by claiming they are just doing their job.

I think I agree with your main point... it is unrealistic to believe that the drug war will come to an end due to LE discretion... I just also believe that in the end everyone is responsible for their actions, and blaming the system is not a valid justification for an individuals actions.

What he said.

 

[TMU317]

I just also believe that in the end everyone is responsible for their actions, and blaming the system is not a valid justification for an individuals actions.

Are you referring to police officers arresting someone for say possession of an illegal drug? Is an officer being unjust when he/she arrests someone for such a crime? Or are you referring to the violent crime/criminalization argument?

 

[rw496]

Well, HDT spent time in the clink, else we would have never gotten the famous quote “Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?”

None the less, that wasn't the driving force behind the excerpt. Rather, a man is responsible for his actions. In modern terms, following orders is a cop-out. If you are unsure about something or it runs counter to your principles, don't do it and then blame someone else.

I can agree with that one.

 

[phylodog]

following orders is a cop-out. If you are unsure about something or it runs counter to your principles, don't do it and then blame someone else.

Not doing what is needed to get the laws changed and expecting someone else to do it (LE) is a cop out.

As I posted before, I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if all currently illegal narcotics were legalized tomorrow. LE has a controlled level of discretion for a reason. If I observe a man murder another man, I don't have the discretion to not arrest him if I believe he was justified in his actions. If the killer were your brother, you might wish I had that discretion. If the murdered man was your brother, you'd be glad I didn't.

 

[jsharmon7]

I just also believe that in the end everyone is responsible for their actions, and blaming the system is not a valid justification for an individuals actions.

As a citizen, are you responsible for trying to fix the system?

 

[TMU317]

The individual is the final judge of right and wrong. More than this, since only individuals act, only individuals can act unjustly. When the government knocks on the door, it is an individual in the form of a postman or tax collector whose hand hits the wood. Before Thoreau’s imprisonment, when a confused taxman had wondered aloud about how to handle his refusal to pay, Thoreau had advised, “Resign.” If a man chose to be an agent of injustice, then Thoreau insisted on confronting him with the fact that he was making a choice. As Thoreau explained,

[It] is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel, — and he has voluntarily chosen to be an agent of the government.

Henry David Thoreau and "Civil Disobedience," Part 2
​

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman] Still others obey because they fear the consequences of disobedience. This is the neighbor who says, “If I deny the authority of the State when it presents its tax-bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end.” Thoreau knows that his neighbor is correct in his assessment of what may happen. “When I converse with the freest of my neighbors,” he writes,

I perceive that ... they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience.... This is hard. This makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably, in outward respects.​

By his own lights, Thoreau was fortunate in this respect. He had neither property to be seized nor children to go hungry. Accordingly, he did not criticize men who reluctantly obeyed an unjust law out of fear for their families.
[/FONT]

 

[phylodog]

I'd like to ask you a question, and by all means if you feel that answering would harm your professional reputation, I would understand. It's in regards to your discretionary power. If you were to come across a 19 or 20 year old kid, college student or whatever with no previous criminal record, but he happened to have a gram or so of marijuana on him, what would you do? Would you run him in, or confiscate the contraband and issue him a verbal warning? Would you use some other means available to you? Please understand this isn't meant to entrap you into a position one way or another, and I will respect your answer no matter what it might be. I'm just curious to know what your take on that particular situation would be.

Thanks in advance, and stay safe out there.

I've utilized the discretion afforded me on numerous occasions and disposed of misdemeanor marijuana along the side of the road more times than I can recall. Usually, I had the person dispose of it for me so my hands didn't smell like weed. Dump it out, grind it into the dirt with their feet or dump it into a water puddle or ditch and send them on their way.

My youngest brother was arrested for misdemeanor marijuana last year. I'm not pissed at the officer who arrested him. I'm not pissed that the law exists. I was irritated that he was stupid enough to be out driving around in his car at 4am, in a small town, with 3 other college aged guys while knowingly breaking the law and didn't consider the possibility that he could get caught.

 

[NYFelon]

I've utilized the discretion afforded me on numerous occasions and disposed of misdemeanor marijuana along the side of the road more times than I can recall. Usually, I had the person dispose of it for me so my hands didn't smell like weed. Dump it out, grind it into the dirt with their feet or dump it into a water puddle or ditch and send them on their way.

My youngest brother was arrested for misdemeanor marijuana last year. I'm not pissed at the officer who arrested him. I'm not pissed that the law exists. I was irritated that he was stupid enough to be out driving around in his car at 4am, in a small town, with 3 other college aged guys while knowingly breaking the law and didn't consider the possibility that he could get caught.

I understand your duty as an officer. I also thank you for taking the time to respond.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Are you referring to police officers arresting someone for say possession of an illegal drug? Is an officer being unjust when he/she arrests someone for such a crime? Or are you referring to the violent crime/criminalization argument?

If the officer believes that arresting the individual is not morally just, then yes. What constitutes a just action is subjective - each individual has an understanding of what is moral in their eyes. When we ignore our own moral assessment, we are still responsible for our actions - not the system that we cite as an excuse for our eagerness to ignore what we feel is right.

As a citizen, are you responsible for trying to fix the system?

Yes, ofcourse... In the end, police are an arm of society, and the indifference and beliefs of society directly lead to the authority granted to law enforcement officers. The whole "us vs them" viewpoint falls apart quickly when you realize that citizens control the police.

Someone who morally disagrees with a system and yet follows it blindly is part of the problem... indifference is a choice.

 

[TMU317]

If the officer believes that arresting the individual is not morally just, then yes. What constitutes a just action is subjective - each individual has an understanding of what is moral in their eyes. When we ignore our own moral assessment, we are still responsible for our actions - not the system that we cite as an excuse for our eagerness to ignore what we feel is right.

Thank you. That makes much more sense to me than what I had originally and incorrectly believed to be your point.

 

[jsharmon7]

Yes, ofcourse... In the end, police are an arm of society, and the indifference and beliefs of society directly lead to the authority granted to law enforcement officers. The whole "us vs them" viewpoint falls apart quickly when you realize that citizens control the police.

Someone who morally disagrees with a system and yet follows it blindly is part of the problem... indifference is a choice.

An officer who morally disagrees with the system but continues to follow it is definitely part of the problem. So is the non-LEO citizen who recognizes the problem and doesn't work to fix it. Honestly, I don't know that I can say that I'm morally against the drug laws in America; I'm rather impartial. If I had an issue though, I would definitely be wrong to enforce that law. That's another problem, we all have different lines drawn in the sand. Some here think that punishing someone for smoking marijuana is morally wrong, some will think it's morally right, and some will be in the middle with me. It's a mistake to think that because you see a problem, so does everyone else. It's up to those who see a problem to try and fix it rather than blaming the person enforcing the laws. I tried to keep my personal opinions about drug laws out of this discussion, but I realize now it was unfair to discuss this with you without letting you know where I was coming from. Sorry about that.

 

[jbombelli]

Once upon a time I threw away a very lucrative career as a securities broker and financial planner to be able to like the guy in the mirror and what he stands for. I got up one morning, looked in the mirror, thought about everything I'd seen the firm do, and the things I took part in, realized I hated that guy for the part he had in everything, and said "I will no longer sacrifice my ethics for a paycheck."

I went in to the office and quit my job.

To me that's what's important. It's not money, it's not the job, it's the guy in the mirror, and I will never again allow myself to be put in the position that I can look in the mirror and say "there's a guy who doesn't stand behind his beliefs."

To thine own self be true.

 

[phylodog]

I have no problem looking in the mirror. I've conducted myself quite honorably during my 12 year career.