NYC's Staggering Arrest Rate for Pot Achieved By Police Deception and Scams

IMHO the most important aspect of this OP is the implication of illegal or improper law enforcement.

This falls under what I categorize as "victimless crime" where the only obvious "victim" is the persons charged with a crime. What a huge waste of resources to enforce and prosecute crimes such as these and others such as prostitution and juvenile "status offenses".

That's a very important point, and one that we shouldn't lose sight of.

The question remains though, of how it can be stopped - it's a form of entrapment, so maybe some of the civil liberty's groups need to get on board with this.

Two questions.

First, if the ACLU can't do anything about the Mayor's task force on this, why report it? I mean it's interesting, but in absence of them taking on a test case, what's the point. (Can you take a misdemeanor to court?)

Second, I've heard that it's common for the cops to confiscate small quantities in traffic stops. (ya gotta wonder what they do with it). My question is, 'are cops screened for it'? In fact, what are cops tested for before hiring? Are they tested after hiring, like sports figures, unannounced random testing?

I seriously doubt cops are tested for steroids, though it might be routine somewhere. Anyone know (pot, or 'roids)?

Just curious. My 'friend' does urine screening and afaik, has never tested any city officials, or law enforcement.

Maybe the ACLU should challenge the mayor and/or the cops to get tested?


[edit on 9-5-2008 by Badge01]

When is society going to quit putting marijuana in the same league as meth, cocaine and heroin? When will we have a President like Jimmy Carter who wanted to decriminalize marijuana to spare the govt tons of money imprisoning and prosecuting petty smokers, and casual dealers for violating a political popular crime? Where in the Ten Commandments does it say "Thou shalt not smoke cannibis?" This is a political crime, the word is still out on whether marijuana is truly addictive. Enforce real crime reverends and politician hypocrites!!!

(MOD EDIT: (snip!) Please do not post personal references to illegal activity.)

I am willing to bet that a portion of legislative assistants on Capitol Hill as well as Members of Congress would like to drop the marijuana laws as they stand, but think the masses are too riddled in uneducated fears of evil drugs through years of misinformation.... that to repeal those laws would be political suicide. Come on you cowards!! Institute term limits, eliminate your public dole affluent pensions and try to live on social security benefits like a lot of old folks do.

Hey New York Mayor and State Governors, U.S. Members of Congress, AMA, social workers, PO's etc...... Leave the passive pot smokers be!!!

[edit on 9-5-2008 by Yechidah]

[edit on 5/9/2008 by thelibra]

reply to post by Yechidah

---

May I just point out that talking about personal usage in any way, shape or form is against the T&C

I agree with some of your points, but it's against the rules to discuss personal use of illegal substances.

The police are in the wrong here - and badge made some good points.

reply to post by budski

---

Hi! Um, I was really just 'spit-ballin' there trying to think of a strategy for the ACLU to use. I'm not advocating testing the cops, b/c I don't think it will work. They'll just give fake samples and stuff.

My thought, as I've said before, they need to hire against type, maybe. If you hire college-educated accountants and female criminology grads or law students (who have passed the bar, but not got a job as a lawyer for some reason) and focus on their trainees KNOWING the law ( ), then it would be an improvement on hiring all buff ex-Military types, and tough guys. Of course there's not a lot of control about who goes to the academy.

You hire 'muscleheads' and 'neanderthals' and that's what you are going to get. (j/k on the names)

I say quit invasive testing, and limit testing for chemicals and test for impairment.

There's already dexterity tests out there that do a good job of testing for alcohol and intoxicant use, involving moving pegs around on a board in a set time limit. You don't make it, you don't drive. After all you may fail because you hadn't slept for two days. Is that any less dangerous than drinking or smoking? Impairment is fairer and better.

It's really a 'no-brainer', imo.

Marijuana prohibition was founded on racism. One of the big reasons is that Mexican workers who came into the U.S., mainly El Paso, in the early 20th century chose to smoke marijuana to relax after a long day. Thus marijuana was associated with Mexican workers and considered "dirty" or "deadly" to the racist populous of that time.

While marijuana prohibition was being debated, scientists claimed (not exact wording) "A black man under the influence of marijuana would look at a white woman twice."

Eh while I'm at it. One of the main reasons it was made illegal was due to a Popular Science artice in the early 1900's claiming hemp, not THC filled marijuana, would be the worlds largest cash crop. Companies like Johnson and Johnson, Dupont, and various alcohol and tobacco companies, had their friends in the government propose all forms of hemp illegal, even the types you cannot achieve a "high" from.

reply to post by youvegotbighands

---

The link explains the Marijuana Tax Act. The research that was done by Columbia University to support the bill was based on racism which stated that marijuana induced violence in the population that used it...the black populations of the south. The real reason for the criminalization of it was the new method of producing paper from tree pulp (Hurst and Dupont) so in order to make a success of the new paper mills in the North West hemp had to go. Up until 1937 paper in this country was produced with hemp fiber. en.wikipedia.org...

Do they get prison sentences for this ?. If so and they get early release if they join the military.. it could be a form of press ganging .

reply to post by Witness2008

---

Now I don't know where you come from but here in the Northeast the police do make very very nice money and they are not uneducated.

I have a suggestion.

Stop using intoxicating drugs, legal or illegal.

Your thought process will be clearer.

You'll have more money to spend on food and gasoline and you won't have to always be looking over your shoulder and worrying about going to jail.

I know it's a revolutionary idea, but once you've been straight for awhile, the logic of such an action will be so clear, you'll wonder why you didn't think of it yourself.

Reality is challenging enough without complicating it with self-inflicted misery.

There's a lot to be said for a clear conscience.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

---

I was thinking the same thing, watching some working guys coming out of the grocery store lugging a case of beer, thinking about rising food prices and glad I stopped drinking beer back in 1987. Got to have saved literally thousands of dollars.

BUT...I hasten to add that even mainstream documentaries and shows on the History Channel remark that 'man' has -always- looked for ways to alter consciousness, from early man to modern, in every culture. I don't think that's necessarily something about which we can make a value judgment so quickly.

I do take issue with people who take intoxicants and get behind the wheel of a car.

What a man/person does in the privacy of his own dwelling should be his business. Don't like gubmint intrusiveness.

2 cents.

Man is inclined to do many things that are not in his best interest.

I'm not speaking from a legalistic perspective, just a personal one.

[edit on 2008/5/9 by GradyPhilpott]

I still believe that the primary problem is the systemically enforced doctrine of running law enforcement (and a myriad of other) institutions like 'a business'. This give rise to many an incoherent application of 'authority.'

Is the public safer? Are these criminals, or have we 'made them' criminals? Should the notion of 'revenue' be consistent with the application of social and moral codes adopted by any institution? I think not.

How much 'revenue' has been 'generated' for the BAR? Do 'they' have an incentive to correct the 'problem' or are they just happy to deal with the 'symptom?'

This seems to be about, according to OP, the morons who are blazing a blunt on their front porches, in public, rather than all pot smokers. It boils down to common sense, and if you are blazing on the streets, in the park where my child can be exposed, I support your scofflaw behind being hauled to jail. I support legalization 100% but as far as I know, it is illegal to smoke in NYC, so if one wants to be an idiot and blaze up in public, I hope you go to jail. It is not a victimless crime if you are smoking weed in public places. If the fools doing the public blazing happen to black or latino, HOW is this racist? Idiocy comes in all colors.

It is jokers who do this in public who give all pot smokers a bad name. A TRUE pothead has respect for others.

You are perhaps painting with two broad a brush. Not all 'consciousness altering' is illegal.

Coffee (caffeine), alcohol, cigarettes all are 'drugs' and alter consciousness. They are not illegal (except the latter two in certain circumstances).

Vision questing, fasting and self-torture are also legal ways to alter consciousness.

Back in the 1600s, iirc, there were some -very- severe penalties for importing and consuming coffee in some places.

Thus it's going to happen, and in some societies they try to criminalize it, to various degrees of success. But they never are able to change that basic human behavior.

Alcohol is now considered healthful in small doses wrt cardio-vascular health. Other substances are prescribed by doctors.

You might even say painkillers, even aspirin 'alters' consciousness.

Where they go wrong, perhaps is in the criminalization where it's not really necessary.

Once we have cars which run on automatic highways. computerized, the stigma and problem of alcohol consumption may diminish. In fact, if they come up with a pill which prevents, reverses, or sobers you up, then even the 'harm' factor is basically eliminated.


[edit on 9-5-2008 by Badge01]

I often edit my posts for clarity after I've posted them and perhaps I edited this sentence.

My advice involves intoxicating drugs and as almost anything can be intoxicating, including water, if ingested in sufficient quantities, we'll have to exercise some common sense in our interpretation.

Drugs that have the potential for intoxication that are taken for other purposes under the supervision of an MD is a different matter, as there are always extenuating circumstances.

At any rate, I only made a suggestion for simplifying one's life.

All the laws in the world won't stop people from destroying themselves, if they are hell-bent on destruction.



[edit on 2008/5/9 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott

---

I suppose you are, from the proper perspective, correct. However I find it interesting how we contrive a moral construct to impose that view on one another. The idea of making a public 'punishment' for it seems 'over the top.'

Some seem offended by the notion of people doing this at all, let alone in public.

But I suspect that the same complaints regarding smoking anything with respiratory range of another human being is rightly offensive from a health standpoint.

Proponents could argue the same.


Don't have a problem with either.


I'm quoted as once saying, "Sobriety is stranger than being stoned."


Reality, like misery, is subjective.


Define clear.

Sorry I'm just having fun. It's been a few years since my day but there is of one thing I am certain. Unfortunately I can't seem to remember it.




[edit on 9-5-2008 by apc]

APC...

ROFL you made me drop my stash yo!

seriously though I agree with both you and Grady. Reality and Utopia should both be taken in light doses.



Coven