|
Posted Friday, March 15, 2013, at 12:17 PM
U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill (C) and her husband Joseph Shepard (L) talk with Sgt. Gary Wiegert during a 2006 campaign stop in St. Louis, Missouri.
Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
Crime is Slate’s crime blog. Like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter @slatecrime.
As long as we’re on the topic of cops who get mixed up with illegal drugs, I wanted to mention the strange case of St. Louis police officer Gary Wiegert, otherwise known as Sgt. Feelgood. In February, Wiegert got approval to take a second job, as many cops do. Unfortunately for the department, Wiegert’s second job was as a lobbyist for Show-Me Cannabis, a group that advocates for reforming Missouri’s marijuana laws. Wiegert’s embarrassed superiors moved quickly to harsh his buzz, revoking its approval of his outside employment. This week, Wiegert sued the department, alleging it was restricting his First Amendment rights.
You can understand the department’s chagrin. And I get the sense that Wiegert—he’s acommitted libertarian who once hosted a radio show called Cop Talk—does this sort of button-pushing thing fairly often. But the department apparently has no problem with its officers pursuing political activities; before this, Wiegert was registered as a lobbyist for the St. Louis Tea Party. (The most recent post on the St. Louis Tea Party’s blog begins with “I sat down with some black folks on two occasions recently and listened to their conservations about the issues of the day.”)
“We all know that the upset here on the part of the department is the fact that he is ... lobbying for an organization that is named Show-Me Cannabis,” Wiegert’s attorney toldthe Riverfront Times. And while “cop becomes marijuana lobbyist” isn’t as embarrassing as “cop becomes murder lobbyist,” it’s still the sort of headline designed to irritate the top police brass. That’s a shame, because Wiegert has a really good point. His lawsuit notes that the “draconian charges and consequences arising out of possession of small amounts of marijuana, in Plaintiff’s view, has become a detriment on society’s resources and to society.”
It’s also a drain on police department resources: of the 204 controlled substance arrests the St. Louis Police Department reported in February 2013, 84 of them—just more than 40 percent—involved either the possession or sale of marijuana. Cops waste a lot of time and effort on marijuana violations, and I don’t think it undermines a police department’s authority if its members acknowledge that fact.
Rob Portman and the Politics of Narcissism
Why Did Google Reader Die? What Free Web Service Will Be Next?
How Rich Is the Catholic Church? No One Really Knows.
Length: 0 characters (Max: 5000)
I believe that when exit polls were taken in MA in 2008 - the year we decriminalized marijuana - a majority of cops interviewed said they were for it.
It's such an incredible waste of time, money, and effort, which ruins countless lives for not even one rational reason.
Even if you think marijuana was planted by Satan, you should agree with ending the war on it.
It's such an incredible waste of time, money, and effort, which ruins countless lives for not even one rational reason.
Even if you think marijuana was planted by Satan, you should agree with ending the war on it.
Bethness likes this.
It's time for us all to stop being ignorant hypocrites and start being "true" conservatives —trying to control each and every thing that 350 million people do with their bodies is not small government!
Pragmatic libertarians (minimal-statists) and true conservatives agree that many, if not most, of society's problems are caused by government usurping choices that could better be made by individuals themselves, and that government is just about the worst way of doing almost anything. Where libertarianism normally parts company with "fake" conservatism is over moral issues. A true conservative would have no problem with agreeing that what people do with their own bodies, and especially in the privacy of their own home, should be supremely their business and that anything else would entail ignoring the basic tenet of limited government.
If you support prohibition then you are NOT a conservative.
Conservative principles quite clearly are:
1) Limited, locally controlled government.
2) Individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.
3) Free enterprise.
4) A strong national defense.
5) Fiscal responsibility.
Prohibition is actually an authoritarian war on our economy and Constitution.
Pragmatic libertarians (minimal-statists) and true conservatives agree that many, if not most, of society's problems are caused by government usurping choices that could better be made by individuals themselves, and that government is just about the worst way of doing almost anything. Where libertarianism normally parts company with "fake" conservatism is over moral issues. A true conservative would have no problem with agreeing that what people do with their own bodies, and especially in the privacy of their own home, should be supremely their business and that anything else would entail ignoring the basic tenet of limited government.
If you support prohibition then you are NOT a conservative.
Conservative principles quite clearly are:
1) Limited, locally controlled government.
2) Individual liberty coupled with personal responsibility.
3) Free enterprise.
4) A strong national defense.
5) Fiscal responsibility.
Prohibition is actually an authoritarian war on our economy and Constitution.
For (4) to be consistent it has to really be "defense", not spending money to fight overseas. Basically just protecting against actual attack. Otherwise you have the problem of why you are telling people what to do just because they are not citizens. If all the US were doing were truly "defense" you could probably cut the "defense budget" by half.
In a related way, you have the questions of levels of immigration and free trade versus protectionism. Somehow the government magically becomes needed at the borders for a lot of "conservatives", but it's not clear there's a qualitative difference -- the decentralized option is supposed to be always best, isn't it?
Then you have the question of why government power is bad while economic power is good. A rich man can have much more absolute control over his fellow citizens than the government, but it seems no interference with that can be tolerated by some "conservatives". This again is arbitrary. Political power can't be handed down from father to son, but the wealth to buy the politicians can be. "No death tax!"
Historically, conservatism is the party of the wealthy aristocracy. Their freedom from interference by parliament does not translate to freedom for the wider populace. See the English Civil War or the French Revolution.
Decentralization is usually the best option, but the great weakness of conservatism (including libertarianism in this case) is that centralization of wealth is excepted from that. The other big problem is that a blind antagonism to government leads to perverse inefficiencies. It's best to take a middle way: Switzerland is the best example.
In a related way, you have the questions of levels of immigration and free trade versus protectionism. Somehow the government magically becomes needed at the borders for a lot of "conservatives", but it's not clear there's a qualitative difference -- the decentralized option is supposed to be always best, isn't it?
Then you have the question of why government power is bad while economic power is good. A rich man can have much more absolute control over his fellow citizens than the government, but it seems no interference with that can be tolerated by some "conservatives". This again is arbitrary. Political power can't be handed down from father to son, but the wealth to buy the politicians can be. "No death tax!"
Historically, conservatism is the party of the wealthy aristocracy. Their freedom from interference by parliament does not translate to freedom for the wider populace. See the English Civil War or the French Revolution.
Decentralization is usually the best option, but the great weakness of conservatism (including libertarianism in this case) is that centralization of wealth is excepted from that. The other big problem is that a blind antagonism to government leads to perverse inefficiencies. It's best to take a middle way: Switzerland is the best example.
'(The most recent post on the St. Louis Tea Party’s blog begins with “I sat down with some black folks on two occasions recently and listened to their conservations about the issues of the day.”)"
This is actually a very good read. So, please don't assume it treads into stereotypical language or patronization.
This is actually a very good read. So, please don't assume it treads into stereotypical language or patronization.
"Cops waste a lot of time and effort on marijuana violations, and I don’t think it undermines a police department’s authority if its members acknowledge that fact."
But marijuana reform will undermine their budget, and that's what most police departments really are concerned about.
But marijuana reform will undermine their budget, and that's what most police departments really are concerned about.
Krocker likes this.
Just because a cop don't agree with a particular set of laws does not mean he can't enforce them when on duty. Likewise, just because a cop favors marijuana reform does not mean he is unfit to be a cop.
One teabagger I agree with on something...it's a start.
Bethness, Nom de Plume and Sofa King like this.
Broken clocks and such.
You nailed it!
Everything you ever needed to know about the Tea Party in one sentence:
“I sat down with some black folks on two occasions recently and listened to their conservations about the issues of the day.”
“I sat down with some black folks on two occasions recently and listened to their conservations about the issues of the day.”
The guy that wrote that is black.
I don't think he read the post, either. There's nothing "bad" about it.
I can't see why he'd lose.
Gov. Cuomo is also trying to get cops to stop saying "Show me cannabis", but in a good way.
"Police now cite the possession of a small amount of marijuana by writing a violation ticket, like one you might get for speeding. But having the drugs "in public view" could subject someone to a misdemeanor charge. Critics of the New York City Police Department's stop-and-frisk program say some targets are told to take marijuana out of their pockets, where it would only prompt a ticket, and into "public view," where they can be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor." http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Easing-marijuana-law-in-play-4349842.php
Gov. Cuomo is also trying to get cops to stop saying "Show me cannabis", but in a good way.
"Police now cite the possession of a small amount of marijuana by writing a violation ticket, like one you might get for speeding. But having the drugs "in public view" could subject someone to a misdemeanor charge. Critics of the New York City Police Department's stop-and-frisk program say some targets are told to take marijuana out of their pockets, where it would only prompt a ticket, and into "public view," where they can be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor." http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Easing-marijuana-law-in-play-4349842.php
Need more cops like this, not less.
Bethness and Nom de Plume like this.
From the article:
"84 of them—just more than 40 percent—involved either the possession or sale of marijuana"
I recently spoke with a Missouri cop about this and just wanted to point out the alternative point of view. Note the key word here is "involved". The officer explained to me that means that if they've arrested somebody for say, domestic violence, and marijuana was found on the premise, it becomes "marijuana involved". If they pull somebody over for speeding and marijuana is found in the car, that ticket is now "marijuana involved".
The point being, all of these resources would have still been used. The cop would have still been called for the domestic violence case, the cop would have still made the stop for speeding, etc. It is only in the "marijuana only" cases where extra resources are being expended. And at least according to that officer, those never actually happen because even the police consider that a waste of otherwise needed resources.
"84 of them—just more than 40 percent—involved either the possession or sale of marijuana"
I recently spoke with a Missouri cop about this and just wanted to point out the alternative point of view. Note the key word here is "involved". The officer explained to me that means that if they've arrested somebody for say, domestic violence, and marijuana was found on the premise, it becomes "marijuana involved". If they pull somebody over for speeding and marijuana is found in the car, that ticket is now "marijuana involved".
The point being, all of these resources would have still been used. The cop would have still been called for the domestic violence case, the cop would have still made the stop for speeding, etc. It is only in the "marijuana only" cases where extra resources are being expended. And at least according to that officer, those never actually happen because even the police consider that a waste of otherwise needed resources.
Note that we are talking about the number of controlled substance arrests.
If we look at the FAQ on the linked page, it says: "The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) “hierarchy rule” limits most crimes to one crime per incident, with the highest, or most serious crime, occurring during the incident being counted."
So we are talking about arrests for drugs where the drug charge was the most serious one if there was more than one crime. Of your examples, the domestic violence incident would be counted under that heading rather than weed possession, and of course for speeding there would not have been any arrest, so that is "marijuana only". (The resources used for pulling over a vehicle and writing a ticket are negligible compared to arresting someone.)
If we look at the FAQ on the linked page, it says: "The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) “hierarchy rule” limits most crimes to one crime per incident, with the highest, or most serious crime, occurring during the incident being counted."
So we are talking about arrests for drugs where the drug charge was the most serious one if there was more than one crime. Of your examples, the domestic violence incident would be counted under that heading rather than weed possession, and of course for speeding there would not have been any arrest, so that is "marijuana only". (The resources used for pulling over a vehicle and writing a ticket are negligible compared to arresting someone.)
Huh... you know if I actually go look at that quote it is surrounded by information suggesting that your conclusion may not be accurate at all. Combine that with the fact that I sort of doubt a police officer is lying about how crimes are noted, I'm pretty sure you are wrong.
"Records appearing to be duplicates may, in fact, be multiple crimes occurring during the same incident. The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) “hierarchy rule” limits most crimes to one crime per incident, with the highest, or most serious crime, occurring during the incide
nt being counted. Exceptions to this rule include simple and aggravated assaults , which are counted per victim, and motor vehicle theft, which is counted per vehicle. Thus, if three people are victims of aggravated assault in one incident, the resulting three records may look exactly alike. Homicides and Rapes are also counted per victim, and arsons are always counted, in addition to any accompanying simultaneous crime. For more information concerning the UCR
“hierarchy rule” and other reporting guidelines, please refer to the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, which can be found on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) website."
"Records appearing to be duplicates may, in fact, be multiple crimes occurring during the same incident. The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) “hierarchy rule” limits most crimes to one crime per incident, with the highest, or most serious crime, occurring during the incide
nt being counted. Exceptions to this rule include simple and aggravated assaults , which are counted per victim, and motor vehicle theft, which is counted per vehicle. Thus, if three people are victims of aggravated assault in one incident, the resulting three records may look exactly alike. Homicides and Rapes are also counted per victim, and arsons are always counted, in addition to any accompanying simultaneous crime. For more information concerning the UCR
“hierarchy rule” and other reporting guidelines, please refer to the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, which can be found on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) website."
I didn't spend more than a minute looking into it, but anyway.
1. When counting crimes for the purposes of this figure, only the most serious crime is counted.
2. If there is an assault, one crime is counted for each victim
3. If there is a theft of many cars, one crime is counted for each car
4. If there is a murder or a rape, one crime is counted for each victim, and for these types of crime (probably) and arsons, other simultaneous crimes are counted. Another reading is that simultaneous crimes are only counted for arsons.
If we add up the last three categories, we get 42 crimes where simultaneous weed possession may also have been counted, assuming there was one victim only each time. So your examples still aren't relevant, but if they did find some stoned murderers or whatever, there may be a few double-counting cases going on.
1. When counting crimes for the purposes of this figure, only the most serious crime is counted.
2. If there is an assault, one crime is counted for each victim
3. If there is a theft of many cars, one crime is counted for each car
4. If there is a murder or a rape, one crime is counted for each victim, and for these types of crime (probably) and arsons, other simultaneous crimes are counted. Another reading is that simultaneous crimes are only counted for arsons.
If we add up the last three categories, we get 42 crimes where simultaneous weed possession may also have been counted, assuming there was one victim only each time. So your examples still aren't relevant, but if they did find some stoned murderers or whatever, there may be a few double-counting cases going on.
Those arrests and that jail time and all the rest of it does, in fact, add up to costing us all a lot of money for no reason whatsoever.
It's hard to dispute that basic fact.
It's hard to dispute that basic fact.
Nom de Plume and 
Jeremy H. like this.
Follow the money. A lot of money is going to someone's pockets.
And these guys are paying good money:
Ryan Donaghy, Chairman of the Board Donaghy Sales, LLC Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Ron Fowler, Immediate Past Chairman Liquid Investments, LLC Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Tom Reyes, Vice Chairman Crest Beverage, LLC; Gate City Beverage Distributors-San Bernardino; Harbor Distributing, LLC-Anaheim, Gardena, Santa Ana Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
David "Duke" Reyes, Chief Financial Officer Crest Beverage, LLC; Gate City Beverage Distributors-San Bernardino; Harbor Distributing, LLC-Anaheim, Gardena, Santa Ana Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Peter Heimark, Secretary Heimark Distributing Co. Triangle Distributing Co. Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Terence Fox, NBWA CA Director M.E. Fox and Co. Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Travis Markstein, NBWA CA Director Markstein Beverage Co. Sacramento; Markstein Beverage Co. San Marcos Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Cherisse Alford, CBBD PAC Chair Alford Distributing, Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Jeff Jordano, Management Committee Member Pacific Beverage Co. Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
T.J. Louderback, Management Committee Member Anheuser-Busch In Bev Sales Inc. of Pomona and Antelope Valley, Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
etc. etc. etc.
Ryan Donaghy, Chairman of the Board Donaghy Sales, LLC Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Ron Fowler, Immediate Past Chairman Liquid Investments, LLC Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Tom Reyes, Vice Chairman Crest Beverage, LLC; Gate City Beverage Distributors-San Bernardino; Harbor Distributing, LLC-Anaheim, Gardena, Santa Ana Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
David "Duke" Reyes, Chief Financial Officer Crest Beverage, LLC; Gate City Beverage Distributors-San Bernardino; Harbor Distributing, LLC-Anaheim, Gardena, Santa Ana Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Peter Heimark, Secretary Heimark Distributing Co. Triangle Distributing Co. Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Terence Fox, NBWA CA Director M.E. Fox and Co. Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Travis Markstein, NBWA CA Director Markstein Beverage Co. Sacramento; Markstein Beverage Co. San Marcos Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Cherisse Alford, CBBD PAC Chair Alford Distributing, Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
Jeff Jordano, Management Committee Member Pacific Beverage Co. Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
T.J. Louderback, Management Committee Member Anheuser-Busch In Bev Sales Inc. of Pomona and Antelope Valley, Alcoholic beverage distributer, steadily funds anti-marijuana efforts
etc. etc. etc.
"In the United States, drug arrests have tripled in the last 25 years, however most of these arrests have been for simple possession of low-level drugs. In 2005, nearly 43% of all drug arrests were for marijuana offenses. Marijuana possession arrests accounted for 79% of the growth in drug arrests in the 1990s. Nearly a half million people are in state or federal prisons or a local jail for a drug offense, compared to 41,000 in 1980. Most of these people have no history of violence or high-level drug selling activity" - page 4
"With over 5 million people on probation or parole in the United States, drug use on parole or probation has become the primary basis by which thousands of people are returned to prison. These technical violations of parole or probation account for as many as 40% of new prison admissions in some jurisdictions." - page 6
PROHIBITION IS A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY:
"The war on drugs has also generated indirect costs that many researchers contend have undermined public safety. The federal government has prioritized spending and grants for drug task forces and widespread drug interdiction efforts that often target low-level drug dealing. These highly organized and coordinated efforts have been very labor intensive for local law enforcement agencies with some unanticipated consequences for investigation of other crimes. The focus on drugs is believed to have redirected law enforcement resources that have resulted in more drunk driving, and decreased investigation and enforcement of violent crime laws. In Illinois, a 47% increase in drug arrests corresponded with a 22% decrease in arrests for drunk driving. Florida researchers have similarly linked the focus on low level drug arrests with an increase in the serious crime index."
–Drug Policy, Criminal Justice and Mass Imprisonment, by Bryan Stevenson
"With over 5 million people on probation or parole in the United States, drug use on parole or probation has become the primary basis by which thousands of people are returned to prison. These technical violations of parole or probation account for as many as 40% of new prison admissions in some jurisdictions." - page 6
PROHIBITION IS A DIRECT THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY:
"The war on drugs has also generated indirect costs that many researchers contend have undermined public safety. The federal government has prioritized spending and grants for drug task forces and widespread drug interdiction efforts that often target low-level drug dealing. These highly organized and coordinated efforts have been very labor intensive for local law enforcement agencies with some unanticipated consequences for investigation of other crimes. The focus on drugs is believed to have redirected law enforcement resources that have resulted in more drunk driving, and decreased investigation and enforcement of violent crime laws. In Illinois, a 47% increase in drug arrests corresponded with a 22% decrease in arrests for drunk driving. Florida researchers have similarly linked the focus on low level drug arrests with an increase in the serious crime index."
–Drug Policy, Criminal Justice and Mass Imprisonment, by Bryan Stevenson
No comments:
Post a Comment