Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/22/2004 1:44:14 PM EST
New strategy brings crime rate down in Oakland

By Harry Harris, STAFF WRITER

OAKLAND -- A 34 percent drop in murders. Significant decreases in other violent crimes. More drug-related arrests. By the numbers, this was a successful first year for the Police Department's Violence Reduction Plan, officials said.

And officials are optimistic the numbers will get even better once all four phases of the plan -- a coordinated effort that involves not only Oakland police but also other local, state and federal agencies -- are fully implemented.

"I'm very pleased, especially by the number of homicides that are down and the number of shootings that are down," said Oakland Police Chief Richard Word. "It really says a lot when you consider the restraints we're under with the settlement agreement demands and fewer officers working overtime.

"Just think what we would do if we had more cops," he added.

The plan was launched Oct. 1, 2003, with three of the four phases now up and running, said Sgt. Pete Sarna II, Word's chief of staff.

Besides a significant drop in homicides -- 70 this year compared to 99 last year at this time -- statistics for the one-year period ending Sept. 30 reflect significant decreases in many other violent crimes.

Shootings are down 20 percent, other aggravated assaults down 8 percent, robberies down 7 percent, attempted robberies down 12 percent and rapes down 9 percent.

Burglaries also are down. The only crimes that rose were auto thefts, up 9 percent, and thefts, up 5 percent.


But the good news skipped West Oakland, the only area of the city to buck the trend.

Homicides there increased 18 percent and overall assaults 3 percent -- with domestic violence registering a whopping 75 percent increase. The number of strong arm- robberies and carjackings also rose, as did burglaries and arson.

Councilmember Nancy Nadel [Downtown-West Oakland] said the crime reduction teams did a good job of ridding drug dealing from corners and specific target areas. Unfortunately, she said, the last few murders in West Oakland do not appear to be drug-related.

"It seems like homicides are going up in my district," Nadel said. "I've had quite a few homicides ... since June, and there was another one Tuesday night.

"I have heard citizens say the [crime reduction teams] have had an impact," Nadel said. "But that also has to be balanced with some [reports of police] heavy handedness. There has been increased police presence, but also an increase in complaints [about police misconduct]."

A key component of the plan is to wipe out street-level drug dealing, which continues to be a catalyst for violent crime in poorer areas of the city, police said.

Statistics for the first seven months of the year show police efforts had a positive impact, even though residents of some embattled neighborhoods might not fully agree, police said.

Arrests for sales of heroin and cocaine are up 71 percent, and the number of suspects arrested for sales of marijuana rose 119 percent.

The targeted enforcement plan also placed stiffer requirements for people on probation or parole. That, said Councilmember Larry Reid [Elmhurst-East Oakland], whose East Oakland district suffered one-third of the city's murders, is key to reducing violent crime.

"The crime reduction teams are playing a significant role, not just targeting drug dealers, but targeting those individuals on probation. That is what is making our community safer," Reid said.

"That really is the problem," he added. "The majority of violent crimes in my district are committed by those who are on parole or probation. [The teams] know who the bad guys are, they know who is dealing drugs, so it makes sense to focus on them."

Sarna said department brass are pleased with the results.

"It seems to be working, even with our reduced resources, and we are going to continue to forge ahead," he said.

The department is authorized for 739 positions, of which 724 are filled. But about 60 officers currently are off because of injuries, illnesses, military duty or disciplinary action.

Word said he wants to crack down more on loiterers and drunks who hang out on street corners, but the police force is spread thin.

Still, the results are an indication the Oakland Police Department is beginning to practice smart policing, Mayor Jerry Brown said.

"It's good news, but we can't rest on our laurels," said Brown while attending the 40th reunion of his Yale Law School class. "We need to do more."

Brown said he wants to get a better handle on auto thefts and added he would push officers to refine their strategies based on their experience on the streets of Oakland.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 1:51:39 PM EST
This is a surprise?
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 2:27:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
This is a surprise?



Many believe there is no connection between drugs and crime.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 2:28:53 AM EST
Where did you find that article?
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 2:33:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
This is a surprise?



Many believe there is no connection between drugs and crime.



Hell, if drugs were legal, you wouldn't have this issue. I seem to recall the gangsters of the prohibition era having quite a few shoot outs with the cops. As a matter-of-fact, that's where (when) the initial catalyst emerged for the NFA taxation.

Link Posted: 10/23/2004 2:34:16 AM EST
Departments make up stats as they see fit for funding ----


------ I'm not convinced or impressed.

All i really see is the statement ---

It is too hard for us to bust the high level dealers, so were scooping up the low lifes.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 4:38:13 AM EST
As a prosecutor, I'd really like to hear more about the plan... I've got questions.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of legalization, the plan appears to target low-level dealers with special attention to probationers and parolees.
From what I've heard, this is the strategy used by Guiliani in New York with great success.
But why did West Oakland buck the trend? (I'm from Texas.. what's diffrent about West Oakland?)

But back to legalization - IMHO, at the risk of sounding like one of those "it's for the children" types, I've seen too much damage caused to families by cocaine and meth to favor legalization. (Just to confuse matters, I must add that I see MORE damage caused by alcohol, but that's another matter) I tend to beleive the basic thing to consider when determining legalization should be the potential for abuse... Can you use the drug and remain functional? So my position is that we need to continue criminalizing meth and cocaine, at a minimum, until we find a better answer. The sheer addictive properties of those two make deterrence dicey at best. "Who cares if I gotta spend a few days in jail...when I get out , I can hit the pipe again" ( I do see a contradiction in my arguments here, namely if jail deterrence won't work, why would this or any program. Public Floggings, anyone? Seriously, garduated sentences for each repeat offense is my off the cuff solution to that aspect of the problem)

Does this program target users as well? Because if it's gonna be illegal, tolerating the user and whacking the dealer defeats the purpose of the project.
I also like targeting probationers and parolees... NO legitimate civil liberties problems there!!!
Generally speaking, though, this is the way to go. It's just more efficient and cost effective. And this is going to raise some civil liberty hackles, but there are parallels between collateral damage in war and on the street. A little so called heavy handedness can be a kindness... I've seen it work.

Finally... Jerry Brown? JERRY BROWN? The Jerry Brown I remember from the 60's? Maybe a blind hog CAN find an acorn.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 4:47:41 AM EST
But, isn't gun control supposed to reduce crime??? I'm lost here...
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 4:50:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sin_Bin:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
This is a surprise?



Many believe there is no connection between drugs and crime.



Hell, if drugs were legal, you wouldn't have this issue. I seem to recall the gangsters of the prohibition era having quite a few shoot outs with the cops. As a matter-of-fact, that's where (when) the initial catalyst emerged for the NFA taxation.





What about the addicts? You don't think they'll still commit crimes to get a fix? Or does legalization call for welfare crack?
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 4:54:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 5:00:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:

what's diffrent about West Oakland?


Oakland is a bad ugly city - attracting the low lifes from the otherwise very well off East Bay Area. AI lived in Alameda which butt up against West Oakland - and it's ugly. An area full of small room rentals, pawn shops and corner liquior stores.

yes you would not want to get lost in Oakland its a real shit hole.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 5:03:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 5:04:27 AM EST by Treadhead]
When they can keep it out of prisons I'll believe that prohibition works.

That they've seen a reduction in local crimes by cracking down on vendors in one area is great but, those folks looking to buy didn't get "cured" because the corner source was put out of business. They just went somewhere else...."Shit man, we gotta drive to Richmond!" lol
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 5:18:35 AM EST
Wait... Something other than gun control can stop crime? This will get swept under.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 5:43:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
But, isn't gun control supposed to reduce crime??? I'm lost here...



+1
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:02:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:08:02 AM EST

That they've seen a reduction in local crimes by cracking down on vendors in one area is great but, those folks looking to buy didn't get "cured" because the corner source was put out of business.


You are right. Again, as a prosecutor, I tend to look after my own community first. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I suspect that LEOs feel the same.
It even has a name: "greyhound Therapy"
I'm saying,"Yeah, it works to clean up MY community." What I hear you saying, TreadHead, is that we are basically wasting time if we don't address the big picture. I agree with that, also, 100%.
How do you propose we do THAT?
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:22:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
This is a surprise?



Many believe there is no connection between drugs and crime.



Yeah, a large chunk of that "many" believe there's only a connection between the fact drugs are illegal and crime.

Drugs have about as much of a role in crime as any other "evil" out there. Alcohol, guns, etc.

Creating the uncontrolled black market for illegal drugs IMO causes about 85% or more of the "drug related crime".

Why don't we have huge crime problems (anymore) with people getting their alcohol fix?

The difference between alcohol induced crime (violence/drunk driving) and the crimes committed because of/during prohibition are obvious examples of how much "crime" is actually caused by people not handling their "substance" and how much is caused by people trying to GET their substance thru illegal means.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:23:26 AM EST
ETH,
Are you saying that society in general is best served by "fixing the broken windows"? Just so I can be clear, is it literally fix the windows? Because I think you can get into a chicken and egg thing. (which is 1st?) Do the broken windows cause the teen vandalism, or does the teen vandalism cause...the broken windows?

Despite that little jab, I DON'T KNOW which comes 1st. And I don't know whether the Oakland thing targets all so-called petty crime, instead of just street level drug dealers. I do beleive that it's better than sitting around doing nothing.
Besides, there is an existing mechanism in the Court system to handle it. Granted, there might be a temporary expansion of expenses, but what are the chances of actually getting someone to literally or figuratively fix the windows?
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:28:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:
Departments make up stats as they see fit for funding ----


------ I'm not convinced or impressed.



Yeah, the department made up 70 murders vs 99 murders.

You really show your intellect sometimes, Bro!
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:32:17 AM EST
hmm...sounds like Vic Mackey and his crew (The Shield) may actually be reality!

referring to: 'I have heard citizens say the [crime reduction teams] have had an impact," Nadel said. "But that also has to be balanced with some [reports of police] heavy handedness. There has been increased police presence, but also an increase in complaints [about police misconduct].
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:42:17 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:47:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
This is a surprise?



Many believe there is no connection between drugs and crime.



of course there is a connection between illegal drugs and crime

When alcohol was illegal it was connected to crime as well.


Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:50:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By maximumbob_tx:

Originally Posted By Treadhead:
That they've seen a reduction in local crimes by cracking down on vendors in one area is great but, those folks looking to buy didn't get "cured" because the corner source was put out of business.



You are right. Again, as a prosecutor, I tend to look after my own community first. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I suspect that LEOs feel the same.
It even has a name: "greyhound Therapy"
I'm saying,"Yeah, it works to clean up MY community." What I hear you saying, TreadHead, is that we are basically wasting time if we don't address the big picture. I agree with that, also, 100%.
How do you propose we do THAT?



IMHO, some sort of legalization is the best way.

You argued that coke and meth should be illegal because of the damage they cause to people and families. But you also admit that you see more damage caused by alcohol. Well, we tried prohibition with alcohol, and it just made the problem worse. The drinkers kept drinking, only they were forced to buy their drinks from criminals instead of law-abiding vendors, thus giving criminals immense resources. Why should things be any different with other drugs? It sure looks the same - the addicts have kept using whether it was legal or not, the only change is that criminals and gangbangers get lots of money from smuggling and dealing it.

What, exactly, is prohibition doing to protect those families, anyways? The users still get their drugs, only they risk being thrown in jail every now and then too. How does that help? Oh yeah, the drugs are more expensive, because of the smuggling risks, and more dangerous too, being brewed in garages by criminals instead of by legitimate companies. So the addict must also spend more of his limited money to get drugs of lesser quality. How does that help?
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:50:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 6:56:41 AM EST by cyanide]

Originally Posted By FiveO:

Originally Posted By cyanide:
Departments make up stats as they see fit for funding ----


------ I'm not convinced or impressed.



Yeah, the department made up 70 murders vs 99 murders.

You really show your intellect sometimes, Bro!



As you do yours

The FBI U.C.R. (crime stats) show a reduction in violent crimes throughout the U.S..

Murder rates were lower than previous years.


www.fbi.gov/ucr/2003/03prelimucr.pdf
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:54:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By maximumbob_tx:

That they've seen a reduction in local crimes by cracking down on vendors in one area is great but, those folks looking to buy didn't get "cured" because the corner source was put out of business.


You are right. Again, as a prosecutor, I tend to look after my own community first. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I suspect that LEOs feel the same.
It even has a name: "greyhound Therapy"
I'm saying,"Yeah, it works to clean up MY community." What I hear you saying, TreadHead, is that we are basically wasting time if we don't address the big picture. I agree with that, also, 100%.
How do you propose we do THAT?



We can't IMHO.

I'm NOT advocating for drug use here but, just as with prohibition in the 20's, all we're going to do is sustain and GROW a (VERY well paid) criminal class in this country that's more than willing to step-up to the threat of prosecution and imprisonment for the compensation that their risk-taking offers them.

Before they put "Teeth" into prohibition (The Volsted[sp?] act) most americans who drank alcohol drank "Hard" ciders with a lesser number drinking beer and the lowest percentage consuming grain alcohol. AFTER prohibition, the percentage of "Hard" alcohol consumers had grown. The reason for that is the same reason we have "Crack" all over the place. If I'm (The "Retailer") going to risk the loss of my freedom to supply my customer base I'm damn sure gonna make sure I get more bang ($$$) for my risk (Crack is more profitable by weight just as Gin was more profitable than beer. The addict will consume what's available).

The more they "Crack-down" on supply (And inflate the street value of what's still able to get in) the more dealers will be drawn into the market. At $5/rock for crack maybe it's not lucrative enough for alot of folks to take the risk. At $20/rock?

Anyway, as I said before, that inmates in prisons are able to get drugs through what I would ASSUME to be almost insurmountable obstacles leaves me doubtful of a "Victory" over illegal drug marketing among people free to walk the streets.

Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:31:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By PBIR:

What about the addicts? You don't think they'll still commit crimes to get a fix? Or does legalization call for welfare crack?



Who gives a rat's tail about the addicts? Tell the SOBs to hang out at an AA meeting. Anyone who commits a crime for money goes to jail.

Try this: Every time you talk about illegal drugs, replace those words with 'alcohol.'

I did a little research on prohibition. During that era, the age of drinkers decreased rapidly. There were very young children accessing alcohol. And it was dangerous as well - home made and, at times, poisonous. During prohibition, there were 30x the number of places to access a drink compared to now, during the time of legalization.

The war on drugs is such a huge waste of our tax dollars. If we legalized and returned all the money spent on the drug war, back to the citizenry, we'd have some fat pockets.



Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:47:38 AM EST
I want to see one set of statitics to really know what to make of this story.

The crime rates for the surrounding communities.

I seriusly doubt they actually eliminated any crime overall, they just moved it a few miles down the road. Then wehn they abck off a little and the nieghbor gets tough, it will swing back to this community. But nobody quit doing drugs because of this..they just moved down the roda to buy em,
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:49:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:
Departments make up stats as they see fit for funding ----


------ I'm not convinced or impressed.

All i really see is the statement ---

It is too hard for us to bust the high level dealers, so were scooping up the low lifes.



+1.


Let the little fish go to get that big ass bass.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:51:36 AM EST
Sorry 4 the delay in answering... I'm really interested in everyone's opinion on this.


Surely, Sir, you have heard of this thesis, which I certainly did not come up with, nor claim that I did?


If you are referring to "broken windows" as a metaphor, or model, describing how a neighborhood decays, actually, no, I haven't.

What are Wilson and Kelling's proposals for eliminating urban decay?

And as to...

You are in this very business, are you not, and you don't know the answer?
You got me there, too. I'll admit it. I don't know what causes urban decay.
I do know the answer to the question "What's the best way to fight it?" The best answer IS to vigorously enforce so-called petty offenses, including, as you point out, code violations. Law-enforcement often puts its most vigorous efforts towards the top of the food chain. I personally think justice is served better by sending Pablo Escobar to jail or giving him a needle than sending Joe Crackhead to state jail for two years. But we are talking about cleaning up neighborhoods. Let me ADD that I think cleaning up neighborhoods DOES enhance justice, in the long run.

BTW, Enquiring Minds still want to know... Jerry Brown?
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:04:08 AM EST
The story is in response to a proposition pending before Kali-fornia voters on Nov 2. The proponents want to weaken the 3 strikes law, to only say that the 3rd strike must be a violent felony. I'm going to vote "NO" to keep it the same. If you've got 2 strikes against you, but had better keep you nose super clean, or we're going to put you away and throw away the key. I know it's clogging up the court system, but hey how else are you going to reduce crime, you've got to put the habitual criminal in jail.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:08:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 8:11:47 AM EST by cyanide]

Originally Posted By warlord:
The story is in response to a proposition pending before Kali-fornia voters on Nov 2. The proponents want to weaken the 3 strikes law, to only say that the 3rd strike must be a violent felony. I'm going to vote "NO" to keep it the same. If you've got 2 strikes against you, but had better keep you nose super clean, or we're going to put you away and throw away the key. I know it's clogging up the court system, but hey how else are you going to reduce crime, you've got to put the habitual criminal in jail.



+1

Hell cane them, that seems to help reduce crime also.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:22:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:

Originally Posted By FiveO:

Originally Posted By cyanide:
Departments make up stats as they see fit for funding ----


------ I'm not convinced or impressed.



Yeah, the department made up 70 murders vs 99 murders.

You really show your intellect sometimes, Bro!



As you do yours

The FBI U.C.R. (crime stats) show a reduction in violent crimes throughout the U.S..

Murder rates were lower than previous years.


www.fbi.gov/ucr/2003/03prelimucr.pdf



Very familiar with the Uniform Crime Reports. Thanks for looking up the stats and proving yourself wrong...

The numbers were not made up, eh?

You take care now!
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:23:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:

Originally Posted By warlord:
The story is in response to a proposition pending before Kali-fornia voters on Nov 2. The proponents want to weaken the 3 strikes law, to only say that the 3rd strike must be a violent felony. I'm going to vote "NO" to keep it the same. If you've got 2 strikes against you, but had better keep you nose super clean, or we're going to put you away and throw away the key. I know it's clogging up the court system, but hey how else are you going to reduce crime, you've got to put the habitual criminal in jail.



+1

Hell cane them, that seems to help reduce crime also.



+2 on the lock em up for good AND the caning!
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:50:36 AM EST
Mace, Treadhead, sin_bin:
As to the Legalization issue, I only got into that because I thought it necessary to explain my agreement with the Guiliani/Oakland emphasis on bottom-up vs. top-down enforcement focus. AR15fan, I wasn't trying to hijack your post.
But I want to answer you, even though this topic has been beat to death...
What I personally see, in my rural county, are three drugs dominating the damage to familiy,etc. area: alcohol, meth, and coke/crack. (I'm told by the local High School liason (sp?) officer that pot is the biggest problem in the school. SURELY none of you are arguing that its OK for kids to use?) Alcohol is legal; the other two are not. If you measured alcohol by the same OBJECTIVE standards as we do drugs, and from the exact same mind set, alcohol would be illegal as well. And there is a certain amount of hypocrisy (and race and cultural bias as well) in that.
I acknowledge the flaws in the system.
But until we have a better sytem than we have now, I can't go legalization. And part of that is that I just think that society will not accept legalization in my lifetime.

MMM... that's not very clear. Legal or not, there are millions of functioning potheads. Freed of the legal entanglements of controlled substances, there are just as many functional alcoholics. Aside from the weight losing, soccer mom ( a model I find suspect, anyway) there are VERY FEW functional meth users. or crackheads. I guess crackheads, by definition are non-functional.

I think that by the addictive nature of those two drugs, users will be a drag on society whether they are legal or not. I don't know whether the number of functional alcoholics is due to the fact that alcohol is legal or alcohol being a different drug than meth and coke.

Society has to deal with dead weight. Criminalization is not a perfect or even a good answer. It's just the best we have right now.

Did the clarification help, or did I just get myself in deeper?

Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:04:49 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:10:08 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:36:30 AM EST

...every day more laws are added to the books making yet something else illegal, a criminal act or punishable with a fine or jail time.

Just wanted to make sure you understood that I, for one, am NOT advocating any NEW laws. On the other hand, I think that you are correct when you say that a shift towards bottom-up prosecution would cost more and the bureacracy would grow. You are not simply shifting resources. Top-down prosecution requires more skilled people than do petty crimes, which are generally resolved at the Justice Court (JP) level.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 10:59:03 AM EST
maximumbob_tx and LEO's here... I am not impressed by the phony "war on drugs".

You want to impress me and REALLY do some good? Start arresting and prosecuting the bankers and lawyers and other financiers that launder all that cash.

When I see them being hauled out of their offices in cuffs, on TV, trying to hide their faces from the TV cameras, then I will believe the war on drugs is real.

Until then, I am not amused.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 11:22:23 AM EST

Who gives a rat's tail about the addicts?


You said:



Hell, if drugs were legal, you wouldn't have this issue.



As if legalizing drugs would end drug related crime. This is bullshit because the addicts will still rob and burglarize and commit thefts to pay for their addiction.

Link Posted: 10/23/2004 11:43:42 AM EST
You have any idea what percentage of the drugs cost is a direct result of prohibition? We're going to have junkies regardless, but if the junkie isn't a criminal until he actually commits a crime, and his fix is available at market price from a legitimate retailer he's less likely to commit a crime.

I'm actually not an advocate of outright legalization of everything anyway, meth for instance is too dangerous a substance to ignore.

I really have a problem though with putting users in prison at my expense, and putting anybody in jail for growing or injesting the wrong plant.

God created plants for a reason, it's man that twists them in the lab and makes them more potent and dangerous. Prohibition motivates this process by making weight and concealability an issue.

Marijuana for instance, in it's less potent forms has very little depressive effect on the CNS, but the depressive component is the simplest to boost so the pot today under prohibition is more likely to cause you problems, whether you're a user or not, than it would otherwise be.

I'm sure that's true of all the plant derived substances.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 12:58:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By maximumbob_tx:

That they've seen a reduction in local crimes by cracking down on vendors in one area is great but, those folks looking to buy didn't get "cured" because the corner source was put out of business.


You are right. Again, as a prosecutor, I tend to look after my own community first. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I suspect that LEOs feel the same.



Yep. i cant make you quit doing crime. But i can make you want to do it in someone elses area.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 1:03:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By steenkybastage:
Why don't we have huge crime problems (anymore) with people getting their alcohol fix?




We do.

Untaxed liquor ("Moonshine")
Hijackng of shipments.
Diversion(Legal liquor being sold places it cant be, or to prohibited persons)
Drunk Driving
Alcohol poisening
Date Rape
Disorderly conduct ("Drunk in public")
Spousal abuse
Vandalism
ect

There are enough problems with taxed and regulated alcohol that we have entire LE agencies devoted to their enforcment. BATF-E at the federal level and ABC at the states level.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 1:08:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By maximumbob_tx:
Mace, Treadhead, sin_bin:
As to the Legalization issue, I only got into that because I thought it necessary to explain my agreement with the Guiliani/Oakland emphasis on bottom-up vs. top-down enforcement focus. AR15fan, I wasn't trying to hijack your post.
But I want to answer you, even though this topic has been beat to death...
What I personally see, in my rural county, are three drugs dominating the damage to familiy,etc. area: alcohol, meth, and coke/crack. (I'm told by the local High School liason (sp?) officer that pot is the biggest problem in the school. SURELY none of you are arguing that its OK for kids to use?) Alcohol is legal; the other two are not. If you measured alcohol by the same OBJECTIVE standards as we do drugs, and from the exact same mind set, alcohol would be illegal as well.



Do you realize the penalties for alcohol offenses are MORE severe than Marijuana offenses in the state of California?. Which is where Oakland is located.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 2:55:42 PM EST
Normally I don't find a topic that draws my interest like this one, but I'd like to throw out a few "comments". As a LEO, I'm not really impressed with the "war on drugs" either. As a cynical person, it seems to me that we aren't fighting to win. If there were a foriegn nation that had a primary export business to the United States of shipping poison gas, radioactive material, or any other destructive and illegal item that caused physical and financial havoc on the US, we would probably bomb them. So tell me again why Columbia is a friend of ours?

As to the question of stricter enforcement of "public order crimes" I am in favor of that. In any business, if the customer is placed in a bad position, the business begins to drop. It isn't the answer, it is just an effective plan that can be done. Going after the "big guys" still leaves the customer base feeding the industry active and well.

If we actually win the "war on drugs", how will we support the thousands of unemployed local, state, and federal people?
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 3:00:45 PM EST
My agency has been operating under the broken windows theory for years now. We harass everybody.
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 3:05:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By K2QB3:
You have any idea what percentage of the drugs cost is a direct result of prohibition? We're going to have junkies regardless, but if the junkie isn't a criminal until he actually commits a crime, and his fix is available at market price from a legitimate retailer he's less likely to commit a crime.




False. "street" Drug prices are so low right now that there is no way in Hell the drug companies would sell heroin or Methamphetamine for any less.

A gram of Meth sells for $20.00. that would get 10 of us high for 6 hours. It would keep four addicts high all day. You think Dow Corning is gonna charge less than $20.00 a gram?
Link Posted: 10/27/2004 3:37:52 PM EST
Three little words...

Follow the money.


Is that too hard? I mean, when a guy deposits a duffle bag of cash into 25 separate bank accounts, you can't figure it out?
Top Top