Casualties of the war on drugs

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LordofHats**

Monkey Tamer wrote:
I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.

I find that any profession with very specific definitions for terms that differ from their usual usage run into this hard, and the law has lots of jargon and uses lots of words with very specific meanings in mind. And that's not taking into account that people can just understand a profession very poorly. I'm a historian, and there's always a chuckle when people use "historical revisionism" as an insult

**Asterios**

well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

**Jihadin**

LordofHats wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.

I find that any profession with very specific definitions for terms that differ from their usual usage run into this hard, and the law has lots of jargon and uses lots of words with very specific meanings in mind. And that's not taking into account that people can just understand a profession very poorly. I'm a historian, and there's always a chuckle when people use "historical revisionism" as an insult

A lot of Latin Words in law. Though it is interesting how much of the Roman Era influence us today. Also the medical field to.
We talking about the State Prison pop right? How many states have the three strikes your out approach to jail term?

**Frazzled**

skyth wrote:
Am I the only one who has trouble taking serious the guy with the name with racist connotations?

Kronk's not a racist. He's a humanities last best hope to rebuild the population after the Zombie Games.

Kronk, doing it...for America!

**jreilly89**

Asterios wrote:
well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.

But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).

**Monkey Tamer**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.

Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.

I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.

Why? Because America's justice system is for profit. Look at our prisons, follow the money trail.

Do we need cops? Hell yes. But our justice system as a whole needs a revamp. Too many criminals get locked up, get out, see there's no opportunities other than crime, and go back to crime. How many criminals actually are able to rebuild their life in prison?

At last we are in agreement about something. Some states offer tax rebates for hiring felons. Several felons in the area now work as roofers or do manual labor for contracting companies. It is difficult, yes, but not impossible. Some of these people had bad parenting, and would have been better served going to the military to escape their life and start a career, but many of them are dragged down by their fellows and wallow in the same filth until they catch a case. But it isn't all bad even if you have a felony charge. First offender probation is a popular disposition for first time offenders with felony drugs. But as I've said before you can lead a horse to water but can't make them drink. Many of them re-offend, don't indulge in the free treatment, or pop on a urinalysis. I'm sorry I get worked up about this, but I've had way too many meetings with victims where I have to tell them what they found on the internet just isn't true. The guy that broke into their house isn't going to prison. Yes, he has a criminal history, but their version of bad and the judge's version of bad history is different. Sometimes we quite literally have to wait until they kill or try to kill someone. It's often a thankless profession and the media's false information certainly isn't helping. Some people just can't get right, and there is no other way to deal with them other than remove them from society. Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.

The military can be a good choice for some but it's really not geared towards teaching useful job skills or civics. The veterans that I know got their jobs based off of going to college on the GI Bill or having been in a MOS that happened to be easily translatable into a good job, and there's no guarantee of the later happening.

The states need to do a better job of getting people who want to get out of the ghetto out of the ghetto. Nobody should have to live in that kind of detrimental environment. I'm against the govt forcibly relocating people but if we're going to give people housing assistance we should do all we can to move the ones that care about their kids' education and future into neighborhoods that don't promote and condone truancy and crime.

The skills I learned in the military kept me fed until I got my law degree. Maybe being a grunt doesn't translate well into many useful civilian jobs, but there are plenty of technical jobs that do. I'm kicking myself for not going into something medical while in the military. Larger municipalities have programs for free job training for criminals. You can learn a trade for free99, paid for by the taxpayers, which in theory will reduce recidivism. Some cities have free taxi services for juvenile offenders to ensure they attend school, often a condition of supervision or probation. Some people want the world handed to them worse than the stereotypical college graduates. Without Matrix style direct injection training some people will not avail themselves of outstanding tax payer programs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.

I find that any profession with very specific definitions for terms that differ from their usual usage run into this hard, and the law has lots of jargon and uses lots of words with very specific meanings in mind. And that's not taking into account that people can just understand a profession very poorly. I'm a historian, and there's always a chuckle when people use "historical revisionism" as an insult

A lot of Latin Words in law. Though it is interesting how much of the Roman Era influence us today. Also the medical field to.
We talking about the State Prison pop right? How many states have the three strikes your out approach to jail term?

This is another hot button fodder topic for journalists. It isn't any three strikes and you're out in Illinois. First, it must be a class 2 or greater felony. And the conviction for the third offense must be after the conviction for the second, and after the conviction for the first. A personal use amount of pot will not qualify. i. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-95

**Asterios**

jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.

But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).

where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.

**kronk**

Monkey Tamer wrote:
Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.

Not at all what you said.

Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned.

You want them all ex-communicated.

Don't cry poor little me and my job get talked badly about in the media.

**Monkey Tamer**

kronk wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.

Not at all what you said.

Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned.

You want them all ex-communicated.

Don't cry poor little me and my job get talked badly about in the media.

Quote where I stated I believe all of them should be ex-communicated. Point to where I said absolutely all criminal offenders re-offend. Where are these absolutes you accuse me of?

**jreilly89**

Asterios wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.

But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).

where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.

So, this isn't saying he had it coming?

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

Either way, it ain't far from the truth that you don't care about a kid getting blown away.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monkey Tamer wrote:
kronk wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.

Not at all what you said.

Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned.

You want them all ex-communicated.

Don't cry poor little me and my job get talked badly about in the media.

Quote where I stated I believe all of them should be ex-communicated. Point to where I said absolutely all criminal offenders re-offend. Where are these absolutes you accuse me of?

You keep saying about how soft America is and how much better India is because of how it deals with addicts. Kronk showed that. Please, move the goal posts further.

**Monkey Tamer**

jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.

But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).

where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.

So, this isn't saying he had it coming?

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

Either way, it ain't far from the truth that you don't care about a kid getting blown away.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monkey Tamer wrote:
kronk wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
Others take the second chance they're given and are thankful for it.

Not at all what you said.

Well I'm going to point to India. Over there addicts don't get handled with kiddie gloves. They get ex-communicated and disowned.

You want them all ex-communicated.

Don't cry poor little me and my job get talked badly about in the media.

Quote where I stated I believe all of them should be ex-communicated. Point to where I said absolutely all criminal offenders re-offend. Where are these absolutes you accuse me of?

You keep saying about how soft America is and how much better India is because of how it deals with addicts. Kronk showed that. Please, move the goal posts further.

If you could find a quote where I said "we should do exactly like India" I'd be with you. I offered that other extreme example. We should not do the other extreme. If you can't comprehend English it's not my fault. All other countries have good and bad. India has some corrupt police that stop people on the highway for a "tax." I could use other countries like Singapore. Sorry but not sorry you're butthurt. I'll spell it out in plain English for you: the United States is too soft on crime. Maybe we should try another approach.

**Dreadwinter**

Monkey Tamer wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.

Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.

I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.

As a person who lives in the same state as you(Illinois) and has worked with people with mental disorders and attempted to get them in to rehab programs, our rehab programs are absolutely trash. There is a 6 month wait to get in to a rehab program and in that amount of time anything can happen to said person. They can be arrested, OD, decide they do not need it, be kicked out of their home, or move to another area and be unable to join. There is also the fact that we are now over a year without a budget in this state and the things being hit hardest are the programs that help vulnerable people in need, like our rehab programs and mental health facilities. The only reason rehab programs prolong the eventual sentence of incarceration is because they are so underfunded and understaffed that they can only help a small majority of the people who actually need assistance.

So there is my anecdotal evidence, if you can present yours, I can present mine.

**Monkey Tamer**

Dreadwinter wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Without wanting to get too drawn in here, arguing for the validity of personal anecdotal evidence over statistical data and research studies is generally a flawed approach.

Ultimately, the US does send a lot more people (both in absolute and relative terms) to prison, and for generally longer sentences, than other developed nations.

I'm not denying that at all. My concern is the why. Why do we need to? Are we too soft compared to other countries? Is it because we have so many rehab programs that simply prolong the eventual sentence for incarceration? We hand out second chances here (and third, fourth, fifth . . .) all the time. It is statutorily mandated that a court sentence an offender to supervision, probation, or conditional discharge as the default in Illinois (730 ILCS 5/5-6-1). But all I hear is how mean we are constantly locking people up for small amounts of pot, which is a legal impossibility. The media is full of bullsh!t when it comes to the legal industry. Every time I read some journalist reporting on a recent Supreme Court Decision they screw it up royally, which results in people thinking they can do things they can't, or that the cops have gestapo power to seize them with impunity. I can't speak for other professions, but mine is constantly being portrayed flat out wrong.

As a person who lives in the same state as you(Illinois) and has worked with people with mental disorders and attempted to get them in to rehab programs, our rehab programs are absolutely trash. There is a 6 month wait to get in to a rehab program and in that amount of time anything can happen to said person. They can be arrested, OD, decide they do not need it, be kicked out of their home, or move to another area and be unable to join. There is also the fact that we are now over a year without a budget in this state and the things being hit hardest are the programs that help vulnerable people in need, like our rehab programs and mental health facilities. The only reason rehab programs prolong the eventual sentence of incarceration is because they are so underfunded and understaffed that they can only help a small majority of the people who actually need assistance.

So there is my anecdotal evidence, if you can present yours, I can present mine.

Go point that finger right at Springfield. You and I both know the issue is more complicated than how you're presenting it.

**Dreadwinter**

You said that rehab programs only prolong eventual sentence and I told you why that is. Going to an extreme and saying it is because we are soft on crime is not the answer to this. The answer is to actually fund a program and get behind it instead of demonizing people in trouble, which you are advocating for with your India approach.

**Asterios**

jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.

But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).

where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.

So, this isn't saying he had it coming?

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

Either way, it ain't far from the truth that you don't care about a kid getting blown away.

was he an innocent victim? no he was in that position because of something he did, he didn't have to take the deal, he could have done his time, which would have been months, but no he broke the law, got busted and tried a deal, if he never broke the law he wouldn't have been in that situation.

**kronk**

Monkey Tamer wrote:
Sorry but not sorry you're butthurt. I'll spell it out in plain English for you: the United States is too soft on crime. Maybe we should try another approach.

Statistics are better than the anecdotes you've thrown us.

I expect better than "Sorry but not sorry you're butthurt" from a practicing lawyer. Your verbal jabs should be better than that.

Maybe you aren't a good lawyer and that's why you can't get a conviction from the "soft on crime judges".

Perhaps your handle would be a better job for you.

Things to consider.

**Dreadwinter**

Asterios wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Asterios wrote:
well lets see in California most drug charges are considered minor charges and you will not see the inside of prison, but then again now a days it is getting pretty hard to be sent to prison for any reason, which is not a good thing

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

Is it? A 20 year old who sold some pot on campus, for which he would have faced a minor fine, instead got cooerced into being an informant and got murdered.

But sure, he's a hardened felon with multiple records of violent crimes and got what he had coming (sarcasm).

where did I say he got what he had coming? if you cannot quote me without putting imaginary words into my mouth then just don't bother. you are a real piece of work, someone says something you don't like or hell If I say something you don't like you just put words into my mouth and act like i said them.

So, this isn't saying he had it coming?

as to the title kept thinking innocent kids or families killed, not a drug dealer who got caught and turned informant, poor choice for describing the casualties on the war on drugs.

Either way, it ain't far from the truth that you don't care about a kid getting blown away.

was he an innocent victim? no he was in that position because of something he did, he didn't have to take the deal, he could have done his time, which would have been months, but no he broke the law, got busted and tried a deal, if he never broke the law he wouldn't have been in that situation.

Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.

**kronk**

Dreadwinter wrote:

As a person who lives in the same state as you(Illinois) and has worked with people with mental disorders and attempted to get them in to rehab programs, our rehab programs are absolutely trash. There is a 6 month wait to get in to a rehab program and in that amount of time anything can happen to said person. They can be arrested, OD, decide they do not need it, be kicked out of their home, or move to another area and be unable to join. There is also the fact that we are now over a year without a budget in this state and the things being hit hardest are the programs that help vulnerable people in need, like our rehab programs and mental health facilities. The only reason rehab programs prolong the eventual sentence of incarceration is because they are so underfunded and understaffed that they can only help a small majority of the people who actually need assistance.

So there is my anecdotal evidence, if you can present yours, I can present mine.

The budget crisis is beyond bad. It's catastrophic here in IL. I almost wished I had moved to WI and just driven the 35-45 minutes to work everyday.

Ah, well.

**Monkey Tamer**

Dreadwinter wrote:
You said that rehab programs only prolong eventual sentence and I told you why that is. Going to an extreme and saying it is because we are soft on crime is not the answer to this. The answer is to actually fund a program and get behind it instead of demonizing people in trouble, which you are advocating for with your India approach.

No, I never said demonize. I said perhaps we should be harder. I offered India as a counter example. And not on first time offenders. I think our first time offender provisions are great for giving people a second chance. On habitual criminals that continue to re-offend, yes, we need to punt them to DOC. India is far from perfect, and I'll take the US over it any day. I like my clean water and constant electricity.

**Asterios**

Dreadwinter wrote:

Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.

and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.

**Monkey Tamer**

kronk wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
Sorry but not sorry you're butthurt. I'll spell it out in plain English for you: the United States is too soft on crime. Maybe we should try another approach.

Statistics are better than the anecdotes you've thrown us.

I expect better than "Sorry but not sorry you're butthurt" from a practicing lawyer. Your verbal jabs should be better than that.

Maybe you aren't a good lawyer and that's why you can't get a conviction from the "soft on crime judges".

Perhaps your handle would be a better job for you.

Things to consider.

I'm saying your statistics are biased, and actually agree that we incarcerate a lot of people. My point is the approach we are taking is not working, but you don't seem to comprehend that. Welcome to the ignore list, and for the record I can be quite creative with my jabs, but wasn't going to resort to personal attacks. Go on believing what you find on the internet. Say hi to the Nigerian prince for me.

**Dreadwinter**

Asterios wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.

and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.

So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?

**Monkey Tamer**

Dreadwinter, does your area have a Drug Court?

**Jihadin**

I truly believe people who becomes informant's are fully aware of the danger they are putting themselves in.

**A Town Called Malus**

Jihadin wrote:
I truly believe people who becomes informant's are fully aware of the danger they are putting themselves in.

I think that would very much depend on how deep into the game they are. If their only contact was Harold and Kumar then they may not realise that Marlo is the big player in the area and what his reaction would be to someone potentially informing on his organisation.

Which raises the question of was that kid deep enough in to actually get anything useful? From the information we have? No, he wasn't. He was a very small time pot dealer who the police pressured into trying to get a line on harder drugs. Harder drugs leads to harder drug dealers and this kid was in no way adequately prepared to get into that kind of business.

**Asterios**

Dreadwinter wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.

and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.

So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?

I'm saying if he didn't break the law he would not have been in that situation, he could have been killed while selling the drugs, he could have died if he went to prison, he could have been killed for any number of reasons, and he knew this and yet still did the crime, so yes, he knew it was dangerous and did it still anyway.

**Prestor Jon**

Dreadwinter wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.

and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.

So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?

Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.

**Dreadwinter**

Monkey Tamer wrote:
Dreadwinter, does your area have a Drug Court?

Yup

Prestor Jon wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.

and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.

So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?

Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.

Which is a problem. It may be legal, but I do not think it should be.

**A Town Called Malus**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.

and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.

So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?

Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.

Another question is whether (and why) the police knowingly lied to the parents when his body was found. Backpack full of rocks, in a river with a bullet hole in his head? That does not sound like suicide to me. People who commit suicide usually aren't too bothered with trying to make sure that their body isn't found.

**Monkey Tamer**

Dreadwinter wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
Dreadwinter, does your area have a Drug Court?

Yup

Prestor Jon wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:

Too bad the police brow beat him, told him he was going to get way more time than a few months(they lied), then pressured him in to doing something he should have never been doing. Then he paid the ultimate price for their dumb approach to the "War on Drugs". The kid was not a drug kingpin, he should not be treated as such.

and I repeat if he did not break the law and sell drugs would he have been in this situation? as I always say you are responsible for your actions, he broke the law so his actions placed him in the position, he has himself and only himself to blame for selling those drugs.

So you are saying that since he broke the law, it was perfectly acceptable for the police to lie to him and manipulate him in to doing something that cost him his life?

Cops are allowed to lie to you in order to get you to confess or turn informant. It can look to be pretty shady and reprehensible but it's legal.

Which is a problem. It may be legal, but I do not think it should be.

Our HRC just went kaput due to the lack of State funding, which is sad. Those social workers had a lot of heart. You have to reside in the county to be on drug court, but we no longer have a treatment center for those on drug court. We're not sure what we're going to do. On the flip side lack of funding has also hit law enforcement. It's hard to prosecute drug crimes without lab results, so we may be cherry picking our cases here in the near future. We just had several people die from a bad cut of heroin and were trying different methods of prevention and counseling. Guess we'll never know if any of it would have worked.

If you work in the field of social work you have my utmost respect. You guys must beat your heads against the wall every hour on the hour.