|
[an error occurred while processing this directive] |
| Drug War Impacts Attitude of Police |
|
Posted by FoM on March 11, 2001 at 12:09:02 PT By Thom Marshall Source: Houston Chronicle 
A couple of our Houston police officers e-mailed harsh criticisms following the recent account here of a woman who was found by a jury to be mentally incompetent to stand trial. Background: That jury was not informed of the charges the woman faced, but her lawyer told me she was accused of trying to split the cost of $10 worth of crack with a man who turned out to be an undercover cop. In comparing the high costs of the criminal-justice system to the alleged crime, I used the phrase "pretty darned piddling" to describe the nonviolent offense. The woman was found incompetent to stand trial, but was taken to jail and held for three weeks until the prosecutor got around to filing paperwork for a criminal commitment to the state hospital, where she was held for about a month. The woman's lawyer said that a supervisor in the district attorney's office has since agreed that criminal commitment was a mistake. "I fail to see how the purchase of $5 worth of crack cocaine is a `pretty darned piddling' crime," one officer said in his e-mail. "It is in fact a felony -- as it should be -- and a major problem for those of us charged with keeping our streets safe. Who needs protecting from the `nonviolent' crime of trying to buy five bucks of crack, you ask? Everybody." He went on to describe the crimes he responds to on Houston's near north side -- "brutal assaults, robberies, burglaries, cuttings and the occasional shooting because someone wanted $5 to buy a crack rock. ... It's not about some mental patient buying a rock; it's about where and how she got ahold of the five bucks. Somebody else paid for that rock, she didn't." The other officer wrote that in 28 years on the job he has "experienced the world you characterize as `nonviolent' up close and personal. Nothing creates, encourages and promotes violence like drug dealing. Where do you think the $5 rock came from? There is no crack fairy that distributes these little pearls for harmless little people to use in the comfort of their home." He urged me to visit the Houston Police Memorial, read the names in the granite, and then ask myself "how `nonviolent' is a substance that can produce such carnage." `Innocent Until Proven Guilty' On one of Harris County's Web sites I found a page titled Basic Legal Concepts of the Criminal Justice System, listing several rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights to anyone accused of a crime. First on the list: "The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This concept is the foundation of the criminal justice system and influences every other legal principle." The first police officer obviously assumed guilt, and much of it, when he said: "It's not about some mental patient buying a rock; it's about where and how she got ahold of the five bucks." She is accused of trying to buy half a rock, not of committing an unknown crime to obtain any money she may have had. She also was not accused of killing a police officer or of committing any other violent act. Yet the second officer's obvious contention is that anyone who buys any amount of crack should be considered guilty by extension of all crimes committed by all drug dealers. It is a war on drugs. In war, a soldier identifies everyone as enemy or friend. He does not divide the enemies into categories; he does his utmost to defeat them all. `Gangster Cops' Joseph McNamara knows a great deal about the effects the drug war has had on police. He progressed through the ranks from beat cop in Harlem to police chief in Kansas City, Mo., (1973-1976), and San Jose, Calif., (1976-199l), and he has spent the past 10 years researching and writing about the drug war and police in cities throughout the nation. At a citizens' commission on U.S. drug policy, McNamara testified: "We have created a kind of culture within American police departments with the war on drugs that has produced not only gangster cops in thousands of cases across America, but we have also corrupted the rank-and-file cops. They have forgotten what their mission is. "They are not soldiers in a war; they're peace officers with a fundamental duty to protect human life." Thom Marshall's e-mail address is: thom.marshall@chron.com Source: Houston Chronicle (TX) CannabisNews Articles - Thom Marshall Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #20 posted by Jose Melendez on February 28, 2002 at 08:15:56 PT:
|
| understood, FoM sorry I reacted to the flame. I should have just applied it to a joint. :) [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #19 posted by Jose Melendez on February 28, 2002 at 08:14:49 PT:
|
| What happened to TB's slanderous comments? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #18 posted by FoM on February 28, 2002 at 08:14:16 PT |
| I removed the threads so I'll remove your response too. He is flaming. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #17 posted by Jose Melendez on February 28, 2002 at 08:11:10 PT:
|
| Sure, "Officer True Blue"
Excuse me, but... what are YOU smoking? I answered each one of your points saliently and accurately, without stooping to insults. You choose to use a psuedonym, a false email contact address, and personal attacks to reinforce your weak arguments against drivers who use pot, while simultaneously ignoring the science that consistently and historically refutes your firmly held beliefs. I am disappointed that you did not just ask for me to supply the references I offered to post, or use something other than your anecdotal rhetoric to support your arguments. Sigh - I have evidence that proves your position is incorrect. For you to prejudicially dismiss that fact is disingenuous, to say the least. And for someone who does not use his (her, whatever) real name to use such libelous uncalled for comments about me is hypocritical, especially if you are really a cop. Drug war has been exposed as treason, and will be arrested. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by Patrick on February 28, 2002 at 06:53:02 PT |
| all about the cops, after all he is doing the research right? Welcome back dddd. These next few years are going to be not good,,in many ways......... Hope that you are well? Joseph McNamara … "They are not soldiers in a war; they're peace officers with a fundamental duty to protect human life." Amen sir! I salute you for saying that. Cannabis Prohibition makes individual consumption choices criminal, creates an us against them attitude on our streets, and it corrupts our policing powers in ways that we are only beginning to understand. I want to hope that this idea catches on soon so we all can see the end of this pointless cannabis prohibition in our lifetimes. I love and respect the use of cannabis and I also care about and respect decent hard working cops who demonstrate the above attitude! Knowing that perhaps most cops are not anti's, we need to weed out the ones that are and disarm them quickly.So my question to anti cops is this… What is it that makes you the proudest when you lock an otherwise peaceful citizen in hand cuffs, throw them into a cage, and let the legal system pillage their families wallet for simply smoking and/or possessing a marijuana cigarette? [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #12 posted by Jose Melendez on February 28, 2002 at 05:53:13 PT:
|
| Seeing no retort from "true blue", I emailed the address associated with those postings. Surprise! No such email address...
Maybe True Blue is really Joyce... (grin) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by FoM on February 27, 2002 at 10:53:33 PT |
| You're doing great and I thank you so much for working with me. We have a great web site here. We are a community and as long as we work together we'll gain strength and maybe win this darn war. Check out the public stats. http://www.cannabisnews.com/stats/ [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #10 posted by Jose Melendez on February 27, 2002 at 10:44:54 PT:
|
| Thank you, FoM. Please accept my apologies for the typos... (abot and woth? what was I thinking?)
I hope that last post was on topic enough. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by FoM on February 27, 2002 at 10:12:03 PT |
| Thanks! [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #8 posted by Jose Melendez on February 27, 2002 at 10:00:19 PT:
|
| True blue: Did you ever consider that personal attacks reduce your credibility on this issue? How abot recognizing that NO ONE GETS ARRESTED FOR $5 woth of nicotine, A KNOWN DEADLY POISON, usually packaged in a device that was designed to sell more cigarettes and increasing the amounts of carbon monoxide, benzene, benzopyrene and toluene during the combustion phase required to ingest said nicotine?
Or, maybe you might consider that despite knowing of the ethical and criminal acts committed by the manufacturers of these deadly devices for at least 50 years, Congress continues to refuse to schedule the drug properly, (Schedule 1); this despite pulic disclosures including but not limited to the known perjuries committed in 1996 by tobacco executives, who also happened that very day to be advised on their testimony by Ken Starr? (Mr. Starr is most famous for almost immediately thereafter persuing a 40 plus million dollar perjury case against then president Bill Clinton.) Then how about noticing that OVER 6 MILLION US CITIZENS DIE every ten years, due to the use of legal tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical drugs. Is it really too complicated for you to note that less than 1/60th of that number die from all illicit substances combined? Or do you simply insist that the legal status of prohibited substances should not be based on relative harm caused by said substances? Yawn... those most vociferously denouncing the personal activities of others have something to hide, sell or both. Remember the Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne? The moral of the story is that the hypocritical prosecuter of the adulteress is also the father of the baby in question. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #7 posted by true blue on February 27, 2002 at 06:39:06 PT:
|
| "You Hick being directed at "Tim" [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by true blue on February 27, 2002 at 06:34:57 PT:
|
| You sound like you should be a social worker, not a cop. When you leave Mayberry and come work in the real world you might have something of value to say. Would you suggest that the woman not be arrested? Maybe we could leave the druggies on the street. I'm sure they will voluntarily go to rehab? Did it ever occur to you that the judge might make it a condition of her parole to get some help and this might be that little nudge she needs to get clean? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by observer on March 12, 2001 at 06:47:07 PT |
| ... LIBERTY is by far the most important right we have. Amen, amen! If America's police and prosecutors were all like Tim, we'd be in much better shape! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by dddd on March 12, 2001 at 00:51:55 PT |
| Thank you officer Tim.You do your badge proud! >"The first & foremost responsability & duty of an officer of the law is to keep the peace & to protect the oppressed. I am sure that I'm in the minority as it relates to my fellow officers accross the country in regards to this opinion."< There are many honest,true,and hardworking officers out there like yourself,who do not subscribe to the cultish rhetoric.I agree that your type is the minority,but the job of a cop is not an easy one.It becomes further confusing when you add the drug war,and all the misinformation and false justification that goes with it. We need police,and law enforcement like Officer Tim,,"keep the peace & protect the oppressed." Thanks again Tim for your comments. We love you May JAH shine on you!
[ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #3 posted by Tim on March 11, 2001 at 23:30:00 PT:
|
| I am a Deputy Sheriff in a small rural midwestern county & let me say that I am thoroughly discusted by the two officers comments. I am furthermore discraced by the actions of these officers. The first & foremost responsability & duty of an officer of the law is to keep the peace & to protect the oppressed. I am sure that I'm in the minority as it relates to my fellow officers accross the country in regards to this opinion. The bottom line is this** The war on drugs has been an absolute & total FAILURE in every aspect. There's no doubt that this woman has a problem, but even more important is finding a solution for her problem. It's quite obvious that this woman was desperate & made a poor choice.These officer's have obviously forgotten that it's an admirable quality to be compassionate & sensitive to all citizens. In the six years that I've been an officer I've had the privelage of solving many burglary's, thefts,helping battered women . These are crimes involving VICTIM'S. When I put my uniform on at the beginning of my shift, I always say to myself that I hope I can help someone tonight. Being a police officer these days is awful hard. It's no wonder we get so much negative press. I'll end by saying that I hope the women gets the HELP she needs & that I would advise those officers & all the others that subscribe to their philosphy that they should read the constitution & the remarks of our most famous founders of this great nation. LIBERTY is by far the most important right we have. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by dddd on March 11, 2001 at 22:44:17 PT |
| >"Yet the second officer's obvious contention is that anyone who buys any amount of crack should be considered guilty by extension of all crimes committed by all drug dealers. It is a war on drugs. In war, a soldier identifies everyone as enemy or friend. He does not divide the enemies into categories; he does his utmost to defeat them all. "< These two lines provide a good summarization of the situation.
These next few years are going to be not good,,in many ways.........dddd [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by observer on March 11, 2001 at 21:09:06 PT |
| Thom Marshall is a great writer and this piece is another in his excellent series. I wonder if the drug warriors ever 'got back to him' concerning the debate ? [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |