The costs of the drug war.
Russell Turpin
Excerpted without permission from Reason magazine (March 1990), a
libertarian periodical available at most large bookstores.
Follow-ups to misc.legal only.
-----
... The latest national campaign against mind-altering substances
has inspired state and local authorities to adopt a host of
tactics that sacrifice individual liberties on the altar of
unpolluted bodily fluids.
Several cities have enacted antiloitering ordinances aimed at
disrupting drug trafficking and gang activity. In Washington,
DC, for example, police have the authority to arrest people who
gather in groups of two or more for "failure to move on," a
misdemeanor. Kalamazoo, Michigan, has a similar ordinance. "We
don't feel there is a constitutional right to associate with drug
dealers," the city attorney explains.
Similarly, local authorities have attacked freedom of association
by enforcing laws against belonging to gangs. Police in LA
County have sent notices to 500 gang members, warning them that
they can be prosecuted under a state antiterrorism law. ...
[A wise jurist once commented that when some class, such
as the suspected criminal, has no constitutional rights,
neither will the rest of us. -- RT]
Siezures are not confined to the property of suspected drug
couriers. Following the federal example, police confiscate
property when it can be connected in any way to drug crimes. In
Detroit, for example, police siezed $4,834 from a grocery store
after dogs detected traces of cocaine on three $1.00 bills in a
cash register.
In Boston, police have conducted sweeps of predominately black
neighborhoods in which they stop, firsk, and sometimes
strip-search "known gang members" and their companions. "A tacit
understanding exists in the Boston Police Department that
constitutionally impermissible searches will not only be
countenanced but applauded in the Roxbury area," State Superior
Court Judge Courtland Mathers said last September, suppressing
the use of evidence siezed in an illegal search.
Finally, an incident in Hudson, New Hampshire, last summer
chillingly illustrated the true nature of the war on drugs.
Using a search warrant based on a 20-month-old tip, police raided
the apartment of Bruce Lavole, a 34-year-old machinist, at 5 AM
on August 3. Having no reason to suspect that Lavole was armed,
they entered the apartment unanounced, smashing down the door
with a battering ram. When Lavole rose from his bed to fend off
the intruders, the police shot him dead while his son watched.
The search yielded a marijuana cigarette.
-----
end excerpt
-----
If the last story is accurate -- and I am fully aware that news
stories frequently are not -- then there are Hudson police
officers who are guilty of murder. The bad guys had badges, and
sadly, they won the gunfight.
Russell
Always mount a scratch monkey.
In article <79...@cs.utexas.edu>, tur...@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes...
> If the last story is accurate -- and I am fully aware that news
> stories frequently are not -- then there are Hudson police
> officers who are guilty of murder. The bad guys had badges, and
> sadly, they won the gunfight.
The last story is accurate, although brief, except that the person's name is
Lavoie. I live in Nashua, adjacent to Hudson, and attended two town meetings
at which the incident was discussed. I also obtained (after some effort) a
copy of the state policy investigative file on the matter. I will enter more
information shortly.
-- edp (Eric Postpischil)
"Always mount a scratch monkey."
postp...@alien.enet.dec.com
Jim Aloise
>
>Not only was he shot dead in front of his two sons, the police
>insisted that nothing improper had happened. (The officer who
>killed Lavoie has since resigned.) A state investigation also
>concluded that everything was entirely proper.
More and more compromise to the great crusade against drugs. How many innocent
people being killed by the ones that we're paying to protect us will we
tolerate.
>The use of SWAT teams is now accepted practice in routine
>drug raids against users of drugs.
A dozen or more heavily armed men, in states of extreme nervousness and
aggitation, breaking down your door on who knows what kind of real or imaginary
information. Does this vaguely sound like our country is going in the wrong
direction?
> "The war on drugs has taken a controversial turn in
> New Hampshire, where State Police making routine traffic
> stops recently began testing driver's licenses for the
> prescence of cocaine." (Boston Globe 2-25-90)
>I guess your protection against self-incrimination isn't
>required in the WOD.
Unbelievable. Especially in the light of the statistics you hear that the large
majority of our currency has cocaine residue. So what's so suprising that it's
on a drivers license keep in a wallet with money.
>Drug prohibition continues to be the most hazardous consequence
>of drug usage.
>In Kansas City Mo. a fire department captain was arrested in connection
>with a 50 million-dollar annual cocaine distribution scheme that used
>fire stations as crack houses. (AP).
>But don't worry, the level of corruption associated with the WOD found
>in countries like Mexico and Columbia will not happen here.
Why cannot people get that idea that the vast money means extensive corruption.
Corruption of the people that are in positions that directly effect our well
being. I wonder how any of us would do, when actually face to face with cash
money? Easy to understand someones failing. And the most amazing thing about
this is that all this maddness still has no effect on drug use and
availablility. Has anyone noticed?
Mike Godwin
>
>Before anyone sees in William F. Buckley a willing allie siding with
>those against the WOD, just remember he is for virtually instant execution
>of any one selling drugs to minors.
Although I object to his proposed penalty for transgressors, I have no
trouble with forbidding drugs to minors.
Incidentally, the NEWEST issue of NATIONAL REVIEW has a piece giving
Buckley's own recommended attitude for conservatives as the drug issue
gets debated in the '90s.
First, he says drug legalization should be considered as an optional
strategy in the war on drugs (specifically, the war on drug ADDICTION).
Second, he says that conservatives should avoid the mistake of equating
a pro-legalization stance with a pro-drug-use stance.
Third, he says conservatives must not stand idly by as our rights and
liberties are infringed in the course of the government's anti-drug
efforts.
--Mike
Mike Godwin, UT Law School |"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids
mnem...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu or| the rich as well as the poor to sleep under
mgo...@rpp386.cactus.org or | bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!mgodwin | bread." --Anatole France