The Hard Stats on Hard Drugs in Pitkin County

October 13th, 2006 at 11:44am Michael Brylawski 133

In the hard drug debate now raging around the Sheriff's race (despite the Daily News attempt to divert it with non-news), one thing missing so far is hard data.

Hard drugs, and the lack of policies to deal with them in the Sheriff's office, has had consequences for our public safety.

The facts: Pitkin County official drug-related fatalities were 5 in 2005. An additional 6 occurred in 2002-2004, for 11 over past four years.

With our population, that implies a death rate of ~185 people per million over the last four years (it would be much higher just for 2005, but I use the past four years to show a more fair, longer term rate).

How does this compare? Our long-term drug fatality rate is higher than 29 of 32 major cities according to US Department of Health and Human Services. Only New Orleans, Albequerque, and Baltimore--not quite urban quality of life benchmarks--have a higher fatality rate, and those are only higher by ~10%.

Who does Pitkin County lag?

Denver, for one (102)--we have TWICE the fatality rate of our closest major city.

The "CSI" cities: New York and Miami have rates a half to a third that of Pitkin County.

We're also THREE times the rate of Washington DC (whose former mayor famously smoked crack cocaine), and TWICE that of San Francisco.

Check the data yourself. Statistics don't lie.

We have a serious public safety issue with drunk driving and hard drugs. Our fatality rates for DUI deaths are 3x the state average, and our hard drug death rate is 2x Denver, 3x Miami and Washington, and would rank us 29th among 32 major cities in the US.

We have a problem here, and we need to debate this in the last month coming into the election.

What policies can we do to help deal with this problem? What can be done better to lower our drug and alcohol death rates?

Are you listening Daily News and Times?

Entry Filed under: Basalt, Snowmass, Aspen, Pitkin County, Sheriff Race 2006

24 Comments Add your own

1. Wharf Rat | October 13th, 2006 at 5:30 pm

Thanks for the post.

Do you have a link to the statistics regarding drug-related fatalities in Pitkin County? I could not find them.

Does a drug-related fatality include drug-related suicide? I noticed you left that out of the national statistics. Does a drug-related fatality include a drug dealer killing a rival drug dealer or a junkie killing a dealer or a junkie killing someone for money for a score? How about someone killed in a drug bust? The national statistics you cited don't address that. And as we all know, the larger-city drug-related violence and collateral death does not typically occur here like it does in the hood.

Statistics don't lie, but often our use of them is incomplete.

Thanks.
2. Michael Brylawski | October 13th, 2006 at 6:19 pm

Great, substantive questions.

Statistics for drug-related deaths are not online; they are from the PitCo's coroner's office, available in their records dept. Those numbers, for all I know, are not disputed, and were even cited by Bob Braudis in the Aspen Times.

As for drug related fatalities, the scenarios you point out (larger violence and collateral death) would actually increase the rate of fatalities in cities, actually making the discrepancy in PitCo worse. But to my understanding from the study, "DAWN now captures any death related to recent drug use. Findings are presented for deaths involving drug misuse and abuse, as well as drug-related suicides."...e.g., only overdoses and suicides are counted.

My understanding is that the Pitkin Co. deaths are not suicides, but if I am wrong, adjust the figures by 20%--e.g., we are ~70-80% higher than Denver, not 100%.

The national rate (imprecise so this study was used instead), by the way, is estimated to be 40-50 people per million--making PitCo ~4-5x.

Especially for 2005--where our rate is over 330 per million, the numbers are pretty dramatic.

Please follow up if you think there is anything else I'm leaving out of this analysis. God is in the details. However, "back of the envelope," this appears to be a significant problem, as does alcohol-related deaths.
3. Michael Brylawski | October 13th, 2006 at 7:23 pm

One addendum:

Common Sense on Drug Policy--an organization that is pretty balanced on the issue--cites 17k drug related deaths in the US in 2000 including *all* causes (including homicides and suicides). http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf

The population in 2000 was ~281M, meaning the death rate per 1M is 60 for the US.

Given that PitCo has virtually no homicides (maybe 1-2 a decade), this makes our three-fold death rate pretty high.

I don't want to dwell on the statistics--no matter how you cut it, we are much higher than the national average and among the worst in US communities.

What I'd like people to talk about is (akin to your strong post on the Netherland's policy) what are we doing about DUI and hard-drug related fatalities?

Note as well I'm talking about hard drugs. I think our community, and myself personally, are in favor of gradually decrminializing soft drugs per Denver's policy.

But we need to distinguish between hard and soft drugs, and recognize they can't be treated the same way (as you mention in your post): pot is a world away from coke and meth...
4. alpha6 | October 16th, 2006 at 6:12 pm

I think in this community soft drugs are pretty much decriminalized. If you are caught with less then an ounce of weed, you usually get off with a ticket, much akin to speeding, so I don't think you would have much resistance with regard to that measure passing in this area.

I would much rather see this happen and a stronger stance taken on hard drugs. Too often the argument against drugs muddies the lines between the two. In doing so, I think it weakens the laws needed with regards to dealing hard drugs. It is sad that we keep having this argument. It won't be until this town starts seeing the horrific effects of meth hitting home that they realize the difference in the two. But once meth takes hold, it’s like a cancer and much harder to get rid of then preventing it. Let’s hope it won’t happen, but given the recent meth incidents in this valley, and this counties policy of coddling drug traffickers, it’s only a matter of time before it becomes common place.
5. Lost Sailor | October 16th, 2006 at 7:49 pm

noone wants meth here, or other hard drugs - it's the engrained believe that recreational cocaine use is acceptable is hard for alot of people to swallow.

the statistics are brutal, and the election will bring some good dialogue on how to make our town safer.

still waiting for some soloutions, or suggestions on how to make these stats improve.
6. Wharf Rat | October 19th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

"As for drug related fatalities, the scenarios you point out (larger violence and collateral death) would actually increase the rate of fatalities in cities, actually making the discrepancy in PitCo worse."

I believe that works the other way. The 30 cities would have higher drug-related deaths per million, and Pitco's rate would remain unchanged. Pitco's rate would be lower vis-a-vis urban areas.

"But to my understanding from the study, "DAWN now captures any death related to recent drug use. Findings are presented for deaths involving drug misuse and abuse, as well as drug-related suicides."...e.g., only overdoses and suicides are counted."

Drug misuse and drug-related suicides are reported in separated columns next to each other. You cited the statistics for drug misuse only.

"My understanding is that the Pitkin Co. deaths are not suicides, but if I am wrong, adjust the figures by 20%--e.g., we are ~70-80% higher than Denver, not 100%."

See the anecdotal evidence posted in my exchange with Alpha6 this morning. His post suggests that of the four drug-related deaths I noted are reported to CDPHE, at least two were suicides. Obviously if you eliminate two deaths, your statistic fluctuates wildly.

I look forward to your responses to my post #25, Aspen Daily News Will Squirm Over This One.
7. Michael Brylawski | October 19th, 2006 at 1:44 pm

"His post suggests that of the four drug-related deaths I noted are reported to CDPHE, at least two were suicides. Obviously if you eliminate two deaths, your statistic fluctuates wildly."

It's five deaths (check the coroner's office) in 2005, for the record.

As to the "statistic fluctuates wildly," that's just not true, particularly if you use national statistics as your benchmark.

Read my post #3--CSDP (a very balanced organization), cites 60 per million for the US: inclusive of ALL drug-related deaths, including suicides, drug viloence, etc.

The Denver study is just another data point, and with suicides it goes from 102 to 126 (aside from longterm PitCo of ~180).

Drug-related deaths in PitCo in 2005 actually were 5. Unsure wher the suicide rate comes from he cites, but that said this imputes to a 355 per million rate--6 fold higher than the national average for all drug-related deaths.

Point being, we are much worse than the US as a whole, and likely--depending on how you are accounting for deaths (morbid as that may be)--worse than most metropolitan areas.

In all of these analyses, what keeps getting confirmed is that the stats are pretty much right (except for when Braudis, for insance, overestimates his DUI stops by 300%). The challenges to Magnusons' stats are generally from second-order issues and technicalities, but the magnitude and direction stays the same (or gets more dismal).

Again, for instance in this debate it is very hard to argue that our death reate for 2005 is not six times the national average, while we may quibble how this compares to Denver depending on how we account for suicides or include (or not include) violent drug related deaths that are hard to measure.

As I am pro-soft-drug, Amendment 44, but very anti hard-drug (meth), statistics like these trouble me in Braudis' not distinguishing between the two types of drugs and their related threats. Marijuana, according to CSDP, has never caused a fatality in the US (although I'm sure there has to be some pot-related DUIs somewhere). That said, the measurable public safety hazard from marijuana is low, thus common-sense policing says we shouldn't put limited resources on it (hence Magnuson's support of 44 and his comments in the debate last night).

Hard drugs, and PitCo's high (compared to US) fatality rate says this IS a safety issue and should be addressed.
8. Wharf Rat | October 19th, 2006 at 2:04 pm

The point is that the statistics you cited, while helpful, do not necessarily lead to the inescapable conclusion that Pitco has a drug problem that is worse than DC, Denver, and New Orleans.

By that logic, Provo, Utah, has twice the problem that DC does. Duh!

Please review the post I cited. (By the way, I meant to say "Salt Lake City" instead of "Ogden."
9. Wharf Rat | October 19th, 2006 at 2:09 pm

Here is a repost for your convenience.

Michael B,

I have another question regarding your statistics, which you seem to believe are ironclad at this juncture.

Have you run your calculations by anyone with any degree of training in statistical analysis? My only experience in that field was derived from graduate courses in political science, so I am by no means a trained statistician, but it appears that your statistics may suffer from margin of error and minimum sample problems, as well as statistically inaccurate population size comparisons.

I have not been able to confirm your "drug-related death" numbers, and I am taking your word that they are accurate, although you have not disclosed what a "drug-related death" encompasses. In my mind, a drug-induced suicide is a drug-related death, yet you exclude that figure from the 30 metro area figures. If you include that figure, Pitkin County's drug-related death count per population is comparatively lessened.

The CDPHE statistics I consulted indicate that for all years between 1999 and 2004, Pitkin County had between 0 and 4 drug-related deaths (only two years did the number of deaths exceed 2). The CDPHE indicates those numbers with an asterisk, stating "less than three incidents". I believe that is done because less than three deaths for the population size is statistically insignificant.

This means that in any given year, Pitkin County can be viewed as the model drug abuse community (zero deaths) or, as you have described, a drug jungle which puts Marion Berry's crack community to shame (four deaths). I believe there are also statistical errors in comparing a population of 16,000 with zero to four incidents and populations of 500,000 to 4,000,000 with a more substantial number of incidents. And, as I noted before, you only address victim deaths--one of myriad social costs related to drug use, abuse, and the criminal drug economy.

If you closely examine the results of the 30-metro-area study you cited, even with large population statistical analysis there is a wide variation in the drug-related death rate, and as such, blanket conclusions cannot be reached. For example, if you really believe that your rudimentary statistical analysis proves that Pitkin County has a more serious drug problem than Washington DC and Denver, then you have also proven that Salt Lake City, Utah has a drug problem far worse than any of those three. I sincerely doubt a serious statistician would agree with that conclusion.

One example I found illuminating related to the drunk driving death statistics in Colorado. During one of the sample periods, I noticed that Rio Blanco County (our sheep-dog trials neighbor) led the state in drunk-driving deaths per population. Quite a surprise, until I realized that one death with a low population count puts them on top of the heap. If statistics don't lie, then there should have been a recall of the Rio Blanco County Sheriff for lack of DUI enforcement.

I applaud your efforts, but I think we need to be careful about submitting amateur statistical calculations made by you, me, or Magnuson for that matter, and considering them as gospel.

I live in Garfield County, so I don't have my finger on the pulse of Pitco, although I did live there for three years. Never saw a drug. Only place I can ever say that is the case. I know it goes on all the time up there, just like it does everywhere (as far as I know).

In my opinion, substance abuse is a problem that reaches every community, and it takes a much more sophisticated statistical analysis than we are contributing to say that one community is worse than another.
10. Lost Sailor | October 19th, 2006 at 4:05 pm

"I applaud your efforts, but I think we need to be careful about submitting amateur statistical calculations made by you, me, or Magnuson for that matter, and considering them as gospel."

well stated wharfrat. that's a good point in regards to rio blanco county.
11. Michael Brylawski | October 19th, 2006 at 4:32 pm

Thanks for the comments--I am really enjoying this discussion. This is the type of substantive discusson on the data and issues that we need!

Please keep in mind that I really like this thread of discussion (as opposed to the usual ones that are personal attacks and deal with things like the art video). Although I'm going to respond to your comments (strongly), again I want to emphasize this debate is healthy and I hope can serve as a model for others. I like WharfRat's rational and thorough approach to the issues--I think we share this in our philosophies.

Okay, to the meat: llet me address these point by point (and see my response letter to the coroner (and key member of Braudis' re-election committee in tomorrow's Aspen Times).

'I have another question regarding your statistics, which you seem to believe are ironclad at this juncture."

I would never say they are "iron clad"--but I will say they are approximately correct. A good saying in statistics is "it's better to be approximately correct than precisely wrong."

These statistics I'd definitely say are approximately correct and definitely give directionality to the issues at play.

"Have you run your calculations by anyone with any degree of training in statistical analysis?"

For the record, I have two graduate degrees from MIT. I'm no genius, but I know statistics pretty well (check my transcript, I actually got an "A+" in my graduate statistics class in the summer of '02). I hate to bring this up as it really sounds arrogant, and I hate to throw around my education, but I'm pretty well educated in the sciences (undergraduate BS from Stanford, and my high school was North Carolina's School of Science and Math, a magnet school specializing in what its name says).

I think what people are missing here in all of this data is that we are not imputing greater rates from a sample size. We are looking at the population in totality...thus

"it appears that your statistics may suffer from margin of error and minimum sample problems"

There is no margin of error when you look at an entire population, and again there is no sample. There WOULD be an error (at some margin) if I were to impute PitCo's statistics for, say, Colorado or the US, but the whole issue of sampling just doesn't come into play.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

Imputing a rate on a -per million basis (basically mutliplication) has nothing to do with taking a random sample from a larger population. Remember for PitCo the sample is the population.

"I believe that is done because less than three deaths for the population size is statistically insignificant."

I'm not sure if this is correct, and see my argument above, but there were 11 deaths in the past four years, and five deaths in 2005. Over this longer term, with actual deaths, the rate is ~180 per million, and in 2005 it is ~355 per million.

I was citing the longer term numbers, and rarely the one year number, as I agree with the argument that using one-year calculations crate wide fluctuations. Thus you could argue the ~355 million, but it's harder to argue that over five years.

Also, I use "per million" to equate the ratios with those for the US and other cities. I could as well give a rate from the US as "per fifteen thousand" to make it equate to Pitkin Co.

I implore people to not confuse actual rates with statistical probabilities and sampling--these are very different things.

"One example I found illuminating related to the drunk driving death statistics in Colorado."

Same logic applies. I and Magnuson used long-term rates here. See his ad in the Aspen Times a few weeks ago (he had a graph).

"I live in Garfield County, so I don't have my finger on the pulse of Pitco, although I did live there for three years. Never saw a drug. Only place I can ever say that is the case. I know it goes on all the time up there, just like it does everywhere (as far as I know)."

Now that is what we call an "anecdote." I really liked your reasoning up into this point and hope we had a good discussion--but I really think it weakens your arguments to call my analysis "amateur" and then end your case with an anecdote that "you never saw a drug."

Again, to summarize, in all of this we aren't talking about statistics in the sense of sampling. We are talking more about measurements and benchmarking. Valid arguments follow more onto the measurement realm (data quality) and benchmarking (comparison applicability), and again, I think here Magnuson and the data I pulled and cut are "approximately" correct.
12. Wharf Rat | October 19th, 2006 at 7:27 pm

Good post, B

I also looked at some statistical error analysis and realized that the attributes of a population sample do not apply when you are speaking of a full population survey. I do note, however, that most of the metropolitan area statistics are sample populations.

Since you have quoted Wikipedia, I found the following statement in the statistical analysis interesting:

"There is a general perception that statistical knowledge is all-too-frequently intentionally misused, by finding ways to interpret the data that are favorable to the presenter. (A famous quote, variously attributed, but thought to be from Benjamin Disraeli [2] is: "There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics.") Indeed, the well-known book How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff discusses many cases of deceptive uses of statistics, focusing on misleading graphs. By choosing (or rejecting, or modifying) a certain sample, results can be manipulated; throwing out outliers is one means of doing so. This may be the result of outright fraud or of subtle and unintentional bias on the part of the researcher."

The way I see it, your hypothesis is that the independent variable (number of drug-related deaths per 1,000,000) predicts a dependent variable (degree of locale "drug problem"). In my opinion a more appropriate analysis would include a more comprehensive list of independent variables to derive an accurate and useful predictor of such a broad dependent variable.

For example, the following independent variables would likely be relevant: drug use survey data, per capita drug-related incarceration rates, drug treatment facility statistics, drug-related crime data, etc., etc. A single variable-based analysis seems dangerous to me. That is why I pointed out that if your hypothesis is correct, then Provo, Utah has twice the drug problem that Washington, DC does. If you can find any journal to publish those findings....

The way I would interpret the data (from a not-trying-to-support-either-of-the-candidates perspective) is that in most years (1999-2003) the number of drug-related deaths is entirely consistent with, if not on the lower end of, the number of drug-related deaths per population in sample metro areas. The question is whether the additional one or two deaths in 2004 and 2005 is evidence of a greater problem or a statistical variation. I would submit that we need a longer period of time to make that determination

What I would really find interesting is an analysis which compares drug-related statistics in Colorado mountain communities. Then we could more specifically analyze the statistics as they relate to local law enforcement policies.

"Now that is what we call an "anecdote." I really liked your reasoning up into this point and hope we had a good discussion--but I really think it weakens your arguments to call my analysis "amateur" and then end your case with an anecdote that "you never saw a drug."

That statement was made precisely in anecdotal fashion at the end of the entry and after a conclusory sentence. The anecdotal point is that we all experience situations differently, and my experience demonstrates the difficulty in identifying a dependent variable as elusive as a "drug problem."

I'd really like to see some drug use survey data for Colorado--I bet it's out there somewhere, I just haven't been able to find it. The state rep candidate the Con Man had on his show seemed to suggest that mountain communities had more problems from drugs. Maybe Michael can help us get some data from her....
13. Michael Brylawski | October 19th, 2006 at 7:54 pm

Nice post yourself, Wharf. BTW this is the most substantive discussion I've seen yet on this Sheriff's campaign. I like your approach.

I honestly have run out of personal time to post on this issue (I have a day job, and now a night job to catch up on my work), but I agree with you on a lot of your points. The drug-death rate does not prove causality to the Sheriff's policies--but it does indicate a problem in our county. The link between policy and the rate, however, seems somewhat causal in that we have no educational programs and minimal enforcement.

On how to get "better" statistics, I also agree that a multivariate regression (what you describe) is preferrable; in a perfect world we'd have accurate measurements on tons of potential variables and would be able to do such analyses to do better problem solving. I'm an MBA, an engineer, and a former management consultant, so life would be great if data was easily available. It never is. As well, I'd like to see data from other mountain communities. But we live with the data we have, and again per my previous post the data is what it is--it involves no statistics (sampling) whatsoever.

This argument reminds me about a debate on how companies should scrutinize investments. Finance theory tells us they need to go and find comparable return on equities of similar projects, unlever them, and then relever them to the project's cost of capital to get an appropriate discount rate. In reality, most companies just say "use 15%--that's our hurdle rate."

In theory, the theorists are right, but in practice, the simplified hurdle rate works pretty well. Thus in this debate. In theory we'd like much more sophsisticated and detailed analysis, but in practice measuring the death rate and comparing it over the long term (or even last year) is a good proxy on whether this community has a hard drug problem. Same with DUIs.

Either way, I can't really post on this anymore (I need to catch up on work), so please don't interpret a lack of posting on disinterest in this. Again--WharfRat, great thinking and way to dig into this analysis!

To sum, I stand by the directionality and 'approximate' correct approach of using long-term (and 2005) death rates for drug-related deaths and DUI, and how we are much worse than the US for those figures--and the lack of education and minimal enforcement are questionable when this is a public safety risk.
14. Wharf Rat | October 19th, 2006 at 8:06 pm

No prob, Michael. I vowed I would move on to other topics after my Drug War Hangover post this afternoon, but broke my own promise. Drug (post) abuse rears its ugly head.

You can e-mail your transcript to me--just kidding.

Go Cardinal!
15. Lost Sailor | December 29th, 2006 at 12:57 pm

what a bunch of crap all that turned out to be.

and michael - have you had any regrets about how you handled that?
16. Michael Brylawski | January 1st, 2007 at 5:49 pm

"Bunch of crap?" That type of unsubstantiated (and nasty) comment is why I haven't written much since the election!

But I like community dialogue, and playground ranting such as Sailor's is enough to get me back to post a thing or two.

What was crap about this or my other posts? That Magnuson lost? What does that have to do with the data or analysis?

If data were determined by popular vote, then evolution would be a "bunch of crap" and we'd be certifiably created by god 5000 years ago

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/printable965223.shtml

I'd love to see ANYONE other than Wharf Rat--who brought up some seriously good points on the analysis--actually show substance in this (or many other) Aspen debates.

We have a very smart, 'blue', well-read, Paekpe-inspired populace, but much of our important issues and debates descend rapidly into emotion, name calling, rhetoric...

While the Sheriff's race never transcended this, fortunately the national elections did, and I'm personally excited that we have a balanced Federal Gov't. So in that case, election day was very fulfilling for me.

My only regrets was that the type of deep dialogue and back-and-forth that people like Wharf Rat engaged in was not more prevalent--just basic ignorance and name calling from bloggers like yourself--and that the election did not become more than a simple referendum on 'the Sheriff we know' versus a challenger portrayed as an unethical freakshow.

I like Braudis (and said so numerous times), think the Deputies are great, but I thought democracy and elections were about holding power accountable (I actually learned this from reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 in High School). I think an "audit" once every 20 years is pretty fair in a free society.

I wish we all took this discussion a lot more seriously and didn't pare the election down to sound bites, propaganda, and what pretty much was a one-sided press avalanche against Magnuson.

Those are my regrets...blog or email me back if you have something interesting or constructive to say.
17. Michael Conniff | January 1st, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Michael Brylawski:

I think there was far more enlightened dialogue about the issues than you might realize.

I think the stray and stupid "crap" comment outweighs ten more constructive comments.

I think the good people like yourself have to hang in there and not be surprised when people who have nothing new to offer hit you hard.

I think I've learned this the hard way myself on Aspen Post. The crap doesn't stick and has no shelf life.

I think you're one of the best bloggers we've ever had and if you step away then you let the dopes win.

Keep fighting the good fight, Michael!
18. Lost Sailor | January 2nd, 2007 at 11:43 am

sorry about the misunderstanding - the michael I was refering my question to was michael connif - the conman.

I don't really feel that calling the election issue a bunch of crap is that far off base. It was a joke to begin with and it still is. That was my take all along and it still is. The efforts that the conman went through to drag the sherrif and all his deputied throug the mud was an insult at best.

I'm over it. call me ignorant, because I am and can admit it. I simply was asking the conman if he had any regrets. Sorry michaelB - nothing personal - you always came across to me as genuine. and we even exchanged a couple of friendly emails if I recall.
19. Lost Sailor | January 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm

all I was really looking for was for someone, like michael coniff for example to say something like 'yeah looking back at it I probably shouldn't have tried so hard to make the sherrif look bad' or maybee something like 'in retrospect, rick probably wasn't the best chioce for the job'.

that's alot to ask, i know. gotta give the conman some credit for posting the sherrif topic on top of his page three months after the election during christmas week. kinda like re-gifting.

looks like the conman is drinking my coolaid now - HA! the ignorant (with their ahs diplomas) dopes won!

the crap dosen't stick and has no shelf life? pot - meet the kettle.
20. Lost Sailor | January 2nd, 2007 at 1:06 pm

can we talk about kittens now?
21. Michael Conniff | January 2nd, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Lost Sailor:

Let's not get kittenish now.

The blogging about the Sheriff's race is absolutely a high point for me and for Aspen Post. An issue that was ignored by the mainstream media was brought front and center by a new medium that presents an unedited and unfiltered view of what matters to people most.

That goes for both sides--not just mine. The other day I saw the wife of one of the pro-Braudis bloggers--someone I've never met--and told her how much I appreciated his contribution, and how I hoped he would come back and blog some more.

On the blog, my viewpoint is the least of it. It ain't about me--it's about us.

Without us there's no real discussion of the Sheriff's ways and means. With Aspen Post, it turned into the issue that everyone was talking about this summer and into fall--with good reason.

As for the gross canard about dissing the Sheriff during Christmas week, I specifically chose to highlight a Brylawski blog that was full of hard data comparing Pitkin County to other municipalities. A brilliant job by Brylawski, if you ask me, far more valuable than a kilo of opinions about "victimless" drugs and crime.

This was never really about Rick Magnuson, in my opinion, but about the 20-year record of a man who had never been challenged, who had come to feel that he was indeed the law incarnate. Had Braudis's position been anti-drug--and had he disappeared during high season--I would have been equally outraged. For me, it was always about accountability far more than drugs.

Keep the faith, Con Man
22. alpha6 | January 3rd, 2007 at 10:23 am

FYI - and to this day, the Sheriff has yet to respond to the statistics that were presented to him and his departments short comings other then to say that the data his department sent to CBI is not correct. That being said, he can't produce any other data then what he submitted to CBI.

But who cares, he is still not being held accountable, Deputy Joe is due to take over as under sheriff this month as they forced Mrs. White out and Uncle Bob will likely ride off into the sunset without so much as a whisper of a change leaving us with "Sheriff Joe" to continue down that same ol dusty trail.

Meanwhile could City Council members be getting ready to line their pockets with a "new" system of kick backs with regards to building in Aspen? Time will tell, but lets keep a close watch on it shall we...this should be an exciting year!!
23. Lost Sailor | January 3rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm

It still seems to me that those stats on drug fatalities and dui deaths don't quite add up. In light of how they were presented (3x miami/2x denver), the bodies should be stacked up like firewood, no? but hell - what do I know - aparently not much.

I'm no double degree totin' mit graduate, but to me there is a discrepency of some sort - if the 'problem' really is that out of control as the stats 'prove'. Last dui related death I recall in the paper was this Summer. I'm more concerned about people speeding on 82, and dumptrucks, than I am about drunk drivers or gun toting drug dealers. Those hard fact stats are cute and all, but does the picture really represent the landscape? Michael's fact searching was a tireless effort no doubt, brilliant? Wharf Rat was the only one with a cogent argument against them. so I'm in the 'yeah - what he said' boat.

Anyway, that's my only real observation from mt. knownot.
24. Mitch.Mulhall | January 3rd, 2007 at 8:58 pm

I heard Jimmy Ibotson's call a few weeks back in which he intimated that there are people in the valley who take local politics seriously, and that he didn't appreciate Michael Conniff's backing of Mr. Magnuson last election...

I couldn't quote him, but I recall Jimmy characterizing Michael's very persistent discussion of the sheriff’s race as "a joke." I agree with Mr. Ibotson. What aspect of pre-election political posturing is not a joke?

For the greater part, I appreciate the tenor of comments on this thread, for I think they seek an honest evaluation of Braudis' performance on drug law enforcement. I see merit in this form of evaluation, merit that, if valued, may result in constructive changes in the local political landscape. This thread, along with others on this same subject, function as a definition of expectations, and some of these expectations are very well-reasoned.

Cheers,