First Major Meth Bust In Roaring Fork Valley

May 31st, 2007 at 04:30am Post Staff 43

GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO (Post Time News)--Crystal methamphetamine has come to the Roaring Fork Valley in a big way.

A combo platter of local and federal law enforcement officials announced Wednesday the first major drug bust for crystal meth in the Roaring Fork Valley, one with major implications for the tide of Mexican immigrants sweeping the valley.

"What we're seeing is indicative of the trend the guys who used to deal coke are now dealing coke and meth," one law enforcement official familiar with the roundup told Post Time News. "People are saying I'll take the meth. We saw meth in Rifle, Silt, and those places but we never saw it here in Basalt and in the valley."

Six were arrested in the bust that included seizure of approximately four pounds of methamphetamine, five ounces of cocaine, and a small amount of crack cocaine. They lived, distributed, and were arrested in Basalt, El Jebel, and Glenwood Springs. In addition to the six members of this organization an additional six individuals were arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who accompanied the DEA and the task forces during the execution of their warrants for illegal entry into the United States.

"Wherever there's a large concentration of Hispanics is where you're seeing the crime," the law enforcement official told Post Time News. "Every house had hombres in every room. A house behind the movie theater had three bedrooms and three different couples in each bedroom and guys sleeping in the living room. Another trailer was the same thing. Another trailer had four seperate bedrooms and four seperate couples."

"Those arrested today," said DEA Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey D. Sweetin, "are organized criminals who were profiting from dealing dangerous drugs to citizens of our communities on the Western slope."

The bust was conducted by the Drug Enforcement Agent's Western Colorado Drug Task Force (WCDTF) and the Two Rivers Drug Enforcement Team (TRIDENT) working alongside of the DEA Agents from Grand Junction and Glenwood Springs. The investigation began in July 2006 and included "undercover agents, confidential sources and surveillance," according to a prepared statement. "Agents and officers from multiple agencies were able to penetrate and take down an extensive methamphetamine drug trafficking organization (DTO). The identified DTO was determined to be responsible for transporting high quality, multi-pound quantities of methamphetamine from the Roaring Fork Valley to Mesa County via Interstate 70."

Methamphetamine with an average purity level of 76 percent was sold the meth in quantities ranging from ounces, priced at $800, to pound quantities, priced at $12,500.

"Now the drug traffickers have taken over the smuggling routes," said the law enforcement official. "So they're using the smuggling routes to bring in drugs with them. A 'coyote' gives each person five kilos--ten people, that's five hundred kilos--and most of these people are going to make it into the United States. The supply chain goes Mexican to Arizona or California and then to Colorado. They're dealing to their own communities, too. It's the whole gauntlet, dealing teenagers up to the 60-year-olds. And you're seeing the demand is there more and more."

Among those charged with felony distribution of controlled substances and other violations were Luis Perez-Preciado, 27, of El Jebel, and Juan Carlos Gil, 29, and Gerardo Salcedo Gil, 24, of Glenwood Springs. Jose Manuel Oropeza-Padilla, 31, of Glenwood Springs, has also been charged with distribution of a controlled substance and child abuse.

Entry Filed under: Immigration, Basalt, Snowmass, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, Aspen, El Jebel, Colorado, Woody Creek, Crime, Pitkin County, Garfield County, Post Time News, Emma, The West, Missouri Heights

21 Comments Add your own

1. Wharf Rat | May 31st, 2007 at 1:16 pm

And so if drugs were decriminalized and regulated, these people would be involved how?
2. alpha6 | June 1st, 2007 at 6:06 am

Trying to simplify a complex situation is the height of ignorance. Meth has no known medical use, therefore, how would you propose to to regulate something that cannot be safely prescribed to the public?

And for you information, Cocaine, Heroin, and other "street" drugs are legal to obtain (in medical grade forms) if prescribed by a doctor....I don't see that stopping the illegal use and selling of it.

Lastly, who is going to take up the bill for the social impact that legalization would cost. Several places in Europe have tired, and receded these experiments as all aspects of crime, disease, social welfare, all increased and job production, dropped, therefore there were less funds to pay for legalization. I personally don't want to pay for your or anyone else's bad habits. You want to smoke crack, fine, go find an island somewhere where you can smoke you mind away and become seagull food..at least you will, in the end, be helping nature.
3. reckless G | June 1st, 2007 at 9:27 am

What about the Netherlands? Don't they have a successfull legal drug program?

The reason people deal in illegal drug trafficking is because it's lucrative. The prices are high because the risks are high. Legalization and regulation destroys the black market value.

At the very least, we shouldn't have hundreds of thousands of people in jail for marijuana possession. Pot smokers are no danger to society, unlike drunks.
4. alpha6 | June 1st, 2007 at 10:07 am

"G" we are not talking about Marijuana, that is another issue entirely. Once again, how do you propose to regulate a drug that has no medical use?? This is the problem you and others fail to answer. I have already stated that it is legal to obtain "Cocaine and Heroin" through a doctors script, yet this does not control the illegal trade.

"What about the Netherlands? Don't they have a successfull legal drug program?"

The programs in the Netherlands have been very small (300 participants), very controlled and are considered experimental. Heroin and Cocaine are both illegal in the Netherlands at this time.

However, I found this interesting, though a little dated.

The Netherlands, despite its controlled program, is having troubles. Under the socalled "expediency principle" Dutch law protects individuals from prosecution for acts that are technically illegal, including the retaillevel sales and purchase of marijuana and hashish. Dutch police are also instructed to ignore streetlevel sales of all types of drugs.

The Amsterdam Municipal Health Service showed a rise in hardcore addicts in 1992, attributable to a significant rise in the local heroin supply which led to a price drop of as much as 75%.

Switzerland has become a magnet for drug users the world over. One thing small European nations have learned is a little tolerance about drugs brings a lot of unwelcome visitors. In 1987, Zurich permitted drug use and sales in a part of the city called the "Platzspitz", dubbed "Needle Park." Five years later the experiment was curtailed after an influx of addicts and increased violence and deaths. In 1992, Zurich Municipal spokesman Andres Ohler told the New York Times that the number of regular drug users at the park had swelled from a few hundred in 1987 to 20,000 by 1992. After the Platzspitz closed, the price of heroin reportedly doubled.
5. Wharf Rat | June 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Alpha,

I don't even want to go through this again. I have posted plenty on this site about the detriments of criminalizing drug use, and quite frankly have not received very few meaningful responses. You and the Con Man always bring it back to some variant on the idea that anyone in favor of decriminalization thinks "drug use is cool." If you don't understand my point, at least have the decency to recognize that I do not condone drug abuse. If meth were decriminalized, you would find me last in line at the pharmacy and only if someone held a gun to my head.

Now, for the umpteenth time, here is my point. If drugs are decriminalized (like our favorite drug, alcohol, is), you have the social problem of drug use and abuse. If you preserve the status quo, you have a drug use problem along with: an enforcement problem, a trafficking problem, an immigration and border security problem, a product control problem, a secondary crime problem, and a huge incarceration problem. Why not reduce it to a single problem? Are you so conditioned to the existing shortcomings of our present approach that an alternative cannot be considered. If our current "war on drugs" had any track record of efficacy, we would not be having this conversation.

I'm not going to bore everyone with the same old arguments over and over, so I will bow out unless someone wants to tackle my oft-stated observation:

According to a report issued by the Rand Corporation (Rydell, C.P. & Everingham, S.S., Controlling Cocaine, Prepared for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the United States Army (Santa Monica, CA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 1994), p. xvi.), every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs. In addition, the report states that additional domestic law enforcement efforts cost 15 times as much as treatment to achieve the same reduction in societal costs. My basic math skills lead me to conclude that, as a result, every dollar dedicated to additional law enforcement only nets $0.50 in societal cost savings. Not very good bang for the buck.

If you, Alpha, or anyone else can give me a good reason why another single tax dollar should be spent on law enforcement of existing drug laws as opposed to substance abuse treatment, I'm willing to listen. We can start the dialogue there. Otherwise, I'm going to have to chalk up this drug war nonsense to rhetoric gone wild.
6. alpha6 | June 1st, 2007 at 9:11 pm

"every additional dollar invested in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers $7.46 in societal costs."

Nice try, but your figures are wrong! This would be true, if substance abuse treatments actually worked, but sadly, the majority are failures, and so is your premise.

Treating hard-core drug addiction often seems an exercise in futility. Eight years and $1 billion into a massive drug-treatment campaign, Governor Nelson Rockefeller conceded all-out failure. "Let's be frank," he said in 1973. "We have achieved very little permanent rehabilitation—and we have found no cure." Two decades later, volumes of published clinical evidence make it luminously clear that relapse to cocaine and heroin following treatment is the rule, not the exception, among hard-core addicts. Even the best treatment clinics typically see a majority of their patients drop out prior to finishing the program; of those who do complete treatment, between 50 and 70 percent relapse into addiction.

and...(note the date of this article)

California prison drug treatment called waste of money
The state overseer of the corrections system says the $1 billion spent since 1989 on programs has failed to lessen the recidivism rate.
By Jenifer Warren, Times Staff Writer
February 22, 2007

SACRAMENTO — California's $1-billion investment in drug treatment for prisoners since 1989 has been "a complete waste of money," the state's inspector general said Wednesday, and has done nothing to reduce the number of inmates cycling in and out of custody.

One study of the two largest in-prison programs found that recidivism rates for inmates who participated were actually a bit higher than those of a group of convicts who did not receive treatment, Inspector General Matt Cate said.

whole article here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prisons22feb22,1,2219081.story?coll=la-headlines-california

I find it interesting they blame the system instead of putting the responsibility on the dopers...gee..what a surprise...
7. reckless G | June 2nd, 2007 at 8:11 am

[One study of the two largest in-prison programs found that recidivism rates for inmates who participated were actually a bit higher than those of a group of convicts who did not receive treatment,]

Perfect! Legalize, regulate and tax drugs, can the phony treatment programs and let people go nuts. They're doing it anyway, legal or not. So let's focus on things we can control; hunger, homelessness, poverty...oh god I sound like a friggin' liberal!
8. Wharf Rat | June 2nd, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Alpha,

The following report addresses the success levels of formal treatment for substance abuse:

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Services Research Outcomes Study, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 98-3177, September 1998.

PRINCIPAL FINDING:

A nationally representative survey of 1,799 persons confirms that both drug use and criminal behavior are reduced following inpatient, outpatient and residential treatment for drug abuse.

HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE

•The overall drop in the use of any illicit drug following treatment was 21 percent; a 14 percent decline in alcohol use; 28 percent in marijuana use; 45 percent in cocaine use; 17 percent in crack use; and a 14 percent drop in the heroin use.

•Those remaining in treatment the longest were more likely to reduce or eliminate abuse of substances following treatment.

HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS ON CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND LIFESTYLE CHANGES

•Survey results confirm those of previous studies showing that treatment for substance abuse can significantly reduce crime.

•Most criminal activity, including breaking and entering, drug sales, prostitution, driving under the influence and weapons use declined by between 23 and 38 percent after drug treatment.

•Involvement in physical abuse and suicide attempts declined following treatment.

•There was a noticeable shift toward regaining and retaining child custody after drug abuse treatment.

•More reliable housing was secured following treatment.

http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/Sros/toc.htm

Just because more people fail with substance abuse treatment than not does not mean that the data I have presented is "wrong", nor does it mean that my premise fails. We all know that addiction has no simple solution--whether it is alcohol, illegal drugs, nicotine, porn, or gambling, for that matter. Your comment addresses the limitations of current treatment of addicted persons, and that is an important point. However, you neglect a couple key components.

First, you ignore the fact that the majority of substance abusers do not have access to treatment programs due to the limited number of programs and cost and insurance limitations. Off the top of my head, I believe only about 1.3 million of the 22 million-plus addicted persons in the U.S. have access to treatment programs. If we reallocate some of the money wasted on the drug war to address this shortfall, a significant number of people will be able to turn their lives around. Not all of them, I concede, but the numbers are quite substantial.

Second, you ignore perhaps the key component in reducing substance abuse--education and awareness.

According to the Results from the 2005
National Survey on Drug Use and Health:
National Findings, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, decreases in drug use in adolescents result from each of the following:

-perception of risk
-perceived parental disapproval
-perceived disapproval of peers
-reduction in fighting and delinquent behavior
-participation in activities
-exposure to substance use prevention messages and programs
-parental involvement

All are related to education and awareness. I am suggesting more resources be devoted to education AND treatment. The easiest way to treat an addict is if that person never becomes one.

Finally, from your postings I detect some resentment toward substance abusers, who perhaps fail to take personal responsibility for their actions. I couldn't agree more. You and I are fortunate that we are not addicts, and we can easily look at these people as a buch of losers. Often times, they are. Ultimately, even though they are suffering from a disease, they will have to pull their sh*t together and decide to man up. All we can do as a society is decide how to best deal with social problems. We cannot make individual choices.

What we can decide, however, is what behaviors to criminalize and how to allocate our resources to best approach a societal issue. Those are two of the primary functions of our government. In my opinion, criminalizing substance use has resulted in a complete misallocation of resources and reflects a blatant misunderstanding of the nature of addiction. From your own statistics, it is apparent that incarcerating people has little if no effect on substance abuse. Why is drug use illegal? Because it is "wrong"? Should all things wrong be criminalized? Of course not, and there are plenty of examples of bad behavior that is not criminal.

Back to the original post, my point is that if drug use were decriminalized, we likely would not be dealing with Mr. Luis Perez-Preciado, Mr. Juan Carlos Gil, Mr. Gerardo Salcedo Gil, and Mr. Jose Manuel Oropeza-Padilla. What exactly is wrong with that?
9. alpha6 | June 2nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm

"From your own statistics, it is apparent that incarcerating people has little if no effect on substance abuse."

Which is why I advocate summery s... : )

and, if we secured our borders, we also wouldn't be dealing with Mr. Luis Perez-Preciado, Mr. Juan Carlos Gil, Mr. Gerardo Salcedo Gil, and Mr. Jose Manuel Oropeza-Padilla.

Which is why I also would advocate summery s of anyone entering illegally into this country.

Death is a huge deterrent, especially if it is carried out swiftly and painfully, which is why our current penalty practices don't have any deterrent effect. Go figure.
10. Mitch.Mulhall | June 2nd, 2007 at 10:23 pm

[[O]h god I sound like a friggin' liberal!]

No, G, you really don’t.

I’ve been a registered Democrat since 1978, but there’re stances that come from the left that give me a full-body shiver.

I married into a family that makes Michael Conniff sound like William F. Buckley.

One summer we held a party for my in-laws—a marital milestone of one kind or another. There were at least thirty people in my back yard that I didn’t know, so I was standing behind the grill, thrilled to be flipping burgers and brats and watching the goings on from a distance. You get the picture…

Eventually, however, an older woman came up to me and introduced herself as some kind of relation to my mother in law. And then she called to her grandson, a six-year-old who trotted up carrying a potato chip in one hand and a half-eaten hot dog in the other. “This is my grandson, Jason,” the woman began. Then she turned to the boy and requested,

“Jason, tell Mr. Mulhall what you want to be when you grow up.”

“A Kangawoo!” the youngster declared.

“A what?” I asked.

“A Kangawoo,” the boy said again, and started hopping around the yard with his hands tucked together underneath his chin, a chip in one hand, and a half-eaten hot dog flopping out of the bun in the other…

I turned to the boy’s grandmother.

“Give him some time,” I said reassuringly, “He will surely grow out of this.”

And with that, she gave me a look. I’ll never forget it. It was as if she’d caught me trying to have sex with the neighbor’s cat.

Cheers,
11. Edward Troy | June 5th, 2007 at 11:04 am

[And for you information, Cocaine, Heroin, and other "street" drugs are legal to obtain (in medical grade forms) if prescribed by a doctor....I don't see that stopping the illegal use and selling of it. ] courtesy A6.

Cocaine, marijuana yes, but heroin legally prescribed ---- since when?

I support decriminalizing the drug use and abuse and felonizing the impacts on other peoples' lives. Nobody bellyaches for poor johnny boy exposed to his drunken daddy. I don't see why there is a big deal over agonizing when Sharon crackhead takes a puff in front of little Suzie. Stupid, ignorant -- you betcha.

get behind the wheel of a car and kill the Cleaver family, while intoxicated on anything and the charge should be at least 2nd degree murder, because of the will ful intent to abdicate the ability to be responsible in actions that impact others. Really, there should be a punitive statute where one can be charged with something more than DWI that covers areas of public trust where public safety is at stake. Something with parts of attempted murder, felonious gross neglect, reckless endangerment, DWI and public intoxication.

If the automatic minimum were five years for such a charge, people could still indulge, but not drive or operate elevators and draw bridges while intoxicated. I believe nearly everyone would comply.
12. alpha6 | June 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Morphine (INN) (IPA: [ˈmɔ(ɹ)fin]) is a highly potent opiate analgesic drug and is the principal active agent in opium and the prototypical opiate. Like other opiates, e.g. diacetylmorphine (heroin), morphine acts directly on the central nervous system (CNS) to relieve pain, and at synapses of the nucleus accumbens in particular.

In case you didn't know, Heroin is derived from opium.

Tell me Mr. I want to legalize drugs, what do you plan to do about all the abused kids that are abused sexually because of the extreme perversive nature of the drug (Meth) and how it requires the user to continually seek new and more shocking ways to satisfy themselves? Why is it that now over 80% of children in social services care come from homes where drugs are the primary contributing factor. And we are not talking about them being arrested, its because of child abuse, neglect and abandonment that social services gets involved. If we make it easier for people to obtain and legally use, how do you propose to address the increase in child abuse that is sure to follow. If you know anything about Meth as an example, it is both physically and physiological addictive and once used, it is virtually impossible to stop. Ask any parent who uses, and they will tell you that their whole lives revolved around getting that next high, and family, heath, kids, everything else doesn't matter.

Your simplistic approach to a very complex problem shows that either you live in a bubble or have no concept of reality and what is going on around you. Your argument of if its legal people will use it responsible is without merit and is not substantiated by any study or facts that I can find. The fact that alcohol is legal and we are willing to accept a high cost in deaths and disability because of it is not a justifiable argument. If so, then you must ask yourself, at what point does it not become acceptable? How many alcohol related deaths per year are we willing to accept for the "right" to drink and drive? How much of a cost are you willing to accept from what is surly to follow if these highly impairing drugs are legalized?

The simple argument of lets legalize it and all the problems will go away just doesn't cut it. When you can address the serious issues that are sure to follow from this action, with realistic solutions, which so far don't seem to exist, then you may start to peak my interest.
13. Wharf Rat | June 5th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

You believe it's true, it blows me through the roof
Suckers, liars get me a shovel
Some writers I know are damn devils
For them I say don't believe the hype

--Public Enemy

OK, let's look at Alpha's hype:

1. Tell me Mr. I want to legalize drugs, what do you plan to do about all the abused kids that are abused sexually because of the extreme perversive nature of the drug (Meth) and how it requires the user to continually seek new and more shocking ways to satisfy themselves?

Did you employ the writers of Reefer Madness to come up with that phraseology? Instead of talking about the factual insidious effects of methamphetamine use (extreme addictiveness, teeth falling out, paranoia, psychosis), let's hype it up by creating a mythological sexual deviant. How about this one--let's make meth users devil worshipers. That will support your analysis even better.

As to your first question, the answer is simple. Criminalization of child abuse is not in question, and I support any and all efforts to protect children from any abuse, sexual or otherwise. What I'm talking about is decriminalizing personal use, not harms to others. And guess what? With the additional money, law enforcement capability, and prison space, we might actually be able to put a child abuser behind bars instead of the guy smoking the crack pipe in the ghetto or the yuppie selling marijuana seeds.

2. If you know anything about Meth as an example, it is both physically and physiological addictive and once used, it is virtually impossible to stop.

Why on earth would you think I don't know that? This is a prime example of your "drugs are bad" argument. Once you establish that drugs are "bad", apparently you don't have to examine the effectiveness of criminalizing its use. Very similar to conservative talk show hosts and their labeling--if you call someone an "environmental wacko" or dub the media "drive-by", no further intellectualization is necessary.

What you are missing is the fundemental question--why do people abuse drugs? The answer is multi-layered, sourced in physiological, psychological, and societal aberration. The one thing we do know, based upon nearly a hundred years of prohibition efforts, is that criminalization and incarceration does not provide a significant enough deterrent to drug use to justify the methodology. We do know that extreme deterrent measures (i.e. the death penalty) are much more effective in dealing with drug use. Although I don't support the death penalty, I can make a much stronger argument for "no tolerance" drug laws than the existing ineffective drug war we have concocted.

4. Your simplistic approach to a very complex problem shows that either you live in a bubble or have no concept of reality and what is going on around you.

There is absolutely nothing simple about my approach, and I dare you to find any passage I have written on this topic where I do not recognize the difficulties in dealing with the societal effects of substance abuse. Your "live in a bubble" comments are a complete cop-out, and exist as a stark reminder of the fact that you are unwilling to address the reality that there are secondary effects to criminalization of drug use that have a tremendous societal cost and would be eliminated by decriminalization.

5. The fact that alcohol is legal and we are willing to accept a high cost in deaths and disability because of it is not a justifiable argument.

The point is not that we are willing to accept a high cost in deaths and disability as a result of alcohol use/abuse--it is that the total societal cost would be MUCH GREATER if alcohol were criminalized. And we have our Prohibition experiment to thank for that knowledge.

6. How much of a cost are you willing to accept from what is surly to follow if these highly impairing drugs are legalized?

I am willing to accept up to the cost of the following combined: Dollars allocated to existing substance abuse awareness and education, dollars allocated to our existing law enforcement efforts and incarceration, and dollars generated by regulation of existing illegal substances. I submit the total societal cost would be lower than that amount--if it is higher, I would concede decriminalization is not a better approach to the problem.

7. The simple argument of lets legalize it and all the problems will go away just doesn't cut it.

All the problems will go away? Now I'm starting to think you are the one that has no concept of reality and what is going on around you. If you disagree with my argument--fine. Just don't butcher it.

8. When you can address the serious issues that are sure to follow from this action, with realistic solutions, which so far don't seem to exist, then you may start to peak my interest.

The sad fact, Alpha, is that your interest will not be piqued other than to shamelessly argue for the status quo. The entire premise of your argument is that it can only be worse to try a new, counter-intuitive approach. Quite frankly, it doesn't take much more than the rhetoric you put forth to reinforce your pre-existing views on the subject.

If you want to criminalize the use of drugs, at least formulate a workable model. That burden is on you, the supporter of the existing debacle. Here's an idea--if you want to criminalize drug use, require random UAs for the public--I bet it would work much better than existing fruitless efforts to stem the supply of illegal substances.

Finally, ponder this, bubble boy. I could make the same type of histrionic arguments about firearms that you make about drugs. No one can deny that guns in the hands of civilians extract a societal cost that is substantial. Gun control advocates state that if you ban the use of guns, only the criminals will have guns. Why is that? Because you can't effectively control the gun supply with conventional interdiction means. I don't support the regulation of guns either. Do you understand why?
14. alpha6 | June 5th, 2007 at 9:12 pm

"let's hype it up by creating a mythological ual deviant."

I stopped reading your post at this point because I realize that you have very little dealing with Meth and those who use it.

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." - Amos Bronson Alcott
15. Mitch.Mulhall | June 5th, 2007 at 9:51 pm

[I stopped reading your post at this point because I realize that you have very little dealing with Meth and those who use it...]

I, for one, know no one who uses Meth. Shall I remain silent on this subject?

You dismiss the bulk of WR's arguments because you suppose he knows no Meth users. That's an assumption, but more significantly, that's a piss-poor argument.

WR has put forth a fine argument. Don't beg-off by playing the "You must not now someone who uses Meth" card.

Cheers,
16. alpha6 | June 5th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

You have missed my point. WR stated that I was hyping a "mythological sexual deviant", thus stating that I was trying to engage in some kind of scare tactic or worse making this up. He refuses to address the issue of the social impact and continues in a hypothetical rhetoric which has no standing in reality . If you and WR have never had any dealings, I suggest you go down and sit through some trails and engage your social services workers to get a feel of what exactly is going on. All I am saying is that in order to engage in a conversation intelligently about something, you should at least have an inkling about the subject.

I have read his post now and I cannot find this "fine" argument you are alluding to. Is this an example of a "fine" argument? "That burden is on you, the supporter of the existing debacle. Here's an idea--if you want to criminalize drug use, require random UAs for the public--I bet it would work much better than existing fruitless efforts to stem the supply of illegal substances."

Maybe if WR knew a little about the law, he would know that random UA's of the public by the government would require a search warrant and thus could not be random and would require probable cause. So now I am seeing that in addition to knowing little about drug's and drug law, he also has a poor understanding of the constitution and the rights set forth under it.

Under his argument, which he offers no proof that it doesn't work other then to say that there would be less criminals if we legalized it, we could also apply this theory to murder, rape, and other violent crimes. I don't see these dropping under the current system we have in place. So in keeping with his thinking, we should de-criminalize murder, rape, and other crimes and exchange them for some fantasy system that we hope will change human nature. His argument, if you can call it that, lacks any kind of logical conclusions and is totally dependent on people making the right choices out of the good will of their hearts. This may work in some Buddhist temple in Tibet, but we are talking about the real world and reality.

I love this fine argument...

"7. The simple argument of lets legalize it and all the problems will go away just doesn't cut it.

All the problems will go away? Now I'm starting to think you are the one that has no concept of reality and what is going on around you. If you disagree with my argument--fine. Just don't butcher it."

Yeah, thats addressing the issue. I say, "Don't stick it out there if you don't want it cut off."
17. Wharf Rat | June 6th, 2007 at 12:15 am

Alpha,

I don't know what to tell you at this point. You just seem to be trying to discredit my arguments with general "you-are-crazy" speak. If that is your opinion, fine. If you want me to defend my arguments, ask me some follow-up questions.

For the record, I am familiar with methampetamine use. Not personal use, but I am acquainted with former meth users. I admit I do not have acquaintances that currently use the drug--perhaps you have more experience. I can assure you, however, that not all meth users are sexual deviants who molest children. Your characterization is clearly intended for hype appeal, and I'm calling you out on that. The implication of your comment is that we cannot decriminalize drugs because we will be infected with a massive wave of perverted child molesters. That kind of hype just does not fly with me.

Since I am an attorney, your speculation is incorrect about my knowledge of the legal system and the Constitution. Once again, you missed my point. I am not suggesting random UAs as a "preferred" or "constitutional" solution. My point is that if your goal is to control and/or prevent an individual's drug use, you would likely be much more successful monitoring the ingestion through drug testing than you would trying to control and/or prevent the supply from being available. We're not talking about plutonium here--if you really think it is realistic to control the production and distribution of methamphetamine, I'd like to hear how.

Your analogy regarding murder, rape, and violent crime demonstrates just how little you understand my argument. That is precisely the type of behavior that is appropriate for criminalization--harm to OTHERS. And if you read Ed's opinion closely, you will realize that is exactly what he is saying as well. Decriminalize the use, criminalize the actions and behaviors that result in adverse consequences to others. If substance abusers are otherwise in compliance with laws, try to give them a bit more help rather than throwing them in jail.

I noticed you did not address my comment regarding firearms. Other than Second Amendment arguments, can you give me any valid reason why drugs should be criminalized and possession of firearms for non-hunting purposes should not.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
"Drugs don't kill people, people kill people."

But for now, I'll go back to Fantasyland. Some day, we might put a man on Mars, the Buddhist temple you referred to may be free of Chinese rule, and we might actually try to improve some of the laws and institutions in our society. Hey, somebody's got to dream! Reckless can't be the only one
18. Mitch.Mulhall | June 6th, 2007 at 11:42 am

[I cannot find this "fine" argument you are alluding to…]

Alpha--On balance, a conservative gravitates toward fiscal responsibility, right?

WR pointed out several comments ago a Rand Corporation Study that shows that it is more cost effective to spend money on treating substance abuse than it is to spend money on drug law enforcement.

That’s a fine argument. You offered several studies in refutation, but the broader idea is at least worth consideration, don’t you think?

In my opinion—and I must declare a lack of any useful expertise in this area—WR correctly characterizes the first principles of addiction as “multi-layered, sourced in physiological, psychological, and societal aberration.” WR also asserts that decriminalizing drugs reduces this question “to a single problem”: drug usage.

When you distill this question, you find two distinct approaches to the problem: punish the addict, or treat the addiction. It’s the classic stick v. carrot proposition.

Where drugs are concerned, these approaches are at odds with each other in a very interesting way. Laws that declare drug possession, use, production and supply criminal offences punish the addict with little if any regard to the medical implications of addiction. On the other hand, while decriminalization addresses the problems of drug possession, production, and supply by functionally dissolving the “drug black market,” a law that mandates the treatment of addiction assumes the addict wants and seeks treatment, and it neither addresses the significant, secondary effects of unchecked addiction, nor acknowledges that medical science has much to learn about addiction before such a mandate could be considered effective.

[Where’s Dr. Jaffrey when you need him…] Does the medical community agree about the nature of addiction? I don’t think so. Some say addiction is a “disease.” Others argue that addiction stems from various forms of mental illness, and that the mental disorder needs to be treated before recovery can occur. Yet a third school of thought asserts that chemical dependency leads to neurological imbalances that hinder recovery altogether, a notion supported by the AA Big Book…

What perpetuates this debate is a logical fallacy, an idea that suggests one of these two approaches is superior to the other. Maybe the question we should be asking is whether there is a better way to marry the merits of both approaches.

Cheers,
19. Wharf Rat | June 6th, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Mitch wrote: "What perpetuates this debate is a logical fallacy, an idea that suggests one of these two approaches is superior to the other. Maybe the question we should be asking is whether there is a better way to marry the merits of both approaches."

Well stated, Mitch. Alpha's criticism of my comments seems to be that I live in a Fantasyland, and that unless I can lay out a perfect replacement model the ideas presented have no merit. I am primarily trying to address the failures of the existing methodology with the hope that we can seek to improve the situation. The ultimate solution will be generated by minds much greater than mine. However, if no one recognizes a problem, there will be no movement toward a solution.

Perhaps my biggest pet peeve about our existing drug policy is the fact that criminalizing its use absolves our citizens from truly addressing it as a societal problem. Of course, we address it if a loved one is involved; otherwise, we just foist the problem upon the law enforcement community. Since it is illegal, we don't have to wrestle with the difficulty of the problem. "Hey, drugs are bad--we can't decriminalize them because that would be sending the wrong message. What more can I do?" To pilfer a line from "The Abyss", "you have to look with better eyes than that."

My real world suggestion, Alpha, is to decriminalize marijuana and study the sh*t out of the results. We have a plethora of marijuana use and interdiction data compiled over the last forty years. I don't think it will take too long to find out the practical implications of decriminalization. Based upon those findings, and with ever-increasing research into the nature of substance abuse and addiction, I have no doubt we can develop a better way of dealing with the problem.
20. Mitch.Mulhall | June 7th, 2007 at 7:54 am

[...Alpha's criticism of my comments seems to be that I live in a Fantasyland...]

I too tend to dismiss the "legalization" question for this very reason. When someone raises the subject, I smell pachouli and see the cannabis leaf tatoo on the left ankle. For whatever reason, you seem dialed in on this question from a different angle. And that's refreshing.

Cheers,
21. alpha6 | June 7th, 2007 at 10:30 pm

"I have no doubt we can develop a better way of dealing with the problem."

Actually the solution is simple...personal responsibility. However, in this age of "nothing is my fault" that is going to be a difficult hurdle to get over. People refuse to act responsibly and take responsibility for their actions, which is too bad, because I think we could address so much more and really move forward in society if as a people we would take this one step.