Yet another NM Law Enforcement Issue

[BigStar]

"The link you gave from a pro-legalization web site questions the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program which accounts for roughly 600 state/local personnel funded with monies from the program.....600...... The reason for programs like these is because state and local departments can't afford to pay for specialized units out of their police budgets so they rely on funding from the Federal government for things such as equipment and overtime." So it's okay to muck up the numbers and go after low level drug USERS in order to justify budget (gotcha)!

 

[Dodger12]

And the part about framing suspects and committing perjury is just plain hogwash. I'm sure you can pull up links of police corruption but these folks are the exception, not the norm, I can guarantee you that the prevailing thought in law enforcement is that no drug seizure or amount of drugs is worth someone's life or career. And if you're going to disparage forfeiture laws as "funding schemes," at least know how they work because there's a lot of fail in your post.


Lot of opinion in this post, you guarantee it so.... cool

I guarantee it because I have some experience with the system and those that work in it. You just take web sites, interpret the numbers the way it fits you agenda, realize you were wrong (possession with intent), then move the goal post. You can make an argument for pro-legalization but not by making claims that police would not have jobs if the drug war ended when drug crimes account for roughly 11% of the arrests YOU posted and provided a link. It kind of defeats your argument.

 

[Dodger12]

"The link you gave from a pro-legalization web site questions the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program which accounts for roughly 600 state/local personnel funded with monies from the program.....600...... The reason for programs like these is because state and local departments can't afford to pay for specialized units out of their police budgets so they rely on funding from the Federal government for things such as equipment and overtime." So it's okay to muck up the numbers and go after low level drug USERS in order to justify budget (gotcha)!

One of the arguments you make is that police illegally seize property and assets. If they would be going after low level traffickers with these funds whose distribution is based on arrests AND seizures, as you claim, then how does targeting low level traffickers meet their goals? What assets would a low level trafficker have that feeds these local departments? The whole argument is bull and is not backed up by common sense, let alone the facts.

If you are distribution narcotics and have assets such as money and high end vehicles that were used in furtherance of the crime or purchased with those proceeds, then they would be subject to forfeiture. There's nothing wrong with that system.

 

[BigStar]

So are property crimes? The facts were from a government website, what more do you want? The amount of police manpower put forth in the drug war has been a failed effort but has resulted in higher budgets and more hiring to combat the "problem." There are simply more than needed. The Drug War is just an easy exuse to keep promoting more and more LE. For What? How is this not a waste of taxpayers money? There are simply too many of them than are needed. And since when did police not have the authority of discretion? Is that alcohol I smell on your breath, sir? Police use discretion ALL the time in pursuing speeders (not all are pulled that pass police cruisers), diffusing verbal altercations, letting small amounts of drugs slide, etc. not to mention, the fake "scent" of unburnt marijuana that leads to a total car search? Mayberry ain't around anymore?

 

[BigStar]

One of the arguments you make is that police illegally seize property and assets. If they would be going after low level traffickers with these funds whose distribution is based on arrests AND seizures, as you claim, then how does targeting low level traffickers meet their goals? What assets would a low level trafficker have that feeds these local departments? The whole argument is bull and is not backed up by common sense, let alone the facts.

If you are distribution narcotics and have assets such as money and high end vehicles that were used in furtherance of the crime or purchased with those proceeds, then they would be subject to forfeiture. There's nothing wrong with that system.

Low level drug USER arrests, leads to more funding? Can be both..

 

[BigStar]

I guarantee it because I have some experience with the system and those that work in it. You just take web sites, interpret the numbers the way it fits you agenda, realize you were wrong (possession with intent), then move the goal post. You can make an argument for pro-legalization but not by making claims that police would not have jobs if the drug war ended when drug crimes account for roughly 11% of the arrests YOU posted and provided a link. It kind of defeats your argument.

Admitting I was wrong about the intent statistic somehow made me move the goal post. I said, even considering...

 

[Dodger12]

Admitting I was wrong about the intent statistic somehow made me move the goal post. I said, even considering...

I respect the fact that you admitted you were wrong. But you used a set of statistics to prove your point and I'm assuming those same statistics help you forge your judgement and belief(s). When you interpreted the statistics incorrectly yet still maintain your position, it's not about the injustices any longer. You are pro-legalization and any argument to the contrary, regardless of the facts, won't sway your opinion.

 

[Dodger12]

Low level drug USER arrests, leads to more funding? Can be both..

That makes no sense when the incentive for the funds is asset forfeitures/seizures which go into the law enforcement "coffers." You said so yourself. So then why target and arrest a low level offender when his/her assets would most probably be minimal, at best, as opposed to a "kingpin", who would have more money to feed the "coffers." The whole argument is flawed.

"Ever wonder why police spend so much time enforcing failed drug laws? To find the answer, you just need to follow the money. Funding schemes and asset forfeiture laws have given law enforcement agencies strong financial incentives to continue the drug war. Because funding for drug task forces is often based on the number of arrests made and the amount of property seized in drug busts, the easiest way for local police to up their numbers and boost their careers is to target low-level drug offenders, not violent kingpins. To create arrest opportunities, police routinely rely on untrustworthy informants, conduct dangerous home invasions on flimsy evidence, frame suspects and commit perjury. Asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to seize property with minimal proof, putting the burden instead on suspects to prove their own innocence. Because these assets often go straight into the coffers of the enforcement agency, these laws have created financial incentives for property seizures that encourage corruption."

http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/distorted-incentives/our-priorities

 

[BigStar]

Injustice is tied into excessive waste of taxpayers money while pursuing a policy that has proven to be financially wreckless and non productive. This low level drug users can be then denied access to the same occuptaional oppurtunities, not to mention voting rights in some states. How is pursuing someone for a crime that does't involve anyone but that person, justify the billions wasted in LE and court system?

 

[BigStar]

That makes no sense when the incentive for the funds is asset forfeitures/seizures which go into the law enforcement "coffers." You said so yourself. So then why target and arrest a low level offender when his/her assets would most probably be minimal, at best, as opposed to a "kingpin", who would have more money to feed the "coffers." The whole argument is flawed.

You seemed overlook the "number of arrests" part of that statistic? It is both....

 

[Dodger12]

You seemed overlook the "number of arrests" part of that statistic? It is both....

And you seem to miss this part below..........low level drug offenders rarely have anything of value to "feed the coffers" with. The whole idea is contradictory and not based on any facts or reality.

Because funding for drug task forces is often based on the number of arrests made and the amount of property seized in drug busts, the easiest way for local police to up their numbers and boost their careers is to target low-level drug offenders, not violent kingpins.

 

[BigStar]

The funding stems from the numer of arrests. Period. The funding also stems from the amount of property seized. Stop combining the two, you know "and" can mean both seperately?

 

[Dodger12]

The funding stems from the numer of arrests. Period. The funding also stems from the amount of property seized. Stop combining the two, you know "and" can mean both seperately?

And I'm asking you if the kingpins aren't targeted, as you stated, where do the property seizures and assets that feed the coffers from?

 

[BigStar]

Propery seizure, ideally, would come from drug dealers. The number of arrests has nothigng to do with the level of the offender however. Obviously the low level users are easier to scoop for numbers justification, while propery seizure of distrubtors seems to also benefit the department. Win-Win for LE either way....

 

[Dodger12]

Propery seizure, ideally, would come from drug dealers. The number of arrests has nothigng to do with the level of the offender however. Obviously the low level users are easier to scoop for numbers justification, while propery seizure of distrubtors seems to also benefit the department. Win-Win for LE either way....

You didn't answer the question but I didn't expect you to. You're talking out of both sides here and it makes no sense.

 

[BigStar]

You didn't answer the question but I didn't expect you to. You're talking out of both sides here and it makes no sense.

I just said from drug dealers. LE pursue both; dealers and users? Arrests quotas are met for higher budgets (users) while drug dealers are pursue. The drug dealers assets also benefit the department. Short and simple for ya

 

[BigStar]

Any more straw man arguments?

 

[BigStar]

Just some information,

Robert Higgs’ recent article for the Independent Institute explains the concept of dishonesty in policy-making in the U.S. well. He claims that all government policies succeed in the long run. To be concise, if a program’s stated intentions are not met but funding for it continues to increase without fail for decades, the stated intentions must not, then, be the true objective of such a policy. This seems to be the case with the War on Drugs. As Higgs’ says, follow the money.

Local and state police forces benefit financially both from block grants earmarked for drug law enforcement and the mightily unconstitutional asset forfeiture used to confiscate the property of anyone involved in or unlucky enough to be near a suspected drug-related crime. Under this law, 80% of seizures are unaccompanied by any criminal prosecution.

Monthly quotas are applied within police forces in the U.S., compelling officers to focus on meeting crime rate expectations rather than just protecting the public when necessary.

The money trail does not end at the local and state police, however. The Private Prison industry in America depends on a steady and increasing influx of new inmates, and often contractually obligates states to provide them. The War on Drugs plays no small role in the financial well-being of prisons. Despite a decrease in violent crime over the last several decades, the incarceration rate in the U.S. has tripled since 1980. Almost 50% of inmates in federal prisons are there on drug-related charges, and the U.S. now has the largest prison population in the world by far.

But yeah, this in no way relates to the size of LE?

 

[Dodger12]

I just said from drug dealers. LE pursue both; dealers and users? Arrests quotas are met for higher budgets (users) while drug dealers are pursue. The drug dealers assets also benefit the department. Short and simple for ya

Short and simple because you have no argument. Just a bunch of regurgitated garbage. You were initially against the "drug war" because it targeted low level drug dealers which is why you pointed to the (inaccurate) 80% statistic for (simple) possession. Then you claimed that asset forfeitures in law enforcement "coffers" were an incentive for the drug war budget but you can't fill your "coffers" arresting low level junkies. Then you claimed "the funding stems from the number of arrests. Period." You're all over the map. Then I asked you how you fill the coffers with all these low level arrests and you say "both."

You can cut and paste articles or provide links all you want but they won't make your argument for you.

 

[BigStar]

Short and simple because you have no argument. Just a bunch of regurgitated garbage. You were initially against the "drug war" because it targeted low level drug dealers which is why you pointed to the (inaccurate) 80% statistic for (simple) possession. Then you claimed that asset forfeitures in law enforcement "coffers" were an incentive for the drug war budget but you can't fill your "coffers" arresting low level junkies. Then you claimed "the funding stems from the number of arrests. Period." You're all over the map. Then I asked you how you fill the coffers with all these low level arrests and you say "both."

You can cut and paste articles or provide links all you want but they won't make your argument for you.

All those posts were explaining statistics to you? I can't help the lack of reading comprehension.