View Full Version : The drug war has won
john_childs
2007-09-20, 07:17 AM
Saw this as the headline story in The Seattle Times today (Wednesday)
Son is busted for drugs, but it's mom and dad who lose the cars (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003891514_forfeit19m0.html)
As drug dealers go, Thomas Roos was not very crafty.
During the summer of 2005, Roos, then 24, was arrested four times in four months, usually passed out behind the wheel in cars loaded with drugs, cash, cellphones and a drug-dealing ledger.
He was so blatant about it, in fact, that drug investigators in Snohomish County believed his parents should have yanked the keys to their cars. When the parents didn't, the officers seized the vehicles under drug-forfeiture laws.
That action led to an unusual question for the state Court of Appeals: Should parents be punished for the actions of a wayward son?
The three-judge panel this week said yes, rejecting Alan and Stephne Roos' argument that they were unwitting victims, and all but chastised them for not exercising more tough love.
The ruling cost the Rooses, of Bothell, their 2004 Nissan Sentra and a 1970 Chevrolet Chevelle "muscle car," as well as more than $34,000 in attorney fees to fight what their attorney deemed a ruling that "stretches the bounds of logic."
... (continued)
And that held up on appeals? ???
Any wonder when the Regional Drug Task Force gets to keep the money from anything they confiscate. That is what our drug war has become.
Naomi
2007-09-20, 07:24 AM
I would ask why was he released 3 times in less than 4 months, if he was arrested with so much stuff in the car?
Had he been properly dealt with early on, maybe the parents would still be driving around.
Nao
harper
2007-09-20, 02:50 PM
I would ask why was he released 3 times in less than 4 months, if he was arrested with so much stuff in the car?
From a strictly moral and ethical standpoint I would question why he was ever arrested at all. Was someone else placed in danger somehow?
cathwood
2007-09-20, 04:46 PM
Parents are always blamed/punished for their children's behaviour. There's not much else that courts can do to punish children except to fine the parents (well, fine the child but funnily enough they're not earning, so guess who pays).
However, I thought by the age of 24 a person would be considered a person and not a child. Looks like we're really extending adolescence these days.
James_Potter
2007-09-20, 04:47 PM
From a strictly moral and ethical standpoint I would question why he was ever arrested at all. Was someone else placed in danger somehow?
If he was under the influence of some drug while driving the car, then others would be in danger.
But if it's solely for possession, then I agree with you.
Unfortunately our government does not operate on a basis of morality.
kington99
2007-09-20, 04:50 PM
I think the issue is not so much that he was their son, but just that they were lending a car to a guy so he could sell drugs, and they were aware of this. The fact that he was their son is by-the-by. If i knowingly let a guy sell drugs from my flat i deserve to be done for it, and i see this case as basically the same situation.
James_Potter
2007-09-20, 05:06 PM
I think the issue is not so much that he was their son, but just that they were lending a car to a guy so he could sell drugs, and they were aware of this. The fact that he was their son is by-the-by. If i knowingly let a guy sell drugs from my flat i deserve to be done for it, and i see this case as basically the same situation.
I pretty much agree with this...it's just that the cops had to confiscate the car because the car was constantly being used for drug dealing. The parents, by letting this man use their car, were somewhat "involved" in this "crime."
john_childs
2007-09-20, 07:26 PM
This case stretches the bounds of logic in the same way that the application of zero tolerance rules at schools end up stretching the bounds of logic. But rules are rules.
A system where the city/county and the police force financially rely on the takings of property is open to abuse. The police will end up wanting to confiscate as much as possible. Take away the financial incentive and I doubt that the police would have ended up confiscating the cars in this case.
Confiscating cars just because they happened to be used by a drug dealer even if the drug dealer didn't own the car does not make sense. Any confiscation should be limited to property directly purchased by the drug dealer with drug money. Spreading that out to include any property that the drug dealer has used makes the punishment unequal and affects people who are not benefiting from any of the drug money. Morally it is wrong.
Borgschulze
2007-09-20, 08:31 PM
If I owned a 1970 Chevelle... and someone tried to confiscate it from me, you better believe someones going to die before they take it.
johnfoss
2007-09-20, 09:34 PM
On the one hand I agree with JC. The guy didn't own the cars he was using, therefore they should not be confiscated. This assumes there is no proof that the parents knew what he was up to with their cars. If it can be proved that they were aware of this, Which I get the feeling they did, consider the cars being confiscated from the parents.
Why do we have so much crime in this country? I think part of the reason is too many people seem to find it acceptable. If you know your cousin is a thief and yet you say and do nothing, you're part of the problem. If you really think your cousin shouldn't be a thief, if you really care about your cousin, you'll say or do something to discourage his activities. Like helping him get arrested so he can consider changing his ways.
On the other hand I very much agree with JC that the incentive of confiscating "stuff" that a department gets to keep changes the motivation to something other than just enforcing the law. I wonder who's driving that Chevelle now, and if they are involved in law enforcement?
Joe2005
2007-09-20, 09:42 PM
I would ask why was he released 3 times in less than 4 months, if he was arrested with so much stuff in the car?
Had he been properly dealt with early on, maybe the parents would still be driving around.
Nao
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
They just wanted money I guess.
monkeyman
2007-09-20, 10:07 PM
Why do we have so much crime in this country?
Because the wrong stuff is illegal. If the government suddenly outlawed cigarette smoking, crime would shoot way up.
Gilby
2007-09-20, 10:25 PM
Why do we have so much crime in this country?
Lead by example, I guess. When the government commits mass crime, what do you expect the civilians to learn from that?
john_childs
2007-09-21, 04:10 AM
The drug war lost a battle today. Prosecutors and the parole board in shock as governor grants a full pardon to a convicted druggie (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/20/Pasco/Paey_given_full_pardo.shtml). I'm sure this is only a temporary setback for the drug war. It must remain resolute and strong.
TALLAHASSEE -- Richard Paey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Paey)(Wikipedia link) is a chronic pain patient in year three of a 25-year mandatory-minimum sentence for trafficking in drugs -- his own pain medication.
But his freedom is just hours away.
Gov. Charlie Crist and the Florida Cabinet voted unanimously to grant Paey a full pardon Thursday morning for his 2004 conviction on drug trafficking and possession charges.
"We aim to right a wrong and exercise compassion and to do it with grace," the governor said. "Congratulations ... and I state he should be released today."
How did it come to that?
Borges
2007-09-21, 08:44 AM
They're abusing the law. It was intended to take away the profit motive from drug dealing, but those cars where not bought with drug money.
If the police thinks they where accessories to a crime they should be tried for that.
The other scary aspect of the original case (for me) is the fact that the judges were just about using the law to make comment on the parents' parenting ability.
Yeah, a 24 year old drug-dealing laze-about makes for a good case supporting their position, I just don't feel that it's their place to make such comment.
john_childs
2007-09-21, 02:38 PM
The other scary aspect of the original case (for me) is the fact that the judges were just about using the law to make comment on the parents' parenting ability.
Yeah, a 24 year old drug-dealing laze-about makes for a good case supporting their position, I just don't feel that it's their place to make such comment.
Nanny state. And to think that the drug war is generally a conservative position supported by those who don't like the nanny state. Course the liberal side also supports the drug war and hasn't bothered to act to reduce its impact and abuses.
I fondly recall a piece by Bill Hicks about a goverment official remarking that they were losing the War on Drugs.
He took great joy out of pointing out that the goverment were at war with people on drugs and the people on drugs were winning.
Legalise it and tax it.
We can't get rid of drugs in prison, where any warden can search anyone, anywhere, anytime, no warrant, no nothing required.
If we want to live in a drug-free world, do you have any idea what a draconian place that would have to be?
A lot of 'drug deaths' stem from turf wars between dealing gangs and users overdosing because of inconsistently cut drugs available on the street.
Legalise it, and both these problems dissappear.
Tax it, and you can lower personal income tax rather substantially.
This position makes so much sense, in so many ways, there has to be a dark agenda behind keeping it illegal.
harper
2007-09-21, 02:54 PM
This position makes so much sense, in so many ways, there has to be a dark agenda behind keeping it illegal.
Can you think of a black market economy that is so wealthy that it can fund an agenda to keep it illegal? Hmmmm....
john_childs
2007-09-21, 03:25 PM
Can you think of a black market economy that is so wealthy that it can fund an agenda to keep it illegal? Hmmmm....
Now that's a conspiracy that even I had never considered. You are wise beyond your years.
johnfoss
2007-09-21, 04:19 PM
Legalise it and tax it.I'm sure the tax part would appeal to government types. Also making it legal might free up a huge amount of police resources. Or would it?
Constantly arresting users and small-time dealers would go away (at least when the legal distribution system is set up and as long as it's cheaper/easier than buying from a dealer). But what would happen to crime in general?
We can't get rid of drugs in prison, where any warden can search anyone, anywhere, anytime, no warrant, no nothing required.That's a great way of describing that aspect. It was like when alcohol was illegal in the US in the 1920s. The underground "industry" was huge! That war was conceded because it was obvious people were not going to stop using it.
A lot of 'drug deaths' stem from turf wars between dealing gangs and users overdosing because of inconsistently cut drugs available on the street.
Legalise it, and both these problems dissappear.To be replaced by what? Will the price of coke suddenly drop to something people can afford? One must assume rates of usage would go up, not down. But in the long run, prices would go up*. Addiction levels would go way up. So what do addicts do when they need their fix? Oh yeah. Crimes against everyone else.
How many more people will use in public, where they will add to the population of public drunks that go from being a nuisance to a real danger? How many more people will use and drive? Those numbers are likely to go up as well.
Yes, I can understand people thinking prices will go down but they won't. Corporations will run the distribution system, with their hierarchy of fat cats who will want their cut. Plus the taxes. I think Gilby would agree with me on that part. Then there's some people who don't like to pay taxes, so they'll still sell illegally. The illegal drug market will not go away if the stuff can be distributed cheaper without going through the "proper channels."
So I'm on the fence about this idea. I'm definitely in favor of legalizing pot (long as I don't have to breathe the second-hand smoke). But stuff like crack and meth? I think it would be a very bad idea. Ever seen the TV show Intervention? I can explain it if people want to know, but it illustrates what drugs (or some other stuff) do not only to the lives of the users, but to their family, friends and other people around them, as well as how hard it is to get cleaned up and stay that way after they hit rock bottom. Imagine the impact, and cost, of a lot more of those people on society.
harper
2007-09-21, 04:43 PM
Addiction levels would go way up. So what do addicts do when they need their fix? Oh yeah. Crimes against everyone else.
How many more people will use in public, where they will add to the population of public drunks that go from being a nuisance to a real danger? How many more people will use and drive? Those numbers are likely to go up as well.
"Public drunks" are addicted to a legal, affordable drug. Many can support that habit by merely panhandling. This is a nuisance, not a danger. In my belief system violent crime will decrease if a drug is made legally available and inexpensive. Drug use is self-limiting from an evolutionary point of view.
I think Gilby would agree with me on that part.
Gilby knows you well enough and has enough integrity to ALWAYS disagree with you. There, now I have name-dropped with the best of them.
Gilby
2007-09-21, 07:13 PM
Yes, I can understand people thinking prices will go down but they won't. Corporations will run the distribution system, with their hierarchy of fat cats who will want their cut. Plus the taxes. I think Gilby would agree with me on that part. In a free market system, no, prices will go down. In a fascist system, yes, prices will be high.
Can you think of a black market economy that is so wealthy that it can fund an agenda to keep it illegal? Hmmmm....
Big Tobacco?
Oh, wait...
harper
2007-09-21, 11:02 PM
Big Tobacco?
Oh, wait...
...yeah, L-E-G-A-L.
johnfoss
2007-09-21, 11:40 PM
In my belief system violent crime will decrease if a drug is made legally available and inexpensive. Drug use is self-limiting from an evolutionary point of view.The question is whether it would be inexpensive. I have my doubts.
Alcohol use is also an evolutionary self-limiting thing. Problem is, drunks in cars are taking out the non-drunks a lot faster than they eliminate themselves. Legalizing other similar drugs would compound this problem. That's just one area of the whole issue, but I think it would be a big one.
In a free market system, no, prices will go down. In a fascist system, yes, prices will be high.See, he agrees with me! :)
...yeah, L-E-G-A-L.
So sorry, I thought we were talking M-O-R-A-L.
harper
2007-09-22, 12:07 AM
So sorry, I thought we were talking M-O-R-A-L.
Shall the twain ever meet? Did you ever quit smoking? I hit year 5, 6, or 7, I can't remember which, on 22 August, my brother's birthday. Enough commas there to choke Miss Ayelery?
Gilby
2007-09-22, 01:59 AM
See, he agrees with me! :) Well, we live in a fascist country, so the chances of drugs being made legal are very slim under our current political system. A fascist state needs something to go after to maintain its strength and the drug war is a huge one. The poverty and terorism wars are big ones too, but once we get them, they don't go away easily. If drugs were made legal, that would mean that we have had a huge shift in the idea of government in this country that follows individual responsibility and the protection of one's liberty. That means the legalization of drugs would be a free market in this case, absent of the regulations that hamper the emergence of competition, so prices will be lower.
Did you ever quit smoking?
Did I ev (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40249&highlight=cigarette)er.
Danni
2007-09-25, 12:18 AM
Why don't we smoke on that:)
BillyTheMountain
2007-10-23, 01:13 AM
Well, we live in a fascist country, so the chances of drugs being made legal are very slim under our current political system. A fascist state needs something to go after to maintain its strength and the drug war is a huge one. The poverty and terorism wars are big ones too, but once we get them, they don't go away easily. If drugs were made legal, that would mean that we have had a huge shift in the idea of government in this country that follows individual responsibility and the protection of one's liberty. That means the legalization of drugs would be a free market in this case, absent of the regulations that hamper the emergence of competition, so prices will be lower.
Which is worse, the fascism, or the fact (as Bill Maher says) that legislation still forces us to drink from separate water fountains?
He means that he has to smoke pot in the alley, but you don't have to drink your martini in the alley. That some people can marry the person they love, while others get 2nd rate "civil union" to the one they love.
Saw Bill Maher's "I'm Swiss" DVD. Very good! See it! (Remember, despite the clusterf*ck of the Bush administration over 9-11, Bill Maher is the only one who lost his job for 9-11.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.