Cops and the War On Drugs (for ThinBlueLine)

[shanek]

In another thread, ThinBlueLine and I got slightly sidetracked with the War on Drugs. To avoid derailing that thread (okay, probably way too late) and because this deserves a thread of its own, I thought it'd be interesting to see how actual police officers view the War on Drugs.

I had started off asking him about LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). Probably a good idea to start from there.

 

[shanek]

Here is ThinBlueLine's response from that thread:

Hadn't heard of LEAP. Bookmarked the link. Thanks!
The war on drugs. Don't get me started (in this thread, at least). It will go down in history as one of, if not THE, biggest money wasting, damage causing scams ever perpetrated on the citizens of this country. No cop I consider intelligent actually buys into the war on drugs. We're in the game (yup) for the fun of the hunt and because you follow the drugs to get the guns. Oftentimes, when a cop is bringing in a really "pimpy" arrest, (like a dime bag of weed or two rocks) the arresting officer will sarcastically say to those around him, "Winning the war on drugs, one dime bag at a time!" A variation is, "Yep, making a difference!" said with false zeal.

I never would make these small dope arrests, much to the chagrin of my bosses.
SUPERVISOR:"You think you're too good to make the one baggers, (insert my name)?"
ME: "No, I think we all are."
Repeat exchange for next boss, next, and so on...

I've thrown a LOT of weed down the city sewers over the years. Hell, it's worth it just for the look on the offenders face when I tell him to get off my patch and stop getting caught breaking the law. Street folk just bolt but the college student's are the best. They begin to overthink the situation as some sort of inverted entrapment and stand there stammering. I wonder what they tell their friends when I drive away? It's getting tough out there, though. Cameras being put in squads means everyone gets hammered for weed, dope and traffic violations. No more officer discretion. Taking all my fun away.

 

[shanek]

So, a couple of questions for TBL and any other cops on this forum:

What do you would happen if drugs were legalized? What would happen to the crime rate, drug use, or any other effects, good or bad?

As for TBL's comment on "officer discretion":

Can you confirm (since so many people here have denied this no matter how extreme the evidence given) that police officers swear an oath to support the Constitution?

If the answer is "yes," do the drug laws, in your opinion, violate the Constitution?

If the answer to both is "yes," then what do you think a cop should do when instructed to enforce a law that violates the Constitution?

And after answering what one "should" do, what is the reality of what actually happens?

 

[ThinBlueLine]

So, a couple of questions for TBL and any other cops on this forum:

What do you would happen if drugs were legalized? What would happen to the crime rate, drug use, or any other effects, good or bad?

As for TBL's comment on "officer discretion":

Can you confirm (since so many people here have denied this no matter how extreme the evidence given) that police officers swear an oath to support the Constitution?

If the answer is "yes," do the drug laws, in your opinion, violate the Constitution?

If the answer to both is "yes," then what do you think a cop should do when instructed to enforce a law that violates the Constitution?

And after answering what one "should" do, what is the reality of what actually happens?

Now you got me wondering. I can't find the specific wording of the oath of office. I even dug out my academy graduation program to see the oath of office but it isn't printed in there, only a full page "Law Enforcement Code of Ethics which was read out loud at graduation. It states in part, ..."and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty equality and justice." I've had no positive results searching online for the exact wording of the CPD oath. I will post on a copper's blog and see if anyone provides. I remember swearing to uphold the Constitution sometime in my life but that may have been swearing in after enlistment or when I had to sign some papers upon security clearance upgrade stating that I had no moral qualms about firing Nuclear Weapons (Nuke armed ASROCs). Boy did I get an ass chewing when I balked....ah, good times, good memories. Anyway, the CPD oath may well only swear to uphold the state (Illinois) Constitution and those other folks may be right.

The War on Drugs Swindle I will leave to others who are well versed and have the stats/certs readily on hand. I read up on it a long time ago, formed my opinion and am no longer qualified to represent. I will add, though, that I am opposed to the criminalization of drugs on general libertarian principles even if it wasn't the HUGE money sucker/violence-generator it is.

If the laws are on the books then from the perspective of a tool of the executive branch (cop) you are enforcing something that is constitutional. I encourage people (especially if they are at that young idealistic age) all the time to get the law changed/interpreted via the other branches of the government. So if a supervisor orders you to make a drug arrest it is a "lawful" order and must be obeyed. Hell, we can't even "trade up" in Chicago anymore with . It used to be a common practice to coerce someone you caught dirty with a small amount of dope to give up someone with a few guns or a kilo+. Now hard working cops are afraid. IAD (Internal affairs Div.) is jamming up guys caught doing this. Hence the bottom feeding, scavenging for "scalps", "heads", "bodies in the basement" dime-bag, one rock pinch numbers game being played. So the impossible war on drugs isn't even being fought efficiently.

Something else weird going on in Chicago: The city has been declared a "Sanctuary City" and the police have been ordered to NOT enforce the prosecution of illegal aliens. We are not to inquire of the status of an offender's citizenship. If we come upon evidence that a person is in the country illegally, we are NOT to inform La Migra. If we attempt to contact them on the sly (some of us keep mutually beneficial contacts with ICE, FBI, DEA) and are caught, we face disciplinary action. Only if an actual warrant has been issued for the person by the Feds may you take any action and when I had one a few weeks ago, you should have seen the bosses panicking. This is perhaps a more concrete example of a law enforcement institution in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

BTW-nice job starting the thread, you pot-stirrer, you!
p.s.- Just occurred to me rereading. I meant pot as in metal receptacle. But go ahead and make those irresistible jokes, ya' nuts!

 

[Whoracle]

I watch Cops sometimes when I'm bored. It's amazing how many people consent to searches of their vehicle, when they have a right to refuse, and the cop ends up finding 20 rocks of crack or a couple ounces of weed or something. These people are literally just throwing themselves in jail.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If the laws are on the books then from the perspective of a tool of the executive branch (cop) you are enforcing something that is constitutional. I encourage people (especially if they are at that young idealistic age) all the time to get the law changed/interpreted via the other branches of the government. So if a supervisor orders you to make a drug arrest it is a "lawful" order and must be obeyed.

This is not the answer Shanek was hoping for. Prepare to be called a LIAR.

 

[ThinBlueLine]

I watch Cops sometimes when I'm bored. It's amazing how many people consent to searches of their vehicle, when they have a right to refuse, and the cop ends up finding 20 rocks of crack or a couple ounces of weed or something. These people are literally just throwing themselves in jail.

heh, heh, heh. Agreed. I love when that happens. When it's not on camera they almost always recant and claim they didn't give permission. Then it's a tossup depending on what kind of judge you get. Will he believe the officer or the offender? Seems the majority in Cook County are er....lenient. One in my narcotics court branch used to ask his assistant, out loud, how many spots are open at 26th/California (Cook County Jail). Usually the answer is 3 or 4. Then, using some guidelines known only to him, he hears 40-60 dope cases of which all but those 3 or 4 are dismissed. There is no pattern such as amount of drugs, offender record. Oftentimes the first 3 or 4 are held over for trial and EVERY case after is dumped. Another judge in Felony branch will almost always believe the defendant's testimony over the officer and will say after the officer's testimony, "I think you're lying. You guys are all liars." Hilarious stuff! The red/purple face on some of these coppers is priceless! Maybe he's a good judge of character and the coppers are lying because many times I went before him he bought my story and I was spared the humiliation routine.

 

[ThinBlueLine]

This is not the answer Shanek was hoping for. Prepare to be called a LIAR.

Well, I hope he calls me wrong if he thinks so but not a liar. I will be as honest as I can be without endangering my job. For instance, I started composing a post and was going to link a news story to provide bonafides then realized that in the story I am introduced at a press conference as "arresting officer _____." My anonymity would be compromised and identity connected with anything I say on here about violating department general orders or even breaking the law. I feel my most useful purpose here is to be truthful. I have nowhere near the insight and knowledge of the majority of posters. I read the site for a few weeks and realize that. So I figured I can serve a purpose by being honest. For instance: Do cops ever lie on police reports? The witness stand? Hell, yes. Have I ever? Choose not to answer. Now IF the answer was yes, I would be afraid to say so. I could just say no for CYA but what is to be gained in a forum such as this by pretending I am some squeaky clean automaton?

If you meant not having the wording of the oath, I can only prove I'm not lying once I get it. It would seem logical to swear to uphold the constitution, so help me god, etc. I know there have been lawsuits about the "so help me god" part.

 

[ThinBlueLine]

I watch Cops sometimes when I'm bored. It's amazing how many people consent to searches of their vehicle, when they have a right to refuse, and the cop ends up finding 20 rocks of crack or a couple ounces of weed or something. These people are literally just throwing themselves in jail.

Go to your local big city cop watering hole while this show is on. Sometimes guys will demand the bartender change the channel but if not...We get so worked up second-guessing everything happening on the show! Yelling out instructions and critiques... "Don't do that, aw c'mon just knock him on his ass, what are you waiting for? Cuff him, for gods sake, he's soft as puppy sh%$#! It is so damn funny. Damn, now I miss drinking.

 

[shanek]

Anyway, the CPD oath may well only swear to uphold the state (Illinois) Constitution and those other folks may be right.

Actually, according to the US Constitution, you have to. All officers of all branches of all state and Federal governments have to swear to uphold the US Constitution.

If the laws are on the books then from the perspective of a tool of the executive branch (cop) you are enforcing something that is constitutional.

Really? It just has to be on the books and it's automatically Constitutional? How does that work?

 

[ThinBlueLine]

Actually, according to the US Constitution, you have to. All officers of all branches of all state and Federal governments have to swear to uphold the US Constitution.

I still don't have the wording of the oath. I will be surprised and curious if it is NOT in there but why have people lied about this to you on this site when their lie should be easy to disprove? I am just curious.

Really? It just has to be on the books and it's automatically Constitutional? How does that work?

Lets start over. Let's go back to your original question.

"...what do you think a cop should do when instructed to enforce a law that violates the Constitution?"

Violates the Constitution according to who? Do you mean if the officer's interpretation of the Constitution is in conflict with the existing law? Or throw me a scenario. Hopefully not "Chomsky, Ayn Rand and the pope are sitting in a bar smoking a joint..."

Meanwhile, how's this: A police officer is not willfully violating the constitutional rights of an individual when enforcing current laws and should not be held liable if that law is later to be found unconstitutional.

 

[Kerberos]

Lets start over. Let's go back to your original question.

"...what do you think a cop should do when instructed to enforce a law that violates the Constitution?"

Violates the Constitution according to who? Do you mean if the officer's interpretation of the Constitution is in conflict with the existing law? Or throw me a scenario. Hopefully not "Chomsky, Ayn Rand and the pope are sitting in a bar smoking a joint..."

Meanwhile, how's this: A police officer is not willfully violating the constitutional rights of an individual when enforcing current laws and should not be held liable if that law is later to be found unconstitutional.

Shanek feels that it is the duty of every official on any level, to evaluate the constitutionality of any law and refuse to enforce the law if he or she feels it's unconstitutional, either because they violate for exampel the bill of rights, or also IIRC if they fall outside the authority of the federal governement (presuming it's a federal law) as descriped by the Constitution. He has certain opinions about the use of the commerce clause in this context. Of casue it's a while ago we had this discussion, but I'm sure Shanek will point it out if he doesn't think I'm fairly representing his viewpoint here.

Most of the rest of us feels that officials, like for exampel cops, should, as a rule, follow and enforce any law passed by Congress and not ruled unconstitutional by the courts.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, I hope he calls me wrong if he thinks so but not a liar. I will be as honest as I can be without endangering my job.

If you meant not having the wording of the oath, I can only prove I'm not lying once I get it. It would seem logical to swear to uphold the constitution, so help me god, etc. I know there have been lawsuits about the "so help me god" part.

Oh no, you don't understand. In the real world that we skeptics occupy, someone is a liar if they tell a lie. In Shanek's world, someone is a liar if they disagree with him or provide evidence that counter his delusions.

 

[ThinBlueLine]

Shanek feels that it is the duty of every official on any level, to evaluate the constitutionality of any law and refuse to enforce the law if he or she feels it's unconstitutional...

I know Shanek didn't say it but this is fun.

This would mean each official of the executive branch interpreting the Constitution on a case by case basis? Or in the world of a person who would make such a suggestion is theirs the only necessary interpretation? In my case, I would be interpreting the Constitution 10-20 times per day, the results dependent on my whim. Do I refuse to arrest an offender on these grounds while my partner insists we do arrest because he views the Constitution differently? Is it then my duty to prevent the other officer from "illegally" depriving the subject of his liberty and is it then my partners duty to prevent my attempt to unlawfully defeat the arrest which I feel is lawful so continue to attempt to prevent the arrest.....and so on? (BTW-Where is the "offender" at while two cops are wrestling around violating each other's civil rights by depriving freedom through the restriction of each other's movement?) And isn't this in conflict with the separation of powers, consolidating the powers of all three branches into the executive branch alone thus undermining the very document upon which the argument is based?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I still don't have the wording of the oath. I will be surprised and curious if it is NOT in there but why have people lied about this to you on this site when their lie should be easy to disprove? I am just curious.

See my above post. No one has lied to Shanek, just disagreed.

Lets start over. Let's go back to your original question.

"...what do you think a cop should do when instructed to enforce a law that violates the Constitution?"

Violates the Constitution according to who? Do you mean if the officer's interpretation of the Constitution is in conflict with the existing law? Or throw me a scenario. Hopefully not "Chomsky, Ayn Rand and the pope are sitting in a bar smoking a joint..."

Meanwhile, how's this: A police officer is not willfully violating the constitutional rights of an individual when enforcing current laws and should not be held liable if that law is later to be found unconstitutional.

Good question. This is one that Shanek has consistently refused to answer. For obvious reasons. Basically, in Shanek's Libertopia, everyone interprets the constitution and, get this, everyone's interpretation is correct. No, that is not a mistake. And, as a rational person, you're probably wondering how that would differ from anarchy. Another good question. Now stop laughing.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I know Shanek didn't say it but this is fun.

This would mean each official of the executive branch interpreting the Constitution on a case by case basis? Or in the world of a person who would make such a suggestion is theirs the only necessary interpretation? In my case, I would be interpreting the Constitution 10-20 times per day, the results dependent on my whim. Do I refuse to arrest an offender on these grounds while my partner insists we do arrest because he views the Constitution differently? Is it then my duty to prevent the other officer from "illegally" depriving the subject of his liberty and is it then my partners duty to prevent my attempt to unlawfully defeat the arrest which I feel is lawful so continue to attempt to prevent the arrest.....and so on? (BTW-Where is the "offender" at while two cops are wrestling around violating each other's civil rights by depriving freedom through the restriction of each other's movement?) And isn't this in conflict with the separation of powers, consolidating the powers of all three branches into the executive branch alone thus undermining the very document upon which the argument is based?

Stop it! You're asking to many obvious questions. You're trying to apply real world logic in a Libertopian world.

And the answer your questions (the same ones that others have asked)? Shanek has pretty much said that the situations you have described above would never happen.

 

[ThinBlueLine]

Oh no, you don't understand. In the real world that we skeptics occupy, someone is a liar if they tell a lie. In Shanek's world, someone is a liar if they disagree with him or provide evidence that counter his delusions.

Hmmmm... Was this a setup? Some vicious hazing for the new guy? Tell me Katana wasn't in on it otherwise the film noire is running too fast!

Anyway, I shall let his actions speak for themselves. I do believe some here are trying to give me a heads up and it is appreciated.

 

[Overman]

I watch Cops sometimes when I'm bored. It's amazing how many people consent to searches of their vehicle, when they have a right to refuse, and the cop ends up finding 20 rocks of crack or a couple ounces of weed or something. These people are literally just throwing themselves in jail.

I got pulled over in IL and was asked to take a soberiety test. Unfortunetly, I did, walked the line, stood on one foot, and kinds of crap. Fortunetly, at the end of that the cop asked me to take a breathilizer, I had a couple, and have had friends end up having to pay 8000 after all the fees of a .08, so I refuesed, was cuffed, and brought in. After all the filing, and crap, with me cuffed to a seat, and the cops attempting to use all kinds of scare tactics on me, at the end he was like 'this is your last chance, just take the breathlizer.'

I polietly refused once again, and to my surprise the cop totally changed. He said 'Ah! Someone that knows their rights!' and was a generally cool guy after that. I had friends come bail me, but just chilled with the cop for a while, talking about what I have to do next.

The very important lesson here is never, ever, ever, give them anything on you...I wish I would have not even taken the first test.

Most people think you have to do what cops tell you, and have to respond...Nope.

I later had the charges dropped, and was given just a small ticket for having a passenger ride in the correct position (what I got orginally pulled over for, I had a bunch of boxes in my back seat and a friend was lying across the top of them.)

But the change in the cop was really amazing...from 'lets get a freebie' to 'this guy knows his rights, I can be myself now'

Crazy.

 

[Katana]

Hmmmm... Was this a setup? Some vicious hazing for the new guy? Tell me Katana wasn't in on it otherwise the film noire is running too fast!

 

[ThinBlueLine]

Good question. This is one that Shanek has consistently refused to answer. For obvious reasons. Basically, in Shanek's Libertopia, everyone interprets the constitution and, get this, everyone's interpretation is correct. No, that is not a mistake. And, as a rational person, you're probably wondering how that would differ from anarchy. Another good question. Now stop laughing.

Does he reallyclaim that this differs from anarchy?