No disprespect to you, as I do not know you personally and you seem a very affable person, I find it a shame that you view the "War on Drugs" as a game.

It's a fact that mandatory minimums, as promoted by said "game" or "war", can potentially ruin an otherwise law abiding and upstanding citizen. When paranoia and reactionism take the place of common sense and empathy we end up with the bizarre, counter-productive and ridiculous laws we have now to "protect" our "freedom".

Again, kudos to you for using some common sense when dealing with a typical marijuana offender, considering that there is real crime out there to be dealt with, as you suggested.

But again, it's no game and people's lives get ruined basically over the fact that too few people stand up and be counted when time to voice their opinion. Mandatory minimums, and all laws concerning marijuana in our country as far as I'm concerned, are a waste of taxpayer dollars and a burden on what could otherwise be a forward-thinking society.

End rant. Sorry to preach.

 

No prob on the rant man, we all have our gripes.

But, what are these "mandatory minimums" you are talking about?

I am talking about busting drug dealers and such. Not some kid with a dime bag and a bong or a flavored cigar wrapper. Ruining their lives? Most of us go to work for a living, they make their choice to sell drugs. Should I feel bad for putting them away? And, it most certainly is a game, just a very serious one. The dealers themselves view it that way too.

 

http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/mandatorymin/

Mandatory minimums require judges to hand down sentences based on pre-determined guidelines instead of case-by-case circumstances. Putting first time casual users behind bars right along with violent psychos.

Feel free to research the topic, there are people doing serious time who've never broken the law before being busted with trivial quantities of marijuana. Productive people, who instead of contributing to society sit in a cell for posessing, NOT DEALING, a substance which is less harmful than alcohol, our great nation's favored narcotic.

 

Well, I looked at the site, but I don't need to research it because I do this for a living and have a pretty good handle on it . I am in a position to see this type of stuff in court on a daily basis and the guy with a few ounces of grass to smoke in his basement does not qualify for a mandatory minimum sentence. Most times these cases are plead down to probation with drug screening.

There are minimum quantities involved to trigger the mand. min. sentence. Also, "possession with intent to distribute" or trafficking is required for the mand. minimums. I do not have the exact amounts in front of me, but the amount needed to trigger one of these scenarios is very large especially in the case of marijuana. It is up into the pounds to trigger trafficking charges, even on the federal schedule which is very tough. Those web sites are very misleading to say the least and most have an agenda other than worrying about some guy who smokes a bone occasionally.

Don't try to say that a guy with a couple pounds of pot is planning on smoking it all for personal use, that's ridiculous

 

Who here hasn't at least tried pot?(since it seems we have taken the discussion there) It's inoccuous enough in small amounts. In fact, it would be legal if it weren't for the powereful acohol and tobacco lobbies. This is in important fact in the whole point of the discussion. "sireousrex" has much insight on the subject being on the front lines. However, there wouldn't be a front line if it weren't for the moral crusaders of this country. They just know how is "bad" it is. They don't know why.

As a law eforcement officer, it doesn't matter why. It is illegal! But is that the heart of the problem? We wouldn't need as much enforcement if people were free to enjoy the herb that God put on this earth(not religious but it sounds good). You wouldn't need secret compartments and people wouldn't need guns to prtect their stash. The Canuck from BC illustrated how once people are rational and get past paranoia, then they will act accordingly. Look at the government sactioned Cali medical MJ joints. They are more like Starbucks than crack houses. In Amstradam there are many similar places and people don't get shot up and loose their minds. Let's all get some perspective.

If you pull over someone that is high or drunk, then that is wrong. If I am sitting at home and just want to get high and not bother anyone, that should be my right. At least as much as it is for someone to smoke tobacco.

Without the illegality, there is no dealer and there is no crime, therefore there are far few people in jail and we are all a much mellower and happier society. It might keep some people from wanting to invade random countries for no reason, but that's another subject.

Either way, I like the back and fourth between a cool cop and non-cops. He's gotta be pretty cool if he's on here and I assume drives an S.

p.s. I am not a big pot smoker I just don't get why it is illegal. FYI, check your history, it is because it was used in the 19th and early 20th century as an excuse to deport Mexicans. Hmmm that echos today's issues.

 

i enjoy cops that are down to earth and willing to interpret the law as you suggest you do and legally can - i especially enjoy a good q&a session with said type of cop

have you ever or do you know of anyone in your department (most likely the k9 guys) that give the dogs a false alert on occasion? feel free to plead the 5th

whats the largest quantity of drugs you've siezed personally?

what type of guns do you get to choose from for your dept carry weapon?

do you give special treatment to people who have concealed carry permits? do you consider it a good or bad thing to show this immediately with a driers license and insurance or to wait until you ask if there are weapons in the car? (i've heard many different answers from a number of different cops)

do you give special treatment to iaff guys? (we both know the answer even though most cops i've talked to seem to deny this one)

 

[QUOTE=lydas2000,Jul 19 2007, 10:49 PM] Who here hasn't at least tried pot?(since it seems we have taken the discussion there) It's inoccuous enough in small amounts. In fact, it would be legal if it weren't for the powereful acohol and tobacco lobbies. This is in important fact in the whole point of the discussion. "sireousrex" has much insight on the subject being on the front lines. However, there wouldn't be a front line if it weren't for the moral crusaders of this country. They just know how is "bad" it is. They don't know why.

As a law eforcement officer, it doesn't matter why. It is illegal! But is that the heart of the problem? We wouldn't need as much enforcement if people were free to enjoy the herb that God put on this earth(not religious but it sounds good). You wouldn't need secret compartments and people wouldn't need guns to prtect their stash. The Canuck from BC illustrated how once people are rational and get past paranoia, then they will act accordingly. Look at the government sactioned Cali medical MJ joints. They are more like Starbucks than crack houses. In Amstradam there are many similar places and people don't get shot up and loose their minds. Let's all get some perspective.

If you pull over someone that is high or drunk, then that is wrong. If I am sitting at home and just want to get high and not bother anyone, that should be my right. At least as much as it is for someone to smoke tobacco.

Without the illegality, there is no dealer and there is no crime, therefore there are far few people in jail and we are all a much mellower and happier society.

 

OK, first, I agree with lydas2000 about the illegality issue. I/we don't make the laws, we have to work with what are given. I think if the govt. saw fit, they could legalize it, possibly tax it and regulate it as far as age/driving similar to alcohol. It has always been my opinion that a guy with a small ammt. to smoke is not a terrible criminal. Having that ammt. on you though is illegal the way the law stands now. Said pot smoker may get a break from a hundred officers who feel like I do, and then may get locked up on the 101st time by an officer who doesn't. Is that officer wrong? I don't think so. He is just interpreting the law the way it was written. When it comes down to it, I am not following the law myself 100% if I give a break, although we are allowed discretion. Everyone knows the stuff is illegal and you run the risk of getting locked up if you have it. The gripe about it being illegal is with the legislature and not the cops. I say, push for it to be legalized. Until then, what can you do

To try and answer MrBurner's questions:

I do not know of anyone who has made their dog false alert. You can easily ruin a well trained dog by doing this. to do it, you have to lead the dog to give you the alert that he has been conditioned to do ONLY when there is the odor of narcotics present. Dogs learn fast, and it would only take a few times making the dog false alert before you have an un-reliable dog who indicates on nothing in an attempt to get his reward. That would be very counterproductive considering tht when he alerts that means I have to search which is usually a big PITA and frequently in a very dirty, stinky car or building.

In the almost two years doing K9, the largest qty. I have perosnally located at one single time(with my partner anyway) is 2.5 pounds of pot in a home, and over 70gr of cocaine in another. We have had a ton of success with finds in many vehicles where the officers or detectives would never have locared the stuff without the use of a dog. The Dominican cocaine dealers in the area are notorious for hiding their stashes well.

We don't get to chose our guns. We are stuck with a POS smith and wesson 9mm

I don't understand what you mean by special treatment to someone with a license to carry. If you mean off of a ticket, no. Having worked in the city for a while, I don't get to jumpy about someone who has a firearm in the car, unless I am planning on having them get out. I guess I have gotten numb. I don't usually care one way or the other if the person tells me about their gun unless I ask them to step out, which is rare.

I do like firemen, so yes, I sometimes give them leniency, but if they are really ripping out than they get it like everyone else.

 

Be very careful here. It is the responsibility of the court to interpret the law. It is the responsibility of law enforcement to enforce the law based on said interpretation.

Now, that does not mean that law enforcement officers may not often use (and have the right to use) discretion based on the circumstances.

sireousrex, I'd simply change that statement to "He is just literally following the law the way it was written." Not to say that this hypothetical officer's actions are not based on his/her own personal interpretation or one based on the courts. However, I would imagine that there is little room for various interpretations regarding a simple law about possession of small amounts of illegal substances to begin with. Thus, any decisions the officer made with respect to giving an individual a break or making an arrest would more likely be an exercise in discretion than an interpretation of the law.

I know that sounds nit-picky, but to many there is a clear distinction.

 

You are correct. interpret was the wrong word. Are you an attorney? I have learned to be very selective with words because many lawyers use them in a very literal sense.