New Haven Independent

Posted by: on whalley | March 19, 2008 2:28 PM

It's amazing the amount of BS that directly relates to drug crimes.

Let the pot-heads smoke pot, let the crack-heads smoke crack. The trouble is "society" always feels the need to "help" the addicts and this costs money and time. If these programs were all privately funded I couldn't care less but they're not.

If some junkie chooses to shoot up or fire up the reddies then so be it. They can die broke, addicted and alone under a bridge somewhere. I'm tired of paying to police this crap. Give these clowns room and board during and after their incarceration and tired of all the "tolerance" we have to show every time a junkie mugs (sorry, aggressively panhandles) somebody.

You can be a useless addict and still not be a blight on your community as long as the community agrees to let you whither and die.

I know, pot-heads are some die-under-the-bridge junkies but drug enforcement gets me so mad. The never ending allowances we're apparently told society has to make for them really bothers me.

Where's the liberty? They chose to use let them use and let them suffer the consequences. Same goes for morbidly obese freaks who can't put the cookies down.

They should have all the freedom they want and all the consequences and responsibilities that come with that freedom. Can't get a job? Need a new liver? Too bad. You chose to smoke that first rock. You chose to take that drink. You damn well knew the potential consequences and chose to take that gamble anyway. Same goes for the interest only loan customers. You took the chance. Congratulations here are you consequences.

Posted by: RedScare | March 19, 2008 3:12 PM

I must take this opportunity to commend the New Haven Police for valiantly defending our city from marijuana, one of the most dangerous drugs on our planet. Over the past few years, there has been endless violence in this city. Of course, we all know the cause is this dangerous drug - marijuana - which causes people to maim, kill and shoot after inhaling. I know this because I just finished watching "Reefer Madness," an honest account of the true dangers of this most addictive drug. I can now sleep safer at night.

As for those gunshots in Newhallville, those are somewhat discomforting as well, but the police cannot be everywhere at once. They do not have unlimited resources. I agree that it is better to focus on the true danger in the community - marijuana. Forget guns, killings, stabbings, robberies, and home invasions. All of that is child's play compared to the dangers of smoking marijuana.

I propose we have a citywide rally for the officers investigating and executing the search warrants in these cases, especially the 1.9 gram and 5.0 gram seizures. Let's get more officers focusing their resources of pot prohibition!!

Posted by: on whalley | March 19, 2008 3:29 PM

Woops! Totally meant to stick a comma between the "tired of paying..." and "Give them room and board"

Hopefully anybody reading my comment will notice the spirit of it and not accuse me for supporting freebies in any shape or form. That's the last thing I'd want to be accused of.

Posted by: James | March 19, 2008 4:02 PM

So, a dime bag, a quarter bag, and a pound. Yeah, the streets are safer. No more pot-crazed hoodlums running about stealing and killing to get their fix. Out of all three, the only one even remotely large enough for distribution is the pound. And that's small potatoes. Maybe $500 worth of pot at most. I know you have to arrest people if you find it, but busting into people's houses for those amounts? What did they do, stake out the local 7-11 and follow the trail of Twinkies? Come on, guys. There have got to be bigger "dealers" out there and folks slinging something far more insidious than a joint. It's just kind of pathetic trying to pretend that this "bust" will somehow make life better in New Haven. Start taking down the guys bringing in he large shipments of rock or meth. Leave the rinky-dink potheads alone.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 19, 2008 6:51 PM

"Reefer Madness" had to laugh at that

On Whalley sometimes I feel the same way. It seems like a losing battle.

What pisses me off is this was not CRACK it is pot. And as drug busts go it is a small amount. But I don't want people on me street dealing dealing so I am sure this community did benefit from these busts.

I want our narcotics unit back up and running going after who ever is dealing on my street. These buyers do not look like pot heads they look like crack heads.

AND QUESTION TO THE COPS THAT ARE READING THIS...
because :) I know you guys do.... are you watching the videos at the Hess station lately??? 6 cameras there 36 hour loop. You guys are missing so much. But I luv ya any way. But please call me or ask Rebecca who to call the police do have accesses to those cameras that I fought for and you have yet to look at. The deals are still going on over there. hmhm you may even get more evidence on people you have busted.

Posted by: king james V | March 19, 2008 9:40 PM

Had this amazing stash been taken off the streets last summer, the Greers would have never armed themselves.
This is what the narcotics task force is doing? Investigating non narcotics? Disgusting. The waste of taxpayer dollars, and manpower is apalling.

Posted by: James | March 19, 2008 10:23 PM

cedarhill, dealers? Really? Come on. Maybe the one guy with the pound, OK. But the 2 and 5 grams? 2 grams is about enough for three or four joints. It's personal use. It's the equivalent of busting a bum with a 40oz. in a paper bag. Five grams is not much more. I'm not sure why these cops aren't embarrassed to even publicize a "bust" of this minute magnitude. Even a pound is small potatoes.

Now, I'm not naive and I know that there's still going to be violence surrounding the the sale and distribution of large amounts of weed. If it's illegal and there's money to be made, somebody's going to get shot over it. But this is just pathetic. I can't imagine a cop finding a dime bag on a routine search would even bother to make an arrest. Now, tell me that these guys broke up a major ring, talk about hundreds of pounds, and then maybe you've got something to crow about. Although in reality all you've done is create scarcity on a temporary basis, drive up the prices. The end result? Weed is too expensive so you get kids huffing Krylon from a plastic bag.

This is an utter waste of taxpayer dollars, and the audacity to suggest that I am now safer because some lady no longer has a small bag of weed is pathetic and belies just how out of touch law enforcement is with the root causes of crime. Sad, sad, sad.

Posted by: Edward_H | March 20, 2008 9:26 AM

Are the cops supposed to know exactly how much drugs are stored at a particular locations before they serve the warrants? Or if the police investigation cannot determine the amount of drugs at a particular location should the judge not grant a warrant? Does anyone realize that bigger bust are made from smaller busts like these as criminals give up information in plea deals and such?

Posted by: Bruce | March 20, 2008 9:37 AM

They may have been expecting to find more than a gram or two, who knows? I think the problem is with the laws, not police enforcement. Pot use may not be a huge deal, but the black market that the ban creates is nothing to laugh at. The police are just doing the job they were hired to do.

OnWhalley, you are right that people make their own bad decisions and maybe we are not obligated to "help" people with their personal problems. However, the effects of drug addiction impact more than just the person taking the drugs. Crimes that accompany drug use (theft, violence, etc.) downgrade the entire community. While you may argue that we don't have an ethical obligation to battle drug addiction, we do have an obligation to protect the public.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 20, 2008 9:57 AM

James
I get it, but as Ed posted...they went in not knowing the amount. And maybe it will lead to a bigger one.

and as Bruce pointed out that community now will have less traffic (at least for a while) it is not the drug is is the illegal distribution of it. That distribution brings crime into your community. Which is what my community suffers from. The fact that drugs are sold in several places does not have a big affect but the after effect does there clients doing there drugs, prostituting and robbing cars and houses.

Posted by: Colin | March 20, 2008 11:21 AM

I live came home from a Management Team meeting to find a "gang" of Cops coming out of the neighbor's house like a pack of coyotes after ravaging a fresh rabbit kill. They accused me of being someone they were looking for, as if they didn't know who they were looking for. One of them lit up a fat cigar they found in the house and then they just took off like the wind.
Complaint: The neighborhood still looks like sh-t and acts the same. I support the idea of a police force to uphold justice but they sent in a bunch of action-deprived recruits who acted like adolescent pirates. All that for the buds of a leafy plant.

Posted by: on whalley | March 20, 2008 1:53 PM

we do have an obligation to protect the public

No we don't. If each person chooses to they may protect themselves. Nobody has any obligation to protect anyone else.

Not even the police as per a SCOTUS ruling.

Pretending there is some obligation of some greater entity to take care of us is part of the reason all this has become such a problem in the first place. Thinking government or police will save us all is just as silly as trying to pray away cancer in lieu of real treatment.

There is no obligation to help the addicts and there is no obligation to protect the public. Should you choose to, and I strongly suggest you do, you may decide one day that your life is worth your protection. Nobody else will do it for you and it's wrong to assume anybody will or to attempt to create an artificial structure of men tasked with the job and expect them to do so.

Posted by: James | March 20, 2008 3:17 PM

But cedar, my point is that nobody with two or five grams is distributing anything.

Posted by: DingDong | March 20, 2008 6:08 PM

It's tough to be in the criminal justice system when such ridiculous drug laws are on the books. It's clear to me that marijuana and even more serious drugs should be legalized and addicts should not be treated as criminals but as patients. But when you are a cop, what are you going to do? The law is on the books. The best we can do is hope is that they turn on a blind eye to the lower-level users and ridicule them when they do not. And write your legislators. Decriminalization of drugs and ending the drug war are not the platform of stoner-college dropouts but a serious proposition about reacting appropriately to a social diesease and restoring integrity to our criminal justice system.

Posted by: Chris Gray | March 21, 2008 2:26 AM

Boy, Tim Leary was so wrong when he predicted that pot would be legalized when the entire Supreme Court was made up of pot-heads, wasn't he?

What kind of intelligence did the State Narcotics Task Force use to obtain its search warrants, pre-Iraq War?

While we mourn the 5th year anniversary of that war, another much longer and perhaps more costly one in both dollars and lives, the War on Drugs, goes on and on with probably less success. When a less than two gram bust is celebrated, the futility is palpable.

Posted by: unprotected | March 21, 2008 10:35 AM

people missed the name "State Narcotics". Seems people are assuming arrests in New Haven are made by New Haven Officers. It also seems cops are afraid to stop drug dealers and do their job to slow down or stop crack / heroin dealing when baseless accusations are made, ala Barbara Fair. Since that issue hit the news, has shootings, robberies, and gunshots gone up? Cops are feeling like they aren't backed by the community they protect. Wait till Freddy Fixer and then ask for help.

Posted by: Edward_H | March 21, 2008 1:24 PM

I am wondering what the posters who find these arrests sad or humorous think the State narcotics unit should do when they receive information on a drug location with an unspecified amount of drugs/contraband?

James

I'm not sure why these cops aren't embarrassed to even publicize a "bust" of this minute magnitude

If Law enforcement does not release the results of their investigations a good number of people will want to know why the task force is conducting a secret "War on Drugs" and not publicizing the results of its investigations. Besides ,sometimes small busts lead to bigger busts. People suddenly drop the "no snitching rule" when they know they can get away with it.

I can't imagine a cop finding a dime bag on a routine search would even bother to make an arrest.

Any officer who chooses to ignore illegal drugs on someone is taking a chance on losing his job.

But cedar, my point is that nobody with two or five grams is distributing anything

"Location one: 88 Day St. Armed with a search warrant, the task force grabbed "approximately 1.9 grams of marijuana, and packaging materials

How can you be sure there was no distribution from this location considering the packing materials found? If the police are too late or too early in serving a warrant they can easily net nothing as a delivery of drugs could have been packaged and distributed the day before.

Location two: just up the street, at 98 Day St. The task force came away with five grams of marijuana there and arrested a 32-year-old man who lives there on drug charges

Let's say you are correct and the person at location 2 possesses the weed for personal use. Is 98 Day Street a single family home? Are the other tenants supposed to be OK with someone smoking weed in the house. Or if the house if rented is the landlord supposed to turn a blind eye to illegal activity?

Posted by: James | March 21, 2008 4:08 PM

I don't know, Edward. I suspect that somebody in my building may be drinking under age. They're breaking a law. Should I call the cops? Or should I tell my landlord, so a warrant can be served? It's illegal activity, so surely it should be pursued with the full force of law enforcement. Oh, and I saw some guys standing on the Green drinking 40oz.s out of a paper bag this afternoon. I guess every cop that rolled by is in danger of losing their jobs? Also, I see people evey day running the red light in front of my house. Maybe I should start taping them and turn it over to the authorities. You're kidding yourself if you think that we as a society don't selectively prosecute crimes.

As for the packing material, I have a kitchen scale in my house and plastic bags. Oh no! I'm in possession of packing material! I guess I, too, must be a distributor. Although I'm sure if the state narcotics task force had wasted a bunch of time and resources on me only to come up with a dime bag they'd trump up those charges as well.

I'm just a little chagrined that you think that your hypothetical somebody smoking weed in a multi-family dwelling is reason to kick the door in. My point about underage drinking is flippant, to be sure, but would you be cheering the police had that been the case? Maybe an 18-year old kid sipping on a High Life? Bring out the Bearcat!

My point is that with the serious crimes and social issues we have in this city, I don't think that a small-time pot bust is worth the resources and I don't think that it's something to crow about. Telling me that I am now safer because some dude will go without his joint tonight is patronizing.

Posted by: Fairhaven Dave | March 21, 2008 6:48 PM

Dictating and enforcing what people ingest is inherently wasteful.

Posted by: DingDong | March 22, 2008 1:10 AM

"My point is that with the serious crimes and social issues we have in this city, I don't think that a small-time pot bust is worth the resources and I don't think that it's something to crow about. "

Hear, hear. Just replace 'city' with 'country.'

Posted by: Edward_H | March 22, 2008 10:27 AM

I don't know, Edward. I suspect that somebody in my building may be drinking under age. They're breaking a law. Should I call the cops? Or should I tell my landlord, so a warrant can be served?

Call the parents, cops, landlord or whatever agency is responsible for the welfare of underage children. But if you think underage drinking is cool just do continue to do nothing. Hopefully the kid won't throw any underage drinking parties like this one and get someone killed or hurt.

Oh, and I saw some guys standing on the Green drinking 40oz.s out of a paper bag this afternoon. I guess every cop that rolled by is in danger of losing their jobs?

Unlikely, since if a citizen complains about police inaction in such a case any cop who did roll by would say he did not see any drinking. My scenario has been used by internal affairs departments around the country to test cops honesty.

Also, I see people every day running the red light in front of my house. Maybe I should start taping them and turn it over to the authorities.

No, just wait until someone is killed and then complain that the government should have know about people running red lights on your corner and should have done something earlier.

You're kidding yourself if you think that we as a society don't selectively prosecute crimes.

Yes, but that is a different topic entirely.

As for the packing material, I have a kitchen scale in my house and plastic bags. Oh no! I'm in possession of packing material! I guess I, too, must be a distributor.

Not really sure what if any point you are trying to make here. Are you implying that the packing material mentioned at location one was the Ziploc TM) type bags everyone uses at home and not the small bags used to distribute drugs? Do you know of some case where the State police have arrested someone merely for the possession of plastic bags and a kitchen scale?

Although I'm sure if the state narcotics task force had wasted a bunch of time and resources on me only to come up with a dime bag they'd trump up those charges as well.

Are you implying the State Police have trumped up charges in these cases?

I'm just a little chagrined that you think that your hypothetical somebody smoking weed in a multi-family dwelling is reason to kick the door in.

What I think is irrelevant since the police are well within the law to do so if a warrant is issued. If one of my tenants call me to complain about another tenant smoking weed you can be sure when I hang up the phone I will be calling the police. I am certainly not going to call up the tenant and ask him if he is distributing weed or just possessing it for personal use.

My point about underage drinking is flippant, to be sure, but would you be cheering the police had that been the case? Maybe an 18-year old kid sipping on a High Life? Bring out the Bearcat!

Is the kid drinking alone? I would tell his parents. Is he throwing parties with other teenagers and supplying them with alcohol? I would call the cops. Is he drinking alone with a cache of automatic weapons and pipe bombs? Bring out the Bearcat!

My point is that with the serious crimes and social issues we have in this city, I don't think that a small-time pot bust is worth the resources

My point from the start has been the police cannot guarantee when investigating drugs networks how much or if any drugs will be found at a particular location. To hold the police up to some sort of "pound of contraband per dollar spent" rule is unrealistic to say the least.

1) When investigating drugs the police often do not know how much or if any drugs will be found at all.
2) Small busts lead to information that lead to bigger bust like this: http://www.ct.gov/dps/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=381876

and I don't think that it's something to crow about.

The public has a right to know the results of police investigations funded by their tax dollars. If the police did not release such info not only would you be complaining about the small amount of weed seized you or someone else would probably complain about the police hiding this fact.

Telling me that I am now safer because some dude will go without his joint tonight is patronizing.

If they people arrested are part of a distribution network are not the streets safer? Or were you incorrect when you said there was "violence surrounding the sale and distribution of large amounts of weed. " How do you know the information gathered from these arrests will not help find larger stashes of drugs?

Posted by: Ned | March 22, 2008 10:51 AM

James,

The police can go into your home whenever they want to and arrest someone for underage drinking. Thanks to the CT voters for flushing all of your rights away. I'm going to be printing some "Bill of Rights" toilet paper.
Shame, I used to like Mr. Lawlor, but his authoritarian, power hungry side seems to be blossoming lately...

Posted by: James | March 23, 2008 10:50 PM

At the end of the day, Edward, I do believe that the police should be accountable for some sort of "dollars spent to effectiveness" metric. I'm not sure how you would run any government any other way. We have limited resources and decisions must be made as to where to apply these resources. And this, in my opinion, is endemic of misdirected and wasted resources.

I am not suggesting that the charges are "trumped up" because I do not know the charges. But, and you seem not to have taken my point here, marijuana is typically distributed in plastic bags, like those you would find in any kitchen in America. If somebody with a recreational amount were to be charged with distribution because they had plastic bags in their possession, yes, I would call that trumped up. I would further object to the cost of the trial and potential incarceration resulting from said charges.

Posted by: Edward_H | March 24, 2008 9:37 AM

"At the end of the day, Edward, I do believe that the police should be accountable for some sort of "dollars spent to effectiveness" metric."

Should the State and City police use your "dollars spent to effectiveness" metric for all investigations or just drug investigations? What price are you going to put on capturing a child rapist or a murderer? My original point was never to debate the cost effectiveness of the State Narcotics unit or if our current drug laws are a waste of time. One of my points has always been that the police cannot tell beforehand what the result of ANY investigation will be.

If somebody with a recreational amount were to be charged with distribution because they had plastic bags in their possession, yes, I would call that trumped up.

You have a really good point here. I assumed at location one "packing materials" stood for the 2x2 plastic bags , the type normally used to distribute smaller amount of a variety of drugs. At this time we have no idea what these "packing materials" are.

A bit off topic but:

I'm not sure how you would run any government any other way.

Since when has our government been run on a "dollars spent to effectiveness" basis? The few times a government agency is held to such a standard and fails to fulfill its mandate it will always blame such failure on a lack of funds. We are living in a country where it costs more to make pennies and nickels than there face value of said coins. I would love it if the goverment were run on a "dollars spent to effectiveness" metric but I doubt it will ever happen.

Posted by: James | March 24, 2008 12:09 PM

Well, Edward, you have a point as well. If they were the tiny dime bags I find on my lawn constantly, there's pretty much no other use for those.

As for dollars to effectiveness, we do this all over the place to varying degrees of success. We could stop every speeder in the city and issue them a ticket. However, out police department has made the judgment that the time and effort spent doing so is not worth the benefit to our society at large and that these resources would be better spent going after violent criminals. We could probably identify and incarcerate every drug dealer in the city, but no other law enforcement could be performed as a result of the resources used. We could fund all of our schools to the hilt, hiring only top educators and provide each student with laptops and the newest text books. But then we would have no money for city services.

My point is that government budgeting, like any other budgeting, is based on benefit/cost analysis, whether it is couched in such a way or not. Your point about putting a cost on the abduction of a child rapist is certainly valid, but something of a red herring. We could certainly talk about the cost of a child's innocence or life or the social benefit of taking a rapist off the street. And I imagine that the benefit would be though very high.

But I'm not talking about individual cases that evoke strong emotion. I am talking about general policy. If we choose to investigate small-time pot dealers, we take resources from somewhere else. Could it lead to a bigger bust? Possibly, but even the guy supplying the guy with a pound of marijuana is pretty small potatoes. I have a hard time believing that the state police need to start at the user level to get a serious distributor. It's a bit like going after some guy who had his taxes done at the local branch for tax evasion to get to H&R Block for tax fraud. Surely we can start a bit higher up the ladder and be a bit more result-oriented with out resources. Anything else (e.g. these busts) just appear as window dressing.

So no, I am not advocating a direct "street value of drugs seized to cost of investigation" metric. But I will say with certainty that the smart allocation of resources, particularly in a resource-poor city like New Haven, is vital. And these busts don't strike me as having a good benefit to cost ratio.

Endgame: How and where we spend our limited resources matters.

Posted by: Ned | March 25, 2008 8:02 AM

Why is pot even illegal? Because J. Edgar Hoover was a repressed closet case/ drag queen? Because alcohol prohibition was so stupid and a failure that the government had to follow it up with even more stupidity? Because uptight, power mad hypocrites get elected by morons? Someone please explain.
Please Mommy Gobrment twell mee wat to doo!
Open some coffee shops and tax it.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | March 25, 2008 9:22 AM

Ned
I think most would agree with you on that statement. Why? I really makes know sense. This can be a major commodity. It can be converted into fuel..used for clothing and many other products such as medicines. It grows like a "weed" so it can be a very valuable product to the economy. I think most in the post "reefer Madness" Era agree on this.... I think we are just waiting for the last of the era to leave government and then someone will finally get it pushed though.

Posted by: DingDong | March 25, 2008 10:20 PM

Alas, Cedarhillresident, I think you underestimate the resistance that there is out there to this. Politicians have nothing to gain and everything to lose (they will be portrayed as childish, somehow unserious) by doing this. They will continue turning a blind eye to the war on drugs. Meanwhile our police waste their time collecting dime bags, addicts are afraid to seek treatment and our jails continue to fill up.

If a student has a drug conviction, he/she is ineligible for most (perhaps all, not sure) federal student financial aid. If a student has committed murder/rape/DWI/arson/assault, this has no effect on federal student financial aid. We might try changing that for a start.