This is yet another plea for unicorns and bunnies to spring up everywhere, and it's beyond stupid.

Do I really have to explain that those who use and deal drugs include a population which thinks it's just dandy to shoot cops, and that it's not possible to tell who's who before the raid?

Breonna's ex-boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, was a drug dealer. Breonna allowed Glover to receive packages and mail at her place and often held them for him. The police suspected the ex was storing some of his drugs and cash at her place.

Glover, not only received packages at her place, but he was seen being dropped off at his house in a car registered to Taylor. He was seen on at least one occasion walking directly into her apartment without knocking. He gave Taylor's phone number when he filed a complaint against an officer who towed his car. Her car was seen in front of his residence on several occasions.

Suspicions of her involvement in Glover's activities, however minor, seem perfectly valid in light of that. Taylor remained friendly with her ex-boyfriend, a drug dealer. An important lesson here is "don't date drug dealers."

In the wake of the tragedy, Louisville banned no-knock warrants. The police advocate for them because a suspect can destroy evidence if the police politely announce themselves and wait for someone to open the door. Police can also be in danger in some cases if they have to announce themselves first. Not everyone is law-abiding or has qualms about shooting at the police.

On the other hand, we live under a justice system that requires the state to prove guilt and presumes innocence. No-knock warrants presume guilt, by definition.

However, an outright ban on no-knock warrants dismisses the dangers of which the police warn. Those dangers do exist and no amount of social justice rhetoric will change that. No-knock warrants should be reserved only for the most extreme of cases and not given out like candy, but not banned outright either.

Once Taylor's new boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, opened fire - a warning shot aimed at the floor, he said - the police began returning fire. One officer fired blindly into the apartment, at shadows. This was overkill on their part and endangered neighbors innocent of any criminal activity.

Timeline from the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Listen Amy, you didn’t like the unintended consequences when California decided to ignore petty theft by refusing to prosecute it,

Why do you fail to understand that the police in no way shape or form will be able to suppress the crime boom associated with rampant legal drug use?

You aren’t going to like this libertarian utopia because it will make most cities and major towns that aren’t already, unlivable shit holes.

> the crime boom associated
> with rampant legal drug use

?

Do I really have to explain that those who use alcohol includes a population that thinks it’s just dandy to shoot cops, and that it’s not possible to tell who’s who before the raid?

Lol.

the crime boom associated
> with rampant legal drug use

?

Crid at September 24, 2020 7:46 AM

Been to Colorado lately? It’s a mess. My libertarian friends are moving out because of both the restrictive gun laws, the petty property crimes, and the escalating taxes which fund bigger and bigger Democratic Party controlled government.

“Gov. Hickenlooper has said he isn’t yet ready to pin the blame of rising crime on the legalization of marijuana. In Fort Collins, Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith told CNN recently that cannabis isn’t making it more likely that a person will commit a crime. Rather, he believes that legal marijuana attracts a “growing seasonal transient population” that is more likely to commit a crime.”

While I agree in principle with the legalization of drug use (and supply), I find arguments in favor of it Panglossian in the naiveté of their supporters.

The foreign sources of many of these currently-illegal drugs are not subject to American law and don't care if they're legal or illegal. They follow the law of supply and demand. They won't suddenly become polite NYSE-traded companies because now their activities are smiled upon in America.

You have government morons who think of legal drugs as just another revenue source to be taxed to death, not realizing that, since the illegal supply channels already exist, black market drugs can easily and quickly undercut legal drugs in price and thereby negate any advantage gained by legalization or decriminalization - e.g., you can buy untaxed loose cigarettes in NYC on almost any corner for much less than you can get them in a legal bodega.

Taxes won't be the only thing increasing the cost of legalized drugs. Legal drug manufacturing and packaging will be subject to consumer safety regulations, causing the cost to go up vs. the stuff Johnny's mixing up in the basement.

You have organizations that made money off illegal drugs. They will not go away once the drugs are legal and sold in convenience stores, but will find other illegal markets to fight over.

You cannot simply legalize every criminal activity that causes criminals to fight over them. At some point, you'll have devalued the civilization our ancestors spent centuries creating. Broke gamblers, desperate junkies, and sleazy prostitutes will not go away because their activities are made legal. Their numbers will increase, as will the number of gambling joints, drug dens, and brothels. Want one in your neighborhood?

Isab, are you trying to have it both ways? Libertarian utopia and restrictive gun laws making libertarians move away? Seems self refuting, but I’m probably not understanding your point(s).

People keep moving to Colorado in spite of it being an unliveable shithole. I’ve been here since 1983. I like civilization more than I like wilderness, so I generally think it’s nicer now than it was then. Yup, there are problems associated with growth. I don’t think either party actually cares to fix that. Gonna be a stalemate for a while. Property crimes suck, here and everywhere. I got burglarized 3 months back. Moved away from there into a better neighborhood. Already know my neighbors. We look out for each other.

Smith and Reams up north are vocal sheriffs. It’s been interesting watching their careers. They get right on the cusp of demagoguery now and again. Such is politics.

Hmm. I sense negativity in the crowd. Radwaste, Conan, and Isab don’t address the loss of civil liberties or the inherent corruption of the drug war, as pointed out in Amy’s post. They take more of a “because-we-said-no” approach. I recommend Peter McWilliam’s 1993 book, “Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do.”
In December 1970 Elvis Presley drove up to the White House for a prearranged meeting with President Nixon. He brought a Colt 45 pistol and some family photos as gifts. He wanted to ask Nixon for a Federal narcotics badge so he could travel freely wearing guns and carrying drugs. (Priscilla Presley, “Elvis and Me”)
Presley and Nixon talked about the dangers of drugs, communism, and the Beatles. Elvis suggested that he could use his popularity to help curb drug use among the young. Nixon ordered the badge.
In July 1971 Nixon announced the War on Drugs. Heck, if you have Elvis on your side, what could go wrong?
Now we know.

Rather, he believes that legal marijuana attracts a “growing seasonal transient population” that is more likely to commit a crime.” ~ Isab at September 24, 2020 8:03 AM

Perhaps the fact that marijuana is illegal in neighboring states is the crux of the problem.

When beer was legal at 18 in Wisconsin but illegal until 21 in Illinois, both states had issues with teenagers driving across state lines to get legal hooch.

Elvis Was A Narc 🎵.

Closest state to Fort Collins (and Larimer County) where Justin Smith is Sherriff is Wyoming. There aren’t that many people in Wyoming, much less a horde of people coming over from there to smoke marijuana here.

“Hmm. I sense negativity in the crowd. Radwaste, Conan, and Isab don’t address the loss of civil liberties or the inherent corruption of the drug war, as pointed out in Amy’s post.”

Also Conan, in this libertarian paradise, it won’t just be pot they are driving across state lines for.

Most states won’t be legalizing drugs any time soon.

I don’t deny the loss of civil liberties at all. I just think the people beating the drum for legalization haven’t considered that the unintended consequences may very well give you the worst of both worlds.

Hasn’t the *pandemic* taught you anything? Apparently the government can imprison you in your home, in the name of public health for literally no reason at all, other than some vague Ill defined threat to the health of other people, that they can’t exactly quantify.

There was big money in drug busts after statues were passed allowing law enforcement to profit off the drug war. I’m just saying that needs to end rather than legalizing everything.

As I have said before I don’t want to live next to an opium den , and I don’t want my blue collar friends to have to do that either, because, ring cameras aside, you don’t want regular drug users wandering around your neighborhood looking for a target of opportunity to fund that high priced, highly taxed, government dope. And when the prices and taxes get high enough, as they always do, the black market returns.

The next step is that they start passing laws to protect the criminals from the citizens, not the other way around.

The big money from the government getting involved in the drug business has brought other bad things to Colorado than just transient crime.
It has given the nanny government unlimited funds to buy elections for their pet projects as well. They passed motor voter specifically so they could install one party government and proceeded to do so.

Closest state to Fort Collins (and Larimer County) where Justin Smith is Sherriff is Wyoming. There aren’t that many people in Wyoming, much less a horde of people coming over from there to smoke marijuana here.

Abersouth at September 24, 2020 9:02 AM

Correct. Fort Collins is a college town, and transients don’t much like the winters here in Wyoming. You will find they are coming from much further away than just over the border.

However Wyoming is where a lot of Colorado businesses are relocating to, for all the obvious reasons.

Not just transients don’t like the weather in Wyoming. Thus WY population count.

Not just transients don’t like the weather in Wyoming. Thus WY population count.

Abersouth at September 24, 2020 9:55 AM

I’ll put up with a lot of wind for no state income taxes, and property taxes half what they are in Colorado. :-)

I was born in Denver. Got out two weeks later. Never looked back.

But won't we have to end asset forfeiture and no-knock murders? What will become of the valued under-the-table income stream that flows from the drug cartels to the police and politicians? And wouldn't we lose valuable leverage over poor people?

C'mon, man, even Corn Pop thinks that's crazy!

In reality, this wasn't a no knock and her boyfriend fired first, through the door, and hit one of the cops. Then the wounded officer and his partner returned fire. Breonna was hit in the exchange of fire. The press is deliberately concealing these facts to stir animosities.

Hmm. I sense negativity in the crowd. Radwaste, Conan, and Isab don’t address the loss of civil liberties or the inherent corruption of the drug war, as pointed out in Amy’s post. ~ Spiderfall at September 24, 2020 8:44 AM

Spider, you and others seem only to be seeing infringed rights in this debate. With rights comes responsibilities. What about the responsibilities of people to others around them? What about the unintended consequences?

You don't build a civilization without some compromise between order and liberty. As I said, I'm in favor of legalizing drugs "in principle." But, as some wag once said, your right to swing your fist ends at another's nose. Too many legalization advocates seem to forget there are other noses out there.

When California decriminalized small amounts of drugs, petty crime soared. Porch thefts, car break-ins, and petty burglary were fast and easy ways for junkies to get enough money for their next fix.

Shoplifting below a certain amount was decriminalized in some cities and shoplifters brazenly walked out of stores with merchandise openly in their hands. They knew the limit and stayed below that. Meanwhile, store owners could do nothing but watch in frustration as their hard-earned livelihood walked out the door in the arms of some junkie.

You see, Spider, there are always unintended consequences. Any discussion about the legalization of drugs should include a discussion of the responsibilities and unintended consequences of such a move.

And yes, corruption is rampant in the "War on Drugs." We've militarized the police to an alarming degree and turned policing into "us vs. them" instead of "to serve and protect." No knock warrants are based on the flush-ability of drugs. And we've seen too many times how those can go wrong. That militarization and the subsequent curtailment of civil liberties were, perhaps, unintended consequences themselves.

Legalization has some good arguments in favor of it. However, it also raises some concerns that need to be addressed. Don't mistake wanting to address those concerns for a "because I said no" dismissal.

Conan, Thanks for the link to that goofball song. Refreshing, really.

Conan, Thanks.... ~ Spiderfall at September 24, 2020 10:59 AM

👍

Aren’t legalization of drugs and decriminalizing petty theft separate issues? I’m not sure about rise of petty crime where legalization of some drugs has occurred. I’ve read more than one study that “proves” what it’s authors wanted to see. Lots of factors in play.

The prevalence of petty theft when theft is legal scenario is more a function of decriminalizing theft. If there are no legal consequences, of course some people will do it. And there is an obvious victim. Why muddy the waters with this? Curious why you included this in you examples. Stupid people making stupid laws about theft with predictable results has nothing to do with drugs (Unless the legislators who wrote these laws were on drugs). Hopefully their constituents have ability to make the legislators pay for giving away the store. Otherwise businesses just have to close up. Makes an honest person hate government.

I always wonder if mass incarceration vis-a-vis the drug war in the US is an unintended consequence or by design. Sure has made more power brokers in any case. It rarely seems to get discussed whenever these conversations get started, the sheer human waste, and how it trains more people to be criminals. I think is should. I don’t think how we prosecute this war is the best way to deal with people doing drugs. But the Overton window is where it’s at. In any case, I think mass incarceration should be taken into account in any attempt to have an honest discussion of the war on drugs. Also that the war is never ever done.

Are responsibilities as unenumerated as rights? Seems amorphous. As if responsibilities trump rights.

Curious why you included this in you examples. ~ Abersouth at September 24, 2020 11:37 AM

Unintended consequences.

No one meant for petty shoplifting to increase when it was decriminalized. It was meant to clear the court dockets of small-time cases.

It was also meant to give a break to people who stole small amounts in order to have something to eat that night. Like all government charity, it was financed with someone else's dime.

It was never intended to legalize the wholesale looting of stores one small item at a time, but it did.

In addition, it enabled junkies to steal enough to purchase their next now-decriminalized fix.

"The press is deliberately concealing these facts"

Our militia newsletter is both informative and accurate, at least about the evil ZOG, the imminent return of Jesus Christ, and His inevitable righteous retribution against the fancy-pants egghead liberals.

> restrictive gun laws, the petty
> property crimes, and the
> escalating taxes

And "the crime boom associated with rampant legal drug use"?

> restrictive gun laws, the petty
> property crimes, and the
> escalating taxes

And "the crime boom associated with rampant legal drug use"?

Crid at September 24, 2020 2:41 PM

Yep, and a big increase in the homeless population of Colorado.

Right, but the evidence for "rampant legal drug use" as a destructive force is where, exactly?

I want to know specifically what costs you're tallying, because they might well be worth it.

I want to know specifically what costs you're tallying, because they might well be worth it.

Crid at September 24, 2020 4:11 PM

I don’t think you will ever get an honest tally of the external costs of drug legalization, or of the costs of the drug war. Just because I am not in favor of the former doesn’t mean I favor the latter.
The law in my opinion ought to come down hard on dealers and considerable less hard on users ( who are not committing property crimes to finance their habits or driving under the influence)

The horse is already out of the barn on marijuana. Still going to be a state by state choice.

The governments bias is always always towards increasing their revenue and their control.

Recreational marijuana legalization brought a lot more money and power to big daddy government, and apparently a lot of that has gone to union schemes, and squashing any competition with the government monopoly on Marijuana sales.

It hasn’t exactly been a win win for Colorado.

Name me one city where public drug use is ignored, that has clean sidewalks and is safe for the public at night.

You honestly think legalization would solve San Francisco’s problems?

> You honestly think legalization
> would solve San Francisco’s
> problems?

I've obviously said nothing of the kind, and your acceleration is inexplicable: You're again affirming a causal link to disastrous outcomes without evidence.

Amy's correct: The "drug war" is despicable.

Perhaps you'd prefer a world where people neither wanted nor needed inebriants: Well, I have some very bad news.

Perhaps you nonetheless believe such a world can & should be had through overwhelming law enforcement: I'd wonder then why private arms enthusiasm is so often tinged with resistance to intrusive government.

And "legal drug use" to "public drug use is ignored" is another size-hyooge leap.

And "legal drug use" to "public drug use is ignored" is another size-hyooge leap.

Crid at September 24, 2020 6:59 PM

So now the cities that ignore *illegal public drug use* are going to start policing *legal public drug use* ? Is this what you are trying to say, or will the legality of it make it even more likely that the police will chose to write traffic tickets instead? Especially if the person passed out on the sidewalk is a member of a favored minority?

Not sure exactly why you come down on the other side when it comes to prostitution. It seems to me, libertarian principles and naïveté are much the same on both issues.

The question is, are there some drugs that are so dangerous, that they should be illegal under all except hospital or hospice use?
Do you distinguished between marijuana ( not much of a threat, and probably less harmful to your over all health than booze) and say, Fentanyl?

I would be in favor of maximum freedom under certain conditions too, but the sad thing is, every time the police give some junkie a shot of NARCAN and pop them into an ambulance, the tab goes indirectly onto your and my insurance bill.

> cities that ignore *illegal
> public drug use* are going to
> start policing *legal public
> drug use* ?

Isab, what's to 'police'? Is aspirin "policed"?

> The question is, are there
> some drugs that

No, the question concerned "the crime boom associated with rampant legal drug use." No such boom is discerned from the legalization of weed.

But if you mean what you're saying literally, and I don't think you do, our topics are oxycodone and hydrocodone. When considered with their brother opiates heroin and fentanyl, the suffering and death they've caused in the last decade is like nothing America's seen before. (It was in all the papers until the end of last winter, but then people got distracted....)

Again, read the Cosh piece. Weed reduces, to an almost unbelievable degree, the damage done from a the doctor's (entirely legal!) scrip pad. When people are given cheap and elemental tools for diminishing their own suffering, or at least not thrown in prison for trying, they do a pretty good job of it.

THAT'S what will impact your insurance and other costs.

In reality, this wasn't a no knock and her boyfriend fired first, through the door, and hit one of the cops. Then the wounded officer and his partner returned fire. Breonna was hit in the exchange of fire. The press is deliberately concealing these facts to stir animosities. ~ nfoo at September 24, 2020 10:30 AM

Nfoo, I don't know where you're getting your information, but everything I've read - in both conservative and liberal sources - runs counter to your account.

The warrant was a no-knock warrant. The police knocked anyway, because Taylor's apartment was considered a "soft" target. Glover's residence and place of business, raided at the same time, were "hard" targets. The police assumed Taylor was home alone when they saw her bedroom light on.

The warrant was served at 12:40am by plainclothes officers. None of them was in uniform. Both Walker and Taylor were asleep and awakened by the commotion at the front door.

Walker grabbed his legally-owned gun and headed down the hall when the police knocked. He said he did not hear the police identify themselves - their identification was corroborated by a neighbor. Knowing Taylor's ex, Glover, was a drug dealer, he feared criminals were at the door.

When the door "exploded off its hinges," Walker fired his legally-owned gun at the first body coming through the door, hitting a police sergeant in the leg. Walker said it was a warning shot aimed at the floor.

The wounded sergeant and another officer coming through the door returned fire - the sergeant fired 6 times and the other officer 16 times. Walker was hit 8 times and Taylor was hit several times. She died at the scene.

Another detective, still outside the apartment, fired 10 times through a sliding glass door with the blinds closed. 3 of his shots entered an adjacent apartment - hence the three charges of reckless endangerment against him.

Walker's 911 call was indicative of his confusion, telling the dispatcher armed men had broken into the apartment and shot his girlfriend.

So, in response to Walker's single shot, 32 shots were fired, at least 10 of which were fired with no acquired target - a no-no in every weapons class I've ever taken.

Walker was initially charged with attempted murder for shooting a police officer. When it was clear that only one witness out of several heard the police identify themselves and Walker's 911 call confirmed his confusion, the charges were dropped since it was not clear that Walker clearly knew the invaders were police, a requirement in Kentucky law.

While the actions of both parties were legal, the outcome was still tragic. It was a cavalcade of bad decisions on both sides. At any point in the train of events that led to this tragedy, had a different decision been made, it could have been averted.

> While the actions of both
> parties were legal

The guy could walk.

See also, Chauvin.