cannabisnews.com: Chief Urges No on Eight Chief Urges No on Eight Posted by FoM on October 28, 2000 at 08:13:09 PT Letter To The Editor Source: Martha's Vineyard Times As a responsible law enforcement official, I believe it is my duty to speak out against question 8 that will appear on the statewide ballot this November. I am therefore writing to alert the citizenry not to be fooled by the question's catch title, "Drug Dependency Treatment and the Use of Drug Crime Fines and Forfeitures."All 11 Massachusetts district attorneys have joined the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association to oppose question 8 for the following reasons: Question 8 benefits only drug dealers, because it (1) allows those who profit from selling drugs to repeatedly avoid prosecution by electing "treatment," even if they are not themselves actually drug dependent; (2) permits dealers to keep more of their drug-related assets; and (3) paralyzes law enforcement's ability to investigate narcotics dealing.Question 8, under the guise of expanding drug treatment, is a major step toward decriminalizing drug dealing, because it gives judges unlimited discretion to dismiss charges against repeat drug dealers and traffickers following treatment, leaving them with no criminal record. Massachusetts has a firm mandatory sentencing law for drug dealers. This is not the time to turn back the clock and get soft on drug dealers.Question 8 effectively nullifies existing laws, which provide strict penalties for drug dealers who carry guns. As our officers put their lives on the line every day, let us not send them the wrong message. When drug dealers carry guns, they should know it means jail time.Question 8 deprives state and local law enforcement of virtually all their resources to investigate major drug conspiracies.If we have learned one thing, drug dealers are business people who should not be allowed to profit from their illicit gains. The current law deprives dealers of cash, as well as houses, vehicles, airplanes, and boats purchased from drug sale proceeds. Today, confiscated funds are made available to prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to fight crime and drug traffickers. Depriving law enforcement the resources to combat drug trafficking will result in more drugs and crime in our community.Crime is down in America, due in part to our partnership with the community and our tough policy on drug traffickers. Therefore, do not deprive our attorney general, district attorney, state and local police of funds necessary to fight crime and drug trafficking.I firmly believe that drug treatment programs should be expanded to meet the needs of drug users, yet we should not allow these programs to become havens for drug dealers with no drug addiction. These essential community programs would become a country club alternative to jail - where drug dealers belong!I am a proud and active member of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, and equally proud to serve as the chief of this department. Do not allow the fabric of this community or this wonderful Island to tear beyond repair. Drug dealers must be held accountable for their criminal conduct and destructive actions! I therefore ask you to join me in voting no on ballot question 8.Joseph C. CarterChiefOak Bluffs Police DepartmentSource: The Martha's Vineyard Times (MA)Published: October 28, 2000Fax: (508) 693-6000Copyright: 2000 The Martha's Vineyard TimesAddress: To the Editor, Box 518, Vineyard Haven, MA 02568Contact: mvtimes mvtimes.comWebsite: http://mvtimes.com/Related Articles:Endorsement: Question 8http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7465.shtmlFor Police, Drug War Extends To Ballot Box http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7428.shtmlPassions Money of Few Drive Fall Ballot Questionshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7355.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #11 posted by mungojelly on October 31, 2000 at 04:06:39 PT: blowin in the wind thc, your post reminded me of blowin in the wind... i think it is time to break out all those old songs, and write some new ones too, and start singing again! HOW MANY DEATHS WILL IT TAKE TILL WE KNOW THAT TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE DIED? mungojelly [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Antianti on October 29, 2000 at 10:25:39 PT: Actually, no-knock warrants and overzealous police officers can be proven to be more harmful to health than cannabis. Just ask:Amadou Diallo...Donald Scott...Ismael Mena...Willie Heard...Annie Rae Dixon...Alberto Sepuleda...Robert Adams...Mario Paz...Oh, I'm sorry. You CAN'T ask them. THEY ARE ALL DEAD!!! How many has cannabis killed? Read their stories here. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Dankhank on October 28, 2000 at 20:29:26 PT: You got it ... yea, RLEO's, not near as poetic, anyway ...you got it ...some cops are OK, but they still lock folks up ...As regards a law requiring an automobile to stop at town's edge and proceed only if someone is walking twenty feet ahead waving a lantern that was only pulled from the code in the last ten years or so ... Where were the RLEO's when that one languished on the books? [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Police on October 28, 2000 at 15:39:42 PT Vote No on 8 to Keep Them in Prison Don’t pass Question # 8. What will we do? How can we make up the loss of money in our slush fund? We won’t have the money to bribe judges or falsify evidence and our department won’t have the funds to purchase guns to kill innocent people with. We like the system now. We can imprison Blacks and Hispanics for basically nothing now (pot smoking) and we want to keep it that way. I know you think like we do -- any person of color belongs in prison. So vote NO on Question #8Thank you,Officer Jim CrowYour Police Department. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by nl5x on October 28, 2000 at 13:02:42 PT pig in a poke 1 : a young swine not yet sexually mature3 : one that resembles a pig 6 :slang, usually disparaging : POLICE OFFICERpig in a pokeDate: 1562: something offered in such a way as to obscure its real nature or worth. see also:vested intrest [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by thc on October 28, 2000 at 11:40:18 PT: Donut Warrior It seems the spoils of the drug war are as addicting as donuts. How many more innocent old people, Mr.Carter, do you have to kill in their beds as your overweight commando wannbe's execute an unlawful no knock warrant on the wrong address based on flimsy informer information?Does that make you feel good? Shame on you and your kind! [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by legalizeit on October 28, 2000 at 11:24:38 PT I agree Dankhank Aren't "RELOs" (actually it would be "RLEOs") always the ones saying, "We don't make the laws, only enforce them"? If that is really the case, the cops should have no opinion whatever on the laws and especially should not be furthering support of the obviously ludicrous ones. When a cop says "drugs are wrong" (like D.A.R.E.) or "drugs should not be legalized" or something of that nature, he is not enforcing a law, but is expressing an opinion based on some vested interest like forfeiture $$$ or, in more extreme cases, some corrupt scheme.If opinion-giving is now the norm, the cops who have a heart (I know they exist) should express their reluctance and outrage at being bound by the law to handcuff and drag off some poor guy who smoked a joint or grew some plants on his own property. All we hear on news articles is cops joking about how they "broke hearts" by making a pot bust. No wonder people mistrust and fear the police! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Dankhank on October 28, 2000 at 10:11:56 PT: Responsible Officer? I take issue with the first statement that this self-styled "responsible" law enforcement official, herein after abbreviated as RELO, makes ...Sir, please explain to me what you think a RELO does???Why is it that there are arcane and obsolete laws still on some of the books around this country? The State of Alabama has THIS WEEK rescinded a law that prohibited inter-racial marriage.All of us can recall hearing about some stupid law passed in the LAST century in some community around this land that somehow remained on the books until a newspaper story alerted legislators to action.Chuckling at the "innocence" of the time the law was enacted, shaking our heads we move to repeal the law that sometimes lay fallow for decades ...Where were the RELO's when THESE laws needed to be recognised and struck down? If the RELO's of the country weren't willing to speak up about obvious obsolete, laws what is said about their attitudes about laws?It seems to be any law is a good one ...In light of this causal link, I submit that no one should believe a "RELO" anytime said individual speaks in favor of ANY law. It is evident to me and should be to you: RELO's as a class appear to feel that any law is a good one.In closing I should like to make one more point ...Shut Up Sir, and go find a violent criminal to lock up!! HEMP n STUFF [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by MikeEEEEE on October 28, 2000 at 09:30:44 PT Resistance The walls of prohibition are coming down. Its interesting to watch resistance to it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by observer on October 28, 2000 at 08:35:32 PT vested interest... vested interest -- a special concern or stake in maintaining or influencing a condition, arrangement, or action especially for selfish ends . . . one having a vested interest in something; specifically : a group enjoying benefits from an existing economic or political privilege vested interest [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by dddd on October 28, 2000 at 08:28:10 PT gosh What a surprise....the chief is against this one [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: