DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Sessions' tough on crime talk could lead to fuller prisons

Shhhhh, I have been hiding that story from the wife cuz we ain't got a dog!

We use lavender oil for my son with autism/psychotic disorder to help calm him down when he's having a melt down.

As big as he is, sometimes it takes a while to kick in but it works.

How old is your son?

On a side note, how is YOUR son?

And how are things going with the surgery you needed?

He had his CT scan today. We are anxiously awaiting the results and hoping for the best. Afterwards, they told him they want him to come back for an ultrasound next week, but said it was only precautionary.

Surgery hasn't been scheduled yet. We are just hoping that the CT scan and ultrasound say that the spread of the cancer has stopped. Stressful.

Thanks for asking....

Oh..........and he turned 29 at the end of November.

j/c

So, awhile ago I had a Shingles flair up. It was my second one but I recognized it early enough that I went to the Doc before it got out of hand. Amongst other things, they prescribed me with a couple weeks worth of Vicodin. 20+ pills... after insurance it was like $1.27 to fill the script.

I didn't take a one but my fiance and I marveled at the economics of it all. I spent $1.27 to fill the script, and could sell each pill for close to $10... theoretically I could have made $200.

I'd like to see a study on the theory that the prescribed drugs are a gate way to heroin usage. I think the theory is sound, but I think some Dawgs are giving it too much credit. I think not enough credit/blame is being placed on people seeking these things out simply because they want to get high. I remember 20yrs ago when Vicodin and Oxy had started to be prescribed in a big way. I had tons of friends wanting to score a Vic 5 or Vic 10 for o other reason than they wanted to get high. Not one ever complained about not being able to refill a script.

True story: About 4 years ago I was talking with one of our Property Crimes Detectives about some joker pawning his family's stuff. He was telling me that the suspect was a known heroin user and explained that due to how expensive heroin was, several users would get together in groups of 3-5 and pawn stolen property. They would share the money/drugs and they spread it out thinking they could stay under the radar. At that time I think heroin was running around $50 a hit? IF we ran into heroin on the street it was a big deal because it wasn't so common. Demographically speaking, most users were white suburbanites.

About a year and half later we started to see a massive increase in heroin use. I mentioned to a Drug and Vice Detective about my previous conversation. He said that the illegal sale and use of pain meds had flooded the market so much, it brought the cost of heroin down to around $20 a hit.

And because it's so cheap, many more drug users are able to afford it. In those areas where we used to see predominately crack cocaine usage, we see heroin just as much, maybe even taking over.

Heroin also is the preferred drug used to get young women and girls hooked and locked in to sex trafficking.

It's heavy in Eastern Europe.

If the girls aren't already willing to prostitute themselves, sometimes they get snatched up by the mafia (polish, Russian, Albanian are the biggest), are then forcefully injected with heroin, at which point they are less likely to escape simply because their pimps supply them with the drug.

And it's almost impossible to just go cold turkey on heroin.

The reason it's big in EE is - and you see a lot of correlation in rural America - the jobs are bad/non existent, economy sucks, everybody is broke, and prostitution is sometimes the only way a woman can make money. Also, it's easy to traffic them simply because they are nobodies to the world. The reality is that nobody will miss a random EE girl. The mob knows that, and so do the women.

As far as your comment about people just wanting to get high....eh. That's 50/50. It's why I scoff at the idea that weed is a gateway drug. The highs are so completely different.... it just simply doesn't make any sense. I personally know people who never smoked weed in their life, but went straight to cocaine and pills due to the party/rave lifestyle.

Man, sex trafficking is much bigger Stateside than most people realize. Prostitution has not been a priority for the 2 Chiefs I've worked under and so we get mad people coming through all the time. Sex trafficking has also been picked up by some gangs as a means to supplement income. One girl turning several tricks is going to bring in more $$ in a day and is less dangerous to them than slinging dope.

As for the gateway thing... I agree with you that I'm not sold on the 1950's version that weed leads to other things, at least not due to using it. Sure, your guy may have access to some pills or such besides that baggie he brought you, in which case you might be interested in checking out. But smoking weed and saying "This ain't doin it for me anymore, I need something heavier"? Naw, I don't think that's the case, at least not enough to be more than a statistical anomaly.

I believe you, and I wish it would be brought to light more often than it is. And I see on the news that sometimes it's the parents pimping their daughter.

But that's my beef with the system. Why is it that the things that are minor and only harms the individual being targeted more than the prostitution rings and sex trafficking organizations that harm others?

Sometimes I feel like reports are put out to deceive the public in believing that the government is trying to put a stop to that, when they really could care less.

Likes on a pure football post is a gateway drug to crack. I've seen it happen.

Well, it's simple but also complicated to explain. I made a thread I think last year that talked about the Broken Windows model of policing, why it was successful, but also why it has been difficult to replicate that in many other places.

Just a recap: Broken Windows was developed an introduced in NYC in the late 80's/90's. The premise was that aggressive enforcement of low level offenses: drug possession, panhandling, loitering, windshield washers, etc, would take people off the streets that also had a propensity to commit more serious crimes. Not long after it's implementation, violent crimes and property crimes plummeted.

Now what a lot of people tend to forget is that Giulani promoted methods that if you described them as "jack booted", you wouldn't be far off. NYC couldn't wait for him to get out of office. Only 9/11 saved his reputation.

Regardless, NY was cleaned up and Broken Windows is credited with this. So naturally many other agencies particularly in urban areas implemented this model.

Where I find it comes up short isn't so much in the theory, as it is an external factor: as Times Square cleaned up, new business and investment moved in. Times Square today is nothing like it was in the late 80's. Thing is, most other places don't ever get that kind of investment. Certainly not residential areas.

So no matter how much the cops may "clean up" the streets, economically nothing changes for most of those communities. Add to it a justice system that gets criticized for it's drug enforcement/punishment, but is also the same system that goes easy on serious offenders.

In my experience few people with primarily drug histories have a violent history, but most people with a violent history also have some kind of drug history.

So why drugs like weed?

It's easy to detect, find, and prosecute.

So what you end up having is cops going in to these neighborhoods, busting people for low level offenses (with the honest intent and belief it is preventing more serious crimes), a justice system that is soft on violent and repeat offenders who go back to those neighborhoods, the same cops arresting the same people, and other knuckleheads just getting baked to get through the day getting caught up in the drag net. Trot out whatever stats you like about reduced crime, but if the neighborhood doesn't feel it or see the direct correlation, you end up with a neighborhood that feels oppressed.

Then add in politically expedient interpretations of statistics, it only cements that belief. For example: there's a stat saying blacks and whites smoke weed at the same rates yet blacks are far more likely to be charged/arrested for it. This is supposed to be proof of systemic racism in the system. It may be as long as all context is removed as it is in that conclusion.

That context I'll save for another thread.

But I will tell you that even cops are having a harder time seeing the return on the investment so to speak in what low level enforcement of things like weed does. It's great in that those types of investigations to help you find other things like stolen property, harder drugs, people with warrants... but if we're talkin about a blunt, and someone who's being chill? It's not worth all the paperwork in writing a report, putting away evidence, and going to court over.

I haven't seen much in police publications yet, but I am very curious to see from other cops' perspectives in places like CO to see how legalization has changed things.

Fuller prisons run by private companies... I'm not soft on crime,,, but I don't like private companies taking over schools and prisons just to name a few.

Why?

Both are a mess under our national and state governments.

I think if you do some research, you'll find that those schools and prisons that are under contract to private corporations are hotbeds of waste and overcharges as well as poor performance overall.

That's why!

Trump has promised to bring the "full force and weight" of the U.S. government to combat human trafficking: http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/02/23/trump-i'll-fight-human-trafficking-'epidemic'/98316674/

Several trafficking rings have been busted since Trump has taken office. How much of that is the result of Trump's policies and directives is unclear. https://townhall.com/columnists/lizcroki...-busts-n2290379

You probably won't hear too much about this in mainstream media. They are too busy twisting Trump's words, and speculating on whether or not the Oscars flubbed their award show on purpose.

(Maybe OCD can bump his 'give credit where credit is due' thread in light of this new information.)

We will see if he actually does something about it.

-On Jan. 27 authorities arrested 42 in a human trafficking operation in Tennessee. http://www.localmemphis.com/news/local-n...ation/646262689

-On Jan. 29 authorities announced that 474 were arrested in a statewide California human trafficking operation and 28 sexually exploited children were rescued. http://ktla.com/2017/02/01/474-arrested-...operation-lasd/

-108 were arrested from Jan. 18 to Feb. 5 in Illinois as part of a national sex trafficking sting operation. http://abc7chicago.com/news/108-arrested-in-illinois-in-sex-sting;-752-arrested-across-us/1746351/

- 178 people were arrested in Texas for sex trafficking in sting that operated in January till Super Bowl Sunday. http://abc13.com/news/sports-agent-among-178-arrested-in-trafficking-sting/1744436/

-16 people were arrested in January in Michigan for sex trafficking during the Detroit Auto Show. http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2017/02/14/f...roit-auto-show/

-In February, authorities arrested 11 in Virginia in a child sex sting. http://www.nbc12.com/story/34502403/11-arrested-across-va-in-child-sex-sting

-On Feb. 14 the Polk County sheriff announced that 42 were arrested in Florida in child pornography related cases. http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/235918650-story

That has nothing to do with trump.

Especially since one of your links is for January 18th, which I also don't give credit to obama for.

See my post before that one: "How much of that is the result of Trump's policies and directives is unclear."

That means exactly that. What I know is that these busts are happening on Trump's watch. (as you pointed out, one of them started on Jan. 18 and lasted into February.)

Maybe he has given various agencies the green light to go after these freaks. Maybe it is just a coincidence. It seems like he has taken an aggressive stance on it as of now. We will see what comes of it.

I will add that pretty much every major thing he has said he would do on the campaign trail, he has done or is in the process of doing. If he says he is going to go after child traffickers and such, you can take it as a safe bet that he will do precisely that.

One exception is the rather funny quip about putting Hillary Clinton in jail that came up during one of the debates. I'm actually glad he is not pursuing that. While most of us would agree that she got off easy, I think that is an awfully slippery slope to go down, and would prefer to just leave that in the past. The result of the November 8th election speaks for itself.

This probably would fit better in Rocket's fascism thread but as long as I brought it up here... that is one thing (jailing political opponents) that actually would make sense as a fascist tactic, and a very scary one at that.

See how this works:
- Jailing political opponents: fascist
- Securing one's own borders: not fascist

You do realize that the vast majority of your links, the arrests were done on a local, not federal level, right?

Does it matter?

If you're coming at it from a political standpoint, ok.

Something like this, though, shouldn't be political. JMO.

And if someone is/was saying to give trump credit, as of now, they are wrong.

It matters in the conversation, yes.

When a poster is trying to insinuate this might be credited to Trump, I do feel it should be pointed out that this has nothing to do with law enforcement on the federal level, but the credit should be given to local law enforcement who did the investigations and made the arrests.

I think credit should be given to those who earned it. Not some manufactured insinuations that actually hold zero merit.

I understand. But the broader point is, I don't give a rip about who gets "credit" for arresting sex traffickers. I'm just glad they got arrested.

No politics from me on this topic.

I was simply replying to the person that tried to insinuate the politics into it to start with.

Maybe you should talk to him about it? No, you'd rather try to start crap with the person that replied to it, right?

Go pick on the guy who started the BS and get off of my azz Arch. Your shtick is getting old.

I'm not trying to pick on anybody? Geez.........having a bad day or what?

This is what I posted earlier. Feel any better pit????

Sorry arch. My mistake.

I said upfront that it was unclear how much Trump and his administration had to do with this. Go back and read my posts again. I also suggested a possibility that he could have given the green light (possibly working the back channels) to go after some of these rings. I also said it could have been a coincidence.

You seem to have a rather strong opinion that the timing is all a coincidence. That's fine. I don't really care who gets the credit for this. We can all agree it is a noble cause, regardless of whether Trump's commitment to making it happen started January 20th or February 20th.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions Just Hinted at a Crackdown on Legal Marijuana

https://www.yahoo.com/news/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-just-153433176.html

It's time conservatives stopped acting like they care about states rights.

They need bodies for those new private prisons. Bad time to be "Not White" and smoke herb.

States' rights does not mean that states can overrule federal law all by their lonesomes.

State rights means that anything not in the purview if the federal government falls to them. Drugs travelling across state lines, by definition, is a federal responsibility. I said this when all of these states were "legalizing" pot. It's not legal, it is merely the case that state authorities are not prosecuting those who buy, sell, or use pot. There was no guarantee whatsoever that the federal government would abdicate their responsibility because states decided not to prosecute on state and local levels.

If you want to change drug policy, you need to do so at the federal level.

Haus- large scale busts such as these are usually the result of several weeks or months worth of investigation. It's one of those things were you want to round up as many suspects as possible in order to break that organization's back, and also to rescue as many victims as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if some or many of those different busts had people connected to both. That many in such quick succession could mean they had their eyes on something, but needed a missing link here and there and got it when they arrested some people.

Pit- while local agencies made the arrests, things on this scale often involve a mix of local, state, and fed agencies. We have a handful of detectives that work on joint task forces with Fed agencies (for example, child pornography cases, they work full time with the FBI).

I was trying to use a little logic which you seem to back up. These investigations take time. The arrests come from months of investigations and information gathering. It wasn't something that Trump had a hand in.

I don't mind giving credit where credit is due, but the suggestion Trump had a hand in this after a month in office I found to be groundless.

Correct it takes a majority of the States to agree on those laws to get the feds to change.

Trump administration officials have some scientifically inaccurate views on marijuana

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-admi...-210100207.html

oh boy.

I think that the pills, which have been proved to help control chronic pain, and other medical conditions, should be available by prescription. Smoking pot is something that, long term, is going to require the federal government to decide, one way or the other. Federal law, especially in the area of interstate commerce, will always trump state law, unless the states want to push for a Constitutional amendment. I doubt that anyone wants the "Pot amendment" on their record. (serious politicians, I mean)

You sound like a big pharma lobbyist right now.

Nah, allow for generics right away. That would work. Set the price for the prescription before awarding the contract to a company for the prescription pills. The pills can do almost as much as smoking pot can, but without the high.

Of course, if your only goal is to get high, it would suck for you.