New HPD policy on trace amounts of drugs

[editor]

The Houston Police Department recently engaged in a dialogue with the

Harris County District Attorney’s Office regarding ways in which the

administration of justice could be improved. As a result, the District

Attorney’s office will be implementing a new policy regarding the

filing of possession of trace/residue cases.

The new policy, as outlined by the Harris County District Attorney’s

Office, states that effective January 1, 2010, the treatment of cases

involving possession of a controlled substance (Penalty Groups 1 and 2),

whether a crack pipe with residue or any amount of trace evidence, will

NOT be filed as a state jail felony when the weight of the retained

controlled substance is less than .01 grams. No charge will be accepted

if the amount of controlled substance does not meet the threshold level

of .01 grams. However, it should be noted that Police Officers will

still have probable cause to arrest and search anyone whom they have

determined is in possession of a controlled substance, no matter how

small the quantity.

District Attorney Pat Lykos was receptive to concerns of the Houston

Police Department that this new policy could limit the number of tools

available for crime prevention. Similarly, the issue was raised that

trace cases may be the only means of law enforcement in some cases. To

illustrate, drug addicts may become so addicted to the drug that they

engage in thefts, burglaries, prostitution, and other crimes in an

effort to support their habit. By arresting a suspect for a small amount

of crack cocaine, HPD may be preventing that suspect from committing a

burglary later, for example.

In an effort to verify the usefulness of these types of cases as an

effective means of crime prevention and law enforcement, District

Attorney Lykos has agreed to engage in a six month study to determine

how often these suspects re-offend and how often other charges are

filed. The policy will then be re-evaluated at the conclusion of the

study to determine whether it furthers our mutual law enforcement goals.

In addition, the Houston Police Department and the Harris County

District Attorney’s Office will continue to work together on

legislation to increase drug rehabilitation programs for those who are

arrested for minor drug-related offenses and, if necessary, on

legislation to address trace/residue cases.

[Jeebus]

District Attorney Pat Lykos was receptive to concerns of the Houston

Police Department that this new policy could limit the number of tools

available for crime prevention. Similarly, the issue was raised that

trace cases may be the only means of law enforcement in some cases. To

illustrate, drug addicts may become so addicted to the drug that they

engage in thefts, burglaries, prostitution, and other crimes in an

effort to support their habit. By arresting a suspect for a small amount

of crack cocaine, HPD may be preventing that suspect from committing a

burglary later, for example.

What a crock. This reason ALONE is reason enough to convince me that Lyko's is doing the right thing. This logic is something right out of a Stephen Spielberg epic. Oh wait, that's right - "pre-crimes" in Minority Report. Let's arrest everyone now for what they might do later.

What a joke HPD.

[Marksmu]

What a crock. This reason ALONE is reason enough to convince me that Lyko's is doing the right thing. This logic is something right out of a Stephen Spielberg epic. Oh wait, that's right - "pre-crimes" in Minority Report. Let's arrest everyone now for what they might do later.

What a joke HPD.

Michael Berry was interviewing the head guy of the police officers Union, on Wednesday about the new policy...He had alot to say about the new policy. Its a terrible idea. He basically said that no matter what the DA says, they always have enough crack or whatever for a second test if they had enough for a field test, and that despite the allegations 90% or more of these cases take a plea without a trial. Its a big scam that they dont have the time or the resources to deal with it.

What he did say was that it will greatly effect the ability of the police to catch the dealers. I don't remember the percentage that he gave, but it was a high percentage of the small time users will give up the name and number of the person they buy from in order to get a good deal on a plea bargain. It makes sense. These guys done care about the person they get it from, they just want back on the street to get another high.

At any rate its a terrible policy....crack heads are just that crack heads. All they want is another high - if they could get crack without having to rob and steal they would. Unfortunately they can not...so they rob and steal. Its what they do to get money. None of them can quit long enough to pass a drug test, every job requires a drug test, and a crack head cant hold a job down. If you let the guy go with a ticket, he isnt going to pay it or show up for court...he is going to wad it up and smoke crack out of the paper its written on. Every one you let go, just means somebody else gets something stolen.

The argument that they will just steal again once they are out of jail is mute - of course they will, but while they are in jail, it wont be you they steal from. Drugs are a tough problem, b/c its a physical addiction...but further limiting the tools that police have to catch them does nothing but guarantee more crime on the streets....and spare me the irony about this response and my complaints with HPD on their aggressive treatment of anyone who dare drive a car through the Heights early in the morning. I am fully aware of the hypocrisy.

[Jeebus]

The argument that they will just steal again once they are out of jail is mute - of course they will, but while they are in jail, it wont be you they steal from. Drugs are a tough problem, b/c its a physical addiction...but further limiting the tools that police have to catch them does nothing but guarantee more crime on the streets....and spare me the irony about this response and my complaints with HPD on their aggressive treatment of anyone who dare drive a car through the Heights early in the morning. I am fully aware of the hypocrisy.

Moot. Why doesn't HPD just focus on arresting people for actually committing the crimes, versus arresting everyone who might commit a crime based on a small amount of drugs in their possession. I believe we put a stop to this practice when it was based on skin color - why would we allow it for something else?

As for using the "users" to roll over on the dealers, that just seems to be working SO WELL already. Give me a break. The war on drugs is the biggest scam this government has ever pulled.

[Marksmu]

Moot. Why doesn't HPD just focus on arresting people for actually committing the crimes, versus arresting everyone who might commit a crime based on a small amount of drugs in their possession. I believe we put a stop to this practice when it was based on skin color - why would we allow it for something else?

As for using the "users" to roll over on the dealers, that just seems to be working SO WELL already. Give me a break. The war on drugs is the biggest scam this government has ever pulled.

I dont like the war on drugs, or the money spent on it, or the money spent on the jails....but the fact remains, that the majority of people in jail are there for some drug related reason. Whether it was a crime committed trying to deal/sell, or a crime committed trying to get the money to buy and use. I dont think that the user needs as stiff a penalty (frankly I dont care if drug users use drugs all day every day), but the penalty and the fear of the penalty remains the bait used to get them to roll over to get the dealer, maker, or importer of the drugs. Each step they go up in the ladder they get closer to the big fish.

Whats your proposal? Legalize and tax recreational drugs? In theory I like the legalization, no stringent laws, no government interference, and Im not against taxing something like illicit drugs...but it does not change the fact that these people commit other crimes (robbery, theft, etc) in a large part for the sole reason to get more money to buy more drugs. They steal a tv to pawn to get a fix. I dont want my tv stolen...I like my tv.

I just dont think you can remove consequences, and expect things to get better.

[N Judah]

I don't know if they do it here, but in other places they will scan your ID for "trace amounts" of drugs. If this new policy keeps people from going to jail for a long time for trace amounts I'm all for it.

[Jeebus]

I dont like the war on drugs, or the money spent on it, or the money spent on the jails....but the fact remains, that the majority of people in jail are there for some drug related reason. Whether it was a crime committed trying to deal/sell, or a crime committed trying to get the money to buy and use. I dont think that the user needs as stiff a penalty (frankly I dont care if drug users use drugs all day every day), but the penalty and the fear of the penalty remains the bait used to get them to roll over to get the dealer, maker, or importer of the drugs. Each step they go up in the ladder they get closer to the big fish.

Please provide evidence to support your statement I bolded. EDIT: I meant to ask for you to provide evidence that the majority of people who committed a crime and are in prison NOT directly because of drugs are there because they were some how related to drugs. Does that make sense? I can't seem to find the proper phrasing of what I'm trying to ask.

Whats your proposal? Legalize and tax recreational drugs? In theory I like the legalization, no stringent laws, no government interference, and Im not against taxing something like illicit drugs...but it does not change the fact that these people commit other crimes (robbery, theft, etc) in a large part for the sole reason to get more money to buy more drugs. They steal a tv to pawn to get a fix. I dont want my tv stolen...I like my tv.

I just dont think you can remove consequences, and expect things to get better.

People also steal for other reasons. Should we make a list of all those reasons, like stealing to pay your mortgage, and then put all those who become behind on their payments in jail just because they might be forced to resort to stealing? Where do you draw the line? Arrest those who COMMIT the crimes.

Legalizing certain drugs would breathe relief into our over crowded jails, as well as create new jobs, and best of all make money for the government. It would also eliminate the argument for using plea bargains with arrested drug users to get to the "big fish", as the dealer would be put out of business. Sure there would be organized crime, but that's going to be present with any commodity.

Its only cops and far right wing conservatives that don't want that. Growing up Southern Baptist and the son of a career police officer I think I know better than anyone these type of fanatics.

[kylejack]

[AtticaFlinch]

I just dont think you can remove consequences, and expect things to get better.

I know you've had dogs in your life. You just don't have a family ranch without also having dogs. As such, I'm also pretty certain you've had a hand in training a dog or two. One of the first things you learn when training dogs is that negative reinforcement is vastly less effective than positive reinforcement. The same works with humans. Can you curtail bad behavior by punishing people who commit crimes? Sure, but I seriously doubt the crime & punishment model is more effective than simply educating people and decriminalizing so-called "crimes" that don't have any direct victims.

Also, for someone so vehemently opposed to his tax dollars being spent on frivilous, zero profit generating boondoggles, it strikes me as odd you'd support this excessive criminalization of drugs for any reason. Considering our annual state budget is $167.8 billion, and 6.8% of that ($11.4 billion) is spent on corrections, and if your contention that the majority of people are in jail for drug related issues (let's be conservative and say just 51%), then that means our state pays approximately $5,700,000,000.00 towards just locking up drug offenders. That's a pretty hefty number, and it's just the tip of the iceberg as far as the billions, if not trillions, this drug war has cost the great state of Texas. How many more cops must we employ due to this drug war? A cop will earn annually somewhere between $30,000 to $50,000 on average. Let's again be conservative, and use the $30k/year to conclude it takes only 33,000 police to cost an additional billion dollars in our tax revenue. As of 1996 (sorry, too lazy to look for something more recent), Texas had 41,300 total cops. And, it's probably far more now. Anyhow, if 15,000 cops could be eliminated from the payroll due to the legalization of certain drugs, we could save half a billion dollars in total tax costs.

Let's not be dumb. You claim to want fiscal responsibilty from the government, then are ok with the boatloads of cash being thrown away just to protect your television. I'm going to throw something back at you, as it's a rhetorical proof you tend to use when all else fails.... Why should my tax dollars be spent to protect your television?

[Jeebus]

41,300 total cops. And, it's probably far more now. Anyhow, if 15,000 cops could be eliminated from the payroll due to the legalization of certain drugs, we could save half a billion dollars in total tax costs.

ORRRRR... That's 15,000+ cops who could be back on the streets, riding as partners to all our lone patrol officers who are most at risk! I'm all about giving law enforcement what they want, as long as they use it wisely. I think vice and narc are THE BIGGEST WASTE of money in any department next to the departments with traffic divisions that focuses on speed traps.

Nothing makes me more mad than seeing a traffic cop hiding behind U-Turn and giving out tickets just to meet quotas. Oh wait, yeah - watching cops take themselves SOOOOOO seriously when working vice to bust "johns" picking up hookers. What a waste of time, money, and on duty resources on another victimless crime that should just be legalized and taxed.

[Marksmu]

Dont have the exact statistic asked for - the HPOU person stated it (I hate quoting a union, let alone agreeing with one)...thats where I heard it, and it was that of those in prison only 9 point something percent of inmates were not drug users, or admitted to using drugs in the past or at the time of arrest.

I am all for the legalization and taxation of CERTAIN drugs. Im not against pot for instance its a victimless drug, its not a drug that causes violent tendencies while in use, and I dont believe (did not look it up) that it is addictive. But your average crack head, IS going to commit a crime to buy more crack, its a fact. The recidivism rate for a crack head being arrested and re-arrested is extremely high. He is not capable of earning money in any other way, hell he does not even function in society at all...so he may be in prison for theft, but he was stealing to support his drug habit....or at least because of his drug habit. He may not have bought drugs with the money he got from stealing my TV...he may have payed his rent with it, but that does not mean drugs were not the cause of that theft. If he were not on drugs, he could have been working and honestly paid the rent. Whether or not they were arrested for a crime relating to drug use, drug use is the root cause of alot of the crime.

There are some drugs I think should be legalized though...the more dangerous drugs will not do anything other than make things worse.

Ehhh- I hate the NY Times, but its the first place I could find with the stat...not the one I heard on the radio, but still very very high. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/09/us/drugs-or-alcohol-linked-to-80-of-inmates.html

"Illegal drugs and alcohol helped lead to the imprisonment of 4 out of 5 inmates in the nation's prisons and jails, a three-year study has found. The report, which was released yesterday by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, determined that of 1.7 million prisoners in 1996, 1.4 million had violated drug or alcohol laws, had been high when they committed their crimes, had stolen to support their habit or had a history of drug and alcohol abuse that led them to commit crimes."

Also - I do have dogs, and they are trained well. Negative reinforcement is required though...even though you try to minimize it, the dog needs to know there is a consequence. Just using a stern voice on my yellow lab, is very effective - but my golden retriever when she was younger was stubborn....she need a spanking before she learned. Never had to spank her hard though, and never with my hand...always a paper. Now she hates the newspaper.

And FWIW - I am all for taking the law into my own hands. Your tax dollars should not have to be spent keeping me safe. My dogs, locks, and alarm guard my house when I'm away. If a burglar comes when I am home, its going to be very very bad for that burglar. But I guarantee you neither my tax dollars nor yours will be spent incarcerating any person that breaks into my house when I am there.

[AtticaFlinch]

There are some drugs I think should be legalized though...the more dangerous drugs will not do anything other than make things worse.

Cool, so make pot legal and alcohol illegal?

"Illegal drugs and alcohol helped lead to the imprisonment of 4 out of 5 inmates in the nation's prisons and jails, a three-year study has found. The report, which was released yesterday by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, determined that of 1.7 million prisoners in 1996, 1.4 million had violated drug or alcohol laws, had been high when they committed their crimes, had stolen to support their habit or had a history of drug and alcohol abuse that led them to commit crimes."

The word "crime" very loosely also includes the mere possession of illegal drugs. The recidivism may just be due in large part to the continued use of drugs, not any actual increase of unrelated (though drug-fueled) crimes. In other words, if someone who'd been to prison for possession in the past returns to jail, it's most likely again for possession, not for stealing your TV. If you take the criminality out of drug possession, then criminals stop being criminals, regulated markets develop and people learn to use responsibly. This in no way means a total elimination of problems. Alcohol is legal and causes a ton of problems. But, controlling that problem is considerably less expensive since we're not locking up every offender. Instead we're making money off fines for abuse and generating revenue by taxing the product. Also, as contraband inherently is more expensive than legal goods, the price would drop on drugs once legalized thereby eliminating the need for most abusers to even go near your television.

[Jeebus]

+1 to EVERYTHING Attica said.

[Fringe]

+2

[AtticaFlinch]

Also, those looking for a way to stimulate the economy outside of putting corporate America on the government dole may consider the direct annual costs of fighting the drug war. This calendar year alone, this "war" has cost the American people close to $50 billion.

Imagine what we could do with an extra $50 billion... like give every man, woman and child an additional $167/year tax break. (Or, spend it on something useful, if you're so inclined.)

[ricco67]

I'm on the fence about the new policy.

If the DA simply has a hard time going to trial and convicting people with these trace amounts, then perhaps it's a better way to go if all you're worried about is your conviction rate.

I'd say find a way to put them on "deferred probation" for an extended amount of time. Given the histories of people that do drugs, they WILL commit a crime in the future that will revoke that probation and then toss them into jail.

Drugs should stay illegal, plain and simple. 99% of the people that are involved in that lifestyle do delve into other illegal activities. If you don't believe that, you're living on another planet.

Additionally, I say start taxing the illegal drugs. If someone is busted with drugs without the appropriate "drug stamp", let the IRS hound them.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

[kylejack]

Drugs should stay illegal, plain and simple. 99% of the people that are involved in that lifestyle do delve into other illegal activities. If you don't believe that, you're living on another planet.

Suppose I'm a Martian and cite a source for this claim, please.

[AtticaFlinch]

I'm on the fence about the new policy.

If the DA simply has a hard time going to trial and convicting people with these trace amounts, then perhaps it's a better way to go if all you're worried about is your conviction rate.

They should be most concerned with justice, but unfortunately many (though likely not all) prosecutors are concerned with self-promotion and occupational advancement.

I'd say find a way to put them on "deferred probation" for an extended amount of time. Given the histories of people that do drugs, they WILL commit a crime in the future that will revoke that probation and then toss them into jail.

And what if that "crime" is nothing worse than doing more drugs? Do you punish them for that then? Yours seems to be a system of circumlogic.

Drugs should stay illegal, plain and simple. 99% of the people that are involved in that lifestyle do delve into other illegal activities. If you don't believe that, you're living on another planet.

Or, firmly grounded on this one. I know plenty of high society members who take an occasional toke but are otherwise productive members of society. The draconian drug laws make them criminals, and if those laws didn't exist, they'd be no different than anybody else, including you.

Additionally, I say start taxing the illegal drugs. If someone is busted with drugs without the appropriate "drug stamp", let the IRS hound them.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I think this is already the case, but it's only ever brought out in high profile or otherwise unwinnable cases. Perhaps a HAIF lawyer can verify this? RedScare?

[RedScare]

I'm on the fence about the new policy.

If the DA simply has a hard time going to trial and convicting people with these trace amounts, then perhaps it's a better way to go if all you're worried about is your conviction rate.

I'd say find a way to put them on "deferred probation" for an extended amount of time. Given the histories of people that do drugs, they WILL commit a crime in the future that will revoke that probation and then toss them into jail.

Drugs should stay illegal, plain and simple. 99% of the people that are involved in that lifestyle do delve into other illegal activities. If you don't believe that, you're living on another planet.

Additionally, I say start taxing the illegal drugs. If someone is busted with drugs without the appropriate "drug stamp", let the IRS hound them.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

On the issue of skinning cats...

By and large, the DA does not have a problem convicting defendants in trace cases. It really isn't that hard to convince a jury of law abiding citizens that the trace amount of cocaine in that crack pipe is all that is left of the original rock of crack that the defendant possessed. Further, state law states that possession of ANY amount of cocaine or meth is illegal, not just an amount big enough to use. This is significantly different than the marijuana laws.

There is already a way to put these defendants on "deferred adjudication". State law REQUIRES that a first time offender receive probation. "Crack heads" being crack heads, quickly move past the first time offender status to become repeat offenders.

There already is a tax on illegal drugs and marijuana. It was passed about 15 years ago as an additional tool to fight drug dealing. It is almost never used for a simple reason...these people cannot even afford to post bond or hire an attorney, or pay court costs and fines. They have no money to pay the tax as well. You cannot get blood from a turnip.

This is not a simple issue. Both sides of the argument are correct. Busting addicts for possession of paraphernalia IS a drain on police, DA and court resources. However, crack heads and meth heads DO commit burglary and theft to finance their addiction. Busting crack heads for possessing crackpipes is a variation on the the 'broken window' theory of crime fighting that many approve of. But, it is a hugely expensive method of crime fighting. Pat Lykos' problem is that dropping the prosecution of trace cases does not lower the price of crack or cure the crack addiction. The crack heads still need money for their rocks, so they will still be breaking into homes and businesses. The problem lies with the state and federal governments' drug laws and lack of treatment programs, two problems that Lykos cannot fix on her own.

I've been on both sides of this issue. I've argued both sides. Both sides are correct.

Note: Articles on this issue point out that of the 40,000 drug cases filed in Harris County last year, 13,713 were for possession of under 1 gram. The suggestion is that this policy will dump 13,713 cases. That is not correct. Possession under 1 gram includes all Penalty Group 1&2 drugs (meth, coke, crack, LSD, X), and virtually all personal use amounts of drugs are less than 1 gram. The number of trace cases(.01 grams or LESS) in that 13,713 is a fraction of that number. My guess would be under 1,000.

[RedScare]

They should be most concerned with justice, but unfortunately many (though likely not all) prosecutors are concerned with self-promotion and occupational advancement.

I think I covered most of your comments in my simultaneous response, but I did want to address THIS one especially. In the history of prosecution, I doubt that there has been even ONE promotion or advancement for prosecuting trace cases. Prosecutors get promoted for winning big cases, not for dog feces on their shoe. As Lykos' new policy shows, these cases are universally despised by everyone who comes into contact with them. They are seen as a necessary evil by some, but you won't get promoted for trying one. Rather, you'll get asked by your court chief why you were unable to get rid of it through plea bargaining, instead wasting valuable court time on a trial. Remember, these are felonies, so every trace case that goes to trial means a murder, rape or robbery case must wait. In fact, in over 20 years in the courts, I can honestly say that I have never seen one go to trial. I know that it has happened, but it is so rare that I have never seen it.

[AtticaFlinch]

I think I covered most of your comments in my simultaneous response, but I did want to address THIS one especially. In the history of prosecution, I doubt that there has been even ONE promotion or advancement for prosecuting trace cases. Prosecutors get promoted for winning big cases, not for dog feces on their shoe. As Lykos' new policy shows, these cases are universally despised by everyone who comes into contact with them. They are seen as a necessary evil by some, but you won't get promoted for trying one. Rather, you'll get asked by your court chief why you were unable to get rid of it through plea bargaining, instead wasting valuable court time on a trial. Remember, these are felonies, so every trace case that goes to trial means a murder, rape or robbery case must wait. In fact, in over 20 years in the courts, I can honestly say that I have never seen one go to trial. I know that it has happened, but it is so rare that I have never seen it.

I'll defer to you on this one as my experiences with the judicial system are slight.

[AtticaFlinch]

This is not a simple issue. Both sides of the argument are correct. Busting addicts for possession of paraphernalia IS a drain on police, DA and court resources. However, crack heads and meth heads DO commit burglary and theft to finance their addiction. Busting crack heads for possessing crackpipes is a variation on the the 'broken window' theory of crime fighting that many approve of. But, it is a hugely expensive method of crime fighting. Pat Lykos' problem is that dropping the prosecution of trace cases does not lower the price of crack or cure the crack addiction. The crack heads still need money for their rocks, so they will still be breaking into homes and businesses. The problem lies with the state and federal governments' drug laws and lack of treatment programs, two problems that Lykos cannot fix on her own.

Agreed about the treatment programs piece, but I disagree that there's an definite pattern of drug abuse leading to other criminal activities. It doesn't necessarily follow that because someone smokes crack, they'll also try to steal Marksmu's television. To put someone in prison for however many years or months simply because they might commit a future crime reeks of abuse. I'm not the average tinfoil hat wearer, but it does make me nervous to grant the government the same power to predict the future as Madam Cleo. You can bring out all the studies and reports available that point to a criminal behavioral pattern, but I'll only say that those reports show averages, and when we're dealing with an individual's liberty (an inalienable and constitutionally protected right), we can't rely on the strength of averages for every person who matriculates through the legal system.

[RedScare]

Agreed about the treatment programs piece, but I disagree that there's an definite pattern of drug abuse leading to other criminal activities. It doesn't necessarily follow that because someone smokes crack, they'll also try to steal Marksmu's television. To put someone in prison for however many years or months simply because they might commit a future crime reeks of abuse. I'm not the average tinfoil hat wearer, but it does make me nervous to grant the government the same power to predict the future as Madam Cleo. You can bring out all the studies and reports available that point to a criminal behavioral pattern, but I'll only say that those reports show averages, and when we're dealing with an individual's liberty (an inalienable and constitutionally protected right), we can't rely on the strength of averages for every person who matriculates through the legal system.

Remember, we're not talking about arresting and prosecuting because they might commit a burglary in the future. It is a felony to possess ANY amount of cocaine. It is a valid charge on its own. The debate is whether to IGNORE the commission of a felony in the presence of a police officer, or to decline to prosecute that felony. Marksmu's argument is that crackheads deserve no such favoritism, because historically, many of them commit crimes to support their habit. And, again, the prosecution of trace cases is a variant of the broken window theory, that by prosecuting all crimes, no matter how insignificant, the character of the neighborhood improves.

Trace cases are prosecuted like every other case. Possession of the contraband must be proven to have been lawfully found, just as a murder weapon must be. There are no constitutional shortcuts being taken. The debate centers on whether this should even be a crime at all, and in the case of Harris County, since the county cannot make laws, whether the DA and HPD will ignore this particular law.

This debate will continue at Warren's.

[Jeebus]

Drugs should stay illegal, plain and simple. 99% of the people that are involved in that lifestyle do delve into other illegal activities. If you don't believe that, you're living on another planet.

No way! You must have went to the same church as I did growing up to believe this theory. I have many friends that smoke more marijuana than the average cigarette smoker smokes per day. They are all productive, employed, family-having (most), tax paying members of society.

I think perhaps this is where we need to separate the truly hardcore drugs from the recreational drugs.

[20thStDad]

No way! You must have went to the same church as I did growing up to believe this theory. I have many friends that smoke more marijuana than the average cigarette smoker smokes per day. They are all productive, employed, family-having (most), tax paying members of society.

I think perhaps this is where we need to separate the truly hardcore drugs from the recreational drugs.

There is a definite difference between cocaine and marijuana, and I think it's useful to keep that difference in the lawbooks somewhere. It seems as though most of us agree that marijuana isn't the problem, and that both taxpayers and pot heads would benefit from its legalization. But I've known people on the hard core stuff and it would be incredibly irresponsible to legalize it. "It" becomes a debate, but would include heroine, acid, meth, cocaine off the top of my head. Maybe others have a different opinion.

[Jeebus]

There is a definite difference between cocaine and marijuana, and I think it's useful to keep that difference in the lawbooks somewhere. It seems as though most of us agree that marijuana isn't the problem, and that both taxpayers and pot heads would benefit from its legalization. But I've known people on the hard core stuff and it would be incredibly irresponsible to legalize it. "It" becomes a debate, but would include heroine, acid, meth, cocaine off the top of my head. Maybe others have a different opinion.

I would be okay with legalizing anything "natural". Marijuana and psychotropic mushrooms come to mind. Anything that has to be process and/or refined like cocaine, meth, acid, or ecstasy should be left to the FDA to determine its distribution.

[AtticaFlinch]

Remember, we're not talking about arresting and prosecuting because they might commit a burglary in the future. It is a felony to possess ANY amount of cocaine. It is a valid charge on its own. The debate is whether to IGNORE the commission of a felony in the presence of a police officer, or to decline to prosecute that felony. Marksmu's argument is that crackheads deserve no such favoritism, because historically, many of them commit crimes to support their habit. And, again, the prosecution of trace cases is a variant of the broken window theory, that by prosecuting all crimes, no matter how insignificant, the character of the neighborhood improves.

Trace cases are prosecuted like every other case. Possession of the contraband must be proven to have been lawfully found, just as a murder weapon must be. There are no constitutional shortcuts being taken. The debate centers on whether this should even be a crime at all, and in the case of Harris County, since the county cannot make laws, whether the DA and HPD will ignore this particular law.

This debate will continue at Warren's.

I'm not at Warren's. Instead I'm watching a cute little baby play with toys that make loud noises and have bright flashing lights, and I'm loving every second of it.

So anyhow, considering the justification most often used in favor of drug criminalization is that habitual drug users commit a disproportionate percentage of crime and therefore should be locked away for their drug usage, I see the whole thing as just a clever legalistic way to circumvent the constitution. People are worried about the safety of their televisions, and they see a correlation (however tenuous) between drug abuse and missing televisions, and rather than increase the penalty for TV pilfering, they introduce a pot prohibition. The logic doesn't follow. It isn't constitutional. And while it can be rationalized, it's still not right.

And, I'm not really arguing whether or not it's legal or whether the proper protocol is followed by those charged with prosecuting the "crimes," but whether they should even be crimes at all. I guess I got off topic, but regardless of whether or not it's currently illegal shouldn't play into whether or not it should be illegal. There's been a ton of retarded laws on the books through the years, and just because they were laws at one time doesn't mean they still are. I think all that money the drug war has cost in terms of enforcement, prosecution and confinement could go to better things. Like textbooks. Or classroom computers.