They're Only In It For The Money

[MSimon]

From a comment at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/30/m ... nt-1555528 - better formatting and links at the link.

Gail Combs says:
January 31, 2014 at 7:20 am

negrum says: @ January 31, 2014 at 12:13 am

Just to clarify – You feel that any citizen should be able to acquire, without hindrance or oversight, any substance classed as addictive, be it cannabis, cocaine, lsd or prozac?

I am assuming that under-age citizens are excluded from this concept, but correct me if I am wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Any child can get any and all sorts of drugs from his/pusher playmate on the playground. There is nothing to keep those drugs from being adulterated or lethal except the pushers desire not to kill his customer base.

In fact schools are giving kids ‘Speed’ (aka Ritalin, Concerta, Adderall) and in some cases taking parents to court when they object. See: How Public Schools Coerce Parents Into Giving Mind-Altering Drugs To Their Children

…Safer (1999) has presented, although not published, data indicating that from the early to mid-1990s the rate of ADHD treatment (i.e., school-administered Ritalin) among white boys in Baltimore County elementary schools was over 15%…. Among elementary students, 17% of all students and 33% of white boys had been diagnosed with ADHD and the vast majority had been medicated for this condition at some time during the 1997-98 school year

So how does law enforcement handle the drug problem?

Based on twelve months of covert observation from within narcotics enforcement agencies, Drug Enforcement’s Double-Edged Sword: An Assessment of Asset Forfeiture Programs described forfeiture as a “dysfunctional policy” that forces law enforcement agencies to subordinate justice to profit.

The Double-Edged Sword undercover researcher observed agencies abandon investigations of suspects they knew were trafficking large amounts of contraband simply because the case was not profitable. Agents routinely targeted low level dealers rather than big traffickers, who are better able to insulate themselves and their assets from reverse sting operations. The report states: “Efficiency is measured by the amount of money seized rather than impact on drug trafficking.”

A reverse sting operation, where the officer becomes the seller who encourages the suspect to commit a crime, “was the preferred strategy of every agency and department with which the researcher was associated because it allowed agents to gauge potential profit prior to investing a great deal of time and effort.” More importantly, the narcotics units studied preferred seizing cash intended for purchase of drugs supplied by the police, rather than confiscating drugs already on the street. When asked why a search warrant would not be served on a suspect known to have resale quantities of contraband, one officer responded:

“Because that would just give us a bunch of dope and the hassle of having to book him (the suspect). We’ve got all the dope we need in the property room, just stick to rounding up cases with big money and stay away from warrants.”

In one case an agency instructed the researcher to observe the suspect’s daily transactions reselling a large shipment of cocaine so that officers could postpone making the bust until after the majority of the drug shipment was converted to cash. This case was only one of many in which the goal was profit rather than reducing the supply of drugs reaching the street.…

So tell me again why we are not making drugs legal and then TAXING them? Perhaps because it is much much more profitable to the people in government NOT to have drugs legal?