[llamataboot]

The Drug War seems so out of control and Orwellian at this point, that I unfortunately can't think of any way to stop it, as long as the general public thinks that it's somewhere in the range of "overbearing but necessary" to "annoying and probably evil but doesn't really affect me".

I'm excited by the chinks in the armor that have come with marijuana legalization/decriminalization, and I think once that spreads across much of the US, some of the Drug War will have lost its teeth, but I don't imagine it will make a large dent the surveillance industry.

Now that we have built the infrastructure, conceived of parallel construction, etc there will always be a shadowy enemy lurking in our midst that we need to turn it on. Its kinda like having a giant military-industrial complex. You really can't sustain it without war, yet it has its own momentum and seeks to sustain itself, so it makes war more likely.

[knz]

> Now that we have built the infrastructure

How successful is the drug war? The recent headlines related to heroin seem to imply that it's been a failure. Before that there was a meth crisis and before that there was likely something else. Is enforcement actually reducing the negative social impacts of substance abuse? It would be interesting to see the ROI for enforcement.

[llamataboot]

It is very successful in incarcerating a ton of people and providing lots of money for people involved in it. It's worse than useless (like negative net effect) in terms of protecting society and individuals from the harms of drug abuse.

[rhizome]

It's a national make-work program that builds broken lives.

[sfrailsdev]

Hey don't forget super cheap labor in the form of prisoners

[a3n]

Coincidentally, there's a measure on the Colorado ballot this year (I voted for it), that removes a state constitutional exception to allow slavery for punishment of convicted criminals.

Slavery, in the Colorado and many other state constitutions, is explicitly forbidden. Colorado, at least, allows an exception for convicted criminals.

I can't believe it's 2016 and I find myself having to say "yup, slavery is bad, let's not do that."

[JoeAltmaier]

Convicts have most of their rights abrogated. Its essentially slavery however you label it? Just like killing folks for high crimes is not 'murder', imprisoning folks and making them work for their keep is not 'slavery'.

[pizza]

13th amendment - indentured servitude and slavery permitted

[dgudkov]

It's hard to protect individuals from something that they're actively looking for. How can you fight drugs if there are so many people willing to buy them?

[xtian]

Start asking why so many people want to alter their subjective realities. If what you find extends beyond mere curiosity, then address those things.

[jamestnz]

> Start asking why so many people want to alter their subjective realities

Some years ago I read an interesting book on this, called The Pursuit of Oblivion[1]. In addition to providing a fascinating look at historical drug use across different cultures, the book also makes the general argument that the human drive to alter one's consciousness is as natural and inherent as the drives for food, sex, etc.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-Oblivion-Global-History-Narco...

[beambot]

Lots of things alter your subjective reality: reading (books, news, Reddit), watching TV and movies, imagination, travel, drugs, art, music, meditation, diversity, etc. The reasons for why people seek them out are just as varied. Not sure why chemical substances used moderately and responsibly get a bad rap...

[dpc59]

Because people who don't use substances only see the people who don't use them responsibly as "substance users". They can't tell for all the other people, so to them drug abuse is inherent to drug use.

[pizza]

Probably related to the 'sacrifice' of the basically-exiled users who had nowhere to get external help for moderating use.

[xtian]

Right and so if the reasons are benign then there's nothing to be done. Sorry if that was unclear.

[ythl]

> It's worse than useless (like negative net effect) in terms of protecting society and individuals from the harms of drug abuse.

I wouldn't say that. For generally law-abiding citizens like me, the lack of availability has done wonders to protect me from drugs. At some point or another in my life, I've been tempted to experiment with the legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc.). I've never been tempted to try LSD or cocaine (for example), because there is currently no legal way to obtain it and I definitely don't feel like engaging in risky activities just to try.

Making all drugs legal and accessible will definitely have a negative impact on one portion of the population (curious people like me). A certain percentage of curious but otherwise law-abiding people will destroy their lives once drugs are legalized.

[Broken_Hippo]

> Making all drugs legal and accessible will definitely have a negative impact on one portion of the population (curious people like me).

You aren't the same sort of curios. I'm the sort that goes to Amsterdam as a vacation spot. I tried out things when I was younger. Drug education? Mine was in the 80's and 90's. I figured it was a bit ... overblown. The only addictions I've truly had were to nicotine and caffeine, both of which I have today. Completely legal too.

The thing is that it was possible for me to combine the anti-drug propaganda, tone it down some, and balance it with what I saw around me. I asked folks questions about stuff. We can educate, control strength and purity, and invest in treatment programs. We can educate on safety like say we do with alcohol. We can invest in much improved public transportation. And so on.

> A certain percentage of curious but otherwise law-abiding people will destroy their lives once drugs are legalized

I actually think the small percentage whose lives get ruined due to drugs will be smaller than the percentage of lives that are ruined and uprooted due to the war on drugs. Folks have lost houses and their children for pot - or lsd, even if they are as responsible as you can be with kids (relative babysitting for example, or they are at their mom/dad's house). Many have went to jail or prison and this is pretty common.

Most folks don't get addicted to drugs - a few have higher addiction rates, and I think we can minimize that with proper education and investment.

[MaysonL]

Interesting side note: anesthesiology has the highest substance abuse rate of any medical specialty: over 25% will experience abuse at some point in their career.

from http://www.vice.com/read/the-first-fentanyl-addict

"Roughly 10 to 14 per cent of all physicians will be substance-dependent over their lifetime, and the incidence in anesthesia providers is 2.5 times higher than other physicians, according to a five-year outcome study from 16 physician health programs in the US."

[Broken_Hippo]

I have read that before and I still find it intriguing. I know the rates are high with nursing as well.

I often think it has something to do with the work or work environment when there are such trends, and start working to figure out why or if anything relieves it.

[chimeracoder]

> At some point or another in my life, I've been tempted to experiment with the legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc.). I've never been tempted to try LSD or cocaine (for example), because there is currently no legal way to obtain it and I definitely don't feel like engaging in risky activities just to try.

There are a lot of assumptions in there - the biggest one is that, in a legal market, drugs which are currently illegal today would still be more dangerous than drugs which already are legal. That's a big assumption, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite. For example, the success of diacetylmorphine maintenance strongly suggests that it is just as possible to be a regular user of heroin as it is to be a person who drinks regularly in the evenings but otherwise lives a 'normal' life.

On that note, we dramatically overestimate the danger of drugs like cocaine and dramatically underestimate the danger of drugs like alcohol and caffeine. Alcohol, incidentally, is one of the only drugs for which the withdrawal can literally be fatal[0]. (By contrast, while heroin withdrawal can cause dehydration and other problems, as long as those are treated correctly, the direct effects of the withdrawal are non-fatal)[1].

[0] Benzodiazepines can also cause the same effect.

[1] This does not mean that heroin detoxification is easy or should be taken lightly. Lots of things can still go wrong, and it's one of the reason why detox programs exist. But partly due to the legal status of heroin, we ascribe these to the 'danger' of heroin as a drug, all the while ignoring that alcohol detoxification shares all of these same challenges and many more.

[thrownblown]

methadone gets you just as high as heroin. the only difference is that its made by in a lab pharmaceuticals companies and controlled by the government. and methadone withdrawal is fatal too.

this recent John Oliver piece on opiods holds a lot of truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pdPrQFjo2o

Benzodiazepines are far more addictive than opioids, and while their abuse has declined a bit, a lot of people still abuse xanax and klonopin, and before that valium. that' a lot of doctors directly and indirectly enabling all those addicts.

why hasn't the war on drugs taken on the opioid and benzo manufacturers? it makes me wonder why pharmaceutical companies and their executives aren't locked up like the drug kingpins they are?

[mveety]

Methadone withdrawal isn't fatal. No opioid has fatal withdrawal symptoms. Anyone that tells you that doesn't know what they're talking about or is actively lying to you. And frankly, it's a lot better that people use pharmaceuticals recreationally. They're of known purity and strength, which makes overdoses less likely, and for opioids, protects the user from long term effects. Most opioids are safe to use basically indefinitely and have few, if any, long term detrimental effects for your average person.

You can't make the claim that drug A is more or less addictive that drug B. Addiction has little to do with the substance used as far as is known and there is no way to measure addictiveness objectively.

Also, methadone is used because it's legal, politically safe, and has a long half-life. The long half-life is useful because the person using it doesn't need to dose as frequently and it lets politicians and addiction treatment professionals pat themselves on the back because they got the patient off of heroin.

[not_kurt_godel]

> why hasn't the war on drugs taken on the opioid and benzo manufacturers?

Probably because it has little to do with what would actually be good for society, and more to do with filling the pockets of people who maliciously abuse moral rhetoric to their own advantage.

[pstuart]

Or maybe you'd try LSD in the right setting and frame of mind and have your consciousness expanded.

Your argument is offensive. If you need to be protected from your lack of self control then to make the rest of the world suffer is depraved.

[ythl]

> Your argument is offensive.

My argument is not offensive, you simply chose to be offended.

> If you need to be protected from your lack of self control then to make the rest of the world suffer is depraved.

Yeah, let's get rid of all the guard rails on mountain roads too. Some of us like the adrenaline of getting near the edge and if you need to be protected from your lack of self control, too bad. My desire to ride the edge should trump your desire for guard rails... right?

[losteric]

No, your argument is pretty offensive.

The difference between your example and drug policy, is that guard rails are there to prevent accidents. Same with laws on speeding (protects others from speeders). American drug policy doesn't prevent accidents, it restricts individual freedoms under the guise of protecting society.

My family has serious problems with alcoholism. As a result, I don't drink because it would be a very risky personal choice. Statistically I'd probably be dead before retirement. However, I don't have a problem with weed or LSD. They're fun and I know how to use them safely, so I do.

Why do we have guardrails for LSD? Works fine for me! Why do we have national guardrails for weed? It's legal in my state and works fine for me! And why in the world is alcohol legal? This is a toxic substance, it's seriously risky for me, and putting it out in the open could lead to bad decisions on my part. We should ban it!

No. We shouldn't ban alcohol. Nor weed or LSD. These aren't guardrails protecting us from the cliff. These law are baby fences, presuming that some government official needs to protect us from ourselves.

[pstuart]

Apples and oranges. Drug use is a personal choice and the government has already indicated they're ok with people killing themselves with alcohol and tobacco.

I'm offended by your reasoning and lack of insight into the overall societal cost of having certain temptations kept out of your reach. This not just about getting high, it's about the crime, corruption and death that comes from this madness.

I'm guessing you are a relatively intelligent person - try thins thought experiment: Do you drink alcohol? Can you control your intake? Know anybody who does? Know anybody who is an alcoholic? Do you accept that most people who use it can enjoy it but there are some unfortunates who can't and that's just the price of the freedom to drink?

Now replace the word "alcohol" with "drugs". Because guess what? Alcohol is a drug too, except it's socially acceptable.

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but your original premise comes off as "sure, other people may be fucked by the system now, but it works pretty ok by me so I see no need to change it"

[givinguflac]

Your post just comes off as self-centered and ignorant to me. What world do you live in where people's lives aren't being destroyed MORE by these drug laws then using that drug legally would do? This is just a silly statement that honestly makes no sense. Portugal has legalized all drugs over a decade ago, and you know what happened? Reduction of addiction and people getting the help they need rather than dying alone from OD'ing. Do some research please, your analogy with guard rails is just ridiculous.

[Lawtonfogle]

Uh... you can make your own roads without guard rails. But if I grow the wrong plants on my private property the government will do some really evil things to me. But they won't touch you for not adding guard rails to your private roads.

[andrei_says_]

Are you comparing a militarized police force killing thousands of people and ruining the lives of millions created as an organized effort to oppress people of color and dissidents to a guardrail on the edge of a canyon?

Do you truly believe that you haven't tried controlled substances because they are hard to get?

And, do you believe you are law-abiding?

[legodt]

>My argument is not offensive, you simply chose to be offended

Although not personally offended myself, it is almost never appropriate to say this to somebody hurt by an action or comment you have made. Please respect the feelings and opinions of others, even when you find it difficult or nigh impossible (such as in this case) to relate to the perspective of the hurt party.

[reddytowns]

I love this argument. If you take the drug the proper way, everyone gets high and has a good time, and it'll be a memory, you'll be convinced it's safe, and you'll treasure for a lifetime.

And see, so drugs are good, right? Only such experiences lead to more such experiences, and on and on.

Addiction doesn't stem from initial bad experiences, but exceptionally good ones. You should fear the latter many times more than the former.

[function_seven]

Parent comment was referring to LSD specifically. It’s not addictive.

[chillingeffect]

> protect me from drugs. > definitely have a negative impact

What would you forecast the expected effects of you trying LSD or cocaine would be?

A night of amusing delusions? Heightened spiritual awareness? A one-way ticket to pus-oozing blowjobs in bus station parking lots?

Part of the effectiveness of the Drug War has been to implant a binary perspective on the dangers of drugs: uncompromising, guaranteed, full-scale disaster. They manage to re-arrange everyday peoples' notions of cause and effect to make it seem as if the drugs are the problem leading to emotional disaster. This is a convenient scapegoat.

The real situation is the breakdown and loss of faith in the fully industrialized world is causing more people to want to escape than ever, breakdowns in family structure, financial stress, physical stress, loss of freedom and so on. These things can't be fixed easily and despite all of the drug arrests, people are continuously becoming more desperate.

[ythl]

> What would you forecast the expected effects of you trying LSD or cocaine would be?

For me? Probably not much. But who knows, maybe I'll try it the first time, nothing happens. 10 years later I fall on hard times and then I try it again to try and deal with my situation, this time become addicted, and then make my problems an order of magnitude worse.

That's how alcoholism generally works.

[chillingeffect]

But control of your body is your responsibility. I don't like being restricted in my life, because others can't control yourself. If someone takes those things in "hard times," that's not proper use and they're bring irresponsible.

In fact, you probably can control yourself (how is your record so far?), it's only a fear that you can't. I don't like being restricted in my life, because you're afraid you won't be able to control yourself.

Furthermore, the law has not eliminated drugs: If you run into hard times and seek something to self-destruct with, you can still easily find LSD or cocaine. It would just take you more effort because of the law.

So the law has put up a small barrier around you so you can get away with exercising less responsibility, making you weaker, yet your threat from the substances persists.

Meanwhile it has endangered me and millions of others in our quest for spiritual enlightenment. (I don't care about cocaine, only LSD). There are other ways to learn enlightenment of course, but in the meantime if we want LSD we run the risks of arrest in the act of purchasing, holding and consuming. We also risk poisoning because it comes from the black market. And we have to endure greater surveillance in our daily lives and at the borders. And we have to pay greater taxes for all the law enforcement and surveillance equipment.

While the benefits of millions of people attaining spiritual enlightenment are tremendous. There would be less fighting, less greed, less anxiety, more sharing, more volunteering and less fear. Having a connection to our spirit, environment and world means less waste, stress and pollution.

Imagine if 50% of the people in your life were as giving and kind and generous as your first-grade teacher. Don't let a vague fear of distant self-destruction control you. Just by posting and exchanging information on this forum, you're adding momentum to the process of cooperation on a grand scale. Don't restrict access to spiritual substances. Let the people who want to chill out, see the big picture and cooperate on a grand scale figure out how to do it.

[marcos123]

Ah, I see. According to you, the world needs laws on the books to keep dunces from harming themselves in all the different ways possible. Ythl, I don't mean to scare you, but did you know you can die from drinking too much water? And can you believe there aren't yet any laws preventing this?! Scary, right?

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CHICO-Fraternity-pledg...

[mcbits]

Right now a percentage of otherwise law-abiding people have had their lives destroyed by the justice system because they got a little too curious about drugs, and still more by all the crime and conflict that's fueled by prohibition and artificially high prices. And another percentage of people overdose or ingest toxic adulterants because the purity of street drugs is unstable and unregulated.

[ythl]

> Right now a percentage of otherwise law-abiding people have had their lives destroyed by the justice system because they got a little too curious about drugs, and still more by all the crime and conflict that's fueled by prohibition and artificially high prices

That's an argument for decriminalization, not legalization.

[mcbits]

It's an argument for any policy that would reduce harm to drug users without causing additional, worse harm of its own. Decriminalization, as it's usually conceived, still sends billions of dollars flowing into underground markets and criminal subcultures.

[Johnny555]

I wouldn't say that. For generally law-abiding citizens like me, the lack of availability has done wonders to protect me from drugs. At some point or another in my life, I've been tempted to experiment with the legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) I've never been tempted to try LSD or cocaine (for example), because there is currently no legal way to obtain it

Is the law really the only thing that keeps you away from harder drugs? Don't you think that it's your own willpower?

Like you, I'm generally law abiding, but thanks to certain friends, I have easy access to a number of illegal drugs - and it's in an relatively safe environment where my chance of getting caught is quite low.

But despite that access, the only drugs I've ever used in my life are alcohol and marijuana (well ok, I'm literally addicted to caffeine). I've never even tried cigarettes.

It's not the law that keeps me away from certain drugs, I just don't want to do them.

[loeg]

I agree in general. Criminalization keeps a substantial population from using drugs.

> people will destroy their lives once drugs are legalized

I don't think this statement is really a good summary of that, though.

The better example is prohibition. I wouldn't say most people who consume alcohol are destroying their lives, but alcohol has a moderate impact on the liver. Regular use increases liver-related disease. And during the prohibition, liver disease went down starkly.

Say we legalize everything. Even if the additional addiction is negligible, any minor to moderate health detriment spread across a larger population (due to legalization) is a big societal cost.

Anyway, I think there is still a decent argument to be made about individual freedom being worth the cost, and a decent argument to be made about a substitution effect (given how bad we already know alcohol to be, a legal drug just needs to be no worse than alcohol).

[WalterBright]

> Criminalization keeps a substantial population from using drugs.

Alcohol consumption went up during Prohibition, and went back down after it was repealed.

[loeg]

I don't believe that is true. Do you have a citation for that claim?

E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...

> Scholars estimate that consumption dropped to a low of about 60% of pre-prohibition levels around 1925, rising to almost 80% before the law was officially repealed.[citation needed] After the prohibition was implemented, alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10–20%.[96][97][98] However, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's studies show clear epidemiological evidence that "overall cirrhosis mortality rates declined precipitously with the introduction of Prohibition," despite widespread flouting of the law.[99] One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests came to a similar result.[100] And, yet another study examining "mortality, mental health and crime statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60–70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[101]

[rwmj]

Apart from anything else it seems very naive to imagine that you have no access to (currently) illegal drugs. Your son / friend / neighbour / university pal / co-worker could probably supply you with many common substances. Asking a friend or relative isn't normally a "risky activity".

[khedoros1]

Not to agree with yhtl's general line of argument, but right now, I'm not sure that I know anyone I could ask, especially if part of the implied goal is to get it quickly. In college, I knew half a dozen people, and I'm positive that someone among my coworkers has access (and would be discreet), but I have no idea who. Not knowing who to ask is a practical equivalent of having no one that I can ask.

[beedogs]

> I've never been tempted to try LSD or cocaine (for example), because there is currently no legal way to obtain it and I definitely don't feel like engaging in risky activities just to try.

That's a real shame. LSD is incredible.

[alasdair_]

Legality aside, if you are able to post on HN right now, you're likely able to go on one of the many tor-enabled drug marketplaces and buy anything you wish with bitcoins.

[a3n]

> How successful is the drug war? ... It would be interesting to see the ROI for enforcement.

As a jobs program it's probably pretty good. Law enforcement jobs. Prison jobs. Court jobs. Political prizes to argue over and differentiate yourself from the other guy.

As a control program it's fantastic. Look at all the traffic stops, civil asset forfeiture and surveillance they get away with.

[hash-set]

In terms of growing the state and creating opportunities for large corporations to make billions of dollars while subjugating a population, I'd say it is overwhelmingly successful.

[SixSigma]

Criminal activty is a great screen for US covert operations

> This electronic briefing book is compiled from declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive, including the notebooks kept by NSC aide and Iran-contra figure Oliver North, electronic mail messages written by high-ranking Reagan administration officials, memos detailing the contra war effort, and FBI and DEA reports. The documents demonstrate official knowledge of drug operations, and collaboration with and protection of known drug traffickers.

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/index.html

[wangchow]

Like the prohibition era...

[joering2]

> The Drug War seems so out of control and Orwellian at this point

A friend of mine, a MBA/PHD fellow who happened to give lectures on one of the most prestige US University, as well as working for very prestige Hedge Fund in NYC, is a great example of this.

In 2007 we was pulled over for a missing stop light. The car was his grandmother and he wasn't aware. As the cop approached him from the right side to look into his glove compartment while he was reaching for registration, the cop noticed a pill on the floor. It happened to be some sort of para-morphine tightly controlled drug that his grandmother used for a pain from her cancer.

No amount of explanation was enough for this cop. Even when his grandma showed up at the police station with bottle of same drug to explain.

Shortly after his life got ruined very quickly. Of course both University and his job found out and he was removed from his duties due to "very strict no drug policies". No amount of explanation was enough. He tried to get another job and over 3 years went from looking jobs at Universities to trying for McDonald waiter, but even they did not want to hire "a druggie".

As he had some savings, it wasn't the worst part. But as he got 6 years parole, being mandatory forced to go to some sort of AA meetings where for 45 minutes a week he had to listen stories of people who couldn't hold a cigarette cause that's how much they got their hands stung by needless, was worst of all nightmares. He even got approached by few drug dealers who happen to often visit those premises to try to recruit new members, and was somewhat glad he had some savings set aside, otherwise he might have gone and really start dealing!

Also he couldn't move out of State until the end of his parole (it would be considered violation) and had to check once a week to the local police station and bring updated drug test, even though he had to pay for those tests from his own pocket. If you think you just come to overcrowded NYC police station and drop a piece of paper at some drop box, then you wrong. Those "visits" usually took about 3-6 hours, depending on how busy they were. Sitting in the line in such a place every week for so long has to be nightmare on its own...

Not to end this tragic story too sad, eventually once his parole ended he moved to his uncle to Alaska and find some peace working on a fish farm. But his drug record will remain in the system for at least next 15 years.

So boys and girls don't "do" drugs....

[dominotw]

This is really a bizarre story. how does someone not know whose car they are driving, how did the pill get out of the bottle and onto to the floor, that too on passengers side. A cop just happened to spot a tiny pill on the floor? how did the university find out about it, do they run criminal records of employees on a regular basis? Why did the judge even convict this person, just a random pill on car floor is enough to convict someone?

[Johnny555]

He was aware it was his grandmother's car, he wasn't aware the brake light was out.

I don't know if you've seen elderly people take pills, but they often have poor eyesight coupled with poor motor skills so losing a pill or two is not surprising. We put my elderly dad's pills in a daily pill holder (one for morning pills, one for evening pills) because he had trouble counting them out himself. Though if a pill is taken on demand, like a painkiller, leaving them in the bottle may be more sensible.

As for how it ended up on the passenger's side, I would hope that if grandma is on narcotic painkillers that she's taking them while she is a passenger, not driving.

As for wether or not someone can be convicted for even one small pill, yes, it is possible... for example:

In NJ: Possessing any amount of a schedule I, II, III, or IV CDS incurs a fine of up to $35,000, at least three (and up to five) years in prison, or both. Possessing any amount of a Schedule V CDS incurs a fine of up to $15,000, up to 18 months in prison, or both. Using or being under the influence of any CDS not for the purpose of treating a sickness or injury (as legally prescribed by a licensed physician) incurs a fine of up to $500.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal...

[r00fus]

A perfectly screwed up law designed to increase arrests without any effort on the part of law enforcement to prove it was legit...

[dominotw]

>Prosecutors only have to show that the accused knew the drugs were present and intended to use or control them.

Curious how they established that.

[Johnny555]

One way is by asking -- if the cop said "Did you know that pill was there", and he says "Yeah, grandma is always dropping pills, I was going to pick them up after I got home".

There, proven that he knew they were present and intended take possession.

It's another example of why you should never talk to the police -- it's not going to help you, and may end up hurting you.

http://www.vice.com/read/law-professor-police-interrogation-...

[dominotw]

wow. Thats just insane that you can just get convicted and get your life ruined just like that. Just pure madness. Prbly happens on daily basis to take a productive member of society and throw him into an abyss. scary stuff.

[jlarocco]

If the cop saw the pill during a 5 minute traffic stop it's hard to believe the driver didn't see it the entire time he was in the car.

And there were two things going against this guy. First, cops have a lot of incentive to make drug busts and not much incentive to be lenient.

And second, "It's not mine, it's grandma's" would be the first thing I'd expect from somebody who was abusing or selling pills.

[indiv0]

Except in this case the cop would've been actively looking for anything suspicious in the car, while the driver would've been focused on the road most of the time he was in the car.

How often do you look at the passenger's floor as a driver?

As for the excuse, that might be the first thing to expect, but that doesn't automatically make him a liar. The onus is on the law to establish that it's not grandma's. Plus, grandma actually did have a prescription for the narcotic, so even if the excuse might sound shady, it's certainly plausible.

[elif]

I had a tail light out, and had my car taken apart piece by piece because the officer couldn't find the drugs his dog "alerted" to.

The basis of his bringing a dog was simply stereotyping me. In my state there is no probable cause requirement to call in a K-9 unit and have a dog walk around your vehicle. The dog alerted because they are trained to satisfy their handler's suspicions. He didn't find any drugs because there weren't any.

The story sounds bizarre, but it's the policing in our country that is bizarre, not the story.

[Broken_Hippo]

how does someone not know whose car they are driving... As others have said, that wasn't the situation, but I can give an example. Say your car breaks down. You borrow a car - maybe it is your friends, but it is in their parents, grandparents, or spouse's name. Maybe you know the owners name, maybe you only know the first name - but you don't actually know their name.

how did the pill get out of the bottle and onto to the floor, that too on passengers side. A cop just happened to spot a tiny pill on the floor

It is easy for a pill to get on the floor. I've had those blister packs spill out medicine and dropped pills out of a medicine container. And yes, cops do spot things on the floor - especially when there is high contrast, as is likely with a white or light pill and dark carpeting. It wouldn't actually matter if it is a pill - it could have been a small piece of crumpled paper that looked like a pill.

how did the university find out about it, do they run criminal records of employees on a regular basis?

Some of them do run criminal records. He probably needed time off work, both for court and the probation check-ins. They aren't really keen on working around a work schedule. He might have been required by probation to let them know. He might have been required to tell the school because of other laws as well. He might have missed work because of the jail time. In addition, arrest records aren't private.

Why did the judge even convict this person, just a random pill on car floor is enough to convict someone?

Yes, that is enough - even if you drug test as clean. It is assumed that the inside of your car is something you have responsibility over. Though sometimes folks can wind up getting out of this sort of thing, many don't and many take plea deals instead of going to court. Percieving a lack of options and an overworked public defender can do that.

[Joof]

Sounds pretty normal to me. Pills fall everywhere, cops are fairly zealous and the judge may be as well. The law doesn't work on sane principles.

[voxic11]

My nightmare whenever I drive someone else's car, especially if I know they use drugs (even prescription).

[1123581321]

I'm very sorry about your friend, and oppose the DEA, but this is probably something your friend told you to save face if he was wealthy, educated and actually convicted.

Edit: there seems to be some confusion in the replies about my point. This isn't an endorsement of drug laws. We who oppose legal injustice need to have an accurate understanding of how these laws work and what is actually likely to happen in order to be taken seriously, and to prioritize our advocacy for legislation and DoJ rules. I don't believe this story is likely to be true, and that helps me to focus on things that actually happen every day.

[elif]

Your skepticism is not objectively meaningful so i'll offer some of my own useless skepticism. This is probably a belief which helps you sleep at night. I hope you are never forced to confront the reality of our justice system.

[1123581321]

I really appreciate that you're writing this out of concern for people. I am quite concerned about our legal system, probably more than most (like many in this thread who are similarly concerned), and work regularly to improve it.

[nitrogen]

I would consider the story plausible. I have heard stories of elderly ladies being fined for DUI after being given the wrong drug by a malpracticing doctor and causing an accident. The courts are not a forgiving place.

[1123581321]

This I do find plausible. The difference is that the DUI did happen, whereas in the cancer medication case, the pill was not actually taken. There is a legal defense in situations like that called automatism that, for various reasons, is rarely used, even in cases like this. Prejudice against elderly drivers may factor as well. You can read more about automatism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatism_(law)

[rwmj]

Even if he was a heavy pill "junkie", how does ruining his life make things better for anyone?

[mattnewton]

This is why we can't fix the system, we always assume it must be right!

[astral303]

Legal competence is a whole separate skill. Educated doesn't mean he has the wherewithal to spend wealth on good lawyers.

[rhizome]

I am anti-Drug War on Some People Who Use Some Drugs and a unabashed Balko fanboi, but there's a big hole in this story: the basis for an apparent conviction. Didn't he spend any of his savings on a lawyer?

[dimino]

Right? It's not like the cop is Judge Dredd, he gets time in front of a judge...

[JoelBennett]

By chance was your friend non-Caucasian?

[cik2e]

This story is very hard to believe.

The criminal justice system seems very lenient towards certain kinds of individual when it comes to minor quantities of drug possession. If the pedigree that the OP mentions is even half true, this guy should have had the charges dropped with a half decent lawyer.

And the worst case scenario should have been a pre-trial intervention program, which is basically a lenient probation for a year or two, after which the charges go away and during which no criminal record exists.

On the other hand, driving a car and not knowing it's your grandmother's is likely I make any cop think you're a lying sack of shit and or high on said drugs.

[pizza]

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/