Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
It's the same old story. Dirty cops use fake drug raids to rob from drug dealers and enrich themselves. Ah, but there's a twist: they bribed a judge to get the search warrants. And yes, this really happened:
A crooked former Chicago cop testified Wednesday that he paid a judge in connection with a search warrant.Richard Doroniuk, who has pleaded guilty to robbing drug dealers, is a government witness at his former partner's trial in federal court. He faces more than 20 years in prison, but is hoping for a lesser sentence for his cooperation.
Doroniuk testified he and partner Mahmoud "Mike" Shamah stole money and drugs from suspected dope dealers in 2005 and 2006 while they were tactical officers in the Morgan Park District.
While discussing the search warrants that the officers obtained, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christina Egan asked Doroniuk if he ever gave money to a judge.
"He asked for it," Doroniuk said, adding that he paid the judge. Doroniuk did not elaborate on why he paid the unnamed judge.
Under questioning from Shamah's attorney, Anthony Pinelli, Doroniuk said a judge approved a search warrant even though the judge knew there really was no "John Doe" informant. Such informants are supposed to appear before judges to provide the basis for a search.
And that's not all:
Doroniuk said he would plant drugs on people when searches turned up nothing because he and Shamah needed to arrest someone to satisfy their bosses. He said he bought those drugs -- which he called "insurance" -- from Cross.Doroniuk said he paid Cross for the drugs with cash he stole from people during searches and traffic stops.
This is hardly an isolated case. The drug task force cops in Atlanta that killed an elderly woman after faking an informant's report did the same thing, carried around drugs in the trunks of their police cars so they could plant them on people and arrest them. At least seven cops in Oakland lied to judges to get warrants. This is very, very common. Why do cops do this? Because they can. What are the drug dealers going to do, call the cops? They are a ready source of income and easily blackmailed and shaken down.
Politics
Comments
The cops or the dealers? Both? Heh.
Posted by: FishyFred | November 29, 2008 12:17 PM
I've always felt the practical arguments against drug and other 'vice' laws were more powerful than the libertarian ones that frequently 'convince people who don't need convincing.' It's simple to make the case that they cost the society more than the 'crimes' they attempt to prevent.
I can go on on this subject at great length, and may in responses. (One obvious point is that much 'drug violence' come from the 'outlaw status' of drug sellers and buyers. If a seller is robbed, he can't go to the cops; if a buyer gets burned, he can't take the dealer to small claims court or tv court shows.)
But one key damage to society from 'vice laws' is police corruption and malfeasance, and the disrespect for the law it helps foster. I don't have statistics, but I would argue that almost all 'dirty cops' of any kind started in response to something involving 'vice laws.' A cop doesn't start by taking bribes from burglars or rapists -- and even those cops that are rapists themselves frequently get started by demanding 'favors' from prostitutes.
It's not just the corruption, but the attitude that it engenders in people and neighborhoods that perceive the corruption -- and remember that most
low-endvice involves minorities and poor neighborhoods (lower middle and up and whites have more options to make money, and are given more tools to help them do it).After those arguments, you start totalling the cost -- in policing, court and public defender time, and for prison time - the vice laws cost, and then attempt to estimate what the crimes cost -- excluding the costs from 'outlaw status' including the above and, for drugs, people wanting to seek treatment but being unable to.
Arguments like these might not have the noble simplicity of a libertarian 'banner slogan,' but they can reach a wider range of people. (Sometimes we forget that arguing from a different angle than people are used to hearing can be very powerful. They've heard the standard pros and cons, but "Y'know, I never thought of it that way" can be the first step in opening minds.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | November 29, 2008 12:32 PM
One solution: Make drugs legal. Sell them in government licensed "drug stores". Tax them heavily, like cigarettes and alcohol. Use the taxes to fund drug rehab centers. The dealers would disappear and the users would get safety and an effective way to quit if desired. The U.S. government could legally import drugs from Mexico (Nafta) or even Afghanistan. We could probably pay of the national debt and fund rehab centers with the tax money.
Posted by: Ann Klein | November 29, 2008 1:31 PM
Prup, would you mind if I gave you my e-mail address? I've spent the last several months trying to educate myself on the subject (started with reading the Consumers Union report from the 70s that Nixon ignored), and while I can argue about the effects of drugs and drug education, there's still a lot I don't know.
I'd love to hear from you.
Posted by: Bachalon | November 29, 2008 2:10 PM
BBC news story: Swiss vote on radical heroin rules
Posted by: marnk | November 29, 2008 4:05 PM
"One solution: Make drugs legal. Sell them in government licensed "drug stores"
except people should be allowed to grow, smoke and give away as much pot as they please....
Posted by: Kevin | November 29, 2008 6:30 PM
While this seems an ostensible solution, I highly doubt that the legalization of drugs will suddenly make all of the dealers disappear. If drug sales are regulated by the government and heavily taxed, then a black market is sure to continue that provides those same drugs at a cheaper price. The government has enough trouble now stopping illegal shipments of drugs; how can we expect them to provide such efficient regulation on a national level? They can barely regulate anything else!
Also, for decades drug dealers and narcotics cartels have used violence to achieve their ends. If drugs are legalized, are we to expect them to simply lay down their arms and adopt sound business practices? There is no doubt in my mind that they would continue using intimidation and murder to coerce people. Even if legitimate businessmen wanted in on the market, they would have that obstacle to deal with.
And what of those cartels, who will suddenly be making untold millions in a completely legal matter? I imagine that they would translate their financial power into political power, setting up lobbies in Washington to push their agendas. If the trade proves profitable, will millions of taxpayer dollars be redirected to South America or the Middle East to aid in struggling coca or opium crops? Will the U.S. attempt to colonize profitable drug-producing territories using military means?
I don't think that "legalization" is the ultimate cure-all for the war on drugs. Every problem solved by such a move would create five new ones.
The fact is that ever since Nixon began this hopeless crusade, we've dug ourselves in too deep, and it's now as much a part of our government as anything else. I think that Russell Crowe's character in the film American Gangster summed it up the best:
"You know, I don't think they want all this to stop; it employs too many people. Judges, lawyers, cops, doctors, politicians, prison guards, social workers...they stop bringing dope into this country, about a hundred thousand people are gonna be out of a job."
Posted by: Anthony | November 29, 2008 7:16 PM
And the scientists Anthony, don't forget them. Inventing all those negative consequences of God's own SuperFood the sacred cannabis just to keep themselves on the gubbermint dole...
Posted by: DrugMonkey | November 29, 2008 7:29 PM
Bachalon -
Feel free to email me. I can point you to a lot of good information, as well as having a lot of it myself. duwayne.brayton at gmail.com
Posted by: DuWayne | November 29, 2008 7:58 PM
Anthony -
I find it interesting that folks think a black market would persist. I'm not one to fantasize that legalization and regulation would solve everything, but it would eliminate the vast majority of the black market. All that would be left of it, is the black market that supplies kids. We have ample evidence to support our competing assertions too. Show me this thriving black market for illicit booze and I will admit I am wrong.
As for everything else, while ending the war on vice might not be a silver bullet that eliminates crime and the prison population, not to mention corruption in law enforcement and the judiciary, you can't seriously argue that it wouldn't make a serious fucking dent.
At the very least, it would be a savings of billions upon billions annually. Not to mention the value in the treatment of drug addiction through harm reduction.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 29, 2008 8:06 PM
And don't worry DM, if we ever achieve our brave new world, we'll still love you and need you - really we'll need you more than ever.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 29, 2008 8:09 PM
"Show me this thriving black market for illicit booze and I will admit I am wrong."
There is one for cigarettes. There are frequent busts on local reservation smoke shops for product that has not been taxed. And people have been killed over it.
While the current process is not working, anyone who thinks legalization will be all rainbows and puppy dogs is a fool.
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | November 30, 2008 1:37 AM
Not necessarily. The key is to make it cheaper than the current prices, which are driven by the risk factor. The price is already insanely high, even for a domestically produced drug like marijuana that doesn't involve smuggling across borders. Pot is easier and cheaper to grow and process than tobacco, so there's no reason a pack of joints has to cost more to produce than a pack of Marlboros. I bet we could tax it at double the rate of tobacco and still it would be too cheap to be worth breaking the law for. Moonshine isn't really a nation-wide drug abuse problem for the same reason.
Posted by: Joe Max | November 30, 2008 4:15 AM
Anthony, why would someone pay a higher price on the black market for a drug of uncertain quality when they can go to a pharmacy and know what they're paying for? Not to mention, I'm sure many pharmacists would be happy to answer any questions one might have.
Posted by: Bachalon | November 30, 2008 4:22 AM
Anthony, again, sorry.
I'm going to look at it like this. I filled a script for codeine for 15 dollars (30 pills) without insurance. In my (old) neck of the woods you'll find hydrocodone runs about 4 a pill no matter the purity (norcos are the same as vics or lorcet).
Now, I think about it like this: a friend of mine with a legitimate prescription for oxycodone was able to to get 3500mg in both oral and liquid form for about 300/400 (I don't recall exactly) dollars without insurance. I bring that up for this reason: oxycodone in pill form costs a little bit less than half of the pills size (eg 50mg = 30 dollars). Hydrocodone is worth a bit less than that. I can't imagine it being sold legally for anywhere near the price that it's sold for illegally.
I know that's not very precise, but I am speaking from experience.
Posted by: Bachalon | November 30, 2008 4:53 AM
"Show me this thriving black market for illicit booze and I will admit I am wrong."
There is one for cigarettes. There are frequent busts on local reservation smoke shops for product that has not been taxed. And people have been killed over it.
Yes, a black market for cigarettes created by the government's high taxes on cigarettes.
Posted by: Citizen Z | November 30, 2008 11:17 AM
Ian -
I said thriving. Yeah, there is a miniscule black market for cigarettes, the same is true of alcohol. But neither is anything close to the black market for illicit drugs and there is no reason to believe that there would be anything approaching the black market for illicit drugs we have now, if they were legalized and regulated.
While the current process is not working, anyone who thinks legalization will be all rainbows and puppy dogs is a fool.
Funny, I haven't seen a single commenter on this thread make such a claim. Yeah, we all know people who actually believe that, but there are two problems making that equation here. One, no one here is making the claim. Two, most of the people who make those claims are advocates for the legalization of marijuana and nothing else.
I have run across few people who advocate total legalization of all (or nearly all) illicit drugs, who actually believe it would be all sunshine and roses. What they (and I) do claim, is that legalization, taxation and heavy regulation would be a significant step forward in terms of harm reduction.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 30, 2008 11:26 AM
Oy and I would like to second Joe Max on this point. The taxes would have to be batshit nuts to compete with the black market. I used to sell weed and LSD (a great many years ago). I charged seventy percent more than I paid for product and the reason was the risk factor and the fact that I could get it at a really good price.
It costs no more than corn to grow and processing is not significant either, unless you're talking specialty derivatives, such as high potency hash oil. And even at that, eliminating the risk factor from the deal still means there is a lot of margin to eat before you get to the cost on the black market.
Figure your average cost for production isn't going to be any more than the cost of producing a pack of cigarettes. The cost of producing hash would be on a par with the cost of producing herbal extracts. Even if you tax it to a cost that puts it seven or eight times the cost of a pack of cigarettes, it is still cheaper than the black market.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 30, 2008 11:51 AM