Whassup peeps...
I'm watching the History channel, and the show is about drugs, how they became illegal, and what the government has done to stop it. The show is madd interesting, because it's shown me things that I didn't know before (things like the real reason why they are illegal)...and how Reagan started tossing money to curb the problem. But I have a couple of questions, and whoever's got the knowledge, I'm hoping that you can help me out.

Question 1: Let's say that the police raid a building, make about 100 arrests, and retrieve about 5 billion dollars, and about an extra billion dollars worth in drugs and paraphenilia. The question is, where does all that money go? Does it get recirculated back into society, does it go directly to the government, does it get allocated between police departments, and/or federal enforcement agencies, where does it go? (To me, it seems silly to hold the money in storage, like they do for the retrieved drugs)

Question 2: With todays legislation, do you feel as though EVERYONE involved with the drug should be jailed? This EVERYONE includes the user, the seller, and all witnesses...which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Question 3: Obviously there are some drugs that are a lot more harmful than others, but with the growing argument of how marijuana should be legalized, and with the rebirth of extacy, should people be given the choice to purchase any drug they want (Should ALL drugs be legalized, not just one or two)

Just some questions I got in my head, and I'm hoping that I can get some cool opinions from my intelligent OKplayers...opinions please

Peace
Rex

Abdul Jabbar, Muggsy Malone you
I don't know what that means but you know what I meant when I told you (c) Sean Price

An assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, in a conversation with me, once referred to the then-new federal courthouse in Manhattan as "The House that Drugs Built." It was a nice building, too. Cost a lot of money to build.

One of the concerns that has been raised about the federal RICO statutes, which are frequently used in drug-related cases, is that they include pre-trial seizure of assets that were supposedly used in the crimes or that resulted from the ill-gotten gains (such as a car purchased with money from drug sales). Among other things, this has resulted in at least one instance of an attorney's home being seized because the attorney received payment from a client who was charged with drug related crimes, and the attorney also had a home on which he paid a mortgage.

This is completely out of hand. You note that Reagan started throwing dollars at the problem -- did the documentary deal with Iran/Contra? Reagan was simultaneously importing drugs and exporting arms. But no one remembers that. They remember that he had some cute phrases like "War on Drugs" and the like.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

"Reagan was simultaneously importing drugs and exporting arms. But no one remembers that"

Deep, I have to cacth up...

~ Peace ~

Q

"like if u were a match i wd light u into something beautiful." ~ D.L. ~

I been scarred and battered.
My hopes the wind done scattered.
Snow has friz me,
Sun has baked me,
Looks like between'em they done
Tried to make me
Stop laughin', stop lovin', stop livin' -
But I don't care!
I'm still here!
~ L.H. ~

NaturalBlack93@yahoo.com

I agree, Reagan and Bush were bigger drug dealers than anybody on the planet, and the documentary didn't deal with the Iran/Contra issue (they focused primarily on the drugs, rather than the circumstances, the circumstances were thoughts in my head). The thing about that though, Reagan was making money two-fold: There was money for the drug/arms exchange, and all the money that he put into the "war on drugs" was basically an investment because the government saw all that money returned to them throughout the "war on drugs". All the programs that they created for this, saw them get increasing financial benefits...that along with the drug money made the government richer, while the people got poorer.

I don't think that I got the complete answer to Question 1 though. From what I got, it seems as though people take portions of the money off the top to finance personal assets, while other portions of the money are used elsewhere (hence the case of the building you mentioned)...but that can't explain the billions (probably trillions) of dollars that are being collected per year.

Peace
Rex

Abdul Jabbar, Muggsy Malone you
I don't know what that means but you know what I meant when I told you (c) Sean Price

Partial text of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, with annotations by me (in caps).
This is the section that deals with criminal penalties under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute, under which a fair number of drug related crimes are prosecuted.

Sec. 1963. Criminal penalties

THE FIRST PART IS THE JAIL TIME
(a) Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years (or for life if the violation is based on a racketeering activity for which the maximum penalty includes life imprisonment), or both,
HERE COMES THE MONEY PART
and shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law (THEY MEAN "IN ADDITION TO FINES UNDER STATE LAW") -
(1) any interest the person has acquired or maintained in
violation of section 1962;
(2) any -
(A) interest in;
(B) security of;
(C) claim against; or
(D) property or contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over;
any enterprise which the person has established, operated,
controlled, conducted, or participated in the conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and
(3) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds
which the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity or unlawful debt collection in violation of section 1962. The court, in imposing sentence on such person shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed pursuant to this section, that the person forfeit to the United States all property described in this subsection. In lieu of a fine otherwise authorized by this section, a defendant who derives profits or other proceeds from an offense may be fined not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds.
THE ABOVE MEANS THAT IF YOU GET MONEY FROM A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND INVEST IT IN SOMETHING, LIKE A HOUSE, A CAR, A BUSINESS, THEN WHATEVER YOU INVESTED IN IS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, PLUS TWICE THE GROSS (BEFORE TAX) PROFITS FROM THE INVESTMENT.

NOW THEY GO ON TO DEFINE WHAT IS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE
(b) Property subject to criminal forfeiture under this section includes -
(1) real property, including things growing on, affixed to, and
found in land (THAT'S YOUR HOUSE OR ANY OTHER BUILDING YOU OWN); and
(2) tangible and intangible personal property, including
rights, privileges, interests, claims, and securities (PERSONAL PROPERTY IS EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T REAL ESTATE).
(c) All right, title, and interest in property described in subsection (a) vests in the United States upon the commission of the act giving rise to forfeiture under this section. (THIS MEANS THAT IT TECHNICALLY BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME YOU COMMIT THE CRIME, SO IF YOU COMMIT A CRIME AND THEN GIVE THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE, THAT TRANSFER IS VOID AND THE GOVERNMENT GETS IT ANYWAY) Any such property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the subject of a special verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be ordered forfeited to the United States, unless the transferee establishes in a hearing pursuant to subsection (l) that he is a bona fide purchaser for value of such property who at the time of purchase was reasonably without cause to believe that the property was subject to forfeiture under this section. (THIS MEANS THAT IF YOU BUY PROPERTY FROM SOMEONE THAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE A DRUG DEALER, YOU HAD REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE, SO YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT TO THE GOVERNMENT EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG)

(d)
(1) Upon application of the United States, the court may enter a restraining order or injunction, require the execution of a satisfactory performance bond, or take any other action to preserve the availability of property described in subsection (a) for forfeiture under this section -
(A) upon the filing of an indictment or information charging a
violation of section 1962 of this chapter and alleging that the
property with respect to which the order is sought would, in the
event of conviction, be subject to forfeiture under this section;
or

THE FOLLOWING SECTION MEANS THAT BEFORE THEY EVEN ISSUE AN INDICTMENT, THE GOVERNMENT CAN SEIZE THE PROPERTY THAT THEY CLAIM WAS THE RESULT OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY:
(B) prior to the filing of such an indictment or information,
if, after notice to persons appearing to have an interest in the property and opportunity for a hearing, the court determines that
-
(i) there is a substantial probability that the United States will prevail on the issue of forfeiture and that failure to enter the order will result in the property being destroyed, removed from the jurisdiction of the court, or otherwise made unavailable for forfeiture (NOTICE THAT THE U.S. HAS TO SHOW THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY THAT THEY WILL PREVAIL WHEN THE ISSUE IS FINALLY BEFORE A COURT, BUT REMEMBER WHO IS DECIDING WHETHER THERE IS THAT PROBABILITY -- IT'S A COURT OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT);

and
(ii) the need to preserve the availability of the property
through the entry of the requested order outweighs the hardship
on any party against whom the order is to be entered: Provided, however, That an order entered pursuant to subparagraph (B) shall be effective for not more than ninety days, unless extended by the court for good cause shown or unless an indictment or information described in subparagraph (A) has been filed.




Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/general2/22254.html#2

Carry On.

****************************************

BLACK_ENGINEER

Is a nigga your complexion, or is it all in your mind? (C) Common


I hate being cheap, but I hate being broke more. - Fire

�There�s a war going on for the soul of hip-hop.� Michael Eric Dyson - Professor of African-American studies at DePaul University.

�It�s minstrelsy because that�s what white people want to believe about us�that it�s about �money, cash, hos� for all of us.� Yet for some in the black community, the worst consequence of the bling-bling sensibility isn�t how blacks may appear to whites, but what blacks might be doing to themselves" - Mos Def

I posted here, and then saw the thread in general, so I decided to do the necessary research and posted it in both places.

Here's a caveat. I HATE that statute. I really hate it. I've personally known a number of people whose lives were ruined by it. But that's only one of many statutes that are used to prosecute drug related crimes, and for the most part it's state law that drives the prosecutions. So this answer isn't ultimately all that helpful because most of the asset seizures are done on the state level, and presumably state law varies as to the penalties, etc. But I posted about this law because it does affect all Americans (and not just in drug related crimes), it is one that I feel personally about, and I don't have the resources/time to research all the states.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

>The question is, where does
>all that money go?

In many cases it funds the police agencies. Asset Forfeiture.

>Question 2: With todays legislation, do
>you feel as though EVERYONE
>involved with the drug should
>be jailed?

In a 'victimless' crime, I don't think anyone should be jailed.

>3. should people be given
>the choice to purchase any
>drug they want (Should ALL
>drugs be legalized, not just
>one or two)

All of them should be legal. Heroin, Crack, Meth, LSD, you name it, you should be able to purchase it.

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/

Interesting how RICO is ill, janey

'cause the justification for it's creation was to combat the multi-layered organized crime criminal enterprizes...


more interesting is the negative images we have when we hear that--"organized crime." 'cause I forget that organized crime since prohobition, has been all drug running.

if we saw legalization, we'd see mass unemployment, overnight, of organized criminals.


..or perhaps they'd go back to their old tricks of prostitution, and "insurance" rackets.


The mis-handling of substance use in nation causes so many problems. The invention of crimes both in the criminalization of use sense, and in the creating of organized crime venues. The overcrowding of prisons, and the locking up of our young. The money wasting to settle the fears of suburbanites who think "drugs are bad", when drugs just are. Providing new posturing grounds for politicians. Justifying an obsession with crime an punishment or crime in general, because of inflating the number of "criminals" in existance. Justifying xenophobia and the murder of illegal border crossers. Justifying US-sponsored terrorism in South and Central America.


apwoeifnapweoifnpawoein AH!

i'm SO angry now...

If it weren't for RICO, no one would know who Giuliani is. As US Attorney for the Southern District of NY, Giuliani brought the first successful RICO case -- known as the "Pizza Connection." Giddy with his success, he then turned to the perceived white collar crimes on Wall Street -- Ivan Boesky and Drexel Burnham Lambert; despite the legislative history that showed that RICO was not intended to be used for white collar crimes but rather only as a blunt instrument for Mafia and similar organizations, the hallmark of which was violence. Some commentators said at that time that Giuliani was going for name recognition in order to further a political career, but he scoffed at them and said that he was only doing what was right. Now we know that he has high political aspirations, and has happily been brought down by his own indiscretions.

Peace.

~ ~ ~
All meetings end in separation
All acquisition ends in dispersion
All life ends in death
- The Buddha

|\_/|
='_'=

Every hundred years, all new people

Alright playas, I think you need to know (new conspiracy to keep the peoples uneducated?)

Have you heard of the Higher Education Act of 1998? This bad boy contains a little known provision which denies federal financial aid to students who've been convicted of a drug offense. (The author of the law: Rep. Mark Souder, a republican from Indiana, and a one of those crazy conservatives)

Anyway, check this: You can commit murder and get financial aid; you get caught with a blunt and no more financial aid. Make sense? No other offense warrants this penalty.

Who's affected by this law: only those who need financial aid. Hey, you or your parents can afford school by yourself, no problems for you.

It just gets worse: Blacks make up 12-13% of the American population, 13% of drug users, but account for an astounding 55% of drug convictions.(www.sentencingproject.org/policy/9070.htm) Yo, its not just rhetoric any more, the numbers are out there to prove it. And when your getting convicted at a higher rate, it doesn't take a genius to realize that you're losing financial aid at a higher rate.

And according to the latest numbers from US Dept. of Education ('95-'96 school year) 50% of black undergraduates receive financial aid, compared to 44.6% for Hispanics and 33.2% of whites.

Yes, blacks are going to be affected disproportionately. No doubt.

Yeah, thats right, we can argue over whether the intentions were originally racist or not (I dont really think so), but at this point, only willful ignorance is keeping you from admitting that this bill is a racist bit of _______(fill in the blank).

I'd like to hear how many have heard of this before? Anybody still in school and want to know more/what to do?

-evans

First they came for the Communists, and I didn�t speak up, because I wasn�t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn�t speak up, because I wasn�t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn�t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
- Rev. Martin Niemoller (Nazi-era german preacher)

I won't answer #1 cos I don't live in your country....but I am sure that the govt is getting their percentage at EVERY step of the ladder with drugs--from the fields of south america to the crack house on the corner.....

#2---Get the govt's hands off my life!!There should be no justification for filling the prisons with MORE people who are practicing something of their own free will--which isn't harming anyone(except perhaps themselves?).I personally don't need the govt and judicial system to be my mom...

#3--see #2--realistically I see it happening in stages---and I see it not just as "legalization" but rather a shift in focus. The whole "war on drugs" was smokescreen created in the '80's.The Reagan administration had to distract the god-fearing middle class American from the real shit that was going down--and what better than to create some insidious war against an unseen enemy!!

I mean , in terms of a threat to society, which is more dangerous--the pothead who nods after eating a tub of ice cream, or the alcoholic who beats his wife after finishing the case of bud??

Don't believe the hype.


Shim

“Your body is not a temple, it’s an amusement park. Enjoy the ride.” Anthony Bourdain