Posted on 07/25/2008 8:49:03 PM PDT by bamahead
After being caught twice with a "baggie" of marijuana, 23-year old Rachel Hoffman was reportedly told by police in Tallahassee, Florida that she would go to prison for four years unless she became an undercover informant.
The young woman, a recent graduate of Florida State University, was murdered during a botched sting operation two months ago.
"The idea of waging a war on drugs is to protect people and here it seems like we're putting people in harm's way," said Lance Block, a lawyer hired by Rachel's parents.
The Florida Attorney General's office says it is reviewing the procedures and protocol of the Tallahassee police.
"I'm calling her a criminal," Tallahassee police chief Dennis Jones told 20/20, who maintains that both drug dealers and drug users are considered criminals to his department.
Under Florida law, possession of more than 20 grams of marijuana is a felony.
The Tallahassee police chief says Rachel was suspected of selling drugs and she was rightly treated as a criminal.
"That's my job as a police chief to find these criminals in our community and take them off the street, to make the proper arrests," Jones told 20/20.
Rachel's case also is raising questions about how police recruit and use informants in undercover operations.
"There need to be some safeguards here," said Block, the Hoffman family lawyer.
The young woman received no training before being sent to an undercover meeting to buy a large amount of drugs and a handgun from two suspects.
Police says Rachel was killed by the very handgun she was supposed to buy.
"I don't think she understood the risk or danger that she was in," said Block.
Rachel was in a drug court diversion program when she became an informant.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Anyone wanting to use drugs recreationaly should be able to get all they want. However they must use them all at once after they have tagged and bagged (tagged their toe and put themselves in a body bag). It is rude to have other people deal w/stiffs.
Your proof of its fakery? Is it a quote or not? It seems to exist, therefore it cannot be a fake. The issue is WHO SAID IT. That’s all. If comprehension is not, as it would appear, your long suit, may I suggest you get some counseling. I’ve heard that modern therapy can work wonders with the mentally challenged. Give it a shot, you could only improve.
Was it a fax or not?
Dan Rather has a follower.
My story doesn’t change at all. You’re the one supporting the war on drugs. It isn’t the government’s concern if Rush or anyone else gets high. You’re defending the war on drugs that investigated Rush for almost 3 years and cost him God knows how much in lawyer fees to fight plus $30,000.00 to reimburse the thugs for persecuting him and $30.00 a month for “supervision” for 18 months.
It sure doesn’t make me feel safer that he was hounded just because he got 196 pills in about 4 days instead of over the 3.2 months the government thought was permissible.
Whether Rush wants to relax by taking Lorcet, smoking a joint, or drinking a couple of bottles of Chateau Palmer Margaux is nobody’s business but his. I certainly don’t care. At least not as long as he doesn’t buy so much Chateau Palmer I have trouble getting my drug of choice.
You’re the one who is condemning people who use drugs you don’t approve of, not me. I’m sure you would feel better if he were in prison. I wouldn’t.
Nor do I care if an investment banker snorts coke in the Hamptons on the weekend or if my plumber smokes a joint instead of drinking a few beers when he gets home.
As Bill Buckley so rightly said: “Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.
And as Milton Friedman said: “Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal.”
You refuse to address those points. You refuse to accept the clear lesson of history that prohibition never works. It never has and never will.
You don’t mind sliming some unknown drug user. But you will not address Rush’s use or Cindy McCain’s use. You can’t point to one place where prohibition ever worked. And you can’t explain how you are going to keep drugs out of the country when the prisons can’t keep them out.
You’ve failed to make one rational point or address any of the historic failures of prohibition.
How is getting high on weed or coke any different from getting drunk? Answer that. Why should it be illegal to get high but not illegal to get sloppy drunk? Answer that.
You're the one using the phrase, not me.
You’re defending the war on drugs that investigated Rush for almost 3 years
A war investigated Rush? You're hysterical.
No don’t declare war on gasoline. The government would use it to justify all sorts of abuses.
You really don’t follow the news at all. Yes Rush was investigated for almost 3 years on BS drug charges. It was in all the papers, on TV, talked about here on FR and on talk radio. Were you in a coma during that time that you don’t know that?
You really don’t tell the truth at all.
Yes Rush was investigated for almost 3 years
Investigated by a war? Wipe the saliva from your mouth.
Let me see here... Rathernot was trying to pass off a document created by one person as being an official TANG document that was supposed to have been created years earlier. The person who posted the quotes in question erroneously (perhaps) attributed them to someone other than their author. That they are true is beside the point to you. That they might possibly have been misattributed is all you need to demonize them and remove the focus from the statement to the author. No one is trying to use these quotes to get Bush impeached or defeated. No one is claiming some material advantage if they attribute the quotes to Lincoln or to someone else... or just good old anon. But in order to divert attention from CONTENT, you play this stupid game and say that if the poster cannot prove Lincoln said these things then the things themselves are false.
You, Roscoe, are a moron trying real hard to lower yourself to being a cretin. And succeeding. Go kiss a cop and tell him you love him unconditionally. Tell him you want to have his baby or something. Good night, Roscoe.
The persecution of people who use drugs in a way the nanny state doesn’t approve of is called the war on drugs. I can see why you can’t address any of the issues you are totally unaware of current events, history and the terminology.
Ok, we’ll try to bring you up to speed or at least up to grade school level on what has been going on over the past thirty-some years. Probably before you were born there was a president named Nixon. He started calling the persecution of drug users and sellers the war on drugs. He pushed and got draconian laws like no-knock warrants, roving wire taps, mandatory reporting of people spending or depositing more than $10,000 in cash, etc. He also pushed and got federal subsidies for the states to increase the persecution of drug users. All this was done under as part of the war on drugs. The term became commonly used to refer to the government’s persecution of anyone who used a drug in a way the nanny state didn’t approve of.
The war on drugs was a financial windfall for government at all levels and a wonderful excuse to pass ever more draconian laws. It was as part of the war on drugs that “doctor shopping” became illegal. Rush was accused of and investigated for “doctor shopping”.
The investigation lasted almost 3 years. Rush cut a deal and paid $30,000 plus $30.00 a month for “supervision”. It was big news. I can’t imagine how even you missed it. Google it and you can catch up.
The war on drugs has caused the price to soar, the violence associated with the trade to soar and gave the government the tools to persecute people like Rush who did nothing that hurt anyone.
Now, how about addressing the subject at hand. You can’t point to one place where prohibition ever worked. And you can’t explain how you are going to keep drugs out of the country when the prisons can’t keep them out.
You’ve failed to make one rational point or address any of the historic failures of prohibition.
Roscoe/Mojave/whatever NEVER makes any rational points. Never has. He IS, however, quite the copsucker. No cop can do any wrong in his eyes, ever. Roscoe is a bully, a thug. Like any of them, I expect he’d soil himself if he ever came across anyone who stood up to him and made it stick.
...and I can still hear you humming your theme song in there...
I think he’s just a kid who goes to government schools and doesn’t know any better.
I do do volunteer work at an inner-city high school and run into a lot of kids who can’t put together a logical thought or follow a conversation. The government schools just aren’t teaching kids how to think, reason, or debate a point any more. It’s sad.
BTW thank you for your service to our country.
As the quote you're defending was manufactured and falsely passed off as Lincoln's.
Go kiss a cop
Bizarre.
Mr. Limbaugh was accused of violating Florida's state "doctor shopping" statute 893.13(7)(a)8, NOT federal law. I suppose drug advocates see anything that might stand between them and their next fix as "war." Nobody else does.
Your fantasies are rather more twisted than usual tonight.
Point to one place where prohibition ever worked.
Explain how you are going to keep drugs out of the country when the prisons can’t keep them out.
Your chimney sings to you? Alrighty then...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.