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 ...
America. It's because they're working that prohibitions on dangerous drugs have you in hysterics.
LOL Violence is up. Drug gangs are making more money than General Motors. The quality and quantity of drugs being used has increased. The jails are overpopulated with people who did nothing except use or sell a drug the nanny state didn’t approve of and you think drug prohibition is working? Do you really think those are the intended results of the drug laws?
You are really a sad case. Are you a special ed student?
Posted March 1, 2008 10:06 AM
by Mark Silva
President Bush, releasing the 2008 National Drug Control Strategy today, says the report portrays “hopeful progress... in the fight against addiction.’’
With a goal of cutting drug abuse among young people by 25 percent during his two terms, Bush says the administration has focused on interdiction “to keep drugs out of the United States,’’ abuse-prevention and education and treatment for “those who’ve fallen prey.’’
“These efforts have produced measurable results,’’ he said today, in his weekly radio address. “Since 2001, the rate of youth drug abuse has dropped by 24 percent.’’
Ecstasy is off 50 percent, methamphetamines off 64 percent, the report concludes.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/bush_drug_abuse_down_drug_war.html
Well, Bush said it so it must be true. Just like his amnesty plan wasn’t amnesty and just like he was going to veto McCain/Feingold.
He should tell the Mexican drug cartels they aren’t selling the drugs they keep shipping in here. He should also tell the Oriental gangs setting up meth labs in Canada and creating routs to ship it into the US that the market is drying up.
He should also tell the National Drug Intelligence Center that it isn’t a temporary shortage causing the decreased use of meth.
Bush does acknowledge that there is a shift from meth and other scarce drugs to the easier to get prescription drugs. A result of targeting those drugs. When he targets prescription drugs use of some other kind of drug will increase.
Meth, Ecstasy, and other designer drugs were invented to meet the demand for drugs when coke, heroin and other drugs were targeted. Just like during alcohol prohibition when distilled booze became scarce people made bathtub gin. As they become scarce other drugs will take their place.
“Cheese” and “Water” are so new they aren’t even mentioned in any federal report I can find but they are growing here in Texas and the Mexican gangs like them because they can make good money and young kids under 12 like them.
The Mexican gangs can sell cheese for $.75 and make $.50. The dealer buys it for as little as $.75 and sells it to 9 year-olds for $2.00. Water is favored by older users who can’t get enough money together for enough crack to keep them high all day or night. Instead of a 30 min high from a $5.00 rock, a $2.00 water cigarette will keep them high for 6 to 8 hours.
The DEA here says it will not be long before they spread to other places.
Someone will always fill a demand if there is enough profit in doing it.
You think that the President prepared the report that demolished your position? Lemme guess - you're a 9/11 Truther too.
By the way, meth was invented in 1919.
Hmm, I can’t either, but distinctly remember reading about it. One of those “exceptions that proves the rule” things.
You nailed it!
Drugs equal freedom. Pretty sad philosophy.
No....here is a sad philosophy: Steal money from the assets of Americans to carry on a stupid war that is never to be won because the very people waging the war have a vested interest in its continuance.
The amount of money taken from hardworking taxpayers to finance this idiocy.....directed to a more positive, volunteer effort may actually have caused something good to happen.....instead.
Locking people up, stealing their assets and restricting their freedom because it does not fit your ideal behavior is nothing good. It's called tyranny. It's been tried before.
Eliminating drug laws would not increase the amount of drug usage. Here's what it would do: Pushers and dealers would have to seek other employment as there would be no profit in distribution; No longer would forbidden fruit be attractive to many young folk; Any addicts would be far better off under a legal system and no longer driven to deal with criminals.....often becoming criminal dealers themselves; The price of drugs would collapse and would cause much criminal activity to disappear (theft, robbery, etc) which previously financed the purchase; drug manufacturers, regulated by pharmaceutical methods, would provide a much safer product.
The harm to society because some folks become drug addicts, is caused by the fact that drugs are illegal to begin with. It has been estimated that at least one third of all crimes committed in the U.S. are drug related (American Bar association). Extremely large sums of money are involved tempting government agents to become corrupted themselves.
Removing this barrier to free commerce among a free people would drastically reduce criminal activity....at the same time increasing the quality of our law enforcement.
The attempt to restrict a demand commodity (alcohol, drugs, etc.) automatically creates more demand and creates opportunities for a criminal element to flourish.
American voters created the laws that the dopers violate.
They also elected Jimmy Carter!
Presidents don’t make the laws, Congress and the state legislatures do.
Read a book.
I'm guessing you're the type who cheers when someone is busted for possessing an illegal "assault weapon".
Not even when pot users murder a confidential informant?
That's right.....but electors elect the president and in 1976 they elected Mr. Carter. The popular vote also went his way....showing occasional stupidity on the part of the American voter.
Debating this issue with you is much like discussing the Bible with a fanatic. They will not consider logic; they reject any criticism of their own theology; they refuse to consider any historical conflict with their own perceived idea of scripture; and believe their position is somehow divinely inspired.
Like you.....they are deceived.
Thanks for the non sequitur. NORML frequently uses Jimmah in their pro-pot talking points, but his election to the office of President didn't empower him to create any laws.
That's a function of representative legislatures in a republican form of government.
We're not a doper anarchy.
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.