• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Boston Police steal confiscated drugs

bamacre

Lifer
Linky

A sweeping, 14-month investigation into evidence tampering at the Boston Police Department's central drug depository has found that drugs confiscated in nearly 1,000 cases over 16 years were stolen or improperly discarded, Commissioner Edward F. Davis said yesterday.

The FBI, prosecutors from Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley's office, and Boston police have launched a criminal investigation to determine who took the drugs.

The drugs included cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and Oxycontin, Davis said. The Oxycontin was often replaced with a substance similar to Tylenol or aspirin, he said.

An officer or officers were almost certainly involved, Davis said, because only police are allowed into the Hyde Park depository.

Davis said he plans to inform defense lawyers involved with the drug cases to let them know about the audit's results.

None of the drug cases in which evidence was missing are still open. Jake Wark, spokesman for Conley, said the district attorney's office is investigating whether any of the closed drug cases were compromised because of the missing evidence.

"It's simply too early to tell," he said. "We will be looking closely at whether and how any defendant's closed cases may have been affected."

The revelations have sparked Davis to conduct an audit of all department units, including hiring and personnel.

"We're really going to shake the place out and make sure that every department is up to national standards," Davis said.

The audit examined 110,000 individual quantities or batches of drugs from more than 74,000 cases between 1990 and 2006. Police officials had initially planned to audit only a small portion of the evidence in storage, an investigation launched in 2006 as a precautionary measure because evidence was being moved to another part of the warehouse.

But department officials decided to conduct the more extensive investigation when they learned that drugs that had just been inventoried were missing. As a result of that discovery, the 12 officers who worked at the depository were transferred to other areas in December 2006. None has been charged.

"It's an unprecedented step to do a complete inventory of drug evidence," Davis said. "I don't know anybody else in the Commonwealth who has done that."

Police officials found that bags of drugs were often cut open and the contents sometimes replaced with other substances.

In other cases, the drugs were simply stolen from the bags.

Police found problems with 965 cases, which were defined as one or more envelopes containing drugs. In 265 cases, 368 drugs were missing from the envelopes or showed some type of tampering.

In 700 other cases, the envelopes were missing entirely from warehouse shelves, and police are still investigating whether they were stolen or just thrown out. In those missing envelopes were hundreds of bags of drugs, including: 467 bags of cocaine; 125 of heroin; 197 of marijuana, and 20 pills, tablets, or capsules.

Officials do not know how many people were involved. "This could have all been perpetrated by one person," Davis said.
more stories like this

Finding the culprit will be difficult, officials acknowledged. Davis said investigators do not know when most of the drugs were taken.

Many of the affected cases involved investigations conducted between 1991 and 1997.

Superintendent Daniel Linskey said whoever stole the drugs might have tapped older cases in a belief that officials were less likely to discover they were missing.

"If the drugs have been sitting there for a while and I'm going to do this, what's the likelihood of me getting caught?" he said.

But Davis said many drugs lose their potency after a year, making it more likely they were taken during those earlier dates.

Police are also looking into whether some of the evidence may have been lost during moves between department units during the 1990s.

Drugs were moved from district stations to a central drug unit in Jamaica Plain. In 1996, the evidence was permanently moved to Hyde Park, into a 13,500-square-foot building that also stores evidence from gun and homicide cases.

Commanders overseeing the warehouse were concerned about security from the time the facility opened. There was only one camera recording who went in and out of the facility, and officers were allowed to go alone inside the warehouse. Since the audit, the department has installed 20 cameras at the facility and officers must enter the warehouse in pairs.

At least three commanders of the warehouse had asked for audits of the depository. Department policy recommends that an audit of 1 percent of the drug evidence be conducted annually, but the only other audit conducted was in 2004, by Lieutenant Detective John Fedorchuk, who worked in evidence management at the facility for eight months in 2000.

When the most recent audit was ordered, Fedorchuk was again assigned to conduct it, a decision that raised concerns over a conflict of interest from union officials, who decried the transfer of Captain Frank Armstrong. Armstrong had been assigned to oversee the warehouse in 2006 and recommended the audit that uncovered so many problems.

But Davis defended the decision, stating Fedorchuk has extensive experience in auditing and review.

Fedorchuk made several recommendations, including installing more cameras, but they were not implemented at the time. Driscoll said officials do not know why the recommendations were not adopted or why yearly audits were not conducted.

Davis said the audit is an opportunity to request changes in state law that will allow police to destroy drug evidence immediately after it is confiscated.

Currently, Boston police are not allowed to destroy evidence until a convicted felon's appeals process has been exhausted, which can take decades.


When will America wake up and see that this "war on drugs" is simply NOT working?

The majority of people in this country imprisoned are so because of this stupid war.

We spend billions of dollars, and what are the effects? They can't even keep drugs out of our kid's schools, much less our borders.

Then there is the corruption, as noted in this story. Our own police are not only using, but selling.

The war on drugs has done nothing but INCREASE crime in this country. It's time we make a drastic change to our policy. The status quo is simply NOT working and it's expensive.

How can any sane person want to "stay the course?"
 
I have to admit that the current "WOD" is a total failure. I do think that some of the drugs that are on the street should be eliminated; crack, cocaine, heroin, meth, none of which have any legitimate uses, but the WOD simply makes them more expensive, thus driving a higher crime rate. Marijuana on the other hand could be regulated and taxed...sold in liquor stores. Just doing this could eliminate the national debt within a few years by bringing in more tax revenue and removing potheads from the legal system and prisons. It seems like hypocricy to jail people for a bit of pot, while leaving alcohol, a drug with many known health hazards and side effects, to remain legal. Obviously, using pot while driving should be just as illegal as driving and drinking, and there will have to be an easier way to test for intoxication than is currently available. Right now, use within the past 30 days can be seen in pee-tests or blood tests. There will need to be something that will show current or recent consumption to control who is charged with DUI rather than just a 30 day window.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre


The war on drugs has done nothing but INCREASE crime in this country. It's time we make a drastic change to our policy. The status quo is simply NOT working and it's expensive.

How can any sane person want to "stay the course?"


linky?
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre


The war on drugs has done nothing but INCREASE crime in this country. It's time we make a drastic change to our policy. The status quo is simply NOT working and it's expensive.

How can any sane person want to "stay the course?"


linky?

Is there a link for common sense? :roll:
 
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre


The war on drugs has done nothing but INCREASE crime in this country. It's time we make a drastic change to our policy. The status quo is simply NOT working and it's expensive.

How can any sane person want to "stay the course?"


linky?

Is there a link for common sense? :roll:
:roll: :roll:

There are thousands. just like this one.

Well, I would have to concur about the cost though. It does SEEM expensive. Maybe I just don't know where all of those dollars are going. Maybe If I had some stats on the cost of not trying to fight the war on drugs.
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre


The war on drugs has done nothing but INCREASE crime in this country. It's time we make a drastic change to our policy. The status quo is simply NOT working and it's expensive.

How can any sane person want to "stay the course?"


linky?

Is there a link for common sense? :roll:
:roll: :roll:

There are thousands. just like this one.

Well, I would have to concur about the cost though. It does SEEM expensive. Maybe I just don't know where all of those dollars are going. Maybe If I had some stats on the cost of not trying to fight the war on drugs.


Whatever the cost, it is NOT working.
 
I believe Boston Cops have been stealing the dope and re-selling it. I'm sure it happens in NYC too.
 
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: bamacre


The war on drugs has done nothing but INCREASE crime in this country. It's time we make a drastic change to our policy. The status quo is simply NOT working and it's expensive.

How can any sane person want to "stay the course?"


linky?

Is there a link for common sense? :roll:
:roll: :roll:

There are thousands. just like this one.

Well, I would have to concur about the cost though. It does SEEM expensive. Maybe I just don't know where all of those dollars are going. Maybe If I had some stats on the cost of not trying to fight the war on drugs.

Statistics for hypothetical situations are usually a little hard to come by, but I suspect any increase in the cost by not fighting "the war on drugs" would be far less than the current cost of having a war on drugs. The failure of the war on drugs is the assumption that drugs are the enemy and people are the victims. Now I won't disagree that drugs can do terrible things to people, but that's exactly the point, nobody is forcing drugs on anyone...and the people who don't do drugs now probably have reasons beyond "it's illegal".

If tomorrow we stopped throwing pot smoking surfers in jail, are you going to decide to light up a bong before heading to work? I know I'm not. Heroin still has horribly addictive properties, if it was legalized tomorrow, would you run out and start using heroin? Or are you a smart, informed adult who isn't going to do something stupid just because it happens to be legal? The assumption of the war on drugs is that not only can we protect people from themselves, but that most people NEED to be protected from themselves. The war on drugs has an extremely high cost, but I don't think that buys us a whole lot.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I believe Boston Cops have been stealing the dope and re-selling it. I'm sure it happens in NYC too.

I'd bet it happens all over the country.


I don't know how credible this is, but interesting numbers here...
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

Also...
http://www.whitehousedrugpolic...cy/04budget/index.html

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of why "if you haven't done anything wrong, why are you worried?" is such a stupid argument when it comes to government authority. Law enforcement people are mostly just great, but this isn't the movies, cops are people just like the rest of us and some of them abuse their power and position. If they were all perfect, we WOULDN'T have to worry if we weren't doing anything wrong...but episodes like this suggest that's not the case.
 
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: bamacre
Despite Drug War, Cocaine Purer, Cheaper
"Drug's Prices Have Dropped From $600 Per Gram In 1981 To $135 Despite Nearly $5 Billion Spent By U.S."

I guess that kills the argument about the war on drugs driving prices up and thus increasing crime. Anyone have proof about the war on drugs actually increasing crime?

Well let's see, it makes all sorts of things "crimes" that weren't crimes before and puts all sorts of people in jail for things they wouldn't have been in jail for otherwise. We have the highest percentage of our population in prison of any country on the planet, and about half of those people are in jail for drug charges. Call me crazy, but if we legalized drugs, something tells me the rate of crimes we DO care about wouldn't double...so yeah, I'd say it's pretty obvious the war on drugs results in more crime...but creating it.

I know that wasn't really what you were saying, but I think you should reconsider your argument...you're asking a flawed question. It's not that the rate of non-drug crimes isn't an important part of this discussion, it's that you're assuming that drug crimes themselves are essentially "free" to the system, that we shouldn't consider that in addition to the impact the drug war has on OTHER areas of crime, it has also made criminals out of millions of Americans who are only hurting themselves.
 
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: bamacre
Despite Drug War, Cocaine Purer, Cheaper
"Drug's Prices Have Dropped From $600 Per Gram In 1981 To $135 Despite Nearly $5 Billion Spent By U.S."

I guess that kills the argument about the war on drugs driving prices up and thus increasing crime. Anyone have proof about the war on drugs actually increasing crime?

I don't think that's a good question.

There's either War on Drugs or the legalization of drugs. The legalization of drugs will lower crime because its no longer a crime to possess or sell drugs.

Are you trying to ask if the War on Drugs will increase other crimes? Maybe that's what you were trying to ask.
 
Legalize Drugs? Are you crazy? Look at Tobacco: Already 100% of people use it and their numbers are increasing!!! You want the same with Meth, Heroin, and Crack. No thanks Tards!!!!!


😉
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Legalize Drugs? Are you crazy? Look at Tobacco: Already 100% of people use it and their numbers are increasing!!! You want the same with Meth, Heroin, and Crack. No thanks Tards!!!!!

😉

I guess we should make alcohol illegal, too?

Is the current policy working?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: bamacre
Despite Drug War, Cocaine Purer, Cheaper
"Drug's Prices Have Dropped From $600 Per Gram In 1981 To $135 Despite Nearly $5 Billion Spent By U.S."

I guess that kills the argument about the war on drugs driving prices up and thus increasing crime. Anyone have proof about the war on drugs actually increasing crime?

Well let's see, it makes all sorts of things "crimes" that weren't crimes before and puts all sorts of people in jail for things they wouldn't have been in jail for otherwise.

That's an increase in punishment. And that's okay with me. Is there an increase in criminal behavior itself, though?

We have the highest percentage of our population in prison of any country on the planet, and about half of those people are in jail for drug charges. Call me crazy, but if we legalized drugs, something tells me the rate of crimes we DO care about wouldn't double...so yeah, I'd say it's pretty obvious the war on drugs results in more crime...but creating it.

Okay. You're crazy. There is no trace of logic here. Analyze it and you'll see what I mean. Your argument goes like this:

* we have high rate of drug crime
* if we legalized drugs, other crime would not increase
* hence, the war on drugs results in more crime

Long before the war on drugs, drug use was criminal. It just wasn't attempted to be punished as often or as severely.

I know that wasn't really what you were saying, but I think you should reconsider your argument...you're asking a flawed question.

No, I'm responding to a flawed statement. If you say that the war on drugs has created more crime, point to it. I want to see the war on drugs creating more criminal behavior, not criminalizing behavior that already existed. Defining a crime in the legislature is not "creating crime"-- such a suggestion is ridiculous in the extreme.

It's not that the rate of non-drug crimes isn't an important part of this discussion, it's that you're assuming that drug crimes themselves are essentially "free" to the system, that we shouldn't consider that in addition to the impact the drug war has on OTHER areas of crime, it has also made criminals out of millions of Americans who are only hurting themselves.

It's not my fault if somebody chose to make a statement such as "the war on drugs has created more crime". It is a valid point of view to say that "the war on drugs has resulted in too-harsh punishments", that it is a failure in many regards (although not in others), etc. But it is not just twisting words, but a falsehood to write what was written by the OP.

I consider the statement by the OP that "[t]he war on drugs has done nothing but INCREASE crime in this country" to be completely refuted until someone shows me differently. And I think it should be obvious that locking up drug offenders was one of the aims of the war on drugs and the accompanying legislation, so by that measure it has been extremely "successful". How much of that translates to success of proper long-term goals is debatable.

 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Legalize Drugs? Are you crazy? Look at Tobacco: Already 100% of people use it and their numbers are increasing!!! You want the same with Meth, Heroin, and Crack. No thanks Tards!!!!!


😉

I guess here you are implying that legalizing drugs would not increase drug use. I will believe it when I see it. And don't turn to Prohibition for answers-- alcohol use during that time was curtailed though widespread, and the decreased availability of alcohol is what kicked off wider-spread use of marijuana in the US.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Legalize Drugs? Are you crazy? Look at Tobacco: Already 100% of people use it and their numbers are increasing!!! You want the same with Meth, Heroin, and Crack. No thanks Tards!!!!!

😉

I guess we should make alcohol illegal, too?

Is the current policy working?

|-------------------------------|
|...........Batteries...............|
|.......................................|
|......Now 20% better!.........|
|.......................................|
|........Free sample..............|
|.......Not for Resale............|
|.......................................|
 
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: bamacre
Despite Drug War, Cocaine Purer, Cheaper
"Drug's Prices Have Dropped From $600 Per Gram In 1981 To $135 Despite Nearly $5 Billion Spent By U.S."

I guess that kills the argument about the war on drugs driving prices up and thus increasing crime. Anyone have proof about the war on drugs actually increasing crime?

I don't think that's a good question.

There's either War on Drugs or the legalization of drugs. The legalization of drugs will lower crime because its no longer a crime to possess or sell drugs.

Actually, drug use was illegal before the war on drugs. So it's not an either-or situation. The question "Did the war on drugs increase crime?" is relative to the period just before it commenced, not before there were any anti-drug laws.

Are you trying to ask if the War on Drugs will increase other crimes? Maybe that's what you were trying to ask.

Sort yourself out and get back to me.

 
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: sandorski
Legalize Drugs? Are you crazy? Look at Tobacco: Already 100% of people use it and their numbers are increasing!!! You want the same with Meth, Heroin, and Crack. No thanks Tards!!!!!


😉

I guess here you are implying that legalizing drugs would not increase drug use. I will believe it when I see it. And don't turn to Prohibition for answers-- alcohol use during that time was curtailed though widespread, and the decreased availability of alcohol is what kicked off wider-spread use of marijuana in the US.

It probably would increase it, but like with the end of Prohibition Society didn't enter a drunken stupor after abolitioning it. There was an increase in Alcohol consumption and even in Alcoholism after Prohibition, but since then the numbers of Alcoholics has decreased and People's responsible use of Alcohol has increased. Prohibition doesn't solve problems, it merely pushes them under ground. OTOH, Education and open acceptance leads to Decreased use and more Responsible use.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: sandorski
Legalize Drugs? Are you crazy? Look at Tobacco: Already 100% of people use it and their numbers are increasing!!! You want the same with Meth, Heroin, and Crack. No thanks Tards!!!!!

😉

I guess we should make alcohol illegal, too?

Is the current policy working?

|-------------------------------|
|...........Batteries...............|
|.......................................|
|......Now 20% better!.........|
|.......................................|
|........Free sample..............|
|.......Not for Resale............|
|.......................................|

:laugh:

Damn you!
 
Originally posted by: punchkin
Actually, drug use was illegal before the war on drugs. So it's not an either-or situation. The question "Did the war on drugs increase crime?" is relative to the period just before it commenced, not before there were any anti-drug laws.

The "War on Drugs" is just a name to describe the US's domestic and foreign policies of prohibiting drugs and drug trade. This involves laws relating to drugs as well.

There is no "period" or initial date of this "war."

The only thing you can compare is the cause and result of acts and that were passed throughout the history of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
 
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: bamacre
Despite Drug War, Cocaine Purer, Cheaper
"Drug's Prices Have Dropped From $600 Per Gram In 1981 To $135 Despite Nearly $5 Billion Spent By U.S."

I guess that kills the argument about the war on drugs driving prices up and thus increasing crime. Anyone have proof about the war on drugs actually increasing crime?

Well let's see, it makes all sorts of things "crimes" that weren't crimes before and puts all sorts of people in jail for things they wouldn't have been in jail for otherwise.

That's an increase in punishment. And that's okay with me. Is there an increase in criminal behavior itself, though?

We have the highest percentage of our population in prison of any country on the planet, and about half of those people are in jail for drug charges. Call me crazy, but if we legalized drugs, something tells me the rate of crimes we DO care about wouldn't double...so yeah, I'd say it's pretty obvious the war on drugs results in more crime...but creating it.

Okay. You're crazy. There is no trace of logic here. Analyze it and you'll see what I mean. Your argument goes like this:

* we have high rate of drug crime
* if we legalized drugs, other crime would not increase
* hence, the war on drugs results in more crime

Long before the war on drugs, drug use was criminal. It just wasn't attempted to be punished as often or as severely.

I know that wasn't really what you were saying, but I think you should reconsider your argument...you're asking a flawed question.

No, I'm responding to a flawed statement. If you say that the war on drugs has created more crime, point to it. I want to see the war on drugs creating more criminal behavior, not criminalizing behavior that already existed. Defining a crime in the legislature is not "creating crime"-- such a suggestion is ridiculous in the extreme.

It's not that the rate of non-drug crimes isn't an important part of this discussion, it's that you're assuming that drug crimes themselves are essentially "free" to the system, that we shouldn't consider that in addition to the impact the drug war has on OTHER areas of crime, it has also made criminals out of millions of Americans who are only hurting themselves.

It's not my fault if somebody chose to make a statement such as "the war on drugs has created more crime". It is a valid point of view to say that "the war on drugs has resulted in too-harsh punishments", that it is a failure in many regards (although not in others), etc. But it is not just twisting words, but a falsehood to write what was written by the OP.

I consider the statement by the OP that "[t]he war on drugs has done nothing but INCREASE crime in this country" to be completely refuted until someone shows me differently. And I think it should be obvious that locking up drug offenders was one of the aims of the war on drugs and the accompanying legislation, so by that measure it has been extremely "successful". How much of that translates to success of proper long-term goals is debatable.

I'm sort of messing with you, I realize that any reasonable interpretation of the question "did the war on drugs create more crime?" assumes we're talking about a change in the rate of existing crime, not a change in the rate of overall crime brought on by making new things illegal. So, yeah, given the question you're asking, I gave you a pretty dumb answer.

But I don't feel too bad about it, because it's a pretty dumb question in the first place. Whether or not the war on drugs increases or decreases other crime, taken as a statistic all by itself, is among the least interested parts of the drug war debate. I brought up all the NEW criminals we're created with the war on drugs and the associated drug laws because I think that's really a better question. Throwing all sorts of mostly harmless people in jail or otherwise putting them through the legal wringer is a cost on society, and I don't think it's really being treated that way.

Your question about "increasing crime" is impossible to answer, and you know it. Without a decent way to control for drug laws, how can we say whether the war on drugs is creating more crime or not. Since the war on drugs started, violent crime is up a HUGE amount...but we can't blame drugs since we don't have a similar population in a similar period of time when there was no war on drugs.
 
Back
Top