Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New York City's 'Marijuana Arrest Crusade'
In an eye-opening new report for the New York Civil Liberties Union (noted by Radley Balko earlier this morning), sociologist Harry G. Levine and drug policy activist Deborah Small call attention to a "marijuana arrest crusade" in New York City that began under Rudy Giuliani and continues under Michael Bloomberg:
From 1997 to 2006, the New York City Police Department arrested and jailed more than 353,000 people simply for possessing small amounts of marijuana. This was eleven times more marijuana arrests than in the previous decade, and ten times more than in the decade before that.
Marijuana arrests have been rising nationwide since the early 1990s, but the increase in New York City has been much more dramatic. Levine and Small say the surge in arrests is largely a byproduct of an aggressive "stop and frisk" program in which police pat down young men they (supposedly) suspect of criminal activity, ostensibly to make sure they're not carrying weapons. The targets of these pat-downs are disproportionately black and Hispanic, and so are the people arrested for marijuana possession. Between 1997 and 2006, blacks, who represent 26 percent of New York's population, accounted for 52 percent of the marijuana arrests; Hispanics, about the same share of the population, accounted for 31 percent of the arrests; and non-Hispanic whites, about 35 percent of the population, accounted for just 15 percent of the arrests. Yet survey data indicate that, if anything, whites smoke pot at higher rates than blacks and Hispanics.
Although New York State decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana (less than seven-eighths of an ounce) in 1977, Levine and Small report, New York City marijuana busts typically result in a trip to the police station, fingerprinting, and a night in jail. Instead of charging people who are carrying a little pot with possession, a citable offense simlar to a traffic violation, police typically accuse them of having marijuana "open to view," a misdemeanor, often after tricking or intimidating them into revealing their stash. In the vast majority of cases, the arrestees are not caught smoking pot in public, and the marijuana charge is the most serious offense.
Levine and Small note several incentives that encourage police to hassle pot smokers:
Narcotics and patrol police, their supervisors, and top commanders in the police department benefit from the marijuana possession arrests. The arrests are comparatively safe, allow officers and their supervisors to accrue overtime pay, and produce arrest numbers that show productivity. When needed, commanders can temporarily shift narcotics police off making the misdemeanor possession arrests and assign them to other duties, which provides considerable flexibility. The marijuana arrests are also the most effective means available for obtaining information (including fingerprints, photographs, and potentially DNA samples) from people never before entered in the criminal justice databases.
For the arrestees, by contrast, getting busted is not only humiliating, expensive, inconvenient, and embittering; it gives them a criminal record that can hamper their educational and employment prospects for the rest of their lives.
Episiarch|4.30.08 @ 11:41AM|#
it gives them a criminal record that can hamper their
educational and employment prospects for the rest of their
lives
Yeah, but some cops got overtime pay. And isn't that what really
matters?
|4.30.08 @ 11:50AM|#
"For the arrestees, by contrast, getting busted is not only
humiliating, expensive, inconvenient, and embittering; it gives
them a criminal record that can hamper their educational and
employment prospects for the rest of their lives."
I think the war on drugs is a wasted effort and the arrest practice
discussed here is counter-productive...However, MJ is still illegal
(in spite of the decriminalization of small amounts) so those
carrying it are still responsible for being caught with it.
Don't speed and then bitch about the ticket.
|4.30.08 @ 11:52AM|#
I don't see any sign that the public at large sees the greatest danger of crime coming from cops.
jmr|4.30.08 @ 11:55AM|#
That chart, combined with the racist aspects of the tax and
spend drugwar that have been with it from the start, is beyond
disheartening. I can't believe the racism of the drugwar won't be
an issue this time. A nutty racist preacher's effects on lives is
NOTHING compared to this.
JMR
|4.30.08 @ 11:55AM|#
I saw a article about a pot gathering in Colorado.10,000 people smoking in the open.Not one arrest or fight.The highway patrol reported mo driving arrests after the 'event'.I could not say the same after a tournament at my local golf culb,with kegs o the course.Tell me again why this plant is so feared by some?
Fred|4.30.08 @ 12:01PM|#
For the arrestees, by contrast, getting busted is not only
humiliating, expensive, inconvenient, and embittering; it gives
them a criminal record that can hamper their educational and
employment prospects for the rest of their lives.
The laws the law and it must be obeyed and enforced as written. In
case you forgot, marihuana is currently illegal. In case you didn't
know, there are penalties for breaking the law.
Tell me again why this plant is so feared by some?
Because it gets people high and when high they may do dangerous
things. It is also unhealthy, illegal and immoral.
Fluffy|4.30.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Daniel:
I don't smoke pot, but I also don't acknowledge the legal right of
the state to declare the possession of a plant illegal.
The state has zero power to declare contraband as far as I am
concerned.
"Don't speed and then bitch about the ticket" is a really slimy way
to think. If the state made it illegal to hold political meetings,
and some people did and were arrested, would you say to them, "Hey,
if you don't want to be arrested all you have to do is obey. Don't
speed and then bitch about the ticket."
Actually, I guess there's a chance the answer is yes, so please
don't answer that after all.
|4.30.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Tell me again why this plant is so feared by
some?
Didn't you RTFA?
The arrests are comparatively safe, allow officers and their supervisors to accrue overtime pay, and produce arrest numbers that show productivity.
No kidding it really is about overtime and sucking off the federal
teat for kicking down the doors, and arresting people who don't
fight back the way real criminals do. Big money for little effort
and no risk.
Fluffy|4.30.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Also, one item missing from the incentive list provided by
Levine and Small is: "enforcing the law in this way allows us to
drag many black and hispanic people off to prison, where presumably
the decent white folk of the world will be safe from them for a
while".
Let us consider the difference between enforcement of this law and,
say, the law against having an open container of alcohol in a
public place. If you are a white person enjoying a white person
event - like, say, attending a classical music concert at
Tanglewood in Massachusetts - you can have an open container of
alcohol and no one will bother you at all. That is because the law
was never intended to be applied to affluent white people. The law
is intended to give police an excuse to arrest minorities, as well
as poor whites. This stop and search policy is no different,
really.
Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 12:10PM|#
The law's the law and it must be obeyed and enforced as
written.
Okay. Just don't tell Harriet Tubman and John Brown. It'll be our
secret.
|4.30.08 @ 12:16PM|#
On another note.My course use to host a golf tournament for local cops.Their behavior was so bad they were told never to come back.Type A personalities,alcohol and golf just don't mix.
Zeb|4.30.08 @ 12:23PM|#
I really don't see how the "stop and frisk" policy can be at all legal in any way.
|4.30.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Of course the crime rate plummeted in New York over this time. They may have been busting people for the wrong reasons, but they clearly were locking up the right people. The drug war isn't really about drugs. It is about providing an easy excuse to lock up the criminal element. We seem incapable of solving serious crimes so what we do is endlessly lock up dangerous people on petty drug crimes instead.
NeonCat|4.30.08 @ 12:30PM|#
@ Zeb
You just have to be willing to swear in court that you saw a
suspicious bulge and thought it might be a weapon.
ev|4.30.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Elemenope | April 30, 2008, 12:10pm | #
The law's the law and it must be obeyed and enforced as
written.
Okay. Just don't tell Harriet Tubman and John Brown. It'll be our
secret.
fucking word
|4.30.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Hopefully they won't catch Prof. Afghani. But something tells me he pays protection money.
Fred|4.30.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Okay. Just don't tell Harriet Tubman and John Brown. It'll
be our secret.
That is different.
I fail to see the problem here, if you obey the law you will have
no problem. Are the police supposed to not enforce the law?
I don't smoke pot, but I also don't acknowledge the legal right
of the state to declare the possession of a plant
illegal.
It is the responsibility of the government to ban dangerous
drugs.
|4.30.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Time for another Anslinger quote
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
For those who suggest that the War on Drugs Justice
figures don't "prove" racism I respond If it looks like a duck,
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
Alice Bowie|4.30.08 @ 12:50PM|#
The arrest for small amounts should STOP.
NYPD spokesman Paul Browne called Levine an "advocate for marijuana
legalization," and accused the NYCLU of using the sociologist "to
mislead the public with absurdly inflated numbers and false claims
about bias."
"If the NYCLU is for legalization, it should just say so without
resorting to smears," Browne said.
THIS IS A LIE...or at least, the mis-repesentation of the
truth
Any usable amount is a arrestable office in NYC.
If arrested for possesion, people are charged with "Unlawful
Possession" which is a Municipal violation (not a crime)
221.05.
People that commit aggrevated offenses (smoking in public or
purchasing) are charged with "Criminal Possession" (a misdemeanor)
221.10.
Regardless of violation or Misdemeanor, this arrest goes on the FBI
Crimes database. You can be denied entrance in Canada and other
European Countries FOR LIFE. Many states will even deny u the right
to VOTE or hold certain JOBS. You can pretty much KISS GOOD-BYE the
chances of working for a Major Investment Bank or even get a good
Job. You can even be Denied Financial Aid for One Year.
The people that made these policies are CRUEL
people that smoked pot themselves.
And YES, a guy with a Du-Rag (Latino, black, or even white) is more
likely to be Stopped-Frisked by the Police by Black and Latino
Cops.
It's not SO much a racial thing...but the nature of a CRUEL
uncareing society that can care less of the life-long effects a
minor posession charge can have on a young person
Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 1:07PM|#
It is the responsibility of the government to ban dangerous
drugs.
Sez...what part of the Constitution? If so, man have they screwed
the pooch. Way I hear it, alcohol and tobacco are *legal* in the
United States!!!11!1!eleventy-one!
Neu Mejican|4.30.08 @ 1:09PM|#
John is essential correct here.
This is the result of a policy to enforce all the petty laws on the
books. The practice resulted in NYC moving from one of the more
dangerous large cities to the safest. Any policy like this,
however, will end up in many arrests for rather benign behavior.
The solution is to excise many of the laws that punish people for
things they shouldn't be punished for...not to ignore those laws
when they are on the books.
So, put MJ on equal footing with the other major intoxicant
(alcohol) and the issue goes away, and you avoid the problem
highlighted here. Now, would this result in "bad" people being
harder to recognize? Who knows. The current situation harms many
"not bad" people due to the false positive identification between
smoking a little dope and being dangerous.
FWIW, I don't think NYC should change its policy of aggressive
enforcement...it should look to remove laws that don't make sense
to enforce.
|4.30.08 @ 1:24PM|#
And how many got arrested for alcohol?
Oh, I forgot. That drug is legal, tens of thousands of deaths per
year not withstanding.
If the founding fathers had gotten high instead of getting drunk,
the chart at the top would have a different title.
Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 1:33PM|#
The practice resulted in NYC moving from one of the more
dangerous large cities to the safest. Any policy like this,
however, will end up in many arrests for rather benign
behavior.
Safety bought on the backs of the harmless is, by far, the sweetest
tasting brand.
The solution is to excise many of the laws that punish people
for things they shouldn't be punished for...not to ignore those
laws when they are on the books.
I used to think that too. However, the unbelievably massive
negative effects of the Drug War have not convinced any
policy-makers to reassess their policies. Until they get around to
doing so, I don't believe that enforcement priorities should be
arranged so as to perpetuate the ills that have been
identified.
De-prioritization of enforcement is an important in-between step to
minimize harm while policies are reanalyzed. Think of it as a
"trial run" to suss out the likely practical effects of
decriminalization/legalization.
I don't think NYC should change its policy of aggressive
enforcement...
I do, but for different reasons. The zero-tolerance broken window
stuff encourages the cops to view wider swaths of the population as
perps instead of honest citizens, and also encourages them to feel
more powerful (and thus act like dicks more) than they already do.
These can't be good effects, whatever benefit in the prevalence of
crime it may have.
I'd much rather have bullies around that I could theoretically
fight back against than bullies that I can't. And I *certainly*
would rather have petty graffiti artists and/or pan-handlers around
than bullies of any sort.
If the founding fathers had gotten high instead of getting
drunk, the chart at the top would have a different
title.
If the Founding Fathers had gotten high instead of drunk, the great
story of the American Revolution would have been the Founding
Fathers overcoming the Brits with peace, love, understanding, and
brownies.
Like the way Canada did it.
|4.30.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Yay for Canadian
Brownies!!! Overcame those durn Redcoats...loved 'em right out
of Canada (and it only took an extra couple of hundred
years).
They do have great cookies though. Not like wussie Girl Scout
cookies.
|4.30.08 @ 2:07PM|#
That link re Canadian Brownies, wasn't exactly the place I wanted to go... close, but here's the actual one...
|4.30.08 @ 2:53PM|#
The practice resulted in NYC moving from one of the more
dangerous large cities to the safest.
Reading Giuliani's campaign literature again, I see.
First, NY was not "one of the more dangerous large cities" just
prior to Giuliani. According to any statistic you want to find, it
was middle of the road to better than average in the '80s. It was
perceived to be more dangerous because that's where all the scary
movies and tv shows about the bad inner city were set.
Of course, NY did experience a massive decline in crime rates over
the last 15-20 years. However, most of that decline went in
lockstep with a nationwide drop, including in cities that did not
institute "broken windows" policies. There were probably a
multitude of reasons for this, including major demographic
changes.
NY crime did decline more than any other city, of course, and some
of this may have been the result of "broken windows." However, keep
in mind that most of the violent crime in our cities in the first
place is due to wars between rival drug gangs. As with Prohibition,
when the product is no longer illegal, the violence involved in
selling it will disappear.
Dale|4.30.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Why can't we make this kind of crap stop? It's not just young people who think marijuana laws are unjust. I'm 51 and I don't know anyone who agrees the pot smokers should be treated as criminals.
|4.30.08 @ 3:14PM|#
"The targets of these pat-downs are disproportionately black
and Hispanic"
Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately more likely to commit
crimes.
Neu Mejican|4.30.08 @ 3:17PM|#
LMNOP,
De-prioritization of enforcement is an important in-between
step to minimize harm while policies are reanalyzed.
Cops just ignore attempts to "de-prioritize" specific crimes,
particularly when there are incentives not to, as with those
mentioned in this post."
Brain24,
Interesting...I was thinking of NYC in the 70's, but you seem more
informed on the details than I.
NY crime did decline more than any other city, of course, and
some of this may have been the result of "broken
windows."
That is, of course, the general impression most people work with. I
am sure it has been studied...hmmm let me look real quick.
Three at the top
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/425594
Supports the policy
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=743284
says it may not be optimal
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00082.x
This one sees a positive impact, lowering homicide rates, and seems
to imply that by reducing the availability of crack cocaine the
policy reduces the number of gun murders.
A complex problem for sure.
Neu Mejican|4.30.08 @ 3:36PM|#
LMNOP,
A follow up:
I do, but for different reasons. The zero-tolerance broken
window stuff encourages the cops to view wider swaths of the
population as perps instead of honest citizens, and also encourages
them to feel more powerful (and thus act like dicks more) than they
already do. These can't be good effects, whatever benefit in the
prevalence of crime it may have.
Of course the proliferation of useless laws depends in large part
in the harm those laws cause being mitigated by lack of
enforcement. But as long as those laws are on the books police have
more options for arbitrarily enforcing them in abusive ways. This
means that the laws only have a negative impact on those citizens
most likely to suffer from biased enforcement by the police. If the
police can stop you for dressing a certain way, for instance, they
can use your skin color as an excuse to enforce or not enforce that
law and claim that they are just doing their job. If they have to
work harder to come up with an excuse to stop you that is a good
thing for the groups most likely to suffer from police
harassment.
Societies don't change things unless they create problems big
enough to rise above the noise. If cops are required to attempt to
enforce an unmanageable list of petty crimes, the harm of having
those laws on the books is more likely to be noticed and addressed.
Particularly if mechanisms of accountability identify the costs
(direct and hidden) of enforcement.
I could be persuaded that I have missed an important aspect of the
issue, of course.
aron pieman kay|4.30.08 @ 3:51PM|#
i think it stinks that the new york police department thanks to
rudy giuliani makes marijuana arrests a highly prioritized item in
their agenda......
in a city where violence permeated from within the 5 boroughs, it
is chicken for the cops tpo overzealously go after pot
aron pieman kay
http//www.pieman.org
Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 5:13PM|#
re: deprioritization
I think it *entirely* has to do with incentives. Cops are as lazy
as anyone else, and will attempt to avoid doing paperwork if they
aren't getting anything out of it.
Also, deprioritization isn't just a street-level thing. For it to
work, it means reducing the effective resources of Narcotics
departments, instructing DA's to toss or plea out with very
favorable terms minor drug charges, redirect revenue from fines
away from the police department and courts, etc. ad nauseam.
Of course the proliferation of useless laws depends in large
part in the harm those laws cause being mitigated by lack of
enforcement. But as long as those laws are on the books police have
more options for arbitrarily enforcing them in abusive
ways...
I absolutely agree. I think we disagree only on the order in which
these things should be approached. I am not as confident as you
(from recent history) that an ever greater social cost of the Drug
War is going to cause a sea change in political will anytime soon.
Certainly any law on the books can be used to harass, no matter how
"de-prioritized" it is, but often people don't let go of their
sentimental attachment to things like drug prohibition until they
see a mini-working-model in real life that doesn't cause the
universe to implode the way they expect it to.
Neu Mejican|4.30.08 @ 5:35PM|#
LMNOP,
You may be right, but I am skeptical.
E.G., Seattle voters passed a referendum making marijuana
possession the lowest priority crime in the city.
The official police response was "so? We will continue to enforce
laws against marijuana possession as vigorously as before. If you
don't want us to enforce a law, repeal it."
Elemenope|4.30.08 @ 5:39PM|#
Like any other effective policy, passing a referendum or a law
is the *first* step. Certainly not the last.
Political pressure is another avenue of enforcing deprioritization.
Often, D.A.s are elected. One thing that cops *hate* more than
almost anything is getting pimp-slapped by an irritated D.A.. A
good second step for the people of Seattle would be to make sure
that the D.A. candidates they elect will *encourage* the police
departments to ease up with a little judicious pimp-slapping here
and there.
Neu Mejican|4.30.08 @ 7:03PM|#
LMNOP,
Your argument, of course, supports my view that the first step
should be bigger in order to avoid the death by a thousand cuts
that the slower approach is likely to result in.
If that Seattle referendum had been to decriminalize possession of
small amounts of pot, it would most likely have still
passed...likely by a smaller margin to be sure...and would have
saved several steps in the process towards saner overall
policies.
No?
|4.30.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Fluffy-
Let us consider the difference between enforcement of this law
and, say, the law against having an open container of alcohol in a
public place. If you are a white person enjoying a white person
event - like, say, attending a classical music concert at
Tanglewood in Massachusetts - you can have an open container of
alcohol and no one will bother you at all.
I call Bullshit!
The Columbus Police (headed by Chief James
Jackson, under the authority of Mayor Michael Coleman and the Columbus
City council- have made it a "priority" to "police" the
"tailgating" fans at OSU Football games- 95+% of whom are
"white".
I guess it's just a "race" thing...
GILMORE|4.30.08 @ 7:51PM|#
I am not sure about the details, but i'm fairly sure NYC cops
themselves were never happy about the weed policy, and Bloomberg
told them to lay off and stop clogging the system with bullshit
cases.
Of course, i got this from a drunk cop i was shooting pool with.
Who admitted to smoking pot himself.
but i knew a number of people who were taken to central booking for
taking bat hits outside a bar... who got stopped again recently,
and were told to 'take it easy and be discrete'.
The race angle might be real, but it might also be that blacks in
hispanics in new york smoke on the street a hell of a lot more than
anyone else. plus cops just want to bust guys on their beat that
they know have a rap sheet already. Not endorsing it at all,
because I think it should be a ticket, but the drivers of the
arrests are probably more complex than the Rev Wright type of
analysis.
|4.30.08 @ 8:11PM|#
If that Seattle referendum had been to decriminalize
possession of small amounts of pot, it would most likely have still
passed...likely by a smaller margin to be sure...and would have
saved several steps in the process towards saner overall
policies.
No?
Decriminalization certainly would have been favored in Seattle, but
a Seattle referendum could not address that because criminal laws
are state laws. The only thing Seattle has control over in this
respect, presumably, is its police force and what it chooses to
focus its limited resources on. That is why people in some cities
have decided to go the priority route even if they would favor
taking larger steps -- they simply have no other recourse in trying
to mitigate the effects of a bad state law.
B|5.1.08 @ 12:11AM|#
"For the arrestees, by contrast, getting busted is not only
humiliating, expensive, inconvenient, and embittering; it gives
them a criminal record that can hamper their educational and
employment prospects for the rest of their lives."
Their is a simple solution to this "problem". Don't break the
fucking law. If you willingly break the law, don't bitch about the
consequences of your actions.
|5.1.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Hey, Fred, get real, have you ever jaywalked accross a street? then you are a law-breaker, done it more than once? then you are a repeat offender, please let me know when you plan to turn yourself in to the authorities, 'cause I'll send a t.v. crew over to film the event. So glad I was born in a country that doesn't routinely go after the bottom step of the ladder other than to play tag and get the next one up the line. Hey why not take a trip up north to Canada where the laws might be the same but our police officers aren't looking to make "quotas" to appease the Conservative media outlets.
Jack|5.1.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Not smoking pot evidently causes paranoia! The only threat of
potheads to society is that for some pot increases inspiration and
creativity. Richard Florida's work on creative economy shows that
cities with more of that thrive. Having a large creative class is
far more important to a city's economy than having, say, sports
arenas. The creative class always comes with "deviance" - with a
significant gay component, with a wide array of artistic endeavors,
and with the use of intoxicants which favor creativity, as compared
to those which favor, say, watching a sports competition.
NYC's focus on pot enforcement saps the economic future of the
city. With the financial industry in current trouble (man, would
they have ever gotten into so much stupid shit if they'd been
smoking something?), a refocusing on its creative economy would be
prudent. Legalizing pot would be a great first step.
Fri|5.1.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Daniel "Don't speed and then bitch about the ticket" missed the
point.
And I betcha these cases all get tossed. Seems like entrapment to
me. And I'm a middle-aged, non-pot smoking white guy. This B.S.
should not be clogging the court system.
|5.1.08 @ 7:10PM|#
Fred -
"The laws the law and it must be obeyed"
Aside from your blatant disregard for grammar and punctuation, have
you by chance heard of "civil disobedience"? How about "non-violent
resistance"? Might want to take a few moments to find a dictionary
and review before you start attacking the basic founding principles
of the country you live in and the ideals of our founding fathers
who initiated it (among whom many grew and smoke cannabis).
"Because it gets people high and when high they may do dangerous
things. It is also unhealthy, illegal and immoral."
You know, I really get a kick out of someone describing the
downsides and dangers of a substance they obviously know absolutely
nothing about. How many hundreds of thousands of people are killed
in the US every year as a result of someone having one too many
drinks before going home? How many domestic battery cases are
contributed to drunkiness? How many people overdose on prescription
medication, or even TYLENOL (all of which are completely legal in
the appropriate context). In fact, I challenge you to present me
with one case that a person's death was *directly* contributed to
the ingestion of marijuana.
And as for the "morality" question. This is America, my friend.
Land of the *FREE*, home of the Brave. Please, for God's sake; keep
your family values in your own family.
|5.1.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Giuliani started it and it will continue. Gas is $4 plus a gallon and a lot of people pay are paying half their paycheck or better for rent. People are going for this because they are scared and intimidated by the government and police. The police make overtime off minor arrests. They make $200-300 in overtime but the final tab is about $3000 per arrest. The system has become one big bully working with big corporations and cops into making a poor or middle class person a virtual slave. They exploit you, rip you off and cheat you all the time. But if a person smokes pot or even worse sells it or makes money illegally commiting a small misdemeanor they want to crush them. Cameras everywhere, true there is less street hookers, shoplifters and pot smokers especially because of cameras but armed robbery is up and they are wearing ski masks so the cameras mean nothing. They are creating a more mean, angry type of criminal with there zero tolerance on pot smokers, petit shoplifters and hookers along with skyrocketing rents and gas. Plus you have a snitch and tattletale epedemic almost as bad as Nazi Germany where children where encouraged to snitch on their parents.
|5.1.08 @ 8:16PM|#
I am sure if we asked Mayor Bloomberg "How much sh-t can we eat?" He would politely reply "Eat as much as you can." Giuliani would force feed you to eat sh-t. That is all this quality of life stuff is a bunch of B.S. and they spend over 100 million dollars arresting people for B.S. I wish quality of life crime would go up so may-be the rents would go down.
Loren|5.2.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Oh, and of course they check if the person entered the country legally. Oh yea, thats right, illegal aliens get sanctuary because they increase the profits of the rich NY businesses. Selective law enforcement is the norm, not the rule.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245