32 Indicted In Drug Conspiracy Case

Full story: Hartford Courant

A federal grand jury has indicted 32 people in connection with the distribution of cocaine and heroin throughout Hartford County.
Comments
1 - 20 of 50 Comments Last updated Jun 20, 2009
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Looks like

Hartford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Looks like a "Who's Who" list of Latinos if ya ask me!!!! What? No "Perez" in the list??? Oh wait, that would be a different article!!!
That would be under "stealing and corruption"!!!!
RISING STAR

Bloomfield, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Quite a list of names and locations, not just Hartford.
JUSTSOMEINFO

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Funny that the Courant can put all of the names of all who was arrested in this artice but when they wrote the article on the awards for the 30 West Hartford cops they couldn't mention thier names in the article. Another great article by the Courant. NEGATIVE always sells better than POSITIVE. Good artice Courant!!
Tax Payer

Redmond, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Why bother, waste of time,and money, they will just be back next week. Business as usual. In a month or two we will read same names again. We should be like the Arab countries, first offence,cut their hand off with an axe. Can only do it twice. Then execution by the above axe. Like baseball three strikes and your out.

“Fallen Angel”

Since: Jan 07

New England

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Yes, Tax Payer, this bust IS a waste of time and money because, as you say, the drug commerce there will flow as heavily as ever by next week. Prohibition is incapable of reducing supply or demand. All it does is put the trade into the hands of organized crime reaping $$Hundreds of Billions$$ annually, from cartels and money-laundering banks down to the local street corner 16-year-old peddler. And under prohibition all this commerce --not to mention the manufacture and packaging/labeling as well-- is completely unregulated in a black market, making the streets as dangerous as possible, the drugs as dangerous as possible, and zero controls over the age of anyone involved.

Although Tax Payer has a seemingly emotionally satisfying solution (cut off their hands, etc), that would be inhuman and cruel, a worse crime than most of what people today go to jail for. Prohibition is not only making the drugs and streets as dangerous as possible, it is also a violation of personal freedom for the government to prohibit ingesting certain drugs --and an arbitrary hypocritical culture war waged by consumers of the equally deadly and addictive alcohol and tobacco against the consumers of different drugs.

Prohibition of alcohol was repealed not because alcohol is good for you, but rather because alcohol prohibition only created many additional huge problems while solving none. The same exact things are happening with the other drugs that are prohibited.

A solution would be to issue consumer licenses so drug users would undertake a minimal drug safety course and then purchase their drugs in a legally-regulated dispensary where counseling and treatment referals were also available. This would result in more educated consumers, take the manufacture and trade in drugs out of criminal organizations and into the light and civility of regulation. Police and court resources would be freed up to concentrate on REAL criminals: those who violate the persons or property of others.
you go jodi

Manchester, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

i think they should have an open season ....
Tommy

Ware, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

1

timemachinist wrote:
Yes, Tax Payer, this bust IS a waste of time and money because, as you say, the drug commerce there will flow as heavily as ever by next week. Prohibition is incapable of reducing supply or demand. All it does is put the trade into the hands of organized crime reaping $$Hundreds of Billions$$ annually, from cartels and money-laundering banks down to the local street corner 16-year-old peddler. And under prohibition all this commerce --not to mention the manufacture and packaging/labeling as well-- is completely unregulated in a black market, making the streets as dangerous as possible, the drugs as dangerous as possible, and zero controls over the age of anyone involved.
Although Tax Payer has a seemingly emotionally satisfying solution (cut off their hands, etc), that would be inhuman and cruel, a worse crime than most of what people today go to jail for. Prohibition is not only making the drugs and streets as dangerous as possible, it is also a violation of personal freedom for the government to prohibit ingesting certain drugs --and an arbitrary hypocritical culture war waged by consumers of the equally deadly and addictive alcohol and tobacco against the consumers of different drugs.
Prohibition of alcohol was repealed not because alcohol is good for you, but rather because alcohol prohibition only created many additional huge problems while solving none. The same exact things are happening with the other drugs that are prohibited.
A solution would be to issue consumer licenses so drug users would undertake a minimal drug safety course and then purchase their drugs in a legally-regulated dispensary where counseling and treatment referals were also available. This would result in more educated consumers, take the manufacture and trade in drugs out of criminal organizations and into the light and civility of regulation. Police and court resources would be freed up to concentrate on REAL criminals: those who violate the persons or property of others.
Problem with your drug/alcohol comparison is that 80% of the population was against prohibition (passed in the euphoria of winning WW I) and today 80% are against drug legalization. Completely the opposite of your analogy. After 70 years, a public in favor of drug legalization would have passed it by now. Prohibition lasted only 13 years and required a constitutional amendment; a much more difficult accomplishment than drug legalization which could be accomplished by congressional passage only.
FAV

East Hartford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Victimless "crimes" and we taxpayers pay the bill. Making these drug sales a crime inflates the price and creates all these budding entrepreneurs to supply otherwise law abiding citizens with their "nose candy" or other "goodies". When these are carted off to jail, more entrepreneurs, and on and on it goes. But we must have a "war on drugs" because it's an excuse to interfere in other countries internal affairs. The same also goes for the phony "war on terror", which if you leave out the government fear-mongering is cover for neocolonialism. Now we have the militaries in Afganistan and Pakistan fighting their own people all for the New World Order's plans to control energy resources. There's only one dead end for this perpetual-war-machine it seems and that's World War III.

“Fallen Angel”

Since: Jan 07

New England

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Tommy wrote:
....Prohibition lasted only 13 years and required a constitutional amendment; a much more difficult accomplishment than drug legalization which could be accomplished by congressional passage only.
EXCELLENT point here, though not exactly as you mean it. The fact is, Congress DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to prohibit what drugs people possess or ingest.

Drug prohibition is an abdication of the government's constitutional duty to regulate commerce. In that sense, the criminal charge of "possession of drugs" is itself unconstitutional. Neither the Congress nor any other branch of the federal government has the Constitutional power to prohibit the sale, possesion, or use of drugs, nor to decide which drugs an individual may consume. The Constitutional govt role in the drug trade would be to regulate the manufacture and distribution of drugs, something very different from prohibiting such.

To briefly illustrate the Constitutional problem with drug prohibitions, let's skim the history. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 (first restrictive federal drug law) was allowed by the Supreme Court only as a revenue measure, as opposed to a prohibitionary measure, which was Congress' actual intent and which had been the law's function.

The Harrison Act was the legal basis of federal drug control (supplemented by the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act , also based on revenue-generating powers) until the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which replaced the Harrison Act. The 1970 CSA, contrary to its predecessors, rested not on the revenue powers of Congress, but rather on the power to regulate interstate commerce.

But neither power --revenue nor commerce-- seems to justify the prohibition of drugs per se: how could production and sale all within the same state be thus prohibited by Congress? Or planting a seed in your yard and consuming the bud at home all by that one person --where is the commerce in that? This prohibition of drugs by the federal govt defies the limits of its Constitutional authority!

Even alcohol prohibition itself shows the unconstitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act. Why else did alcohol require a Constitutional AMENDMENT?

And even then, the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment differed from the various drug prohibition laws: the Volstead Act did not actually prohibit possession or use of alcoholic beverages, only the transport and sale thereof. Doesn't this show that the congress of that time recognized the simple fact that congress DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to prohibit what drugs people possess or ingest? That obvious fact has been forgotten by later Congresses in the name of culture wars against the users of the "wrong" drugs.

Now, presumably these men were charged under state rather than federal law, thus sidestepping my argument of why prohibition laws are unconstitutional at the federal level. Nonetheless, because most states have passed laws that mirror the federal Controlled Substances Act, and have virtually always followed the principle that a state can add restrictions to the federal Act, but almost never reverses or reduces them. In this way, state drug prohibition laws are rooted in the unconstitutional federal CSA prohibition law.
CT Luver

Bloomfield, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 22, 2009
 
Mucho dinero for the muchacha's and muchacho's arested.

“Fallen Angel”

Since: Jan 07

New England

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It was Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas in his dissenting opinion on GONZALES V. RAICH who said using the interstate commerce clause to prohibit growing mj on your own property for your own consumption means there are no real limits to govt power at all. In that case, the woman's medical marijuana was never bought or sold, never crossed state lines and had no "demonstrable" effect on the national market for marijuana. Judge Thomas said "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything," including "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers." Thus "the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

Here is the Wikipedia article on that ruling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raic...

Here is Justice Thomas' dissent:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454...

Finally, laws should protect others from being subjected to harm from those that may endanger them. And just as ending alcohol prohibition did not therefore make it legal to commit crimes against the persons or property of others, neither would replacing drug prohibition with a regulated market.
another point of view

Hartford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 22, 2009
 
they should put the phone numbers of these guys in the paper so people can check their cell phone bills to see if anyone in their family is calling the numbers.
Lol

Wethersfield, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
May 22, 2009
 
another point of view wrote:
they should put the phone numbers of these guys in the paper so people can check their cell phone bills to see if anyone in their family is calling the numbers.
Just ask your fam. member if he's using...what you can't tell or you really dont want to know...
mike

West Palm Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Funny how people think that legalizing drugs will solve all these problems. Legalizing drugs will cause the cost to sky rocket and all those addicts who rob you blind to pay for drugs now will have to work much harder stealing from law abiding citizens to pay for their habit. Get real.
Stop Whining

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

1

RISING STAR wrote:
Quite a list of names and locations, not just Hartford.
This is what passes as the "Social Register" in Hartford these days. In stead of dedutants they get rap sheets.
Tommy

Ware, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

1

timemachinist wrote:
<quoted text>
EXCELLENT point here, though not exactly as you mean it. The fact is, Congress DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to prohibit what drugs people possess or ingest.
Drug prohibition is an abdication of the government's constitutional duty to regulate commerce. In that sense, the criminal charge of "possession of drugs" is itself unconstitutional. Neither the Congress nor any other branch of the federal government has the Constitutional power to prohibit the sale, possesion, or use of drugs, nor to decide which drugs an individual may consume. The Constitutional govt role in the drug trade would be to regulate the manufacture and distribution of drugs, something very different from prohibiting such.
To briefly illustrate the Constitutional problem with drug prohibitions, let's skim the history. The Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 (first restrictive federal drug law) was allowed by the Supreme Court only as a revenue measure, as opposed to a prohibitionary measure, which was Congress' actual intent and which had been the law's function.
The Harrison Act was the legal basis of federal drug control (supplemented by the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act , also based on revenue-generating powers) until the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which replaced the Harrison Act. The 1970 CSA, contrary to its predecessors, rested not on the revenue powers of Congress, but rather on the power to regulate interstate commerce.
But neither power --revenue nor commerce-- seems to justify the prohibition of drugs per se: how could production and sale all within the same state be thus prohibited by Congress? Or planting a seed in your yard and consuming the bud at home all by that one person --where is the commerce in that? This prohibition of drugs by the federal govt defies the limits of its Constitutional authority!
Even alcohol prohibition itself shows the unconstitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act. Why else did alcohol require a Constitutional AMENDMENT?
And even then, the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment differed from the various drug prohibition laws: the Volstead Act did not actually prohibit possession or use of alcoholic beverages, only the transport and sale thereof. Doesn't this show that the congress of that time recognized the simple fact that congress DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to prohibit what drugs people possess or ingest? That obvious fact has been forgotten by later Congresses in the name of culture wars against the users of the "wrong" drugs.
Now, presumably these men were charged under state rather than federal law, thus sidestepping my argument of why prohibition laws are unconstitutional at the federal level. law.
"Neither the Congress nor any other branch of the federal government has the Constitutional power to prohibit the sale, possesion, or use of drugs, nor to decide which drugs an individual may consume."

If this is true, why haven't all the Fed Govt's laws, which have been on the books since 1914, been overturned by the Supreme Court? Just saying the Court declared them as revenue acts is not answer to my previous question.

"... the Volstead Act did not actually prohibit possession or use of alcoholic beverages, only the transport and sale thereof."

WRONG WRONG WRONG

Section 29 of the Volstead Act allowed 200 gallons (the equivalent of about 1000 75 cl bottles) of "non-intoxicating cider and fruit juice" to be made each year at home. Initially "intoxicating" was defined as anything more than 0.5%."

I've seen plenty of people advance their interpretation of the Constitution, etc. as you have done. Somehow they always ignore certain obvious facts, as I've just pointed out, and always come to a judgment that they're right and dissenters from their opinions are wrong. The ONLY opinion that counts is not yours or mine but the one issued by the Supreme Court; that's why it's called "Supreme."
Mark Montgomery

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Both cocaine and heroin should be legal. Mexico just legalized possession of small amounts of all drugs. Switzerland just legalized heroin. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and their experience has been positive. Now if you are caught with a 10 day supply of your drug or less you face an administrative court, not a criminal court, but in practice they are just not arresting people. A group of 10,000 very serious policemen, prosecutors, attorneys and citizens have formed a group to legalize ALL drugs, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition ( http://leap.cc ) They see what happened when we legalized alcohol in 1932 as a good example of how drug legalization would work. This foolish war on drugs has lasted 37 years and cost us over a TRILLION dollars and we are not an inch closer to stopping drugs. How many millions of Americans are we going to lock up in prison for decades? Mark Montgomery boboberg@nyc.rr.com
Tommy

Ware, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Mark Montgomery wrote:
Both cocaine and heroin should be legal. Mexico just legalized possession of small amounts of all drugs. Switzerland just legalized heroin. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001 and their experience has been positive. Now if you are caught with a 10 day supply of your drug or less you face an administrative court, not a criminal court, but in practice they are just not arresting people. A group of 10,000 very serious policemen, prosecutors, attorneys and citizens have formed a group to legalize ALL drugs, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition ( http://leap.cc ) They see what happened when we legalized alcohol in 1932 as a good example of how drug legalization would work. This foolish war on drugs has lasted 37 years and cost us over a TRILLION dollars and we are not an inch closer to stopping drugs. How many millions of Americans are we going to lock up in prison for decades? Mark Montgomery boboberg@nyc.rr.com
Simple solution: move to Portugal, Mexico or Switzerland. BTW, good riddance!
manchester

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
May 22, 2009
 
Look at all those puerto ricans...jeez
Tommy

Ware, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
May 22, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

manchester wrote:
Look at all those puerto ricans...jeez
Who would've thought! Proof positive of profiling isn't it, Helen? Or would you like equal column inches about "white" criminals? Sorry, it just aint possible.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

27 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 7 min edogxxx 97,541
Abby 7-26 10 min edogxxx 1
Amy 7-26 12 min edogxxx 1
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 34 min GUESS we 1,080,447
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr wojar 174,671
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr Uzi 67,977
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Brian_G 45,799
•••
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••