Three Face Charges In Willimantic Dru...

Three Face Charges In Willimantic Drug Raid -- Courant.com

There are 16 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Jul 6, 2007, titled Three Face Charges In Willimantic Drug Raid -- Courant.com. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

Three people are expected to be arraigned in Superior Court in Danielson today in connection with a raid on an apartment Thursday night where police say they seized crack cocaine, drug paraphernalia and cash.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

Kramer

Elmhurst, IL

#1 Jul 6, 2007
I'm hip.
The Screw

Durham, CT

#2 Jul 6, 2007
Willimantic is the eastern CT Pit City. I remember the story the HFTD COURANT did several years ago about the Hooker Hotel and its residents. I hope they tore it down; and I haven't heard much about it since.
hercs2

Willimantic, CT

#3 Jul 6, 2007
The Screw wrote:
Willimantic is the eastern CT Pit City. I remember the story the HFTD COURANT did several years ago about the Hooker Hotel and its residents. I hope they tore it down; and I haven't heard much about it since.
They renamed it "Windham House" and slapped some fresh paint on it!
Prohibition is Fascism

Marion, CT

#4 Jul 6, 2007
Drug prohibition violates individual rights. People have rights that governments may not violate. Thomas Jefferson defined them as the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would say that people have the right to live their lives in any way they choose so long as they don't violate the equal rights of others. What right could be more basic, more inherent in human nature, than the right to choose what substances to put in one's own body? Whether we're talking about alcohol, tobacco, AZT, saturated fat, medical marijuana, or recreational cocaine, this is a decision that should be made by the adult individual, not the government. If government can tell us what we can put into our own bodies, what can it not tell us? What limits on government action are there?

As William F. Buckley, Jr., says, "It is the duty of conservatives to declaim against lost causes when the ancillary results of pursuing them are tens of thousands of innocent victims and a gradual corruption of the machinery of the state." He's not the only leading conservative who recognizes the futility of the drug war. Sociologist Ernest van den Haag, Hoover Institution scholar Thomas Sowell, former secretary of state George Shultz, and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman agree with Buckley.
CT Citizen

Northford, CT

#5 Jul 6, 2007
The Screw wrote:
Willimantic is the eastern CT Pit City. I remember the story the HFTD COURANT did several years ago about the Hooker Hotel and its residents. I hope they tore it down; and I haven't heard much about it since.
As a former resident of the eastern section of the state I wholeheartedly agree with you. Any town that has a welfare office is doomed. It's a mecca for drug dealers, users, prostitutes, and dollar store shoppers. Get rid of the welfare and drug rehab houses, and the city can once again regain it's New England, Victorian charm.
Stupid Argument

United States

#6 Jul 6, 2007
Prohibition is Fascism wrote:
Drug prohibition violates individual rights. People have rights that governments may not violate. Thomas Jefferson defined them as the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would say that people have the right to live their lives in any way they choose so long as they don't violate the equal rights of others. What right could be more basic, more inherent in human nature, than the right to choose what substances to put in one's own body? Whether we're talking about alcohol, tobacco, AZT, saturated fat, medical marijuana, or recreational cocaine, this is a decision that should be made by the adult individual, not the government. If government can tell us what we can put into our own bodies, what can it not tell us? What limits on government action are there?
As William F. Buckley, Jr., says, "It is the duty of conservatives to declaim against lost causes when the ancillary results of pursuing them are tens of thousands of innocent victims and a gradual corruption of the machinery of the state." He's not the only leading conservative who recognizes the futility of the drug war. Sociologist Ernest van den Haag, Hoover Institution scholar Thomas Sowell, former secretary of state George Shultz, and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman agree with Buckley.
Are you timemachinist? Because if you are, I'll apologize in advance. I generally respect your ability to stick to the facts and not attack others as I am about to do...but my blood pressure is about to rise. But if you are a clean cut "kid", it is obvious that you have much growing up to do.

So you are anti drug laws and you are trying to make an argument that prohibition is drawing "kids" into the illegal drug business?

BS BS BS BS BS BS BS !!!!!

It is the parents that have failed to raise their children with decent morals and good judgment and respect for today’s laws that are established to protect the health, safety and welfare of our communities. Again, let me emphasize that...the parents have failed to teach children respect for today’s laws!!! The parents are failures because of just that, they are failures (most likely from drug use themselves). It's Darwin's theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Rot begets rot. Money and the desire to have more while "working" less is also a strong motivator. Nothing like a little bling bling on the street to impress the peers. Again, this falls back to the PARENTS and their need to raise a mentally healthy child that isn't superficially driven by materialistic needs at the cost of potentially jeopardizing thier own lives...not prohibition you moron.

What a Stupid Argument.
Stupid Argument

United States

#7 Jul 6, 2007
Why are kids in rescue homes at age 14 and 15, it isn't because of prohibition...it is because at that age they should still be under the care and supervision of their parents...but "where are the parents?"

Spout all the fact in the history of Google internet searches you want, bottom line...the parents are to blame and the children that deal drugs are morons just like you and most likely your parents as well. Re-read my previous post to get the idea...again. As you have noticed, the governments efforts to control alcohol, cigarettes, guns, pornography, over-sized sodas at McFat Burgers, gas guzzling emissions, etc., etc., etc. HAVE BEEN A HUGE AND UTTER FAILURE at each and every step of the way. I am not saying any of these things are not harmless or enjoyable in minor moderation nor am I saying it is the governments fault for anything. What the hell right do they have regulating whether I have an exhaust pipe on my car, how fast I drive, whether I wear a seatbelt, I pour toxic pollutants in the river or smoke a cigarette on a plane?(just a little bitter sarcasm folks) But YOU of all people are calling for the government to stop regulating illicit drugs via LAWS and to then institute "A system of legal, regulated distribution of currently illicit drugs would place these markets under the control of responsible society." To what, control drug use...like cigarettes and alcohol are controlled now???? To prevent people from dying or killing others because of drug abuse...like cigarettes and alcohol do now to thousands of people everyday. It is called "natural selection". People that want to smoke 2 packs a day will not be around as long as those who choose not to. But guess what, those with parents that smoke tend to breed children that smoke too. So what responsible society....who the F are you talking about? These are the Parents and the children raised by the responsible parents that become the next generation of responsible society....get the picture???? It isn't the governments fault for a failed drug war...it is the parents because they are failures for not respecting the laws and teaching their kids to disrespect the laws and they raise failures. It is the parents fault for not teaching their children the health hazards of picking up a drug habits because they can't put them down themselves. It is never ending, and it is mostly because of illicit drug use and brain damaged people like you that can't comprehend the big picture of our social decline.
IT IS A STUPID ARGUMENT!!!!
You want to "save the children", grow up and act like an adult and quit bitching that the government is failing at the war on drugs. Take it to Capitol Hill and either change the laws or obey them but quit preaching BS crap because it is because of people like you that the perpetual cycle continues...and gets worse everyday.
mike

Providence, RI

#9 Jul 6, 2007
Stupid Argument wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you timemachinist? Because if you are, I'll apologize in advance. I generally respect your ability to stick to the facts and not attack others as I am about to do...but my blood pressure is about to rise. But if you are a clean cut "kid", it is obvious that you have much growing up to do.
So you are anti drug laws and you are trying to make an argument that prohibition is drawing "kids" into the illegal drug business?
BS BS BS BS BS BS BS !!!!!
It is the parents that have failed to raise their children with decent morals and good judgment and respect for today’s laws that are established to protect the health, safety and welfare of our communities. Again, let me emphasize that...the parents have failed to teach children respect for today’s laws!!! The parents are failures because of just that, they are failures (most likely from drug use themselves). It's Darwin's theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Rot begets rot. Money and the desire to have more while "working" less is also a strong motivator. Nothing like a little bling bling on the street to impress the peers. Again, this falls back to the PARENTS and their need to raise a mentally healthy child that isn't superficially driven by materialistic needs at the cost of potentially jeopardizing thier own lives...not prohibition you moron.
What a Stupid Argument.
If a parent is stuck in the bad neighborhood there is not much they can do to take the glamour out of drug dealing.1kid is wearing walmart sneakers while 3 others make fun of him with thier Nikes on,not much else will matter to the first kid except getting better sneakers.Acceptance from ones peers usually outweighs a parents permission or approval.Now while I think most drugs are horrible.If you legalize them all four kids wear walmart shoes.Your understanding of children is misguided(most children).Kids want acceptance from thier peers.sad but true
Stupid Argument

United States

#12 Jul 6, 2007
mike wrote:
<quoted text>If a parent is stuck in the bad neighborhood there is not much they can do to take the glamour out of drug dealing.1kid is wearing walmart sneakers while 3 others make fun of him with thier Nikes on,not much else will matter to the first kid except getting better sneakers.Acceptance from ones peers usually outweighs a parents permission or approval.Now while I think most drugs are horrible.If you legalize them all four kids wear walmart shoes.Your understanding of children is misguided(most children).Kids want acceptance from thier peers.sad but true
If you legalize drugs all four kids are wearing walmart shoes.....what a STUPID ARGUMENT!!!

And my understanding of children is misguided? I understand peer pressures, I always wanted a pair of ice skates when I was a kid. But I didn't steal or sell drugs to get them. I shoveled driveways - and lots of them. Becuase that is how my parents raised me. Wow, your perception of life in general is whacked.
SARS

Brighton, MA

#13 Jul 6, 2007
It's funny nobody writes in to stick up for Willimantic like they would Hartford. Of course thats not what I'm doing here...Willimantic seriously sucks.
Stockman43

New Britain, CT

#16 Jul 6, 2007
I was just wondering why the state leaders didn't tax em to death on it?,lol
Prohibition is Fascism

Marion, CT

#19 Jul 6, 2007
Stupid Argument wrote:
So you are anti drug laws and you are trying to make an argument that prohibition is drawing "kids" into the illegal drug business?
BS BS BS BS BS BS BS !!!!!
It is the parents that have failed to raise their children with decent morals and good judgment and respect for today’s laws that are established to protect the health, safety and welfare of our communities. Again, let me emphasize that...the parents have failed to teach children respect for today’s laws!!! The parents are failures because of just that, they are failures (most likely from drug use themselves). It's Darwin's theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Rot begets rot. Money and the desire to have more while "working" less is also a strong motivator. Nothing like a little bling bling on the street to impress the peers. Again, this falls back to the PARENTS and their need to raise a mentally healthy child that isn't superficially driven by materialistic needs at the cost of potentially jeopardizing thier own lives...not prohibition you moron.
What a Stupid Argument.
Actually nothing in this article nor thread nor my post here has mentioned kids, though since you bring it up, prohibition does indeed create conditions that draw kids into a trade where they would not be if it were legally regulated trade. Of course parents should teach their kids the value of education and ambition through legitimate channels, but don't ignore powerful social and market pressures in neighborhoods where prohibition has created faster paths to money and status.

And really, why such a spirited reply to me about kids when my post had no reference to kids? My post is about conservatives opposing prohibition violations of liberty, specifically the right to the pursuit of happiness, to live one's life as they choose so long as they do not violate the persons or property or rights of others. Isn't that worth anything? Or is the American concern for freedom really only rhetoric? If you wouldn't choose a particular drug, therefore it should not be legal for others?
mike

Providence, RI

#21 Jul 6, 2007
Stupid Argument wrote:
<quoted text>
If you legalize drugs all four kids are wearing walmart shoes.....what a STUPID ARGUMENT!!!
And my understanding of children is misguided? I understand peer pressures, I always wanted a pair of ice skates when I was a kid. But I didn't steal or sell drugs to get them. I shoveled driveways - and lots of them. Becuase that is how my parents raised me. Wow, your perception of life in general is whacked.
You are just an arrogant little putz.Useless to any post.Since you know it all why are you here.Your parents failed miserably.DID THEY TEACH YOU TO ATTACK & CALL NAMES TO ANYONE WHO DOESNT AGREE WITH YOU.Your parents raised an arrogant little brat.Tell them GREAT JOB LOSERS
KLW

AOL

#24 Jul 7, 2007
Stupid Argument wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you timemachinist? Because if you are, I'll apologize in advance. I generally respect your ability to stick to the facts and not attack others as I am about to do...but my blood pressure is about to rise. But if you are a clean cut "kid", it is obvious that you have much growing up to do.
So you are anti drug laws and you are trying to make an argument that prohibition is drawing "kids" into the illegal drug business?
BS BS BS BS BS BS BS !!!!!
It is the parents that have failed to raise their children with decent morals and good judgment and respect for today’s laws that are established to protect the health, safety and welfare of our communities. Again, let me emphasize that...the parents have failed to teach children respect for today’s laws!!! The parents are failures because of just that, they are failures (most likely from drug use themselves). It's Darwin's theory of evolution and survival of the fittest. Rot begets rot. Money and the desire to have more while "working" less is also a strong motivator. Nothing like a little bling bling on the street to impress the peers. Again, this falls back to the PARENTS and their need to raise a mentally healthy child that isn't superficially driven by materialistic needs at the cost of potentially jeopardizing thier own lives...not prohibition you moron.
What a Stupid Argument.
Bravo! You are right on the money! I've lived in Northeast CT forever, am involved in my community as a volunteer, and have seen the decline in family values. It appears parents feel little obligation to be positive role models for their children. It's not just Willimantic. It's everywhere. Kids spend more and more time without parental guidance. Parents choose to work all the time. They have to have "things." New this, new that....what happens to their kids? They spend more and more time away. Where do they get their morals? Who teaches them right from wrong? What about respect for themselves and others? Why do they want to get high and break laws? There's so much to do in this great wide world and they choose to be burdens on society. Opportunity is there, make better choices. Don't be stupid. Stupid sucks and costs citizens more than it's worth. I'm tired of paying more taxes to provide services for drug abusers who get so burnt-out that they are now "disabled" and are supported by tax dollars. Anyone know of any how-to videos we might make mandatory for parents before they leave the maternity floor and take their bundles of joy home? Maybe we could find a video for girls and boys, to view before they choose to become parents, showing the reality and expectations. I chose "videos" because it seems to be easier than reading a book. No time for that these days. Parents WAKE UP!! Make the difference in your child's life. Be there from the beginning. You are your child's hero. Teach them. Don't send them to school at 3 years old and assume your job is done. Be involved. Stay involved. Common sense, use it.
Mandy

Botsford, CT

#25 Mar 6, 2009
Okay.
I grew up in Willimantic and moved right out of CT for various reasons.
But the Dollar Tree? Come on! That is one of the things I miss!
I am offended by people who think there is shame in a person shopping within their means.
This thinking motivates people to deal drugs so they can shop bigger.
Come on people.
Smell your sh--t!
TTIN

Bay City, MI

#26 May 31, 2009
Stupid Argument wrote:
<quoted text>
If you legalize drugs all four kids are wearing walmart shoes.....what a STUPID ARGUMENT!!!
And my understanding of children is misguided? I understand peer pressures, I always wanted a pair of ice skates when I was a kid. But I didn't steal or sell drugs to get them. I shoveled driveways - and lots of them. Becuase that is how my parents raised me. Wow, your perception of life in general is whacked.
Good I'm happy for you.

But you're not everybody and ultimately you have control over one person's mind, your own.

Yes they should just do honest things to get money to get the things they want but whether they do that or not is outside of our control. When making public policy the practical effects of the policy needs to be considered. Practically, the money that can be made selling drugs is so enticing there will always be a sizeable number of kids(and adults) who will do it. It's reality and there's nothing we can do to make all those kids make the right decision. What we can do is take away the enticing opportunity by putting the sale of recreational drugs in the hands of a licensed, regulated industry.

You notice there aren't many kids running around selling alcohol or tobacco. Innocent bystanders don't get killed in driveby shootings because of turf wars over alcohol and tobacco. People don't overdose and die because their tobacco was cut with things like meth and they didn't know about it like people die when they take meth because it was sold to them as ecstasy. And I've never heard of innocent people getting killed in a raid where the cops were looking for alcohol and tobacco and got the wrong house. Why?

It's because alcohol and tobacco are legal and regulated, because our lawmakers were sensible enough to understand that right or wrong there are going to be people who want these things and as long as there is demand there is going to be an incentive for people to provide the product. They understood that banning alcohol or tobacco would just mean you are giving it over to an unregulated market that settles disputes between sellers through violence. The experiment with alcohol prohibition is a good example. Our experiment with the prohibition of other drugs isnt working any better.

I'm not saying they should sell meth at wallmart. Location needs to be regulated. In fact for a drug that dangerous I think it should only be legal over the internet on licensed websites with no advertisement other than that you could find the sites in search enginges. That would limit public exposure to the drug while the people who choose to try it can buy it without going to black market dealers and it would keep production in regulated factories, out of homes, and therefore prevent unsuspecting families from getting poisoned when moving into former meth labs.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Danielson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Racism in Eastern Connecticut often hidden (Jan '07) Apr '17 Pam-s 23
News 24-year-old arrested in Plainfield drug bust, m... Mar '17 Dr Pendyke 1
Danielson Music Thread (Dec '14) Dec '16 Musikologist 4
News Ten Fire Crews Battle Blaze Overnight in Danielson (Dec '16) Dec '16 Kathy Caulfield 2
News Police search for Norwich twin brothers in conn... (Nov '16) Nov '16 pumpkin 1
News Runaway sex trafficking victim found in stolen ... (May '16) May '16 America Gentleman... 1
Empress Theresa (Feb '16) Mar '16 kybunnies 2

Danielson Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Danielson Mortgages