Police report
August 8, 2005 11:34 PM Subscribe
Tawdry, tawdry stuff "Another prison guard smuggling dope, another cop caught tweaking, an airport security professional trying to get rich, a horny Florida deputy, and a Michigan police chief who sounds like a real decadent party animal." Lots of not-so-fun reading in Corrupt Cops Stories, a weekly feature in the Drug War Chronicle. The archive goes back a few years.
Heh - the lady the cop wanted to sex is named "Shirley Bangs"! It's a Bond Girl from Florida!
posted by freebird at 11:50 PM on August 8, 2005
posted by freebird at 11:50 PM on August 8, 2005
Shirley Bangs?
Surely she doesn't.
And don't call me Shirley.
posted by zerokey at 2:30 AM on August 9, 2005
Surely she doesn't.
And don't call me Shirley.
posted by zerokey at 2:30 AM on August 9, 2005
If you lived in my town, you wouldn't say that the meth epidemic is less than meets the eye. It is so much more, in fact. It's lovely for them that they can write a story based solely on statistics that sums everything up. I wonder how often these computer-desk warriors go outside and talk to the real people involved.
posted by TheGoldenOne at 6:32 AM on August 9, 2005
posted by TheGoldenOne at 6:32 AM on August 9, 2005
TheGoldenOne : "I wonder how often these computer-desk warriors go outside and talk to the real people involved."
Well, hopefully not much, since anecdotal information can screw up good statistical analysis of reality (ask anyone who states that all of group X are Y because he's known 3 people in group X, and they are all Y, and then ask someone else who states that none of group X are Y, because he's known 3 people in group X, and none of them are Y). (I'm not saying that the conclusions of the folks at stopthedrugwar.org are valid, or anything along those lines, but just that the argument that number-crunchers should step away from their desks with large amounts of information and talk to a smaller, less representative subset of information in order to make their conclusions, is rather silly)
posted by Bugbread at 7:02 AM on August 9, 2005
Well, hopefully not much, since anecdotal information can screw up good statistical analysis of reality (ask anyone who states that all of group X are Y because he's known 3 people in group X, and they are all Y, and then ask someone else who states that none of group X are Y, because he's known 3 people in group X, and none of them are Y). (I'm not saying that the conclusions of the folks at stopthedrugwar.org are valid, or anything along those lines, but just that the argument that number-crunchers should step away from their desks with large amounts of information and talk to a smaller, less representative subset of information in order to make their conclusions, is rather silly)
posted by Bugbread at 7:02 AM on August 9, 2005
I wonder how often these computer-desk warriors go outside and talk to the real people involved.
Bravo. That's exactly the kind of drug reaction they (and Shafer at Slate) are talking about. Only a fool would think these folks don't know what meth addiction looks like. Their basic point is that hysteria doesn't help fight it.
They are clear about which stats are on the upswing, and offer concrete reasons as to why we're seeing more home meth labs and more people in treatment for meth. Finally, TheGoldenOne, I see there was a college meth ring busted at the end of June in Warner Robins, your town. Is that what you're using as evidence of an epidemic, or is there more?
posted by mediareport at 7:42 AM on August 9, 2005
Bravo. That's exactly the kind of drug reaction they (and Shafer at Slate) are talking about. Only a fool would think these folks don't know what meth addiction looks like. Their basic point is that hysteria doesn't help fight it.
They are clear about which stats are on the upswing, and offer concrete reasons as to why we're seeing more home meth labs and more people in treatment for meth. Finally, TheGoldenOne, I see there was a college meth ring busted at the end of June in Warner Robins, your town. Is that what you're using as evidence of an epidemic, or is there more?
posted by mediareport at 7:42 AM on August 9, 2005
Actually, mediareport, I've been working on a long-term story for my newspaper on this subject, so I've been talking with the police, support groups, prisoners, and addicts. That college meth ring story was interesting to me when it came out since Athens is more of a cocaine town. We always knew they were selling drugs out of Little Italy Pizzeria, but we assumed it was pot, shrooms, or coke. The meth connection originated in Warner Robins, and from all I've gathered in talking with law enforcement, this city is some sort of Southeastern meth mecca.
Sure stats are important, but they hardly tell the whole story. The article suggests that since there hasn't been any sort of dramatic increase in its use, meth isn't the horrific problem the media makes it out to be, but I contend that it is a horrific problem and the concern is warranted. News outlets have been paying more attention to it recently, which is a good thing considering ignoring a problem like this won't make it go away. Public awareness is key. Yeah, media has a way of sensationalizing things like this, but after exploring this problem, I feel it's legitimately sensational stuff.
posted by TheGoldenOne at 8:38 AM on August 9, 2005
Sure stats are important, but they hardly tell the whole story. The article suggests that since there hasn't been any sort of dramatic increase in its use, meth isn't the horrific problem the media makes it out to be, but I contend that it is a horrific problem and the concern is warranted. News outlets have been paying more attention to it recently, which is a good thing considering ignoring a problem like this won't make it go away. Public awareness is key. Yeah, media has a way of sensationalizing things like this, but after exploring this problem, I feel it's legitimately sensational stuff.
posted by TheGoldenOne at 8:38 AM on August 9, 2005
TheGoldenOne : "Sure stats are important, but they hardly tell the whole story. The article suggests that since there hasn't been any sort of dramatic increase in its use, meth isn't the horrific problem the media makes it out to be, but I contend that it is a horrific problem and the concern is warranted."
That makes more sense. My only caveat is that, in the same way, talking to real people on the real streets may also be important, but it also hardly tells the whole story. Heck, if you look through previous posts on meth, you'll see that there are folks who've known folks that did meth with no addiction and no negative side effects, and there are other folks who've known folks whose whole lives have been ruined by meth. The only way to know the whole story is to know everyone who has ever known meth. That's impossible, so statistics are the best approach to getting a total situational view. Real-world knowledge can also be useful in determining what statistics should be used (for example, statistics regarding a new drug that shows that it has a 0% fatality rate aren't that useful when it turns out it has a 90% mental retardation rate. Real-world experience tells you what statistics you should look at).
posted by Bugbread at 8:51 AM on August 9, 2005
That makes more sense. My only caveat is that, in the same way, talking to real people on the real streets may also be important, but it also hardly tells the whole story. Heck, if you look through previous posts on meth, you'll see that there are folks who've known folks that did meth with no addiction and no negative side effects, and there are other folks who've known folks whose whole lives have been ruined by meth. The only way to know the whole story is to know everyone who has ever known meth. That's impossible, so statistics are the best approach to getting a total situational view. Real-world knowledge can also be useful in determining what statistics should be used (for example, statistics regarding a new drug that shows that it has a 0% fatality rate aren't that useful when it turns out it has a 90% mental retardation rate. Real-world experience tells you what statistics you should look at).
posted by Bugbread at 8:51 AM on August 9, 2005
The more I read about meth, the more it seems to me that meth is the crack of the 2000's -- only starting in the country instead of the city. And just as crack (as a problem) largely went away, so will meth, eventually. Frankly there's a very strong parallel between the hype about crack in the 80s and the hype about meth today.
posted by clevershark at 3:36 PM on August 9, 2005
posted by clevershark at 3:36 PM on August 9, 2005
and from all I've gathered in talking with law enforcement, this city is some sort of Southeastern meth mecca.
Yeah, and so is every other small college town in the Southeast, and elsewhere, according to "law enforcement," which, thoughtful folks can't help notice, gets more federal dollars in the midst of a specific new "epidemic." I mean, have you watched the opening three minutes of "Reefer Madness" recently? I highly recommend it as an antidote to kneejerk hysteria. How many of these overblown scares does it take before we're allowed a little skepticism in the face of a brand-new scourge o' drugs?
Excuse the rolled eyes, but while I'm glad to hear you're actually doing street work, I can't help but wonder how much you know of your area's amphetamine culture from 10 or 20 years ago. The deeper issue under discussion here isn't whether or not there's a meth problem in certain places and among certain people; it's whether the current problem is really that much more widespread in the population than it was in decades previous. You really need to address at some point the fact that most of the established indicators of meth use (which have their problems, of course, like all indicators of drug use) *don't* show a dramatically increased "epidemic" of methamphetamine use.
I'm all ears, Golden.
posted by mediareport at 10:36 PM on August 9, 2005
Yeah, and so is every other small college town in the Southeast, and elsewhere, according to "law enforcement," which, thoughtful folks can't help notice, gets more federal dollars in the midst of a specific new "epidemic." I mean, have you watched the opening three minutes of "Reefer Madness" recently? I highly recommend it as an antidote to kneejerk hysteria. How many of these overblown scares does it take before we're allowed a little skepticism in the face of a brand-new scourge o' drugs?
Excuse the rolled eyes, but while I'm glad to hear you're actually doing street work, I can't help but wonder how much you know of your area's amphetamine culture from 10 or 20 years ago. The deeper issue under discussion here isn't whether or not there's a meth problem in certain places and among certain people; it's whether the current problem is really that much more widespread in the population than it was in decades previous. You really need to address at some point the fact that most of the established indicators of meth use (which have their problems, of course, like all indicators of drug use) *don't* show a dramatically increased "epidemic" of methamphetamine use.
I'm all ears, Golden.
posted by mediareport at 10:36 PM on August 9, 2005
« Older Negative knowledge (or more precisely negative... | Media Flame-War! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Sorry there's no singe-page archive for CCS, but finding "corrupt" repeatedly works for scrolling down the archive page. Subtracting from the 396 in the first link works for a while, too.
posted by mediareport at 11:40 PM on August 8, 2005