This is Why the US War On Drugs Does Not Work

Accept the Fact that Prohibition Doesn’t Work

This is step one.  Step three is where everyone is happy.  And if you don’t know what step two is, clearly you don’t understand step one.

            Step one is people accept the fact that prohibition does not work.  More specifically, laws which prohibit people from consuming intoxicating substances are ineffective.  And it’s not just here.  Not just now.  Prohibition doesn’t work anywhere.  And it has never worked.

           

            It is now more than 40 years after Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs in 1971 and we have spent more than $1 trillion on prohibition since then. What do we have to show for it?

            If you’re an economist, all you need to know is this: In 1990, cocaine was about $275 per gram.  Today it’s less than $200 per gram.  Yes, the street price of cocaine in the United States has actually DECREASED. (UNODC.org)

            If that doesn’t convince you that prohibition is not working in the US, take our prison population for an example.  The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, with about 2.3 million behind bars. More than half a million of those people are incarcerated for a drug law violation. (from CNN 12-7-12)

           

            Do you think we are the first?  Do you think that the United States government decided that drugs are bad and that we’re the first civilization to try to prohibit people from using?  Let me give you a little snapshot, here:

            We, as a race of human beings figured out more than 6,000 years ago that we could ferment beverages.  And when we drank those fermented beverages, we caught a buzz.  At that point, we decided – as a species – that catching a buzz was a good thing and we were never going to stop.  Along the way, humans found and created new ways to catch said buzz, but we haven’t stopped.  And we aren’t going to.

            The attempts to prohibit people from taking intoxicating substances date back to the 7^th century – under Islamic law.  Although Islamic law (according to the wikipedia) is often interpreted as prohibiting all intoxicants - not only alcohol - it is interesting that the practice of smoking hashish has continued throughout the history of Islam, against varying degrees of resistance.  BT-dubs, the prohibition of cannabis isn't new, either.  Fields of cannabis were burned in Egypt in the 11^th and 12^th centuries. 

            So, then…cannabis is gone, right?

            If we’ve spent $1Trillion on fighting drugs – there are at least LESS drugs, right?

            Despite tough anti-drug laws, surveys show the U.S. has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world.  The World Health Organization's survey of legal and illegal drug use in 17 countries, including the Netherlands and other countries with less stringent drug laws, shows Americans report the highest level of cocaine and marijuana use.  For example, Americans were four times more likely to report using cocaine in their lifetime than the next closest country, New Zealand (16% vs. 4%).  Marijuana use was more widely reported worldwide, and the U.S. also had the highest rate of use at 42.4% compared with 41.9% of New Zealanders. (CBS News 7-1-08)

            Our prisons in the US are tough.  We have stellar precautionary measures, steel, timing locks, guards, bullet proof glass, guards, strip searches, and more guards.  Don’t take my word for it.  Go to a prison and try to visit someone.  See for yourself.

            And guess what?  There are drugs in prison.  Not just any drugs.  Like, ALL drugs.  I have seen proof with my own eyes.  I have represented clients who have successfully snuck drugs into prison.  I have represented clients who tested dirty for drugs because they used while in prison. 

            The truth is that prison should teach you everything you need to know about prohibition.  The prisons have drugs.  You could spend $20Trillion creating a complete police state in every city in America.  You could turn the country in to a prison.  And drugs would still be here. 

            They are in the safest, most secure places in America. They will never go away. 

            Accept it in your heart of hearts.  Know that prohibition is ineffective.  Know for a fact that there is nothing we can do, no law we can enact, that will make drugs disappear.  Know it.  That’s step one.

            And if you truly accept it, you will know what step two is.

Free in Kentucky: Friendly Advice to Parents

Free in Kentucky: Friendly Advice to Parents: You should take pictures of your young children off Facebook.              As a criminal defense lawyer, I have been around some pretty...

Friendly Advice to Parents

You should take pictures of your young children off Facebook. 

            As a criminal defense lawyer, I have been around some pretty unsavory individuals.  The most unsavory of which have been child molesters.  This particular breed of monster is the most culpable of any person I have represented because they prey on children and they generally do not stop until they are put away in prison.

            I’m not going to carry on about any details or attempt to scare any of you who are parents.  I’d just like to offer some advice.  If you have pictures of your children on Facebook, you should delete them.  Some predators collect pictures of kids off Facebook and other social media sites. 

            Let’s say you have 800 Facebook friends.  Assuming you are like me, some of those people are folks you couldn’t pick out of a lineup.  Maybe you went to grade school, middle, or high school with some of them and haven’t seen them in person since graduation.  If one of those people is a predator and is choosing the next victim from social media, you don’t want your child to be one of the options.

           

            I’ve debated posting this for a while.  I don’t want to scare anyone – and I don’t want to make parents out there feel bad because they’ve already put photos up for the world to see.  I’m not saying you’re a bad parent and I’m not saying you’ve done anything wrong.  But as a criminal defense attorney, I can tell you that you might want to delete those pictures and let your family members know that you don’t want your children on Facebook.

            If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to call me.  My door is always open.

            Greg Simms, Murphy & Powell, PLC (502) 618-4949.

Free in Kentucky: Dogfighting in Kentucky is Illegal.

Dogfighting in Kentucky is Illegal.

There’s an ASPCA “Action Alert” that is up on their website that at least implies that having dogs for the purpose of fighting, in Kentucky, is not illegal.

It is. 

For some reason, Kentucky seems to distinguish between 1) owning a dog and training it to fight; and 2) owning a dog that you actually enter into a fight, or organizing a dog fight.

The first situation is a violation of KRS 525.130b, and the language of that statute is as follows:

525.130b Cruelty to animals in the second degree -- Exemptions.

(1) A person is guilty of cruelty to animals in the second degree when except as authorized by law he intentionally or wantonly:

(a) Subjects any animal to or causes cruel or injurious mistreatment through abandonment, participates other than as provided in KRS 525.125 in causing it to fight for pleasure or profit (including, but not limited to being a spectator or vendor at an event where a four (4) legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit), mutilation, beating, torturing any animal other than a dog or cat, tormenting, failing to provide adequate food, drink, space, or health care, or by any other means;

(b) Subjects any animal in his custody to cruel neglect…

(3) Activities of animals engaged in hunting, field trials, dog training other than training a dog to fight for pleasure or profit, and other activities authorized either by a hunting license or by the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall not constitute a violation of this section.

(4) Cruelty to animals in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

The language of the statute in (1)(a) is a little choppy, but it does, in fact, outlaw the owning and training of dogs for the purpose of fighting, in the Bluegrass State.  It is clarified a bit by subsection (3) which states that training a dog for reasons OTHER than training a dog to fight for pleasure or profit is not illegal.  Nothing clarifies some ambiguous language like a double negative.

If you own a dog and actually use it for fighting (as opposed to just training it to fight), you would be prosecuted under the Cruelty to Animals in the First Degree statute - which reads as follows:

525.125b Cruelty to animals in the first degree.

(1) The following persons are guilty of cruelty to animals in the first degree whenever a four-legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit:

(a) The owner of the animal;

(b) The owner of the property on which the fight is conducted if the owner knows of the fight;

(c) Anyone who participates in the organization of the fight.

(2) Activities of animals engaged in hunting, field trials, dog training, and other activities authorized either by a hunting license or by the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall not constitute a violation of this section.

(3) Cruelty to animals in the first degree is a Class D felony.

Long story short, dogfighting is illegal in Kentucky and the ASPCA has reckless disregard for the truth.  I don't know why they put out such information.  Maybe it's to spur an emotional response to get people to vote for a stricter law.  Either way it's incompetence or intentionally misleading the public.  Both of which can lead to serious backlash on the ASPCA.  

Thanks and have a great day.

Dogfighting in Kentucky is Illegal.

Dogfighting in Kentucky is Illegal.

There’s an ASPCA “Action Alert” that is up on their website that at least implies that having dogs for the purpose of fighting, in Kentucky, is not illegal.

It is.

For some reason, Kentucky seems to distinguish between 1) owning a dog and training it to fight; and 2) owning a dog that you actually enter into a fight, or organizing a dog fight.

The first situation is a violation of KRS 525.130b, and the language of that statute is as follows:

525.130b Cruelty to animals in the second degree -- Exemptions.

(1) A person is guilty of cruelty to animals in the second degree when except as authorized by law he intentionally or wantonly:

(a) Subjects any animal to or causes cruel or injurious mistreatment through abandonment, participates other than as provided in KRS 525.125 in causing it to fight for pleasure or profit (including, but not limited to being a spectator or vendor at an event where a four (4) legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit), mutilation, beating, torturing any animal other than a dog or cat, tormenting, failing to provide adequate food, drink, space, or health care, or by any other means;

(b) Subjects any animal in his custody to cruel neglect…

(3) Activities of animals engaged in hunting, field trials, dog training other than training a dog to fight for pleasure or profit, and other activities authorized either by a hunting license or by the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall not constitute a violation of this section.

(4) Cruelty to animals in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

The language of the statute in (1)(a) is a little choppy, but it does, in fact, outlaw the owning and training of dogs for the purpose of fighting, in the Bluegrass State.  It is clarified a bit by subsection (3) which states that training a dog for reasons OTHER than training a dog to fight for pleasure or profit is not illegal.  Nothing clarifies some ambiguous language like a double negative.

If you own a dog and actually use it for fighting (as opposed to just training it to fight), you would be prosecuted under the Cruelty to Animals in the First Degree statute - which reads as follows:

525.125b Cruelty to animals in the first degree.

(1) The following persons are guilty of cruelty to animals in the first degree whenever a four-legged animal is caused to fight for pleasure or profit:

(a) The owner of the animal;

(b) The owner of the property on which the fight is conducted if the owner knows of the fight;

(c) Anyone who participates in the organization of the fight.

(2) Activities of animals engaged in hunting, field trials, dog training, and other activities authorized either by a hunting license or by the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall not constitute a violation of this section.

(3) Cruelty to animals in the first degree is a Class D felony.

Long story short, dogfighting is illegal in Kentucky and the ASPCA has reckless disregard for the truth.  I don't know why they put out such information.  Maybe it's to spur an emotional response to get people to vote for a stricter law.  Either way it's incompetence or intentionally misleading the public.  Both of which can lead to serious backlash on the ASPCA.  

Thanks and have a great day.

How To Defend an "Undefendable" DUI

        Let’s say you get a DUI, and things look pretty bad.  You’ve been arrested and you had an arraignment where the judge entered a plea of Not Guilty and told you to come back with a lawyer.  Your first question(s) may be “Do I really need a lawyer or would I just be wasting time/money - I think I’m guilty so why not just plead guilty?”

            After all, you may have a BAC over the “legal limit” and you might feel like fighting the case is futile.  Why not just cash it in like Seinfeld before things take a downward slump?  End it before it ends you, right?  Is it better to burn out or to fade away?  Elvis Presley, for example – had it; lost it.  Ended up doing shows in Vegas way past his prime and eating fried peanut butter and downer sandwiches.  Nobody wants to be old, fat Elvis.

            The big question is to know when to quit and when to go on. 

           A lot of people feel that if you have a DUI over a .08, you should throw in the towel.  That isn't necessarily true.  There may be a way to fight that "undefendable" DUI.

            The good news is – when it comes to DUI – you should get a free consultation with a lawyer.  That way you can find out if paying any money will be worth the fight.  Whether to cash those chips in or go and fight.  Any Louisville DUI lawyer worth a damn will at least give you a free consultation and tell you how they plan on fighting your case.

            Sometimes I tell clients I am sorry but the best I can do is get the best deal possible.

            But most of the times I find something. Even DUIs that start out looking problematic (with an “over the limit” BAC) usually have some shining beacon of defensible hope.  Today we’re going to talk about some of the ways a good Louisville DUI lawyer can fight a difficult DUI case.

1.  No bad driving.

            Even if your BAC is over the limit, most juries want to hear about bad driving in order to believe Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that someone is guilty of DUI.  They want to hear about swerving, crossing the line, causing an accident, going the wrong way down a one way street – just to name a few examples.  Better yet, a jury wants to SEE that stuff on a police officer’s in car video system.

            The good news for you: Most police officers in Kentucky don’t have in car video.  Louisville Metro Police officers usually do – but even LMPD officers sometimes don’t turn the video on (for VHS systems) or the system may be down.  Typically, police officers in other Kentucky jurisdictions do not have video systems – including the Kentucky State Police.

            Even if your officer has video of the stop, there still may be no evidence of bad driving.  Some DUIs come from non-traditional DUI stops.  For example, the officer may have pulled you over for expired tags, speeding a little over the limit, or for dark tint.  These violations are not evidence of intoxication because sober people are frequently stopped for the same. 

            The best case scenario for a DUI stop, from a defense standpoint, would be a roadblock stop.  In this situation, you may have been exhibiting no conduct whatsoever that would evidence of a violation – and the roadblock can be challenged if the police didn’t do everything properly.

            If a jury hears about one of these type of stops, they are missing a piece of the DUI puzzle: “Bad,” or intoxicated driving is a key component of a Guilty verdict.  Without bad driving, we may be able to prove reasonable doubt.  And you may go free.

2.  Borderline BAC.

         Even if you are “over the limit” you still may have a defendable DUI.  In order to win a per se prosecution for DUI, the Commonwealth would have to prove that at the time you operated a vehicle you had a BAC of over a .08.  The problem that prosecutors have, is that the BAC wasn’t taken until sometime AFTER you drove the car. 

            Before an officer takes your BAC at the station (this is the BAC result that is admissible in court) they have to watch you for 20 minutes.  It is likely that the ride in the police cruiser took several minutes (from the point of your arrest back to the police station).  So, it isn’t unreasonable to have a 30 minute difference between the time you were operating the vehicle and the time you took the BAC.  If your BAC was only a little over the limit, who’s to say that your BAC didn’t raise within that 30 minute time frame???  You could have been under the limit while driving and over the limit a half hour later.  That makes you Not Guilty of DUI.

3. A constitutional issue on the stop.

            Police officers can’t just pull you over because they want to.  They have to have a reason.  Specifically, they need what we call “Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion of Criminal Activity” to stop you.  If you were speeding, and the police stopped you for speeding, we need to know the last time the radar equipment was certified.  If the equipment is unreliable, we may need to fight the stop.

           If you were stopped for “swerving” it’s important (especially in Louisville) to check and see if the officer had an in-car video system.  The camera may not match the officer’s memory or testimony.  Without evidence of swerving, we may win a motion to Suppress evidence from the stop. 

            That’s the beauty of finding a Constitutional violation in the stop.  If we can convince the judge that the stop was improper, we can get all of the evidence from the stop Suppressed.  That means the prosecution wouldn’t be able to use any of the evidence they got from that Constitutional violation.  Including your BAC.  Without that, we may have a slam dunk Not Guilty verdict coming.

        In short, these are just a few ways we can fight “undefendable” DUIs.  If you are charged with a DUI in Louisville, Elizabethtown, Lexington, Frankfort, or the surrounding areas – call Greg Simms at Murphy & Powell, PLC.  The number is 502.618.4949 and you will receive a free consultation about your case.  Maybe you need a lawyer.  Maybe you don’t.  Let’s find out.