DEA brought into fight against drugs in South Boston

Peter Gelzinis reports it's good to have a Congressman who lives in your neighborhood when outrage over the death of a grandmother, allegedly at the hands of a drug addict, spurs cries of outrage.



Free tagging: 


    The BS meter is high with this one

    By on

    Read Gelzinis's column: The last time DEA swept through South Boston because of out-of-control addicts was when the murdering thug was still around.

    Because Whitey knew how to dispose of bodies?

    Oh, but Whitey and his boys NEVER killed anybody! And they made sure that Unicorns farting double rainbows patrolled the "town" and all was happy and smily while Big Thug was in control.

    What other fairy tales do you know?

    BS meter

    By on

    Bashing Southie meter is always high at the Globe Mini Me.


    Pointing out that Whitey wasn't exactly good for the community is bashing Southie? Explain?

    Keep taking yourself so seriously

    By on

    Man are you ever a self important windbag. They initial poster was obviously making a joke about Whitey. There's not a person in southie who believes he actually kept drugs out. Everybody knows he was in the drug business.

    Resist the urge to climb on your high horse north of the river there.


    By on

    Some of the local youth have been taking to The Departed and The Town a little too seriously. They think fiction is history, and seem bent on acting it out to prove their cred.

    Back in the day we had Boondock Saints, but no one was going around throwing toilets on people as far as I know.

    Too bad folks are only seeing the fictionalized popculture version of Boston and Southie. There's some great history here that doesn't involve whitey, mob syndicates, and crooked cops and politicians.


    By on

    The DEA are a bunch of government thugs who have probably cost more people their lives than Bulger ever did. This is not to say that Bulger was some sort of wonderful underappreciated grandpa-like figure. He was an asshole. But the DEA isn't the solution. The DEA is part of the problem. Without the DEA and similar organizations pumping up drug prices, people like Bulger wouldn't exist.

    If you want to get rid of drug crime in your neighborhood, including murders, then the simplest solution is to legalize the drugs. Doing so cuts out the black market, lowers prices to where even the most severe addict can probably afford his or her fix, makes violent money-driven drug-related crime an anachronism, and has the bonus of eliminating a federal agency that costs the taxpayers many billions of dollars to maintain.

    OK, I've said my piece. I now turn the floor over to those who will try to make the case that the streets will be full of eight-year-old heroin addicts whose blood will flow in rivers down the gutter if we change anything.


    I like Suldog

    By on

    And if you want to do the roadtrip to check out the anti-swearing law in middleborough, I might just be willing to go along.

    one more bonus

    Legalized drugs, legally obtained, mean contact with a system that can also lead to rehabilitation.

    That's a lesson learned from needle exchange programs.

    and from Portugal

    By on

    Which completely legalized all drugs over a decade ago, and has seen addiction rates plummet.

    Not exactly

    By on

    Possession is still illegal, but it's an administrative issue rather than a criminal prosecution if it's less than a 10-day supply of any drug, and they favor treatment rather than punishment.

    But yes, the result has been a sharp decrease in HIV rates and in users/dealers getting shot in alleys, which is great.

    holy crap

    I agree with you guys and gals for once. :)


    By on

    Hear this liberal disagree sully...

    The war on drugs unfortunately is one where the liberal elite, and bible thumping right have an ironclad alignment and agreement. Time to break it, and the prison industrial complex.

    I agree that some drugs

    By on

    I agree that some drugs should be legalized, provided they don't make you a danger to public safety (PCP is, for example, something that should stay illegal). There's no reason marijuana should be illegal, in my opinion, and I've never smoked a joint in my life nor care to.

    I also agree the DEA is awful and needs a serious overhaul morally and bureaucratically; the treatment of Daniel Chong is just the latest example.

    That said, I don't think legalization is a magic solution, either. There'd be a rise in crime for a while as the criminal organizations killed each other over what drugs were left and for other criminal enterprises, for example. Nor would these structures just go away: they'd simply go legitimate in one respect while still being criminals in others. Mexican drug gangs wouldn't stop killing people for money or enslaving women for prostitution just because their primary source of income is suddenly legit. It'd also probably trigger some very severe unrest in a few locations.

    Also, I'm not sure the price would actually drop significantly in all cases. There would definitely be a price drop, but, for example, according to the government's own estimates, there's something like 100k to 200k heroin users in the United States, compared to something like 50% of the population admitting to have tried marijuana at least once.

    That's a pretty tiny market for a product that has to be heavily processed and come a long way, and there's no way to legalize this and not tax it; it would be the only way those morally opposed would find it remotely palatable.

    In short, legalization should definitely happen on a case by case basis, but it's not a panacea.

    Reasonable And Polite Replies Always Appreciated

    By on

    Here are my rebuttals:

    All drugs, PCP included (and I've done PCP, and would never, in any way shape or form recommend it, endorse it, or otherwise want to see anyone else do it, but I'll defend the right to do it), would come under the same laws as alcohol. So long as you are making use of the substance in an environment meant for same (bars, taverns, clubs) or in your own home, there shouldn't be any specific laws against use. If you're driving, or doing something else that could endanger other people, you should be up shit creek without parole, same as you should be with alcohol-related crimes. I'm open to the possibility that some drugs could leave you entirely without recourse to sane behavior, though, so I'm willing to disagree without totally pooh-poohing your argument.

    Just because criminal organizations would kill each other is no reason to keep criminal organizations in the black. I don't think you're saying that, but some could take it that way. There will be collateral damage before things settle down. I didn't mean to make it seem as though I thought everything would be rainbows and lollipops overnight.

    As for Mexican cartels or whatever, I'm truly not interested in them once legalization takes place in this country. It's not that I don't care about people, but just that it is not our problem as a nation to solve their problems. If we legalize, there will be plenty of growing in this country, legally, and the cartels and other foreign criminal organizations would have no real market here.

    A great deal of the price of heroin comes from the illegality. Stuff is cut with all kinds of crap to keep the profits up as it passes through each chain in the market. When some law enforcement agency says they took down a kilo, a good bet is that it isn't a kilo of pure shit. It can be produced inexpensively, and purely, once legal. Whether the companies producing it will keep the price low is another question, I'll grant you that. And as for those morally opposed... I'll be polite and say that I'm also morally opposed - to being told what I can and cannot do with my own body.

    I don't expect legalization to happen. I only mention it because I'm a cranky old bastard who has to trot out the logic every once in a while or have it fester inside of me until I blow a gasket.

    I truly appreciate the reasonable and polite reply. Intelligent folk CAN disagree without becoming disagreeable. Thank you.


    Another theory is...

    People addicted to some drugs are of zero worth to society. They don't work, and need help from other people or the government to survive. When you need help from the government to survive, you are taking away freedoms from other people.

    In That Case, Pete, ...

    By on

    ... let's euthanize the severely crippled and the mentally deficient. Those bastards are taking away my freedoms.

    OK, I know you aren't saying that (at least, I assume you aren't, since I usually find you a reasonable sort) and I hope you know me well enough to know that I no more condone the government enabling bad behavior than you probably do. I believe in freedom, but I also believe in personal responsibility.

    So, I don't think we have an argument.


    But the druggies are choosing to use drugs

    And then after they use those drugs, they can't control anything they do. They become dependent on others to feed them, give them more drugs, etc, etc.

    People who are born with disabilities or who become disabled because of accidents are different than drug users.

    Don't you think there is a difference?

    so what do we do?

    By on



    seriously though, since what we ARE doing is very expensive and not working.

    Economic prosperity in the 90's did more to reduce drug use and drive the rest in indoors (cheaper / people had jobs to pay for it / ect) than anything else.

    This recession has seen users lose their jobs, and resort to other means to fuel their habits, at the same time there's been a crackdown on prescription painkillers by the feds.

    Sure There's A Difference, Pete

    By on

    But, like I said, if someone chooses to engage in harmful behavior, that's their tough luck if it reaches a point where they can't take care of themselves. I've engaged in that sort of bad behavior, lots of times, and I would no more expect the government to pick up my tab than I would if I purposely walked in front of a car.

    I've had help from relatives and friends. And I would extend the same help to others, personally. But expect it from the government, or condone an expectation of same? Nope. Like I said, I believe in freedom coupled with personal responsibility. If you choose to act like an idiot, then you have to accept the consequences of your actions.


    Public health approach

    Drug addiction is an illness. Offer free treatment and it declines. Criminalize and get all judgy about it? Prepare for more.

    The most effective control is treatment and lots of it. Period. End of sentence.

    I agree that with treatment and education it will decline.

    And I think education is actually the most important (Suldog even refers to his educated choice of drugs)

    But do we know the long term effects of legalizing drugs? Can we estimate the use of other drugs if legalized? Can we then estimate the long term costs?

    Every year there are about 60 to 70 billion alcoholic drinks consumed and over 500 billion cigarettes smoked a year. Compare that to the 500K-1 million heroin abusers or those 2-3 million who take cocaine each week.

    Alcohol consumption in the US was at its highest in the early 19th century, and bottomed out in the mid 1850s with temperance movements and was actually at an all time low at the end of prohibition, only to peek again 50 years later in 1980 when consumption rates started to go down again.

    How much would health care costs go up in 50/100 years if we legalized some or all of these drugs?


    By on

    How can we be sure about alcohol consumption statistics during prohibition? By definition, all consumption during that period was "off the books."

    D.A.R.E. (education)

    By on

    I did DARE in middle school. I can tell you it had no effect on who turned into an addict, and who didn't.

    Although, I'd argue it was more scare tactic than education, which might be why it was infective.

    HS also did little in terms of real education. More Mr. Mackie's "drugs are bad, m'kay?"

    I had a friend who came from an upstanding, but strict household who was a top 20 in my HS class and was the kid reading books at recess in middle school... he got addicted to coke and dropped out of college after 3 semesters. He's back on track now, but he took quite the detour and needed help and support from a lot of people to do it.

    Sure it's his fault, but I think it's the responsibility of the community to help salvage those who can be, and to minimize the fallout (for the community) for those that can not.

    Some people will bitch that that's basically a losers ransom, or that we should just kill those people. But if you're that cynical about your community and place it it, I don't know why we're bothering with this whole Enlightenment based civilization and community thing.

    You know I always thought the

    By on

    You know I always thought the idea behind DARE wasn't completely drug prevention but to build trust between law enforcement and the community. I'd agree that DARE wasn't the reason I never did drugs, but I didn't grow up with a "f*ck the police" mentality, either.

    Pulled my kids from DARE

    At the time, the curriculum didn't even cover illegal use of legal prescription drugs - the first illegal drug use they were likely to encounter.

    The approaches have also been debunked scientifically as useless for drug prevention.

    What did I get for my efforts at home education? A couple of kids who fully understand why some people use drugs and what sorts of sensations and impairments and effects they can expect.

    The older one is straight-edge - not even coffee! How is this possible??? The younger likes really good wine in small amounts with dinner when parents have a bottle open. Won't touch anything crappy now. Go figure.

    First of all, your numbers

    By on

    First of all, your numbers are insanely off. Granted it's all based on self reporting, but the government's found around six million people use cocaine in a given year, and 300k use heroin. Actual addicts are maybe half to a third of that number.

    Secondly, health care costs would drop, actually, because legally prepared drugs would be subject to government quality standards. We're talking about, by and large, chemicals and plants prepared in questionable conditions by people who are not trained chemists or horticulturalists. Homebrewed meth alone uses acetone, toluene, lithium, ammonia, and Christ only knows what else.

    Christ only?

    By on

    Christ was a carpenter, not a chemist. I'm pretty sure any chemist could tell you what is in it. Also, anyone who googles "shake and bake meth recipe" or something similar.

    But more to the point, just because chemistry uses some toxic ingredients to make a final product doesn't mean anything at all about the final product necessarily having any of those things in it. One of the reasons a meth lab/bottle has high pressures is that these solvents all have low vapor pressures. That means when you isolate the meth crystals, if you let them air dry a bit, all the solvents will evaporate away leaving just the methamphetamine. The "health problem" with manufacturing homemade small-batch meth these days is the ease at which some of these reactions can explode with a bit of oxygen and/or a spark. There's a lot fewer big meth labs with tons of toxic gases inside.

    Also, the health care problem of having some of these drugs being freely available is the ease of OD. You'd have a hard time overdosing on THC/marijuana....but a relatively easy time of it with over-the-counter meth or heroin. Worse is complications from taking more than one at once.

    Finally, unless this new government-approved meth is cheaper than some household solvents and decongestant medication, then you're still going to have people making it at home rather than buying the costly legal version.

    Quality of the drugs surely will be a factor

    When it comes to treating future drug abuse health problems, but will use increase?

    The numbers are from a 1994 booky (Goldstein), but are we really going to allow companies to legally make meth for people? The overdose numbers might change, but you will have to calculate all the other health term risks as well.


    By on

    I suggest you read the post and watch the video below via Andrew Sullivan.

    Also, being a LEO I'm sure you know the problems with semi-legal prescription medication. Lots of needless abuse, but most people are still functioning members of society.

    Also, can we substitute "cancer" for "drugs"? What about other mental and retardation illnesses?

    I really don't get the line, "When you need help from the government to survive, you are taking away freedoms from other people". Are you implying defense and protection, ie your profession, is liberty zapping and should be done away with?

    Absolutes shouldn't be used when talking about addiction and disease. Like the common cold throwing bad money out in the effort to eradicate it is foolish. It needs to be managed.

    The problem of addiction

    By on

    As you state here and in a few other comments, it's the responsibility of the user not to be an addict (and if self-aware of their addiction, to get help and stop using). Unfortunately, while that is true of alcohol, it's not quite the same for some of these other drugs being discussed. Alcohol has temporary mind-altering effects. It is quickly eliminated by the body. Addiction to alcohol may have an underlying genetic propensity, but is largely a psychological addiction that affects only some users.

    However, some of these drugs, like PCP which has been given as an example already, are not the same. They are entirely synthetic and were crafted specifically for their brain altering effects (originally as a proposed anesthetic). PCP is not cleared from the body well and one of its metabolites, when it is finally broken down, is actually a known toxin. It alters other natural metabolite levels in the brain (ones associated with schizophrenia). I'm not going to claim it's more widely addictive (addictive to more people than alcohol is) purely because I don't have the evidence...but I could easily see how its known (and intended) effects could make it addictive to a much wider audience than alcohol whose effects are much smaller and shorter-lasting.

    It's a far different beast than alcohol in a lot of ways and should not be conflated as just something else you'd go to a bar to get. To say that of PCP, would be to suggest that we should just have bars where you go get any non-acutely toxic compound every pharma company has ever made. My point is that just because you may believe that some Schedule I substances are incorrectly and unfairly maligned does not mean that all Schedule I substances should be freely available and consumed by anyone who wants them.

    Bathtub chemistry

    By on

    Meth, for example, is by no means is good drug. But the fact that production moved from people in the know, to cartels, and now finally to peoples' basements, has made it much, much, much more dangerous and destructive drug.

    People are concocting it in unsafe conditions and are not properly removing harmful byproducts of production, ebcause they lack the know how, money, or just don't care. It's become the "face of meth" if you will, that these byproduct literally zombiefy their users from repeated exposure to byproducts of the creation process that are not properly removed, and not meant to be consumed.

    Driving it underground has made drugs less safe and more physically and mentally destructive. I also agree we can't legalize it all, but we sure can decriminalize it and keep the extremely harmful, poorly made stuff off the markets completely. As as Sullly says, OUI and or violent acts while UI should be delt with severely with long criminal sentences. If you're violent and a drug users, you are a criminal and are not responsible enough to use drugs.

    Funny enough, the supplement business is having the same issues (steroids / metabolism enhancers). First by people skirting the system and introducing new variations that are not loosely defined as illegal, and then by extremely harmful products hitting the market because they were not made properly in china or here in someones insufficient lab:

    Scary stuff. And even scarier because some twisted people actually want this, as they think it provides both a moral hazard and a proper punishment for people drawn to these things. Which only cuts off your nose to spite your face. That kind of thinking hurts everyone, and causes problems. We need to be smarter than an eye for an eye, lest we all end up blinded.

    yeah, because that worked so goddamn well for booze

    By on

    we sure can decriminalize it and keep the extremely harmful, poorly made stuff off the markets completely. As as Sullly says, OUI and or violent acts while UI should be delt with severely with long criminal sentences.

    Yeah, because that's working so damn well for alcohol, ain't it?

    You know those problems we have downtown with people getting shot up at nightclubs? Thousand times worse with legalized meth. And if you think that legalizing meth will do anything except encourage people to make it in their bathtubs, you're insane. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry will be "microbrewing" their meth and turning the city's apartments into toxic waste sites. We'll even see small-scale commercial production, of course with none of the proper permits, etc.

    And meanwhile, what do you think the drug dealers, used to sweet profits, will do? Just give up and start selling used cars? No, dumbasses. They'll strongarm anyone they can into shutting down or working for them, whether it's production, distribution, or "retail."


    By on

    you need to troll a little bit more subtlety

    I love how...

    anyone without a handle is called a troll?? And if they have a good thought or go against the "non" trolls they are picked on?? Arent we all trolls here ??? anon squared , swirlgirl, pete nice, ...I dont see any real names , emails or phone numbhers.

    As for legalizing drugs , it is a slipper slope and the anon has some good points along with Sul having good points...

    The solution is going to take our community to work together and rally together. Take advantage of the programs we have and use them. Police the streets and STOP making excuses for those who use and sell drugs...stop glorifying them when then get off it and become a pillar of society. Everything you read in the media or see in moves is about the one who did drugs...stole...cheated and hit rock bottom ...saw the light and rose above it all to get better !!! How about the kids who dont drink?Dont do drugs???How about we pat them on the back for once

    "microbrewed meth"

    By on

    really guy, you're going to stick up for that? Hate to break it to you, but Santa isn't real too.

    I Lol'd reading it, but apparently you think his rant was serious? That's fine, but I'm not.

    yeah really guy

    i do find truth in that ...I bet they didnt see micro-brews happening 50 years ago...I bet they laughed then too

    but hey we can agree to disagree. No need to insult . as I said I can see both sides of the fence


    By on

    Microbrewing and homebrewing was effectively outlawed after prohibition until the Carter administration reauthorized it in the late 70s.

    Prior to prohibition, there were myriads of small breweries. Especially back before refrigerated transport, it was the only way: local or nothing (or maybe just extremely well hopped beer).

    So I'm pretty sure they did see microbrews happening 50 years ago, and took steps to prevent it.


    By on

    Microbrew is in quotes. Are you really that dense? I guess so.

    Someone like you, with such an obvious and desperate need to appear clever, should know that's a simple reference to people cooking meth in their apts.


    Are you calling me dense ..? hahha ! I love it

    Or should I say "troll" are you call me dense?

    Thanks I never realized how desperate I was for attention and the need to be looked at as clever on a website where no one knows my real name...thank gowd you came along

    Oxycontin, Oxycodone

    By on

    A bit off-topic, but your point about some folks thinking there should be built-in dangers to drug usage reminds me of Oxy fact.

    I've used legally for pain (I've had a lot of extensive and expensive dental work - a long story) and I've also used the drug in the past for pleasure. One thing I always do before taking anything these days is to read up on it in the Physicians Desk Reference and other good sources of info.

    The major difference between Oxycodone and Oxycontin, on a pharmacological level, is a simple one. Oxycodone (or Percocet) contains Acetaminophen (Tylenol), while Oxycontin is pure. The trap for users is this, and it's not something everybody knows: Tylenol, taken in somewhat high doses, can permanently damage your liver. 4000mg daily can be quite toxic. And if you're taking Percs with 500mg Acetaminophen in each tablet, regardless of the strength of the Oxy surrounding it, that means more than eight Percs a day can destroy your liver. Nice!

    Now, how many junkies are going to do the homework I did? Precious few. And some of those that don't will die from Tylenol poisoning and the prescription drug will get the blame, fueling more calls for banning them instead of going after the real culprit, the over-the-counter component.


    More Truth:

    By on

    One doesn't have to like or trust the DEA to realize that Whitey Bulger wasn't just simply some ignorant, incompetent boob, or simply an asshole. He is a diabolically clever, extremely sly and cunning individual who'll often strike just out of the blue, without warning, which is precisely what makes him such a nasty, dangerous piece of work. Whitey Bulger has taken and compromised plenty of lives, not only in Southie, but beyond, as well, and the danger that he poses is not to be underestimated, let alone glorified and/or romanticized.

    Just an FYI not all drugs

    By on

    Just an FYI not all drugs being used on the streets today are black market drugs. Most are prescribed rx's from Md's such as suboxone and oxycontin. Then are then sold on our streets. So legalizing all drugs is not the answer. They know who the dealers are, drug sweep and put these fuc**** in jail. SHIT you can charge them with murder. They are killing individuals "Manley our children" with heroin overdoses...

    I like how they think taking

    By on

    I like how they think taking dealers off the streets (or rather, pushing them out of Andrew Sq) is going to curb the drug problem in Southie. The addicts will still be addicted and will just have to resort to other ways to get high if they can't reach their dealer, such as home invasions looking for pills or stuff to sell in order to insure at least a day or two of being "well" (this is what happened in the case of the grandma who was being robbed for her sons fishing equipment. Honestly, I don't know why her age matters one bit especially since there are dozens of grandmas and grandpas selling their prescriptions out of Southie)

    Purdue taking Oxycontin off the market a few years ago, along with the Florida "pill mills" being shut down, caused the price of Roxicet to double (and by this point almost triple) and in turn allowed a major comeback of the only alternative: heroin. Which is more addictive, brings withdrawals on much faster and is usually sold by a much more violent, cutthroat breed of dealer.

    A junkie who is going through withdrawals is in severe pain/discomfort and really sick and their brain is going to take any moral shortcut it can to get high again. They don't start out as terrible people, but opiate addiction has almost a 100% success rate of turning people into self-centered, morally bankrupt pieces of shit who will tell any lie they can think of to get high.

    The real solution is to wait 5-10 years until Southie is completely gentrified. Then the drug problem will be pushed into Dorchester where no one cares about stuff like this because they're all niggers, right? The D street projects will be a TJ Maxx, a Starbucks, a 1,500-3,000 / mo apartment building, two Dunkins, a salon, and a 5 Guys with enough room left over for a TD Bank, Sovereign, Bank of America and a Chase.

    You forgot

    By on

    Chipotle, Panera Bread and another bad offshoot of Regina Pizza.

    Hello? DEA?

    Hello? DEA? Anybody home? DOT & ROX here, right next door, dozens of murders each year, perhaps not innocent grandmothers but now and again some toddlers get shot and drugs are certainly involved part of the time.

    When can we expect our task force? I'll have donuts and coffee ready...

    Note to DEA...

    By on

    Just hang out at the Southie Burger King on Broadway and you can make your job a lot easier. From what I can make out there are always deals going down right out front (when the same kids are hanging out there for four hours at a time, they're not waiting for the number 9 bus, something is up). In fact, you see a lot of the same activity up and down West Broadway...although I must admit, since the murder and the increased police presence/arrests, there's a noticeable drop in the number of kids hanging around the whole neighborhood. Seems like trouble-makers are laying low.

    And if you're done at BK on Broadway

    By on

    Head on down to Dot Ave from one side of Andrew through to the other and check out the zombie hooker junkies. Any age, all varieties of declining health, and all varieties of stumbly.

    This is a farce

    By on

    and if i was a resident of other areas of Boston, I'd be fuming right about now. My condolences to the family of that poor woman, but I have to question if drugs are even the major problem in Southie ATM. In this instance they were, but a man who would kill for drug money would most likely do so for other reasons as well. If it wasn't trying to cover his tracks where, it would have been in a bar fight down the road. Or in a road rage incident. Or some girl walking back from work who blew him off and was asking for it.

    There's been more issues with violent, unprovoked beatings and muggings in the last few years than break-ins / murders. The banks at E&W Broadway are regularly robbed, and are not even a mile away from C6. A mugging happened months back literally steps away from the C6 precinct. Car are broken into and items stolen week after week (and end up in Lawrence). Apartments too.

    Cops are no where to be seen on patrol... they are literally spread too thin. So much so that cruisers are almost always parked in front of C6 and not being used.

    I don't think I've ever seen a LEO step out of a car for a long period of time, or out around on a foot patrol, unless they absolutely had to. The community for the most part doesn't see them or know them. That's a big problem. The local firefighters have more of a public presence in the neighborhood.

    And lets face it, as said above. Hitting dealers only limits suppliers, increases demand, and then makes it more profitable for the next in line dealer. Bigger the risk, the bigger the reward.

    That raises the stakes, because then more money is on the table for them. So, instead of Joe firefighter in Broadway stop selling prescription pills, you have Dealer Mike protecting his hugely in demand and valuable investment with guns from the other gangs who now find it hugely profitable to sell heroin. You limit supply, instead of treat the disease, and you promote crime and a profitable black market outside of the law and community.

    Repeat after me: You can't change human nature, or the nature of economics, which is why prohibition never works.

    You only end up creating a hugely profitable black market, and a segregated class system based on who gets picked up the law and who doesn't. You can mitigate risks and problems, but you can't cure the disease 100%. You can treat it to a point that makes sense fiscally, and minimize the negative problems associated with it.

    Also, see this for the hypocrisy:

    not knocking...

    you anon-squared for what you wrote...

    Just writing off your thread...I want to know who on here ACTUALLY lives in South Boston now??? Owns rents or has a buisness here??


    By on

    and I'll tell you now, I feel sketchier in parts of Worcester than walking around by myself in Southie. Crime is going up and the police need to be more visible and viligent, but it's also the city. There's a lot of hyperbole about the area.

    It used to be a weapon to keep college kids and yuppies out. Still is to a point.

    I agree...

    I live here too. 12 plus years. I feel safe always . But I also use common sense as it is a city.I agree we need to fix this NOW. But I also agree with you that we needed to handle this last year when my two friends were beaten on mothers day for being yuppies ( funny one is from DOT) and walking home at 3AM ...where was the community meeting then???? Its a shame...

    I agree...

    I live here too. 12 plus years. I feel safe always . But I also use common sense as it is a city.I agree we need to fix this NOW. But I also agree with you that we needed to handle this last year when my two friends were beaten on mothers day for being yuppies ( funny one is from DOT) and walking home at 3AM ...where was the community meeting then???? Its a shame...


    By on

    Not de-policing. Just less stormtroopers and APC's and improper use of less than lethal toys.

    More proactive involvement with communities. Not reactive shows of force.

    And getting LEO's out of cruisers and into the community is whats needed. Not just beefing up cruiser patrols. Interaction is just as important as micro-targeting of high trouble spots by officers on foot (which really just forces more community interaction).

    Here's just one study:

    Ah ok

    Thats a crime hotspot study though. Current crime mapping in Boston isn't going to have any hot spots in south Boston.

    You will find that walking around south Boston on a police beat isn't going to do that much. In the grand scheme of things, there really isn't that much going on there in terms of crime, and very little that visible patrols can do. But there are those who believ security theater does make people feel safer when used in areas like walking beats and viable patrols. Often times walking beats in safe areas like south Boston will do that.

    Pete disagree

    By on

    I walk all day everyday in southie. And already since last weeks
    Murder and more so this week sunce the meeting the peddlers are offthe main streets ! The
    Strung out junkies have fled too. Now the job is to find where they went
    And arrest them or get them help. The streets already look
    cleaner feel safer etc... This is just step one

    The point of walking beats

    By on

    Is to ingrain the officers with the local community. The police can't be everywhere, nor should they. It's up to residents and business owners in the area to keep an eye on the streets, and to help the police. They need to be comfortable with the police for that to happen. When officers stay aloof or in their cars and don't come out except to clean up after-the-fact, they can't expect people from the community to come forward or trust them.

    Just want to add this quote from Ed Davis

    By on

    We are continuing our ongoing commitment to community policing. Last year we successfully completed 160,000 walking and bicycle beats. The positive feedback from the community and the results were significant and encouraging, demonstrating that COPS MATTER. This year I want us to reach 200,000… It is ambitious but I know that you are up to the challenge. I want to see everyone out of cars and walking for some portion of their shift. It has already made a difference in how the community sees us and how safe they feel in their neighborhoods.

    To further that effort the Bureau of Investigative Services has also taken great strides in community engagement. Through their new outreach program, detectives are working with local businesses and residents to develop positive relationships outside of their investigative duties. This means Detectives are getting out and walking the beat. They’re visiting and talking to community members, attending community meetings and educating the public on safety tips and the importance of community input to solving crimes.

    Violent crimes have gone up

    (slightly), and property crimes have gone down slightly this year from last year.

    And south Boston crime has actually gone down more than other areas (9% from 2010 to 2011 and another 10% from the first quarter last year to this year).

    But your average guy like anon squared doesn't notifce it so does it matter then? And now someone says the junkies are clearing out after this recent murder but the crime rates were already going down before this murder in southie anyway. clearing out junkies doesn't mean crime rates are going to drop further, or that these junkies just decided to stop being junkies, unless the police are using the most aggressive approach possible, which is the ultimate crime reduction process at the expense of people's rights, (ie: Moscow 1950, or North Korea 2012).

    I'm not sure if that is happening or not yet.