Posted on 06/06/2003 3:46:38 AM PDT by yonif
June 6, 2003) — Monroe County’s top police executives Thursday revealed the existence of a year-old task force to disrupt the illegal drug trade among mid- to upper-level dealers.
The Greater Rochester Area Narcotics Enforcement Team -- or GRANET -- was formed 13 months ago. But the police chiefs waited to announce the team’s formation until it had accumulated a year’s worth of arrests and seizures, said Brockport Police Chief Dan Varrenti, an administrator of the team.
“These arrests were made based on lengthy investigations and a collaborative effort,” Varrenti said at a news conference at the Monroe Community College Public Safety Training Center on Scottsville Road.
The new enforcement team marks the first time all 11 county police departments have joined forces in a focused ongoing effort against illegal drugs in Monroe County. Team members focus on dealers higher up in the network, many of whom live in the suburbs and supply street-level retailers in the city or adjacent counties.
First Assistant District Attorney Mike Green noted two targets of a GRANET investigation -- Carlos Pichardo, 40; and Luis Velez, 43 -- were convicted on drug charges Wednesday for their role in a drug ring that moved 5 kilograms of cocaine per week through the Rochester area.
“This unit has already demonstrated tremendous success,” he said.
Rochester Police Chief Robert Duffy said GRANET was formed to deal with the fact that most drug dealers don’t discriminate among towns or other municipal boundaries.
“This will put a sense of fear into those people who attempt to bring cocaine and other drugs into the Rochester area,” Duffy said. “It really is a regionwide problem, and this is a regionwide approach.”
GRANET is a combination of two drug-fighting partnerships and cooperation from four departments that had not been part of either task force.
In May 2002, the Multi-Agency Drug Task Force, representing five suburban police departments, joined with the Metro Rochester Narcotics Unit, which was made up of Rochester police officers and sheriff’s deputies.
Each department can assign officers to rotate through duty on GRANET.
The team typically comprises about 18 members and is under the command of Rochester police Lt. Gerald Connor, with a $120,000 yearly operating budget administered by the Rochester Police Department. Operating expenses -- such as cell phones, telephone-tap devices and rental cars -- are reimbursed with drug money seized by the team.
Twenty percent of all money seized goes to the federal government. What’s left after expenses is divided among participating agencies according to a formula based on how many officers each department assigns to the team.
Since GRANET was formed, team members have arrested 74 people in the city and 30 in the surrounding county. They’ve seized $598,697 in cash, 10.5 kilograms of cocaine, 406 kilograms of marijuana and 517 grams of heroin. They’ve also taken 14 handguns, 10 shotguns and five rifles.
Drops in the bucket. Relegalize!
They’ve also taken 14 handguns, 10 shotguns and five rifles.
All hail the War On Guns.
War On Drugs = War On Guns.
It's surprising that more folks don't make the connection.
It's surprising that more folks don't make the connection.
Some people think they can change facts by ignoring them.
It's suprising that more of y'all don't make the connection between your leader Soros and his gun control stategy .....
Yes. Like the pro-drug legalization leaders Soros/Sperling/Lewis/Zimmerman and their gun control strategy.
For you chance33_98...#7. It doesn't get any plainer.
Fred knows drugs are illegal. Fred thinks the law is Stupid. Fred knows he can be arrested if he chooses to ignore the law. Fred thinks about it for awhile. If this was a law where he had to kill kids to appease the government he thinks he would be with Joe. But he realizes there are varying degrees to such things and makes his decision on how to proceed. Fred lobbies to get the law changed because it is dumb, and is able to spend time doing so because he is not behind bars. Fred can live without shooting up in the meantime, and decides to honor the rules society has put forth. He believes the system was designed to allow change, and he still believes in the system. It might take awhile, but changing things is never quick and easy.
Then we have Alex. Alex feels the same as Fred, but thinks the government has went totally over the line eroding his liberties, so he organizes a revolution. He gets together all the people who think the way he does, arms them, has a boston pot party, and marches on the capital. Alex will be fondly remembered.
Which one will do the most for ending the wod? Whom will the general public (the voters) listen to the most? Will it be Joe, who snubbed his nose at the law and is now whining in jail? Will it be alex who wanted to overturn the government so he can smoke crack? Or will it be Fred, who sees the erosion of liberties and uses that to wage a public awareness campaign?
The wod might be wrong, but the Joe's in the world aren't getting sympathy from the general public. The Joes are hurting the image of those who want to use them responsibly and freely, and defending them does not help. The reality of the framework is that they are illegal, and there are only two ways to change that.
Harry knows marijuana isn't dangerous, but with lies and demonizations he makes it appear that it is and hoodwinks others into passing poor laws outlawing the use of marijuana under the guise of a tax. He later turns around and uses a completely different lie to save face and continue his pet project.
Richard, Gerald, Jimmy and Ronald also know that marijuana wasn't capable of doing what Harry said it did, but there was an established, growing bureaucracy that profited highly from continuing the charade Harry started. Others before and after them did the same thing so they aren't going to rock the boat. Nothing like political expediency...
Hundreds, if not thousands, of others furthered the whole charade by passing even more onerous "laws" than their predecessors, having no more knowledge on the matter than a toadstool in a cow patty would've.
Many didn't even know that what was done was being done "in their name", even when it came back to haunt them in the form of their own children and grandchildren being arrested and incarcerated "for their own good".
Then comes chance33_98 who believes the laws that "Harry and the Boys" passed are OK and instead of recognizing that the laws should've never have been enacted in the first place (Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)) believes that the right "course of action" is to follow dumb ass Fred around (like a cow with a nose ring) and "lobby" to get the law changed because it is "dumb".
"Fred" may as well admit that he is a lobbyist and be done with it...he gets paid either way.
I didn't wear my seatbelt the last time I drove. If I were to have been stopped for that "violation" do I deserve to be fined or arrested (as well as have my insurance costs increased) simply for not complying with "the law"? If you say yes, then tell me why. Is it simply because it's the law? Is it because it's "for my own good" or "for my protection"?
If you know that stabbing yourself with a knife hurts, but you think it is wrong that it hurts, and you stab yourself anyway will it still hurt?
You live in the US, you know it is a offense in your state to drive without a seatbelt, you do so - the cop pulls you over and you explain you don't agree with the law - what should HE do?
I think seat belt laws are assinine, and I am no fan of the WOD either, but if I get a ticket for driving without a seatbelt it is my own damn fault - I live in a society with rules and regulations, and I know what they are. I also know how we change the ones we don't like.
There are many many idiotic laws (like a permit for having a garage sale) - if you don't like em get em changed but have enough respect for the rest of society who plays by the rules. Afterall, the same people who put them there are the ones who will take them away - and then you will be on the other side of the fence. If I like keeping drugs illegal, and you make them legal, and I go and burn your pot crop because I think the law is freakin stupid are you gonna be defending me?
Some laws are dumb, some are not, simply picking and choosing which ones you want to adhere to while expecting the rest of society to obey the laws you like is truly sad. If I think rape should be legal, but I go out and do it while it is illegal, do you think the judge will understand?
Now I know your discussing 'personal responsibility' themed laws, seatbelts, drugs, and so forth. Such laws are way out of hand, but the general public has an image of drugs which depicts it's effects on the rest of society in a bad way - what do we see on tv, in the news, etc? People who cannot control their desires and are willing to steal, kill, and so on to keep their urges satisfied. So they see drugs as a powerful substance which controls people instead of people controlling their habit. Then they hear someone say, legalize it and we will stop killing and robbing you. But the association is the addiction which makes a person lose common sense to the point where they would car jack someone just to get high. How are people supposed to feel? My view on this, since it is not clear, is that these losers who are willing to go to jail to keep themselves doped up are hurting the PR side of the battle to stop the WOD.
The 'I can't control myself' crowd blames high prices on the crimes instead of blaming the jacka$$es doing the crimes. You're back there waving your hand saying "I will not be like that, it will only affect me" while the public keeps seeing people getting murdered because they have to have it. The public isn't too worried about guys like you who might sit around the house snorting a line or two, and if everyone was like that the laws would fade away.
He's not my leader.
As to your questions...
If you know that stabbing yourself with a knife hurts, but you think it is wrong that it hurts, and you stab yourself anyway will it still hurt?
That is the most stupid question I've ever seen asked! Of course it would still hurt. However, knowing something and thinking (or more properly, believing, in this instance) something aren't the same thing at all, are they.
...what should HE do?
HE has no option in what HE does so there is no "should" to be considered. HE has to follow his orders.
...but if I get a ticket for driving without a seatbelt it is my own damn fault - I live in a society with rules and regulations, and I know what they are.
Funny, you've gone from "laws" to "rules and regulations".
I also know how we change the ones we don't like.
Show me. Give me something where any action has reversed any "consensual act" laws. Will you use Prohibition as your example?
If I like keeping drugs illegal, and you make them legal, and I go and burn your pot crop because I think the law is freakin stupid are you gonna be defending me?
Hell no I'm not going to defend you, you've destroyed someone's property, which is a real crime.
If I think rape should be legal, but I go out and do it while it is illegal, do you think the judge will understand?
Another stupid question...oy vey.
Of course the judge won't understand. You've committed another actual crime in that you've done harm to a person. Basic cardinal laws such as harm to a person are almost universal and unchanging. You've obviously got a serious disconnect as to what a "crime" really is.
Such laws are way out of hand, but the general public has an image of drugs which depicts it's effects on the rest of society in a bad way - what do we see on tv, in the news, etc?
I don't know what you watch on tv, or even if you watch tv, so I haven't the foggiest what you see on tv. And how do you know so assuredly what the general public's image of drugs is? Judging from the abysmal failure of the latest "drugs support terrorism" ads it would seem that the general public has various and numerous perceptions of drugs. There also aren't a whole lot of people out there actually trying to find out what the general public really does think of drugs as they are probably too afraid that they aren't seen in the negative light in which everyone assumes they are seen in.
How are people supposed to feel?
You can't be serious! You are a known liberal just in the asking of this question. You're willing, and asking others, to make decisions based on feelings, not facts.
My view on this, since it is not clear, is that these losers who are willing to go to jail to keep themselves doped up are hurting the PR side of the battle to stop the WOD.
And this is so funny...how is someone supposed to keep theirself "doped up" when they're incarcerated and are supposed to have no access to drugs? Your view still isn't clear.
You're back there waving your hand saying "I will not be like that, it will only affect me" while the public keeps seeing people getting murdered because they have to have it.
I am?
Where? What? /Vinnie Barbarino
Interesting; but what if the ‘laws’ themselves are illegitimate?
Prohibition needed an Constitutional Amendment before the government could regulate Alcohol; so how can the government legitimately regulate drugs WITHOUT a similar Constitutional Amendment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.