Fatal 'no-knock' search trial draws interest

[ROID WARRIOR]

A 15 to 20 second delay after police knock before entering. Arguably not enough time to destroy evidence, but certainly enough time for one to arm themselves and fire at the first member of the entry team through the door. Not a good decision by the Court.


Fatal 'no-knock' search trial draws interest

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- In April 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court set limits on when authorities can conduct "no-knock" police searches. The decision came just five days after a 21-year-old drug suspect was killed in a no-knock raid.

John Hirko Jr. died when Bethlehem police stormed his home without knocking and threw a flash-bang device into a front window, inadvertently sparking an intense fire that prevented them from rescuing Hirko after they had shot him.

An autopsy showed Hirko died from the bullets police fired from both the front and rear of the house -- allegedly after he fired once at them. Hirko was struck 11 times in all, nine times in the back.

A civil rights lawsuit charging wrongful death and negligence over Hirko's death was scheduled for trial Thursday in federal court in Allentown, and is expected to be closely watched in the region and beyond.

A sizable judgment in the Bethlehem case could prompt the city of 78,000, which has a $34 million annual budget, to raise taxes or float a loan. The plaintiffs rejected a $500,000 settlement offer, the city's liability insurance limit at the time, saying it would take $20 million to settle.

"I think everybody's concerned," Mayor James Delgrosso said this month.

No priors, no knock
Hirko had no prior convictions, but police said they thought that executing the search warrant could prove dangerous. A confidential informant who allegedly bought drugs from Hirko three times -- once just before the raid -- reported that Hirko was in the living room using heroin and cocaine, with a handgun nearby.

Police, dressed in unmarked black clothes and masks, made a small hole in the window and tossed in the flash-bang device, which sets off a blinding flash and loud noise. At about the same time, according to their lawyer, they shouted "Police!," an assertion plaintiffs plan to challenge.

"Everything we did was proper and within the bounds of constitutional law at that time," said Bethlehem Solicitor Joseph Leeson Jr.

The two sides also will dispute whether Hirko's gun was fired. The defense said it was found wrapped in a cloth where he kept it, with all 10 bullets still inside. Leeson said one bullet was missing.

State Attorney General Mike Fisher, whose office investigated Hirko's death, later termed it a justifiable homicide.

Fifteen second guideline
Across the country, innocent residents have died during no-knock searches, including a 75-year-old Boston minister and a 57-year-old New York woman who both suffered heart attacks when police raided the wrong homes.

"Every little town and burg now believes that they need a paramilitary assault team," said lawyer John Karoly Jr. of Allentown, who represents Hirko's survivors and landlord.

Attorney John Wesley Hall Jr. who's written a textbook on search and seizure law, said the approximately 50 no-knock cases reported in the legal literature each year are just a fraction of the total undertaken.

"The reported cases are just the tip of the iceberg, because so many cases get disposed of at the trial level by a guilty plea, or because the cops did (the raid) right," Hall said.

In its 1997 ruling, the Supreme Court said authorities must be able to show they had a reason to believe a suspect would be dangerous or destroy evidence before entering homes without knocking and announcing themselves. Police should otherwise give people the choice to evacuate safely, the court said.

Federal courts have since ruled that police must wait a "reasonable" amount of time -- more than 15 or 20 seconds -- for a response if they do knock.

This fall, the Supreme Court will hear a Las Vegas case in which police burst into a drug suspect's apartment while he was in the shower. An appeals court ruled that authorities acted unreasonably in battering down the door just 15 to 20 seconds after their initial knock.

RW

 

[Citruscide]

The thing is, if no one gets killed during a raid like this, I don't see how it can effect the 4th amendment rights of the person is acted upon... with or without the 15-20 second wait. A simple "announcement" and then a break should be sufficient.

This 15-20 second wait, I wonder if it erases the exigent circumstance exception to destruction of evidence? -- if so, then I think the Supreme Court will have to change some SERIOUS case law -- something they really haven't done very often in the past -- and they don't like the lower courts doing it either.

C-ditty

 

[manny78]

Here, there's no delay when executing a "no knock" warrant. ERT team kicks the door down, clear the house/room and then we can go in. Under our internal policies, ERT must go first. No "blue jeans posse", no Miami Vice bullshit. Safer for everyone involved.

 

[Citruscide]

Here, there's no delay when executing a "no knock" warrant. ERT team kicks the door down, clear the house/room and then we can go in. Under our internal policies, ERT must go first. No "blue jeans posse", no Miami Vice bullshit. Safer for everyone involved.

But then the Vice guys don't get the "bust" -- they just get clean up... I'd much rather see Don Johnson and his "Tubbs" counterpart get the credit.

C-ditty

 

[liftshard]

no-knock raids have killed lots of people. There were a couple such incidents in Denver Metro which were later determined to have been obtained on purjured warrants. IIRC, the cops used known liars to obtain the warrants and then executed no-knocks on innocents. I think I remember a guy getting shot dead in Miami a few years back when they had the wrong address.

No-knocks are eggregious and anyone who is supportive of civil liberties should oppose their use vehemently. The nation survived just fine for a couple centuries without them.

 

[Citruscide]

no-knock raids have killed lots of people. There were a couple such incidents in Denver Metro which were later determined to have been obtained on purjured warrants. IIRC, the cops used known liars to obtain the warrants and then executed no-knocks on innocents. I think I remember a guy getting shot dead in Miami a few years back when they had the wrong address.

No-knocks are eggregious and anyone who is supportive of civil liberties should oppose their use vehemently. The nation survived just fine for a couple centuries without them.

We also didn't have the problems we do now... a couple of centuries ago. We didn't have 3 strike and your out rules, we didn't have multi-billion dollar drug operations -- albeit some of the guys who get busted are on the lower rungs of those importing schemes...

No-knock warrants aren't really the same as invalid warrants where the police failed to get probable cause. Those warrants just plain suck, and whether they are no-knock or not, the same problem would be there -- they obtained the warrant through poor means.

C-ditty

 

[liftshard]

We didn't have a drug war then.

The "War on Drugs" brought all of this. Now, I'm not going to speak for everyone on this board, but I think we're probably all in favor of legalization of AAS or at least relaxing the penalties for their use and possession. If we are for those drugs, we should be for others. No-knocks, stop and frisk, SWATs, and all of this paramilitary behavior is fallout from this absurd Prohibition-mentality Drug War that we are losing.

We cannot win the Drug War by attacking it from the supply side. I mean, we have mods on here as well as narcs, and sources of Schedule 3 AAS are not hard to come by. Likewise, who couldn't get some Schedule 1 pot in a few minutes? There is no way to interdict enough product with this War to end consumption. Decriminalization would end the profitability of drug sales and fighting over MONEY is what is causing the lethality in the drug trade.

The pot trade, in the aggregate, is bigger than for any other drug. However, there has been an absolute ABSENCE of the type of violence typified by the coke trade. The reason why is because societal and legal tolerance of Pot, despite its Schedule 1 status (!), vis a vis cocaine (Sched 2 !). Pot is legal to own, grow, and possess in most states. It's OK to have pot. Consequently, nobody is really willing to fight too hard over control of its production. Anyone can do it. The margins are a lot lower because of this. There is ample demand and decriminilization of pot laws have made supply a lot higher for it. It's the easiest illegal drug to obtain, the cheapest, and the one that carries the lowest profit margin for dealers. Consequently, it ain't worth shooting someone over in the vast majority of cases.

If we copied the pot model for other drugs, we would not need no-knocks (we never DID), or the massive curtailment of civil rights that we've experienced as a result of Prohibition. In fact, police corruption, fradulent warrants, use of wiretaps, purjury, all of this, has increased dramatically as the pressure of the Drug War has increased. You cannot win a price war with a drug dealer, though; it's just not possible. You can't price guns, cars, anything out of his reach because, if there is demand, SOMEONE will take the risk to meet it with supply.

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

There is absolutely nothing legitmate gained by requiring the police to knock and wait before entering when serving a warrant. It only serves to compromise the safety of police. It was bad enough to require that the warrant be served during the day without extenuating circumstances, but to make them wait while some desperate perp "arms up" and get ready to blast the first cop through the door is almost reckless disregard for human life.

The Supreme Court Justices have never "gone through a door," and they're looking at this in too much of a vacuum. While they sit comfortably in their robes in woodpaneled offices, there are cops in Bed Stuy, Brownsville and East New York that have to contend with life and death situations on a daily basis (ie., perps with guns and knives, high speed pursuits, bricks thrown from roof onto cops.) And it's all for a whopping thirty-something thousand per year in NYC. The fact of the matter is that there are two-bit street crackheads who will kill a cop just to stay out on the street one more day and get high.

RW

 

[liftshard]

RW...you know that as a possible illegal drug user that you will potentially be subjected to this type of action at some point in your life, right?

No knocks kill innocent people. Nobody has ever marshalled any evidence that the rate of police injury or death has risen or fallen as a result of the use of the no knock. No knocks are fallout from the Drug War, which is an intellectually bankrupt concept. The Drug War has encouraged perjury, fraud, corruption, police overzealousness, all of these scare stories in Rick's book - ALL of them came from the Drug War. I think we can severally agree that these are "bad things." I don't want to hear about "perps" and drug dealers and whatnot, because THEY is US. People are here on this board seeking advise on the use of an ILLEGAL DRUG. People on this board VOLUNTEER to check the validity of DRUG DEALERS. Some on this board ARE drug dealers, many are drug USERS. You CANNOT say "well, MY drug is OK" while everyone else's drugs should be banned; that's simply illogical.

I mean, in your sig of every post, you make reference to the injustice of the Drug War...I had no idea it was to lionize the conduct of those officers "throwing people on the ground over one bottle of juice."

 

[Rick Collins]

I agree with Lifthard's concerns over the War on Drugs, and I'm a critic of it. But I strongly disagree with his statement:

"You CANNOT say "well, MY drug is OK" while everyone else's drugs should be banned; that's simply illogical."

I can and DO say it (regarding AAS), and it's not only logical but supported by facts. All drugs are NOT created equal. Just because a bunch of politicians decide a previously prescription-only drug should be added to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) doesn't mean it belongs there. And just because one drug doesn't belong there doesn't mean that all others don't belong there. Some may, others may not. We can and should rationally challenge the appropriateness of scheduling on a substance-by-substance basis. For all the reasons set forth in my book in great detail, steroids should NOT be banned by the CSA (as was the position of the DEA, FDA and AMA in the congressional hearings on the subject). (Once a substance IS scheduled, however, we cannot expect selective enforcement.)

 

[liftshard]

Well...I take a different view of it. A drug is a drug is a drug.

They all have usages and they all have side effects. I don't think AAS is special compared to narcotics; it's just different in terms of what it provides to its user. Narcotics can be used as "responsibly" as AAS, as can pot. Narcotics have addiction potential, but so does cocaine and cocaine is not, in fact, physically addicting according to most research. There are obviously some guys who are hooked on AAS and abuse it as well. Rush Limbaugh admitted to narcotics addiction but he's still kept a multimillion dollar business venture going, was a commentator on ESPN and had his daily radio show. It's not like drug use or even addiction in and of itself is necessarily that deterimental to society. There are more recreational users of non-AAS drugs than there are of AAS and they hold down jobs and are generally productive members of society.

I'm just having difficulty, Rick, in seeing what is special about AAS? These things cause cancer, liver failure, kidney failure, prostate enlargement, and a host of other potentially fatal side effects. We all know that. Everyone talks about it and acknowledges that there is RISK, even if they aren't ABUSED. Not everyone who doses Anadrol all the time will die of liver failure and not everyone who keeps it to "responsible doses" will avoid prostate cancer. Likewise, some people will become addicted to various substances and some won't. Some may die of a heart attack on a crack pipe. Some alcoholics will die of liver failure, some won't. Some AAS users won't ever come off of them. They are as addicted as Rush.

In terms of risks and side effects, I really don't see the difference between AAS and other recreational drugs. Neither are necessary. You don't *need* AAS anymore than people *need* to smoke pot (HRT and glaucoma notwithstanding). You may *want* to use AAS and others may want to use pot, but what is the difference? Pot use can cause lung cancer over long periods of time. Long-term painkiller use can cause liver failure or chemical encephalopathy. AAS may destroy liver function or cause stroke or congestive heart failure...how is there really any legitimate difference between all of these?

Is it because AAS users erroneously see themselves as "more fit" than cokeheads because AAS guys are going to the gym and outwardly look healthier in terms of muscular development? That's an unwarranted conceit. I am not wanting to rain on anyone's parade here, but let's all be honest about what we're all doing here on this forum. The "Elite Lifestyle," as it is called, is RIFE with risk and they are the same risks as other illicit drug users engage in, but for different reasons. If anything, wanting to be bigger than normal is purely vanity, no better or worse than wanting to get high to feel better temporarily. Guys who look like they are in better shape than 99.99% of people on earth have dropped dead because of performance-enhancing drug use, not just in bodybuilding, but in professional cycling as well. People who look fine drop dead due to OD, but that's usually because of purity issues, not inherent lethality.

I'm sorry, but I don't see anything in the rationale behind the elective use of AAS which distinguishes it from the elective use of narcotics, cocaine, pot, or any of a number of other drugs. Perhaps you can elucidate on your reasoning.

 

[[email protected]]

A sizable judgment in the Bethlehem case could prompt the city of 78,000, which has a $34 million annual budget, to raise taxes or float a loan. The plaintiffs rejected a $500,000 settlement offer, the city's liability insurance limit at the time, saying it would take $20 million to settle.

I hope the judgement bankrupts them.

 

[Rick Collins]

I concede, liftshard, that your view is the prevailing one. You WIN this one in the court of public opinion. And as long as America sees it that way, the War on Drugs will continue to scoop up good bro's here and there. Joe Biden's new bill asks the U.S. Sentencing Commission to INCREASE federal steroid penalties (to give the DEA the incentive they've lacked to really go after America's juicers). Soon, if the bill passes, prohormones will be controlled substances as well, despite NO evidence of addictive potential, and people will be busted for andro (about which they'll say, "A drug is a drug is a drug." (Hmmm. Think about that.) So, you're clearly in good company.

Asking me to make my case for why steroids are different and should be treated differently as a forum post is like asking me to briefly convince a jury to give me a favorable verdict. I'd only do that after carefully laying out the evidence, bit by bit, which is exactly what I did over the course of twenty-five chapters of the book that I understand you have no intention of reading. (Thankfully, many people have read it and have found it quite persuasive.)

But here's some basic food for thought. In my humble opinion, for starters, a drug is NOT a drug is NOT a drug. To say otherwise is both factually and legally incorrect. Yes, all drugs have potential side effects. But aspirin is different from cocaine which is different from Tetracycline which is different from oxycodone. The law recognizes these differences. Some drugs are available over the counter. Others require a prescription. Still others are designated as controlled substances. And even among controlled substances, there are five schedules each recgonizing different criteria. Some controlled substances have a very high potential for physical or psychological dependency. Others have low, and others are in between. Each class has its own different criteria. Even penalties are tied to these distinctions, validating the significance of the differences. The "drug is a drug is a drug" statement is one that was attributed, I believe, to former DEA Chief Asa Hutchinson and other DEA brass. It's a favorite of War on Drugs folks. Don't buy it. While they're singing a new tune now, the DEA outright admitted it when they testified to Congress that steroids DON'T BELONG in the Controled Substances Act. The FDA and AMA agreed. Surprised?

Your recitation of the adverse health consequences is quite misleading. Steroids CAN be dangerous. So can driving your car or eating a fast food diet. Skiing and scuba diving have been fatal. I invite you at some point to investigate the medical and scientific literature on AAS -- I suspect you will be shocked. Check out the raw data, not the "politically corrected" conclusions. But be all that as it may, potential adverse health consequences are not among the controlled substances scheduling criteria anyway.

One person's "vanity" is another person's "noble quest for self-improvement." Using steroids for physical enhancement and improved self-esteem may not be everyone's cup of tea. Some may say it's shallow. But making the choice to use the available medical tools to LOOK better, in my opinion, is FAR more analogous to getting liposuction or Botox or breast implants or hair transplants. Having prosthetic implants stuck into parts of your body by a surgeon is quite dangerous and arguably just plain crazy. But nobody's being arrested for it. Cosmetic surgery has killed, and it can become addictive and disastrous (have you seen Michael Jackson lately?). But personal freedom isn't about making good choices. It's about making YOUR OWN choices.

Chew on that a bit. You seem like a smart guy (I'm not kidding) and I think the more that you think about this issue the less wedded you'll be to your initial position.

And have a good weekend, all!

 

[ROID WARRIOR]

A drug is a drug, huh? Imagine the shock and disbelief when DEA tactical teams begin raiding Starbucks across America and seizing that caffeine. I hope then don't also raid granny's house and seize her Lipitor.

BTW, there is a well-documented chapter of LEGAL MUSCLE which discusses the reality of the side-effects of AAS. Aside from extended use of Anadrol, at what would be excessive dosages even by the Evel Knievels of bodybuilding, no other AAS has been conclusively linked to liver cancer.

RW

 

[liftshard]

Rick said:"But personal freedom isn't about making good choices. It's about making YOUR OWN choices.

Chew on that a bit. You seem like a smart guy (I'm not kidding) and I think the more that you think about this issue the less wedded you'll be to your initial position"


My initial position is that drugs should be decriminalized - ALL drugs. I can find no logical basis upon which to discriminate between one drug with low side effects and another. As for the "dangers of steroids," I actually AM familiar with the medical research on this, as I am with the so-called "dangers of pot" or "dangers of narcotics." I mean, Rush just got busted buying Oxycontin, a "dangerous narcotic," according to the reefer-madness, hype-pimping press. I am not prone to this type of emotionalism. I just look at fact. Physiologically, even narcotics addiction is relatively BENIGN. In fact, its long-term consequences are comparatively milder than unchecked steroid use. People lived with narcoaddiction since the invention of morphine and the hypodermic needle after the Civil War. Even heroin addicts could hold down jobs.

The problems with recreational drugs are in terms of COSTS to users to sustain addictions (due to supply/demand forces skewed by Prohibition), and purity issues. Heroin ODs come from uncontrolled potency. Coke ODs come from uncontrolled potency. In fact, buying ANYTHING off the street, you have no clue what's in it, how strong it's gonna be, and whether it might kill you dead or not.

Decriminalization and selling these things through licensed pharmacies is a solution. Heroin ODs are relatively common, but Oxycontin ODs are almost never heard of...why is that? Because OC is a pharmaceutical drug produced under strict purity and quality guidelines. Users know exactly how much is in each pill. There is no chance of getting "bad stuff." When you buy heroin from a street dealer, god knows what you could be getting.

It is the same for gear; we have an entire counterfeit board here and pictures board to try to ensure that people get legitimate drugs instead of stuff that could be potentially harmful or infection-threatening. The risk of this is WHAT the black market brings - for ALL drugs.

But, for gearheads to try to fight the good fight for THEIR pet drug while looking crosseyed at potheads is kinda how potheads look at gearheads when they're petitioning for marijuana legalization, isn't it?

I mean, we have a situation where everyone thinks THEIR drug should be legit, but keep all that other "dangerous" stuff BANNED, man. That's simply not a logically tenable position because, from an analytical perspective, there is no real difference between elective use of ANY substance. Yes, they have different addiction, side-effects, and intended effects profiles, but that doesn't make them "different" in any overarching sense when it comes to whether or not people should be allowed to make THEIR OWN choices (your words).

As far as the dangers of even heroin, there was a study in Britain where heroin addicts were provided with pharmaceutical grade junk and they held down jobs. They didn't end up in the streets. What puts these people in the streets is the escalating COSTS of their addiction, not the addiction itself. In fact, I know many, many recreational drug users who use almost constantly; it might surprise people to know how many people out there use cocaine, MDMA, or other "serious" drugs on a regular basis. And, these people are professionals, with good jobs, management, etc. There is nothing that says that the set of drug users, even addicts, cannot intersect with the set of "productive members of society." What causes the intersection to break down is the black market and the pricing effects of artificially restricting supply through criminalization. If heroin addiction were treated as a disability and dealt with accordingly, we'd see TONS fewer people strung out on the streets.

People have habits; that's the way people are. As a society, we need to find a way to cheapen these habits so that the addicted who are on can stay working and not have to turn to stealing, and that they get appropriate treatment. If we spent our jail dollars and police force dollars and all of these freaking Drug War dollars on treatment programs, we'd have less crime and less aggregate societal "ill" on all levels.

 

[tripleoption]

Heroin ODs are relatively common, but Oxycontin ODs are almost never heard of...why is that?

Ummm...Because you're wrong? There are MANY OC Od's every day. I've SEEN many of them. Most "accidental" deaths aren't reported to the media. How often do you pick up a paper and read about a heroin overdose? I've been to scenes where I know it was an OC or Heroin OD and the paper just prints a regular Obit. Believe ME, people do OD on Oxy regularly.

 

[liftshard]

I would wager that the rate of heroin OD to OC OD is far in excess of one. Heroin is a much riskier drug to take because there are no pharmaceutical constraints involved in its manufacture. OC ODs typically involve combinations of drugs and suicide attempts. OC is a safer drug than heroin, because OD is far more predictable based upon the gram weight of the pill versus gram weight of some smack containing god knows what.

 

[94flamdblazer]

I gotta agree with trip some on this. I knew a guy (next door neighbor kinda know mind you) that ODed like 7 times and about 4-5 of that was Oxy. He was trying for attention or something and kept doing it as well as owning his own company at the age of 18( given to him by his father) He has sobered up from what Ive heard and is doing better. Never saw it in any paper

as far as this topic , I think alot should be legalized, hell look at Amsterdam and its legal usages! They dont have 1/50 of the crime we do ! Alot of what we have here , drug and gang related , is all from HARD ILLEGAL drugs, not the potheads and ravers

 

[liftshard]

94 - if we're going to take intentional suicide attempts into account, Tylenol is the most dangerous drug out there. I was talking about unintentional ODs. Lots of kids try to kill themselves on all sorts of things, but most heroin ODs, among non-bipolars, are accidental. Accidental OD w/ OC just doesn't happen because the strength of the doses is well-known. Heroin ODs happen to long-time users because they get bad junk, whereas a person could use OC theoretically indefinitely and there is no chance of this happening.

BTW, I know of a couple people who did suicide attempts w/ Tylenol. Lots do sleeping pills too.

The crime comes mostly from the illicit drug market, primarily among dealers of crack and heroin. A lot of the speed freaks are turning to Ritalin or Adarol, the ADD drugs, because they're so oft-prescribed and like 60% of the kids in some schools have a prescription for them. Many flip the pills to a speed freak or someone else who wants an upper. There's so much supply right now in terms of narcotics and uppers that there is no reason to shoot over them. Half the kids in America have access to speed basically - all they have to do is act out or have a bad semester and they'll get a script. So, that leaves really only coke/crack as a drug that's suffering from short supply.

If anything, the advent of internet drug sales and overprescription of ADHD drugs to kids has brought drug crime rates down. It's increased supply and that means decrease in price and decrease in sales risk. That means less profit and less need to go shooting. Same thing w/ OC, which has cannibalized the heroin market. Many more people are scoring this stuff from grandma or leftovers from toothaches and are flipping it onto a local market. Lower centralization of distribution means less profit, more competition; these are all market issues and why there is nobody getting shot over steroids. OC and other narcotics are everywhere now (the sky hasn't fallen), as are AAS. If anything, a prohibition drug policy should seek to punish only large-scale sales, because the larger dealers might seek to exert monopoly power and that means killing other dealers. Whether it's over one street corner or a larger turf war among rival sets vying for occupation of prime distribution space (analogous to a military campaign), monopoly pricing tendencies should be discouraged. But, small scale dealers and users should be left alone or given treatment or mild discouragement. All of the crime comes from a drive by certain parties to exert monopoly control over incredibly lucrative markets. So long as narcotics are getting prescribed over the internet and you can actually buy legit gear via the internet, there will be no ability of anyone to engage in this type of behavior.

If you think it's bad here, go to Colombia or Peru, where major, mob-level cartels have been trying to corner the coke sales and production markets since the drug became popular. It's been a bloodbath down there. Pablo Escobar was a bigger thug than Al Capone could even approach. And, he waged brutally murderous campaigns against rivals. The operation to bag him required lots of bullets and lots of killings on all sides.

The pot situation is far better where some places, like OR, recognize reality and allow small-scale possession and production. They only go after, in earnest, the major cultivators, because those are the guys with the machine guns. Your local bong shop dealer ain't gonna shoot anyone. Neither is some HS kid with some percs he vicked from his mom or some kid w/ a bottle of Ritalin.

 

[tripleoption]

Accidental OD w/ OC just doesn't happen because the strength of the doses is well-known.

Yes, they do. I am not sure where you get your info, but from first hand experience, they happen all the time.

 

[Vicious cycle]

Great read, from everyone. It stayed factual (for the most part), it didn't turn into a flamefest and it made everyone think.

 

[collegiateLifter]

Liftbig, while i respect the way you try to form arguments, your inductive abilities leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Liftbig]

Liftbig, while i respect the way you try to form arguments, your inductive abilities leave a lot to be desired.

if you would be so kind, please address the right person.

what did i say on this thread.......nothing!

thanks.

 

[liftshard]

"Yes, they do. I am not sure where you get your info, but from first hand experience, they happen all the time."

What is the method of administration of these ODs and what are the cofactors including other drugs taken?

 

[collegiateLifter]

my bad. Liftshard..... you're inductive capabilities leave something to be desired.

 

[tripleoption]

"Yes, they do. I am not sure where you get your info, but from first hand experience, they happen all the time."

What is the method of administration of these ODs and what are the cofactors including other drugs taken?

Usually oral in pill form (not snorted) and from what I've seen, straight Oxy. It HAPPENS! They're addict, for christ's sake, of course they take more than they should. The first Unattended Death I went to as an investigator was Oxy.

 

[liftshard]

What other cofactors were present?

The rate of heroin overdose is still far higher for the reasons I stated.

 

[tripleoption]

I don't disagree that the rate of Heroin OD is higher; I merely disagree with the notion that "you just don't see OC overdoses". They happen all the time, but like most unattended deaths they are not advertised. I had NO idea how many suicides/overdoses there were every day until I started investigating them and this was after being a cop for five years. It's not something that's discussed in the media usually. Thank god I don't have to deal with that anymore, however.

 

[liftshard]

Well, then, let me restate.

The rate of accidental ODs from heroin is VASTLY higher than the rate of accidental ODs from OC because of the purity control of OC vis a vis heroin. Is that more to your liking?

I would wager that the rate of intentional OD from OC is a lot higher than for heroin because of the preference for suicide actors to pop pills instead of inject. But, the rate of Tylenol OD is the highest of any drug, so intentional ODs are really not relevant to this discussion which was about the objective "safety" of drug usage. Tylenol is very dangerous if intentionally abused, but it carries FAR less risk of death from accidental OD than does heroin. Cuz, nobody really knows wtf is in street junk and Tylenol's content is rigorously controlled. Unless you cooked it yourself from a pharmaceutical source of morphine, you've got no idea what heroin's potency or cutting agent content may be.

But, OC is a safer drug than heroin, despite the obvious chemical similarity and relatively similar potency, because OC's purity and content can be determined with certainty. That's really my fundamental point. *Accidental* ODs happen when people get messed up stuff or other cofactors conspire.

When I think of "OD," I don't think of "suicide attempt." Most people don't either; they harken back to the fright stories about "don't use drugs, because you might OD and die," the tales about crack users ODing and dying on their first hit and stuff like that. The term OD is oft-used in conjunction with accident and far less so in conjunction with suicide attempts. Usually, they leave off the drug and the term "OD" when discussing suicide, because they'd scare the goddamned nation to death over Tylenol. In terms of suicide, drug=hanging=gunshot (highspeed lead overdose).

 

[tripleoption]

I am not talking about suicides; I am talking about OD. I merely brought up suicide as an illustration of an "unattended death". OC OD's are lower, however OC is a VERY dangerous drug and the number of people I see addicted to it is SKYROCKETING. Many people take it for legitimate uses and become addicts, from 40 year old to 15 year olds...

 

[liftshard]

OC is no more dangerous than any other drug. The physical addiction potential of opiates is higher than for some other drugs, but less than for nicotine. The adverse effects on the body from use of narcotics are lower than for the aforementioned substances. As drug use is a given, I would suggest that OC is a LESS dangerous drug than alcohol. Alcohol addicts and its users are more highly implicated in traffic fatalities and violent crime than users of any other drug. If you gave the stadium a Perc instead of 5 beers, the whole place would be floating and mellow instead of full of drunken brawlers ready to kill someone on the road after the big game.