“Meth Watch” is a new program, targeting methamphetamine-based crimes in King County. The program is organized by the King County Sheriff's Office and Crime Stoppers of Puget Sound. It seeks community assistance in finding individuals suspected of meth-related crimes. Every week or so a profile of a meth-crime suspect is distributed. This publicity has already helped law enforcement catch a number of suspects.
From the latest profile:
Full flyer with details on reporting information about the suspect is here
More information on Meth Watch is here, at the website of King County Councilmember Reagan Dunn, who has been instrumental in forming and promoting the Meth Watch program. More information on the methamphetamine problem and statewide efforts to combat it is at the Attorney General's website, here
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 07, 2005 09:43 AM | Email ThisTake a look at Oregon's "Faces of Meth" site. The Police have compiled mugshots of known users over months and years of meth use. It's incredible what meth can do to a young face!
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/photos/gallery.ssf?cgi-bin/view_gallery.cgi/olive/view_gallery.ata?g_id=2927
Sorry - I don't know how to attach a link here...You can also go to google and enter faces of meth for the site.
Posted by: Deborah on October 7, 2005 08:09 PMAccording to the legislature, all we had to do was to restrict the sale of legal over the counter products, force purchasers to show ID and be logged into a database that can be accessed by a FOI request, make the purchaser feel like a criminal, subject the purchaser to telemarketing as a result of the database, and generally treat people with medical conditions like criminals for wanting to purchase limited quantities of legal products.
I am SHOCKED that meth still exists.
Posted by: Steve on October 8, 2005 08:02 AMThe "war on drugs" has been used to destroy more civil liberties than any communist, liberal or democrat ever dreamed of.
All in the name of a "safe" society.
With laws already on the books against everything the drug user might commit while high, why do we need a whole second batch of laws about the drugs themselves? Why not make all drugs legal, put the deals and the government out of the cops and robbers infinite and wasteful war, and then if little johnny methhead decides to wreck his car or steal someone's mail, there are already huge penalties to cover that. Not to mention that if drugs currently illegal were over-the-counter, you wouldn't have the 1000% markup you have now.
Responsible Americans that can handle their drugs never make the news. Only the asshats that can't.
My civil liberties are destroyed while rampaging cops and criminal sellers engage in street war on a weekly basis. How is this conservative or pro-liberty to support?
Posted by: SomeGuy on October 8, 2005 01:29 PMDrug laws are conservative because irresponsible drug use is destructive to the society we all share. Drug laws are non-conservative because they increase the power of government to micro-manage peoples lives. Meth-site, john-sites, and amber alerts are destructive because they train citizens to betray each other to the government.
It is a thorny problem. I am inclined to agree that drug usage laws should be relaxed (Gasp! No!) because too few people believe in those laws, and the solution lies in strengthening communities and families and rescuing drug users such as yourself one person at a time, outside the law.
What do you think?
As incredibly flawed as the Amber Alert system has been in this state, are you saying it's destructive to report a crime? How is reporting a vehicle suspected in a kidnapping "betraying" a fellow citizen? Should I not then report a burgler if I see him breaking into a neighbor's home so as not to "betray" the burgler to the government? A suspected murderer? A carjacker? A pursesnatcher?
Posted by: Mike H on October 8, 2005 04:36 PMThere is something about the amber alert system, and other "watch it now... be involved... mass market" crime watch systems that bothers me. It is hard to define. I don't really mind government websites publicizing "convicted" meth users, or "convicted" johns, but you need to be careful throwing accusations about. I don't trust the authorities to use the amber alert system responsibly. I am seeing signs already that the public is being moblized against what amounts to custody dispute cases. It just reminds me of 1984, or Blade Runner, or Fahrenheit 451.
Do we really need these websites and amber alerts? What do they buy us, and what do they cost us?
Posted by: huckleberry on October 8, 2005 05:53 PMSo yeah, on paper it's a great idea, in reality...
Posted by: Mike H on October 8, 2005 07:42 PMBut isn't that always the case? Can't we learn than where GOVERNMENT is concerned, less is more?
Posted by: huckleberry on October 8, 2005 07:47 PM