In police jargon, any drug that we’re prohibited by law from having is a narcotic. The use “narcotics” as synonymous with “drugs.” And possession of cannabis is unlawful under federal law.

Phil, both the article and the link provided in the article state that cocaine was recovered during the raid. The link goes on to say that the possession was in violation of VUCSA. What’s police jargon for “click on the damn link provided!”

For those unable to click or just like to argue about arguing, here are some of the details:
” At the home, the task force recovered cocaine, approximately $22,000 in cash, an assault rifle, and a vehicle and detained resident Dion White, 40, on probable cause related to violation of the uniform controlled substance act (VUCSA) and violation of the uniform firearms act (VUFA).

A second warrant on a home in the 25000 block of 131st Place Southeast in Kent, WA led law enforcement officials to seize cocaine, a handgun, and cash.”

SPD needs the FBI and as stated “other agencies” to have the camera at 23rd & Union.

Trigger word: “Camera”
Argue on.

My question was about the list Brian provided here, not about the other article.

I read the other article. It doesn’t say what laws anyone was accused of violating. It implies many things, but states nothing more specific about any potential drug prohibition violations than that two people were arrested “on probable cause related to violation of VUCA and of VUFA.” It also accuses four of the six people named in the article of nothing more than robbery, driving someone who bought drugs, possession of unspecified stolen property, and an unspecified type of warrant for unspecified reasons.

Everything in there would be accurate if the feds had, say, found small quantities of cocaine and cannabis and then arrested everyone in sight on hunches that they must have done something wrong and/or would be likely to plead guilty if they were arrested, threatened, and offered a plea bargain.

Drug warriors are going to trump up everything they can every time they can in order to maintain support for the failed war on drugs. When they offer vague information like that which FBI published and CHS regurgitated, they’re almost certainly counting on readers to assume that there was something more serious going on than that which the agents can justifiably claim.

If they found some huge quantity of cocaine indicating they’d nabbed significant players (rather than low-level dealer-addicts and lookouts, etc.) or had anybody red-handed for anything significant, don’t you suppose they would be crowing about it instead of using all those vague statements and wiggle-words?

Correction: I mean to write that the FBI piece about their big drugs-and-guns bust doesn’t say what gun control or drug prohibition laws anyone was accused of violating. As I wrote, it accuses people of possessing unspecified stolen goods and of robbery.

Phil, with all due respect, I think you’re trying much too hard to paint these arrests as some kind of police misconduct. They just arrested some people on drug and firearms violations, which is what they are supposed to do.

Bob, I wasn’t trying to paint them as anything. I hoped that a reporter would have asked the FBI just what these people have been accused of doing, since the press release mostly doesn’t specify. All signs point to the idea that the feds are making a big deal out of something insignificant in order to justify their various “war on drugs” efforts. Let’s call them on it. When people in our community are arrested for unspecified reasons related to federal drug policy, I think we should demand details.

Thanks, Justin. From your and Bryan’s previous good work, it would be reasonable to suspect you’re not finished with this story.

Please take caution not to help spread drug war propaganda. I think the vague nature of FBI’s report is an important part of the story. They can and likely regularly do spread lots of implications and achieve their desired effect, then, once public attention has passed, follow up later, if at all, with details that would diminish the impact of their earlier statement.

I’m not anti-enforcement-of-law or anti-police. I’m anti-war-on-drugs. I’m anti-federal-drug-policy.

How is noting that FBI didn’t bother to mention just of what prohibition violations two of the six people listed (other four were accused on non-drug-related offenses) have been accused of “painting criminals to be angels?”

In this country, we’re supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Not only have these people not had their day in court, the drug warriors didn’t even say what they’re accused of doing.

Violation of VUCSA which encompasses narcotics deemed to be illegal. They mentioned cocaine so more than likely, it is cocaine possession and or sale they were arrested for. What more exactly are you hoping to hear? And, what purpose does it serve anyone to publicly inform the masses about each and every arrest any LE agency makes? If anything, it makes getting a fair trial harder because now information is out that May or may not be admissible in court all in the name of transparency and appeasing the current anti-LE public agenda.

These thugs were at the parking lot and coffee shop at the post office for the past ten years. You had to be pretty naive not to be aware of their game. If you lived in the area or used the post office – you either saw it or pretended that you did not see it. The fuzz knew, the neighborhood knew – not enough people demanded that something be done. We get what we deserve.