Photo Sent By Lt. Rugel
Lt. Jeff Rugel of the 4th Precinct sent an email to a number of people, myself included, with an update on a drug raid at 2729 on Thursday night. Rugel writes exactly as follows...
The 4th Pct Directed Patrol raided 2729 3rd Street North last night and dismantled a pretty sophisticated indoor marijuana grow.
(By which Rugel apparently means "growing operation" in clipped cop-speak)
They took several dozen packages of harvested weed and four large live plants, along with thousands of dollars of grow lights, transformers, and a carbon dioxide generator. They arrested the lone resident, who is the homeowner.
(End of Rugel email)
Rugel did not provide the name of the homeowner, but it is a rather simple matter to look it up online. Despite some confusion in the property records--two listings coming up for the same address--it appears the property owner is Kyle Miller, who purchased the property for $217,000 on September 30, 2004. If this is not correct, and Mr. Miller is not the property owner, this blog is open to receiving contrary information.
The 4th Pct Directed Patrol raided 2729 3rd Street North last night and dismantled a pretty sophisticated indoor marijuana grow.
(By which Rugel apparently means "growing operation" in clipped cop-speak)
They took several dozen packages of harvested weed and four large live plants, along with thousands of dollars of grow lights, transformers, and a carbon dioxide generator. They arrested the lone resident, who is the homeowner.
(End of Rugel email)
Rugel did not provide the name of the homeowner, but it is a rather simple matter to look it up online. Despite some confusion in the property records--two listings coming up for the same address--it appears the property owner is Kyle Miller, who purchased the property for $217,000 on September 30, 2004. If this is not correct, and Mr. Miller is not the property owner, this blog is open to receiving contrary information.
Oh my. How interesting.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the sherrif's roster (available at http://www4.co.hennepin.mn.us/webbooking/ ) a Mr. Kyle Miller is being held without bail for a narcotics charge.
JNS (heart) JNS readers!
ReplyDeleteWhy are they hassling local growers? Remember, if you buy local, you can save a life in Mexico AND support our local economy!
ReplyDeleteHey, maybe it's medicinal, it will be legal in a few weeks.
ReplyDeletei wonder what the actual effects of legalizing the stuff would be on our neighborhood. maybe a business model would emerge that doesn't depend so much on SHOOTING PEOPLE. but who knows?
ReplyDeleteWe can only hope!
ReplyDeleteIf we make this stuff legal, I bet we still have the same problems because the store-bought stuff will be too expensive. The street dealers will sell it cheaper and we will now have the added problem of "the sale of a legal substance". The cops will never be able to get them off our streets.
ReplyDeleteThe cops will already never get them off the street - under the current model of illegality, they will always be on somebody's street, somewhere. Lower the ante and lessen the associated violence and cross effects.
ReplyDeleteThe store-bought stuff will be cheaper, as it will probably be mass produced, and not have the risk associated. You can buy alcohol legally, and it's not like you have moonshiners trying to sell you bottles of their homemade stuff on the street corner.
ReplyDeleteRight on, Kevin. @anonymous...the violence centered around drugs in our neighborhoods is not due to their illegality. These thugs aren't going to stop shooting each other just because the crap their selling is legal.
ReplyDeleteAt some philosophical and libertarian level, one might argue for legalization...but does that mean a "grow operation" should just be left alone?
ReplyDeleteThe pro-legalization forces have yet to produce enough of a movement to change the laws of the land. This might have something to do with being MELLOW TO THE POINT OF UTTER INEFFECTIVENESS.
"...the violence centered around drugs in our neighborhoods is not due to their illegality."
ReplyDeleteQuite to the contrary, it IS due to their illegality.
You don't have people shooting each other over vegetables, do you? Prohibition proved this with alcohol, virtually creating powerful gangster mobs overnight. Look at how powerful the Mexican drug cartel is right now. That problem would disappear overnight with legalization. You are taking an item with a demand and forcing the market for it underground, where it cannot be regulated or controlled, and where the prices are driven up because of the risk associated with it's selling and usage.
And you talk about marijuana like it's CHOCOLATE. I can make a pro-legalization argument any day of the week, but this is undoubtedly true: there are REASONS why it's illegal.
ReplyDeleteAnd the exact same arguments for legalizing marijuana apply to, for example, CRACK and ECSTASY and PCP and LSD and...and...did I mention CRACK?
Oh, yes, I think I did.
But that's the point, pot is MUCH more comparable to chocolate in terms of harm or health risks than crack, meth, or ALCOHOL. Christ, a Red Bull is more dangerous, you can actually O.D. from that, but no ones died from a little grass. There's a reason its illegal? Like what? The illegalization of pot was done strictly for the benefit of certain politicians careers in the early 20th century. To compare pot to crack is ridiculous. Do you see northside prostitutes wandering the street so they can get their 'pot fix'? The only thing 'shady' about pot is that gangbangers get rich and normal pot-smoking citizens are labeled criminals, all due to outright lies about its social and health risks fabricated for personal gain. BTW I don't smoke myself, cause I know your thinking, this pothead probably smoked himself retarded (impossible). It's what conservatives always fall back on when faced with sound logic.
ReplyDelete"That problem would disappear overnight with legalization."
ReplyDeleteBS! Do you think government will miss an opportunity to TAX THIS CRAP TO DEATH! Look what they did with cigarettes? Yes, it's true when taxes increase, smoking goes down, but also look what happens in poor neighborhoods like Hawthorne. What do you think these guys who smash through store windows with their vehicles are after? Cartons of cigs for one thing. As I said before, once dope is legal and it's taxed out of the price range of most inner city addicts the street dealers will be right back out there fighting for their turf. Edina may not have a problem, but we will.
Johnny Northside said...
ReplyDelete"... there are REASONS why it's illegal."
Such as...?
Kevin said...:
ReplyDelete"BS! Do you think government will miss an opportunity to TAX THIS CRAP TO DEATH!"
---yeah? So what? Right now we spend billions a year on investigating, prosecuting and incarceration. Why not just sell it and tax it like any other product? Last time I checked, we had a serious deficit. Think about what; a) additional tax revenue and b) a massive savings in ending the ridicules and unwinable "War on Drugs" would bring about.
"Look what they did with cigarettes?"
--Cigarettes were illegal?
"Yes, it's true when taxes increase, smoking goes down, but also look what happens in poor neighborhoods like Hawthorne. What do you think these guys who smash through store windows with their vehicles are after?"
--They smash windows to steal a lot of things, often to pay for drugs that are too expensive because they are unregulated and risky. You will always pay more for a product when risk is involved. Did you think they were smashing windows because they were having a nic-fit?
"As I said before, once dope is legal and it's taxed out of the price range of most inner city addicts the street dealers will be right back out there fighting for their turf."
--Sorry, but this is NOT what happened when Prohibition ended. If your assumption is correct, where are all the black-market bootleggers on the street corners? Huh? When was the last gangland shootout in North Minneapolis over who's turf a speakeasy was on or who had the right to sell bathtub gin in front of Uncle Bill's?
Your entire argument rests on the assumption that mass-produced and regulated weed will cost more, but offer no evidence that will be the case. It was not the case with alcohol, is not the case currently with cigarettes --how come there aren't cheap cigarettes being sold from home-grown tobacco?
Sorry, but your argument is weak.