The Wests should be remembered for the desire they had to improve Market Square. Nothing they did has tarnished the image the bulit as community people who gave a lot.

Our jails really should not be housing so many people convicted of "victimless" crimes. In an era when so many of our doctors have become drug pushers peddling very dangerous drugs (more damgerous perhaps than pot) to anyone who asks for them, focusing on those people selling marijuana seems kind of hypocritical. We're even paying for the ads that brainwash us hour by hour on TV commercials through the high drug prices.

The Wests did something illegal and that's not smart, but they gave a lot to the city in regards to caring about Market Square and what kinds of businesses would bring people down there.

A moment of silence seems appropriate on the day of the auction.

I disagree. They did the crime, now they are doing the time. Bad judgement and bad decisions have cost them, and tarnished their image, and the image of their businesses, and embarrassed city officials involved with them in the projects. They also defrauded taxpayers and laundered money, lots of it. That costs all of us.

Doesn't have anything to do with whether pot or any other drug should be legal. As of right now it isn't, and moving huge quantities across state lines is a major federal felony. Not smart.

P.S. on the broader topic, I agree there are too many people in jail and we spend too much on law enforcement for the "war on drugs." A more rational policy towards some recreational drugs would probably be better for everyone involved. But as it is, because of the risk and the huge sums of money involved, it's a pretty dangerous business, and unfortunately not entirely victimless.

It's dangerous entirely because of the prohibition against it. Look back at alcohol prohibition and the rise of the gangs that took over alcohol production and supply when it became illegal. Look at all the breweries and distilleries that disappeared from the scene to be replaced by people who were willing to do whatever it took to get their share of the profit from a product that laws against could not ever hope to remove from people. It's no different now. And as far as defrauding taxpayers, our city and county is doing that same thing every day. What the Wests did for Knoxville and Market Square is in no way undone or hurt by what else they were doing. The businesses they began are still doing well. The momentum they helped create is still rolling along.

It's dangerous entirely because of the prohibition against it.

Entirely? You're kidding, right?

Lifting the prohibition on alcohol may have stopped the violence associated with its illegal production and distribution, but it did nothing to repair the broken lives and shattered dreams of those who still continue to drown in the waves of tragedy caused by its abuse and misuse.

Drugs like marijuana and alcohol are dangerous because they can negatively affect the user's decision-making abilities.

The dangers of mind altering drugs, illegal and legal, go well beyond whether the drugs are prohibited or not.

No, Gary, I'm not kidding. The war on drugs is more detrimental and has caused more harm than all the thousands of years people have done drugs. If you want, you're welcome to read R. Neal's comments, the two above my own, and see what I was speaking about. It's much better than jumping on a few words and taking them out of context.

The US has to get away from this puritanical anti-drug mindset. Quit trying to force people to live as you would wish they would. Address the real problems of drug use, the addiction and self medication that is inherent in some drug use. At the same time, try to understand that some of us feel it is our right to use drugs if we so desire.

In the end, we really need to look at why so many people want drugs to be illegal. Read up on Robert J. Anslinger and William Randolph Hearst and their campaign of lies that brought us to drug prohibition in the first place. Hell, smoke a joint and lighten up a little. It'll help. Seriously!

Can't wait for Johnny Conservative to buy these properties and turn them into Blue Cats II. Just what Market Square needs!

The businesses that the West brought to Knoxville were great because of the Wests, let's remember.

The Wests should be remembered for the desire they had to improve Market Square. Nothing they did has tarnished the image the bulit as community people who gave a lot.

Does the same apply to Ragsdale, Warner, Finch, Loyd and Bone? Has anything they have done tarnished the image they have built of Knox County?

Just making a point...does the end justify the means?

I think, local law enforcement will receive a percentage of the sale for drug interdiction (drug fund).

I would like to comment of Carol's blog that the West's did good work...

What a bunch of s_ _ _!!!!

They broke the law... no telling how many schools kids they furnished drugs to... which in turn could lead those kids down a path of destruction...

illegal activates are illegal no matter what it is...

Carol you have got to be kidding "something illegal"

Drugs are slowly killing our country... is causing crime to increase as people steal, mug other people and violate the law so they can buy drugs...

You know Carol you almost sound like Mike Ragsdale... the end justifies the means by which you accomplish the goal... and that is just plain crap!!!!

"The Wests probably sold to their adult friends."

But the *fact* of the matter is you do NOT know.

I don't think Scott or Bernadette were charged with selling pot. They were laundering money for Scott's brother and Scott did one wholesale run that was set up by the feds so they could seize the Market Square properties. The fantasy about them pushing pot on eight-year-olds is just bizarre.

I hope the new owners allow the West businesses to stay. I admire their family members for being there running the businesses day after day. They seem like decent people and you wouldn't look at them and guesss they were shouldering all this.
I would guess from the daily crowds at least the restaurant and pub are doing quite well now. It seems the raid took place right as the synergy was really hitting the Square, which may have been the point.
While other businesses have been successful on the Square I feel the West's really got the spark going. Those daily lunch crowds are benefitting from the West's taking the drug money, I'm nor excusing it, just stating a fact. Had they not taken it we may have still been wondering if maybe Universe Knoxville would have helped. If the churchy folks at Knoxville Life or Cornerstone get a hold of the buildings we may long for the days of lawlessness.
I've got alot of pleasure from the West businesses through the years and would hate to see them go. I've always felt pot should be legal but their sentencing really woke me up to the hypocrisy of it-- bar onwers jailed for pot. They broke the law and got lighter sentences they could have. I hate to hear the "throw the book at them" types who seem to have a hang up about the West's because they were part of the downtown "establishment." There are people that society is better off if they are behind bars. I don't think the West's are those people. Every sensational remark from Jamie Satterfield encourages me to spend another dollar at their places.

I've got alot of pleasure from the West businesses through the years

Somehow, I don't think that came out exactly right... :)

Once the property is auctioned off, the funds received from the sale will be divided among federal, and local law enforcement, to be used for drug enforcement. Drug finds can be used to purchase, boats, airplanes, and horses. Sorry I didn't this clear in the first post.

I don't have a problem with legalizing pot.

So if I'm to understand the West's supporters on this blog, somebody else was selling drugs wholesale to the street distributors who sell it to school kids and others below the age of 18, or I guess for the moral drug dealers and money launderers, that age would be 21?

The Wests didn't take any money to be laundered from any drug sales made to minors?

Talk about fantasies!

By that logic you can charge the folks at Cherokee Distributing with the same thing.

BTW, what are you pot smokers doing now that the feds shut down the local supply? Bet that stuff was hard to get for at least a week until someone else moved in to fill the gap. I imagine the new guys are spending the money on something other than downtown redevelopment.

Please tell me who benefited from this bust? (OK, the guys who sell black helicopters and Cadillac Esplanades, but who else?)

There are all sorts of substances people become addicted to that would have them banging on peoples' doors or robbing someone to get more of it, but pot is not one of those substances. Coupling pot with meth, oxycontin, coke, whatever is flawed logic. I try and avoid illegal and legal drugs for various reasons,always have, but I've seen friends use pot to overcome mental and physical problems that the ever pushed SSRI's only made worse. At worse I think pot makes people annoying or too passive, but, my goodness what if everything that made people annoying and passive was illegal.

Every time this comes up we get the same arguments from those for whom pot is much worse than alcohol because illegal equals immoral in their moral philosophy. They are bumfuzzled by the folks who don't smoke it but still aren't outraged by people selling it.

And no amount of arguing on Knoxviews is going to change their minds because it's a difference between "conventional" and "post-conventional" moral development. At (Kohlberg) stage four the important thing is "to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society." Eventually they'll be faced with a moral dilemma that demonstrates the "arbitrary nature of socially dictated ethical principles" and "that universal principles need to be defined in order to act correctly."

In Andy Griffith terms, this is the episode where Opie learns that no matter how important the "no swimming" law is, the ethical principle of jumping in to save your drowning friend trumps it. A pure law & order interpretation would say that the friend deserves to drown because he broke the law. Most folks would be thrown into cognitive dissonance over this and have the opportunity to rethink things.

Of course, a few Web posts aren't going to challenge anyone personally enough to examine their moral framework, so the more likely reaction would be, "WTF does Opie Taylor have to do with money laundering drug dealers."

FWIW, you could be post-conventional and still anti-West, but you'd be using different arguements from what we've seen here.

illegal equals immoral in their moral philosophy.

There may also be some who think illegal = stupid. I'm guessing they are the ones who have something to lose by being stupid and getting their mug shot in the paper and thrown in jail.

They may not necessarily be on the wrong "moral" side of the issue. They may be on the rational side of the issue, but have matured and played by the rules whether they like them or not and have interests they have worked hard to create such as families or careers or businesses, and that they choose to preserve by not being morons.

As opposed to those with nothing to lose who have chosen not to contribute or otherwise participate except to the extent necessary to pleasure themselves.

Or those laundering money and getting taxpayer funding and government handouts and tax incentives to build up their "respectable" facade, while at the same time operating criminal enterprises and evading taxes, playing every angle and laughing at the squares and the rubes until they get caught and sent to jail and then expect sympathy from the squares and the rubes.

There are lots of different ways to look at it, depending on your perspective.

Sometimes no matter how logical you think your beliefs are, there are people with opposite viewpoints. I do think though there is something to be gained by talking about things as rationally as possible when it comes to the "flash" issues. I benefit from hearing and trying to understand where other people are coming from. I also enjoy having my views challenged and be made to examine them closer. I guess that's why I like this blog so much. There are differences of opinion, but the posters here seldom stoop to irrational name calling and infantile retorts and I am grateful that the people here are intelligent enough to carry on a decent discourse..

So now you are trying to justify what the West did by saying "wholesale vs. retail" you guys are incredible... you really do live in a fantasy world or maybe a pot world... wholesale retail it is all illegal...

Legalizing alcohol has really worked for the millions o family destroyed by the drug... but if you want to smoke and drive drink and drive you better not hit my family or any of friends of my family because I will promise you one thing I will make your life a living hell for ruining the innocent life/family of someone else with your stupid petty “it my life and I will live it like I want to” attitude…

I wouldn't argue that what the Wests did was right. Their actions wouldn't fit into my value system, but I wasn't in their shoes either. I don't think "stupid" is the word R. Neal was looking for, but they were certainly short-sighted and operating at a different level of risk acceptance.

I do think outlawing marijuana while allowing alcohol on an arbitrary historical rather than a scientific basis is one of many lapses where legal does not equal moral. Take away the "drug" aspect of it, and there's just not enough there to sustain the moral outrage. I think they deserved a hefty fine.

In the broader social perspective, I'm still waiting for someone to point out who benefited from arresting the Wests and seizing their property. Like the rest of the "war" on drugs, it's made no impact on the availability of pot. To the extent it raised drug prices, it increased the chance of me being robbed. Where's the public interest?

Joe seems to be arguing for the return of alcohol prohibition to go with our drug prohibition and vigilantism as an enforcement tool. All of those ideas have been tried and failed, but I don't think there's any point in arguing with him. Carol, do you want to make a case for engaging him in a dialog on this? Do you think there's something to be learned there?

In the broader social perspective, I'm still waiting for someone to point out who benefited from arresting the Wests and seizing their property. Like the rest of the "war" on drugs, it's made no impact on the availability of pot. To the extent it raised drug prices, it increased the chance of me being robbed. Where's the public interest?

Are you referring to the benefit of someone paying taxes on money "earned", thus we all "benefit" eventually? Are you referring to those who obey the law getting a chance to own property downtown and "build" the city and profit from a downtown business? Are you referring to those who are trying to build/re-build a city going forward and not going backward ten steps for every rube who thinks they are above the law? Are you referring to the fact that so many of us out there work hard to achieve what we achieve, obeying the law along the way, only to find some out there that flout the law to be successful and get patted on the back (in some cases even when they are caught breaking the law)?

Although I am quite sick of the whole West discussion. They should be some of the forgotten, like the Butchers. Knoxville, I hope, can do better.

I do wish though that people didn't think just because you disagree with a law, you are somehow giving blanket approval to all the people that break that law. My only point was that the demonizing (making them look like some kind of evil monsters) of the Wests seemed unfair.

Consider Nixon. He was a criminal. He broke the law and many would say he brought shame on our nation, yet many conservative people still idolize this man because they believe he did enough good to not stigmatize him as evil.

As much as some people would like to think we do, human beings do not operate in a black or white world. Circumstances prevail, time changes laws and morality, and there are exceptions to every rule. Laws will never be followed 100% of the time and they change over time. That's why it's hard for me to think every law is some kind of kryptonite monolith that will stand forever and should never be questioned.

I obey laws because I accept they are "the will of the people" here in America because amazingly enough I love my fellow Americans a lot, even those with views that differ from mine. Should a law conflict with my moral sense, as in the should-I-save-the-kid-in-the-pond example, I'd save the kid of course.

My suspicion is that people who become enraged at anyone who questions laws or authority were raised by parents who felt that way. They seem to have a mind set that everyone is animalistic and dangerous and therefore must be held in check or society will suffer great harm. They find comfort in the fact that someone outside of themselves has decreed how they should behave and will tolerate no deviance from this. The Taliban think this way. Step out of line and you're dead. If you had to accept strict control as a kid or were shamed or beaten or threatened whenever you questioned your parents, then I imagine you'd feel really angry toward those who were allowed some latitude, some ability to question things.

My last word on this subject (promise folks) is that we all should know (and I include myself in this) that outside our tidy little black boxes of judgement, there are rainbows of wavering light. It can't hurt to take a peek now and then.

My suspicion is that people who become enraged at anyone who questions laws or authority were raised by parents who felt that way. They seem to have a mind set that everyone is animalistic and dangerous and therefore must be held in check or society will suffer great harm. They find comfort in the fact that someone outside of themselves has decreed how they should behave and will tolerate no deviance from this. The Taliban think this way. Step out of line and you're dead. If you had to accept strict control as a kid or were shamed or beaten or threatened whenever you questioned your parents, then I imagine you'd feel really angry toward those who were allowed some latitude, some ability to question things.

Last word and all...

I suspect your are wrong. I also would not compare those that do not want to pat the Wests on the back to the Taliban.

Although I am quite sick of the whole West discussion. They should be some of the forgotten, like the Butchers. Knoxville, I hope, can do better.

Like it or not, I don't think we can forget the impact the Butchers had on Knoxville. Oh wait, what is that round thing in the sky? Or those 2 shiny buildings. Where did that overgrown trashed out railroad yard go?

Legalizing marijuana would also allow more control over the substance. A tax on that could be applied directly to rehab programs

I'm with Carole on this one. Or I'll support Joe and say both alchohol and pot should be illegal. It may be more practical to designate an alchohol tax to go to rehab and alchohol related health care and free jitney rides home.

And I have appreciated this discussion. It raises some very important issues. Too bad it's such a touchy subject.

____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

In the broader social perspective, I'm still waiting for someone to point out who benefited from arresting the Wests and seizing their property. Like the rest of the "war" on drugs, it's made no impact on the availability of pot. To the extent it raised drug prices, it increased the chance of me being robbed. Where's the public interest?

Setting the War on Drugs aside for the moment, I'd say the beneficiaries include entrepreneurs who must rely on conventional means to support their businesses. It's difficult to compete with no-visible-means-of-support businesses that are receiving supplemental funding from illicit sources.
~m.

Do you feel the West's enterprises took business away from Downtown competitors or brought enough customers in to rise the tide for all boats?
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

Read up on moral development. While there are some disagreements on details, it's been established (by repeated studies testing large groups of subjects over decades) that there are discrete stages and that people progress through each of them without skipping steps or regressing.

Reading the posts above, bizgrrl is clearly operating at a textbook stage four (authority and social-order maintaining orientation, which is further than most people get), while Carol is clearly at stage five (social contract orientation, about 20% of the population makes it that far).

No matter how good bizgrrl's reasoning is, Carol is using a different ethical toolkit to judge the issue and nothing she says will cause Carol to regress and abandon the idea that laws should be measured against higher principles.

On the flip side, it's unlikely that Carol is going to convince bizgrrl of her view of the issue because the values she's using to examine the issue don't fit in bizgrrl's moral universe. Eventually she may be thrown into cognitive dissonance by this and other issues and make the leap, but it's going to be triggered by something more personal than this issue.

Yeah, this is off-topic, but it's the subject that most starkly demonstrates the differences. To the extent folks are able to argue their points, it seems that they are really communicating only with people who share their values. Many values are shared across multiple stages, but the law & order aspect of this topic stands fours and fives on opposite sides of a chasm and quite out of shouting distance.

The real question is if the West were not in the drug trade would they have ever been able to accomplish what they did?

Probably not... that they made their stance with drug money does not justify their work it should be condemned. If we condone their actions it only gives others the idea it is ok to undertake illegal activities if the end results are for the good of the community and that is wrong... no illegal action should ever be condone or accepted.

Final word... I hope Scott West has a good supply of soap on a rope.

If morality was an objective science that could be measured and quantified, Pfizer would make a pill for it.

Do you feel the West's enterprises took business away from Downtown competitors or brought enough customers in to rise the tide for all boats?

Neither. I think they took credit (or at least tried to take credit) for raising the tide. And it seems like they managed to fool a lot of people into believing that.
~m.

They did manage to get the decaying buildings away from Frank Gencay (he may get some of them back now) and put attractive businesses in them. Compared with the years it took for the largest property owner on the other side of the Square to outfit and fill his buildings, I think it was a huge accomplishment. The methods weren't always pretty and a lot of people have good reason to be hacked off at them, but the Square was a better place quicker because of their involvement.

Wouldn't the city have been better off if 36 Market Square (on the corner) had been renovated and occupied before they got busted?

Is that Universe Knoxville space still available for a Cognitive Science Denier's Museum?

the Square was a better place quicker because of their involvement.

Fascinating. So the key to rebuilding and revitalizing downtown is to finance it through victimless criminal activities because the ends justify the means?

I wonder why Haslam hasn't thought of this?

They could have a cockfighting grant and TIF program for cockfighting ring operators, Perhaps taxpayers could help fund a fried chicken restaurant, no questions asked regarding their other sources of funding (or poultry).

Or a prostitution grant and TIF, for a sexy negligee store on the square.

Or a gambling grant and TIF program, for a sports bar.

Or a movie/CD pirate ring grant and TIF program, for a record store.

And so on.

Actually, you may be on to something. This gives the criminals a way to give back to the community.

But seriously, I never thought I would be taking such an immoral, authoritarian approach to all this. In fact, I favor legalization and regulation of most of this, except for the pirating and cockfighting.

(And I'm sure there are some who would disagree about prostitution. But what's the difference? You have a willing buyer and a willing seller, so it's OK, right? Others see no problem with cockfighting or stealing recorded music, but I do. So see, everyone has a different idea of where to draw the line.)

But arguing (rationalizing) that a desirable outcome justifies criminal behavior leads to the type of corruption we see at all levels of government and in the business world.

Civil disobedience is one thing. Racketeering for profit is another. The Mayberry "no swimming" v. "saving the drowning man" argument is cute but specious.

What I suggest is to work within "the system" to change the laws and policies you don't like and the politicians who enable them. You'll have a lot more credibility with the squares and rubes, and you can accomplish a lot more than if you're sitting in jail.

>They did manage to get the decaying buildings away from Frank >Gencay

And that's precisely the point where they got in over their heads. If I'm not mistaken, they didn't get involved in the money laundering until after purchasing Frank's buildings (the renovation, I believe, is what pushed them over the edge). I'm pretty sure Pres Pub and Earth to Old City (when it was in the old city)predated the illegal activity.

Yep, it is the nature of downtown redevelopment and historic districts in general, to attract folks with big dreams but without the wherewithal or acumen to accomplish those dreams.

Typically the result is the crazy guy with the house or building that's falling in around him. Beyond, ahem, Knoxville's most notorious example, I can point to multiple others in the city's historic districts. Hell, at times, I wonder if I wasn't one of them.

What made Scott West unusual is that he found a way - albeit illegal - to deliver on most of the grand schemes he talked up.

Good point about 36. Of course we already had tools in place to keep that from happening, but there's no indication the Haslamic state will ever use them.

Months before the bust I had heard rumors that cash was tight. They had grand schemes, egomania, the attempted MSDA coup, general backstabbing intrigue and I don't know what all. Great theater. Far from heroes, but I could easily imagine a lot more of Market Square still looking like #26 without them.

I'm not under an illusion that the Wests were trying to change any laws. They were trying to keep an overextended business afloat. But the guys in the black SUVs don't have any moral high ground here. Take the drug aspect out of it and the Wests were still in the wrong, but I'm at least as concerned with the ethical issues of law enforcement blackmailing a family member to draw the Wests into illegal activities for the sole purpose of seizing property. Clearly, protection of the public from reefer madness is not a high priority with these organizations. I think we're in agreement that the cure is worse than the disease.

Yeah, one thing about downtown Knoxville: you never know who is going to go stabbing you in the back.

Or kicking you when you're down.

Legalize pot? Have the govt. regulate it? This will all make the problem(s) go away?

Hmmmm....... Let's see. The govt. has been regulating alcohol since when? Back in the 30's? So, that being the case, there's no such thing as underage drinking, DUI's, alcohol addictions, etc.?

Some points to ponder.

rikki-

Hate to break it to you, but my comments weren't in direct reponse to yours. It's not all about you, although apparently you're assuming that it is. For all I care, if it makes you feel better, assume away.

One question though concerning this gem of a thought:
if you want to keep shady characters away from schoolchildren, a regulated market, not a black market, will solve that problem promptly.

So if a regulated market can't keep legal prescription drugs out of the black market (and the schools) now, like painkillers and such, how, exactly, can a regulated market promptly solve the problem with marijuana?

What exactly is the problem with marijuana? How many people have died in the last year directly because of their personal use of marijuana? How many people have overdosed on marijuana? How many people have died in the past year as a direct result of their personal use of perfectly legal Oxycontin? How many people have overdosed on legal painkillers? Should we even mention child and teenage suicides that were a direct result of their legal and prescribed use of legal anti depression drugs? How about people having heart attacks from using their prescription drugs exactly as the makers intended?

So, getting past a puritanical and moralistic mindset, what is the problem with marijuana, and the right answer has nothing to do with legality. We all break laws, many of us daily, without even thinking about it. Five miles per hour over the speed limit kills more people than recreational use of marijuana.

Many of the very anti-West folks who are otherwise open-minded on many things, I think, so associate the Wests with Brian Conley and Bill Haslam,whom they loathe, that their "throw the book at them" attitude comes from that. Many people who don't have anything to say about the West seem to hate everything about downtown because of some kind of odd hatred of the developers. On the Butchers, I think it says alot about the oddness of the town, that without the Butchers or the Wests things would be very, very different for Knoxville. The World's Fair Park that I enjoy, the great bands I see at The World Grotto, etc, are in part due to illegal activity that people are or have sat in prison for. Anyhow, I always like a bar or a town with a good juicy story behind it. Cheers.

Your reply was an abusive distortion no matter who you were responding to.

I thank you for all those other commenters you represent.

But let me help you. You said If you want to keep shady characters away from schoolchildren, a regulated market, not a black market, will solve that problem promptly.

Then you said: I'm talking about harm reduction, not magic.

Maybe you meant "reduce that problem," instead of "solve" it? You said "solve," and to me that means you deal with a problem so that you no longer have one.

As long as we have stuff that people don't want to pay market prices for, or things that are in great demand, we will have blackmarkets in things like stolen car parts and electronic devices. We have places, in town actually, where you can buy electronic devices and car parts without even showing an ID. We also chop shops and fencing operations.

I just don't think legalization will take the blackmarket completely out of the distribution of marijuana.

As far as sentencing goes, I believe that non-violent criminals should not serve their sentences in the same prisons as violent offenders, and most of those non-violent offenders would include drug users and distributors. In fact, I think it's time this country looked closely at alternative sentencing ideas for non-violent offenders overall.