Cops Against the Drug War

A former Texas narcotics officer, described by colleagues and supervisors as the best narc in the state and perhaps in the country, has not only come out against the drug war, he's promoting a video instructing drug offenders how to evade the police.

A promotional video says Cooper will show viewers how to "conceal their stash," "avoid narcotics profiling" and "fool canines every time."

Cooper, who said he favors the legalization of marijuana, made the video in part because he believes the nation's fight against drugs is a waste of resources. Busting marijuana users fills up prisons with nonviolent offenders, he said.

"My main motivation in all of this is to teach Americans their civil liberties and what drives me in this is injustice and unfairness in our system," Cooper told the newspaper.

Police and public officials in Texas are tripping over themselves to announce what a traitorous, horrible person Cooper is, and they're even looking into the possibility of charging him with a crime. They don't seem all that concerned about the fact that a guy who ought to know as well as anyone has publicly declared that the drug war is corrupt, fundamentally unjust, and a complete waste of resources. You'd think that such an occasion would be at last enough for a brief, "hey, wait a minute" moment.

Nah. Condemn him, ostracize him, and move on to the next Tulia.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    You should post a blog about how two of the last three blog posts came from comments in the form. Call it "Recursive Blogs; Why I Don't Feel Like Blogging on a Friday Night"

  • ||

    A lot of cops agree that the drug war is a farce.I feel it is one of the largest hoaxes pulled on the American public.However,as long as it remains a gravy train for law enforcement through seizures of assets and property,I doubt we will ever see any form of decriminilization or legalization.It would kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

  • ||

    """"Police and public officials in Texas are tripping over themselves to announce what a traitorous, horrible person Cooper is, and they're even looking into the possibility of charging him with a crime.""""

    When you agree with them they love you, when you disagree, your a traitor.

    Where have I heard this before?

  • ElGaboGringo||

    My "Right to Privacy" says I can stick a vacuum up my hypothetical vagina and suck out a fetus, but it doesn't let me smoke a joint in my own living room. Hmm...

    Keep up the fight Radley!

  • ||

    I don't think we should ally ourselves with those whose salaries come from stolen money(taxes) no matter how libertarian their positions are. I also feel we should drum out of the movement anybody who has availed them- selves of the tax-supported public school system. I don't personally drive or walk on streets and roads built with tax booty, but I'm a bit of a shut-in. We have to take a principled stand. Cops, get off the dole!

  • ||

    Heeeeyyy Joe, I heard you shot your woman down.


    Isn't that about as relevant to the issue as Joe's post?

  • Matt Phillips||

    Using prohibition to stop the drug trade is a bit like using force to promote democracy or stop sectarian violence in Iraq. If people want to do something, they will find a way, and you will end up in the contradictory predicament of destroying freedom to save it.

  • ||

    I don't see this officer getting a Medal Of Freedom from the Prez or the Gov't... that honor only goes to people whose failed beliefs continue to support death, destruction of property or imprisonment of innocent people. Maybe Reason (or some other libertarian voice) can come up with a suitable medal to bestow upon him.

  • ||

    BTW, you just gotta love this part from the Dallas Morning News:

    "It's an embarrassment to all law enforcement officers across the United States, who put their life on the line everyday," Waters said. "This is a slap in the face to all that we do to uphold the laws and keep the public safe."

    As if killing grandmas and countless other innocent people (while diverting resources from real law enforcement) is keeping the public safe. Then to top it off, these same spokesmen are usually at the forefront in support of gun control, which goes against the supreme law of this country, The Bill of Rights.

  • Warren||

    You'd think that such an occasion would be at last enough for a brief, "hey, wait a minute" moment.

    You'd only think that if you could tell the difference between drugs and two legs.

  • well, actually||

    Brad- Maybe Reason (or some other libertarian voice) can come up with a suitable medal to bestow upon him.

    They would have to have an even better medal for those who saw the folly of the drug war before arresting hundreds of harmless people.

  • ||

    well, actually - They would have to have an even better medal for those who saw the folly of the drug war before arresting hundreds of harmless people.

    LOL!

    Or they could just give us our money back (with interest) from all taxes they have levied to support the War on Drugs.

  • ||

    Is it any coincidence that it's Bush's home State? Maybe we'd be better off if secession had succeeded. I suggest REASON have Radly Balko interview him, see how he evolved to come to this conclusion. I'm sure it would be informative.

  • ||

    douglas westerman - I suggest REASON have Radly Balko interview him, see how he evolved to come to this conclusion. I'm sure it would be informative.

    I'll second that. Go REASON! Go Radly!

  • uncle sam||

    It is irrational to expect anything different from those who have demonstrated their irrationality so thoroughly.

  • ||

    Insurance adjusters tell people not to buy motorcycles - they know.

    Soldiers returning from Iraq tell people it's a fiasco and we need to get out - they know.

    Cops tell us the drug war isn't working and we need to repeal prohibition - they know.

    A guy with a bright red four-lane highway running down the back of his hand says not to spank cats - he knows.

    Not that plenty of people won't continue to try and spank cats.

  • well, actually||

    Brad- Or they could just give us our money back (with interest) from all taxes they have levied to support the War on Drugs.

    First they would have to levy a special tax to pay for it.

  • ||

    Using prohibition to stop the drug trade is a bit like using force to promote democracy or stop sectarian violence in Iraq.

    I'd argue its even worse.

    While there may be much to say against the whole Iraq debacle, at least preventing dictators, sectarian death squads, and terrorists from murdering innocent people is a just cause. A sectarian militia member doesn't have a right to fire a mortar rocket into a crowd of civilians and shooting him to stop him from doing so isn't an unjust breach of his personal liberty.

    By contrast, I argue, if an adult wants to use a certain drug just for fun (or whatever unapproved reason) and he or she is no threat to anyone else, it is an unjust violation of that person's freedom to coerively prevent the drug use.

  • grylliade||

    They would have to have an even better medal for those who saw the folly of the drug war before arresting hundreds of harmless people.

    Why, exactly? People have to take all kinds of different tracks to get to opposition to the war on drugs. In this fight, we need all the allies we can get; we're starting to turn the tide, I think, but we're still a loooooooooong way from winning. To criticize people because, before opposing the war on drugs, they supported it, is asinine. Maybe he should feel guilty because of his support; if so, it's his own business, not something that can be imposed on him by others. I see no reason not to welcome those newly arrived to their opposition to the war on drugs, and not to make them feel like second-class citizens just because they took more convincing than us. Have a healthy dose of humility here; I'm certain that most of us have done things, or held positions, that we later find embarrassing, or even horrifying.

  • ||

    Why are cops so anti-weed?

  • ||

    Because its pleasure is positively correlated with the user's mental capacity.

  • Admiral Ackbar||

    A promotional video says Cooper will show viewers how to "conceal their stash," "avoid narcotics profiling" and "fool canines every time."

    It's a trap!

  • drew||

    How do you purchase this product?

  • ||

    I have followed this story since the beginning and the more I see it the more I want to either regergitate or simply cry. It is everything that is wrong with the "War on Drugs" that has been going on for over 40 years in the USA and is an unmitigated disaster. Were these officers arresting the people that they should be, I would be all for it; but they are either arresting people that have nothing to do with selling drugs or are arresting people who are in the throws of one of the worst diseases (drug addiction.......those that have had an accident that required them to legitimately take a narcotic medicine and now are "strung out" on 5 or 6 pills a day).

  • Anonymous||

    Were these officers arresting the people that they should be, I would be all for it; but they are either arresting people that have nothing to do with selling drugs or are arresting people who are in the throws of one of the worst diseases

    If you can't catch criminals, make criminals out of the ones you can catch.

  • Larry A||

    Were these officers arresting the people that they should be, I would be all for it;

    Okay, who should they be arresting? Are people who choose to take pain medication to get through the day really any different from people who choose to take feel-good medication to get through the day? Each is choosing to ingest a harmful substance because in their opinion the harm is preferable to the alternative.

    And once you agree that individuals have the right to make their own decisions, then you have to agree that the government should not prohibit those decisions, either by making it illegal to use the substance or by making the substance impossible to obtain.

    Finally, "arresting the wrong people" is one of the inevitable side effects of prohibition, as are the other unintended consequences of trying to ban a substance that a large number of people want. Historically we've never had one without the other.

  • ||

    Wasn't this cop merely practicing the freedom of speech? What would the other cops say if he made a movie on how to report drug abusers to the police? Where would the criticism be then? Cops shouldn't waste time trying to criminalize " free-speech users". They should go to Houston (I'm a Texan and I hear about crimes commited there every day) and spend their time arresting REAL criminals, not consensual ones.

  • ||

    The 'law enforcement for profit' scam goes much deeper than prohibition...and it's getting worse. There is no such thing as liberty in the US, only prescribed and proscribed 'freedoms'. It's time to take Tom seriously, we're past 200 and past due.

  • ||

    carl...

    cops don't CRIMINALIZE anything. legislatures do that. fwiw, i know lots of cop. worked as one myself for 2 decades. LOTs of cops are against the criminalization of mj, less so for other drugs. and most of them aren't public in their opposition to same out of fear of being retaliated against.

    being a cop means you necessarily have to enforce many laws you disagree with. i disagreed with many many laws. cops have some discretion with not enforcing misdemeanors (victimless ones especially) and can (and do) give warnings for mj possession, etc. even though its technically a crime. i've seen that firsthand dozens of times.

    cops do not set policy, or law.

    and the line cops (vs. the cop-o-crat bureaucrat administrators) have little to no influence on policy, whereas the oh so political IACP does. note the IACP members are very strongly for gun control, whereas most "real" cops are not

    cops accept the 'rule of law' in that many laws may be very bad policy (like criminalizing mj), yet people know what the policy is and knowingly take the risks when they decide to grow 500 mj plants in their basement.

  • ||

    This cop is hero.

  • ||

    This cop is a hero.

  • Larry A||

    They would have to have an even better medal for those who saw the folly of the drug war before arresting hundreds of harmless people.

    No, this is the guy we want. Who is more against smoking than an ex-smoker?

  • ||

    whit....an officer that enforces a law he personally disagrees with is a gutless coward, an officer that enforces a law at odds with the constitution is worse.....what a bs cop-out.

  • Steve in Clearwater||

    STEPHEN, as someone who works closely with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, I'll modify your observation if you don't mind.

    Well over 90% of police only enforce drug laws when presented with a clear cut case of possession and or dealing that is right in front of them. To that end, they are no more shameful than a cop who disagrees with any adult consensual behavior law but has it put right in his face.

    The cops worthy of our disdain are the small minority (less than 10% overall) of drug cops and higher level administrators who actively promote Prohibition as being a viable and productive policy, when they know full well how counterproductive it is and how destructive the policy is to our community.

    THose are indeed "pigs".

    Not pigs in the classic epithet form, but rather pigs with their snouts thrust deep into the taxpayer trough, sucking down our valuable public dollars even as they do a job that they know is futile and utterly ineffective.

  • ||

    I will concede your point, adding that it is not just drug laws at fault. The 'law enforcement for profit' atmosphere de facto is contrary to the principles of a representative republic espousing liberty.

  • ||

    stephen. that's a bunch of crap

    cops don't write the law.

    lots of laws suck, and i disagree with lots of them, but cops can't ignore certain felonies (and many misdemeanors) just because they don't agree with the law. that's called anarchy.

    i am fiercely proud of my service, and you are clearly an idiot.

    there is no sentient being on the face of the earth who would agree with every criminal law on the book. therefore, by your "logic" no person should ever be a police officer, because sooner or later they would have to enforce a law they disagreed with.

    fwiw, i don't think drug prohibition is anti-constitutional. i think it's bad policy. but that's a whole other argument.

    heck, i think many gun laws i had to enforce were arguably unconstitutional.

    there are people who live in the real world, and then there are people like you.

    by your "logic" we should have no police whatsoever. yea, that would work real well

    how many lives did you save? how many rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc. have you put in prison. how many people did you pull from a burning building? etc.

    law enforcement is a noble profession, but if you are against drug policy, blame the POLICYMAKERS. they made that policy. and like it or not, the vast majority of the USA is not for drug legalization

  • ||

    In keeping with the season, I feel about this former Texas narc officer like Saul's fellow Jews felt about him after he changed his name to Paul. (And to think Cursetianity was largely founded by this guy.)

    Now, Milton Friedman... There was a mensch.

  • Sir Disgrace||

    Cursetianity

    Um...how old are you?

  • Warren||

    fwiw, i don't think drug prohibition is anti-constitutional. i think it's bad policy. but that's a whole other argument.

    fwiw neither does the congress, executive, or SCOTUS. To hold that view, one would have to believe that the constitution endowed the government with limited and enumerated powers.

  • ||

    I agree with a lot of what you said, whit, but not this:

    lots of laws suck, and i disagree with lots of them, but cops can't ignore certain felonies (and many misdemeanors) just because they don't agree with the law. that's called anarchy.

    It's called rational anarchy, and it's what most people practice every day. For example, jaywalking: it's against the law, but who's going to wait for the light to change at 3 am with no traffic whatsoever? There is absolutely no reason to obey this law in that situation--it's ludicrous!

    BTW, I have the greatest respect for police when the catch the real bad guys, like murderers and rapists. OTOH, any member of the DEA is pure evil, regardless of the law. (Remember, it used to be the law that some people were subject to chattel slavery. Some laws should always be opposed, and police can quite often "turn a blind eye.")

  • ||

    Whit...If you can't argue a point, attack the person holding the opposing view....Hmmmm.... A police force is neccesary given the lamentable state of human consciousness. A militarized police [SWAT, NET, etc.]is not. Decisions that affect the local economies by intensifying police efforts are made locally. This does not just include drug busts and confications and attendant fines, but runs the gamut of police action. btw...do you really want others to see that in you?

  • ||

    well, actually - First they would have to levy a special tax to pay for it.

    Since that is a logical conclusion on your part I will concede the point.

    grylliade - Why, exactly? People have to take all kinds of different tracks to get to opposition to the war on drugs. In this fight, we need all the allies we can get; we're starting to turn the tide, I think, but we're still a loooooooooong way from winning. To criticize people because, before opposing the war on drugs, they supported it, is asinine. Maybe he should feel guilty because of his support; if so, it's his own business, not something that can be imposed on him by others. I see no reason not to welcome those newly arrived to their opposition to the war on drugs, and not to make them feel like second-class citizens just because they took more convincing than us. Have a healthy dose of humility here; I'm certain that most of us have done things, or held positions, that we later find embarrassing, or even horrifying.

    Being a former active duty member myself - who initially supported the war in Iraq through my own folly of accepting this administrations lies (hook line and sinker) all because of misplaced emotions related to 9/11, and also supporting the War On Terrorism until I realized that it is also our misguided foreign policy that has been to blame for agitating muslim radicals in the first place - I can agree with you 100% and I have no problem eating my slice of humble pie.

    And, trust me on this one, I am not criticizing this former officer/agent. I personally believe he is a true patriot and that he does deserve a medal for coming out in opposition to the WoD. Unfortunately I do not see this happening any time soon as evidenced by past and present behaviour exhibited towards dissidents by our government. I mean look at the guy, he had nothing but positive testimony from his former colleagues for his actions when he supported the WoD and now they want to hang him. That's a travesty due to their own ignorance and stupidity.

    Now... do I believe that his former colleagues deserve praise if they change their positions also? Of course I do.

    Whit - fwiw, i don't think drug prohibition is anti-constitutional.

    Then what are you doing on a board where the majority of people are fed up with the unconstitutionality of the WoD in the first place? And yes, I would say law enforcement was a noble profession at one point, but it's not anymore. Just look at the depressing numbers most police departments have when it comes to recruitment. Nobody wants to be a law enforcement officer anymore.

    And for the record, this is not directed at anyone except our Federal government:

    However much I may have been fooled by the Federal governments past assertions and misguided foreign policy I have never supported the War on Drugs because I believe it is a human rights issue (Don't we own our own bodies?). And, I also hold this view since I realized (somewhere in the late 80's) that Jack Herer is most likely correct, and that there was a conspiracy to suppress the number one natural competetor of petroleum by outlawing the industrial cultivation of hemp with the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Ever since then, a select group of elitist have been using the Federal government to aggresively poke their nose into Middle East Politics, overthrow governments, carve up borders, and impose tyrants (Think House of Saud) upon the peoples of that region.

    Furthermore, this same group of elitist have been using the Federal government to wage a war upon the American People by duping them into believing lies... and for what? In my opinin it's just so they can stymie free-market innovation and destroy our agricultural markets and industrial capabilities with mercantilist policies so that they can continue to profit off of their misdeed while continuing to influence the Federal government so as to rule the U.S.A in their image. These elitist do not want American farmers competing with them for profits in the energy sector, and they have no problem using law enforcement to arrest and destroy lives to the point where the United States imprisons a greater percentage of their population than any country in the world.

  • ||

    fwiw, i don't think drug prohibition is anti-constitutional.

    I do. How is it that we needed a Constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but not one for other drugs?

    Did the prohibitionists do an amendment just for funsies? Or did they do it because at that time people could still read plain English, and they knew that Prohibition far exceeded the enumerated powers of the federal government?

  • aahpat||

    I want to know if Cooper is real.

  • aahpat||

    TO: R C Dean | December 24, 2006, 7:13am |

    I have always believed that the Volstead was used for alcohol prohibition because that was the right way to enact such a constitutionally edgy mass of programs. It required the approval of the people. This required the people to think about it in the first place. So, when the people also saw that it was not working they recognized their own duty to rescind it with another amendment.

    The drug warriors do not want the people actually thinking about this policy. They do not want the people to control this policy. Using the drug war, Americans are kept in a 'deer-in-the-headlights' state of fear of crime and minorities. All policy decisions are left up to politicians. A small group of 535 people at the federal level who are motivated by either anti-democratic Jim Crow intolerance or mindlessly reacting to every isolated and terrorized headline the drug war itself generates.

    Whether the war is constitution or not is not the right question. Its more that they know they can control 535 members of congress but they can't control the constitutional will of the people.

    Merry ho-ho. And happy ha-ha...

    Santa Claus, Superman and Sweet Jesus.. Oh my

  • ||

    warren, your argument references the FEDERAL drug laws.

    that is a reasonably compelling argument about the constitutionality or lack thereof of various FEDERAL statutes. and little about state statutes.

    note that i did not enforce federal statutes, so your point is kinda irrelevant

  • ||

    therealbill, the law may be (often is) an "ass" to paraphrase, but so what?

    feel free to jaywalk, when there are no cars coming. assuming that that IS jaywalking in your jurisdiction, law vary of course, then don't whinge if u get a ticket.

    the point of rule of law is that people do not get to choose (like an a la carte meal) which laws they follow and which they don't, based on their own personal interpretation of which ones are "ludicrous" and which one's aren't.

    and cops are doubly #$(#$( in that they can get fired for disobeying ludicrous laws, that in the cases of average civilians would have no effect on their job status whatsoever.

  • Tommy Jefferson||

    Link to his website with a preview video:

    http://www.nevergetbusted.com

    Free Enterprise Rocks!

  • ||

    again, it comes down to this. all but the most moronic (and there are some here) agree that we need police forces.

    we also agree (generally) that police are forced to enforce the laws we have, not the laws we WISH we have.

    i could give a laundry list of sucky (and many imo unconstitutional laws ) that have to be enforced by local law enforcement

    1) anti-smoking laws
    2) my state makes it a "c" felony to gamble online, but it's perfectly willing to gamble in a casino where the rake is 10X as high, and the state gets their cut
    3) VUFA laws that make it illegal for somebody who is a respondent of a protection order to carry a firearm, or possess one. this imo is a blatant violation of the 2nd amendment
    4) mj laws, which are totally retarded imo (but again, many cops in many agencies can and do give warnings, not citations for mj possession)
    5) etc.

    but again, the cops are not to blame for bad law. the POLICYMAKERS are.

    and if one chooses the noble profession of policework, one will necessarily be enforcing bad law, and sometimes unconstitutional (whether later determined to be so in a de facto or de jure sense)

    i was waiting for somebody to make the stupid comparison of drug laws to chattel slavery or something

    look, using drugs is a CHOICE. the laws *are* stupid, but it is not a status offense, and it is a punishment that one can avoid by CHOICE not to break those laws

    that is not true of slavery, etc. that were imposed upon innocents, etc.

    i *do* think the drug laws suck, as do many cops, but that's the way rule of law works

    many people have this ridiculous pollyanna attitude (libertarians in general, which is kind of sad), that cops could or should not enforce law that is bad policy.

    that would be anarchy, and it is not acceptable for individual cops to make law. that is the job of the LEGISLATURE, NOT the executive branch

    seperation of powers is pretty frigging important, and having cops make up the law is wrong, even if they are making up the law (or ignoring the law) for good effect. the ends do not justify the means.

    i really can't believe people are advocating that individual members of the executive branch (especially those with state sponsored guns, power of arrest and search etc.) have free agency to pick and choose what laws they think are reasonable to enforce and not enforce.

    fwiw, on a certain level, cops do have discretion to give warnings, etc. for infractions and misdemeanors

    that's a bit different than a cop coming upon a meth lab (a serious felony) and saying "well, i don't agree with criminalizing meth production, so I'm going to ignore this lab, turn around and walk away"

    should we just get rid of the legislative branch altogether and give police the power to make the very laws they enforce? that is , effe3ctively, what many are proposing, except that it's ok with them, as long as the cops are slectively enforcing/not-enforcing the laws YOU agree with.

  • ||

    Cops are nothing more than glorified janitors.

  • ||

    yes, googly-moogly.

    they spend their time dealing with dirtbags.

    so, that's apt

  • ||

    This guy is doing the right thing. He's a hero up there with Sheriff Bill Masters of Colorado (author of Drug War Addiction)

  • ||

    also noted that the average criminal is incredibly disorganized, ignorant of the law, and ignorant of police policy.

    for example.

    i live in an area with a patchwork quilt of jurisdictions.

    in some jurisdictions, police policy is to ONLY use vehicle pursuits for BARC felonies (basically, robbery, arson, rape, murder, etc.)

    somebody should come out with a video saying that if you are going to commit burglary, autotheft, etc. do it in city X, not city Y because in city X you can take off and the cops won't chase you.

    why would u do a burglary in a jurisdiction where the cops are gonna chase u if they find u leaving the scene, when u can do it in a jurisdiction one mile away, where they won't?

    why?

    because most criminals are complete idiots, and don't do their research.

    why would somebody burglarize a house and leave fingerprints all over? how hard is it to wear gloves? again... idiots

    they need to watch more videos

  • ||

    "they spend their time dealing with dirtbags.

    so, that's apt"


    They show up and haul the body off after some victimized citizen has ventilated an interloping goblin.

    Too bad they don't have the forethought to carry some of that Oxyclean stuff with 'em.

  • dhex||

    man.

    i'm glad this guy is doing what he's doing, but that video is fucking terrible. either do it scripted style or do a 1:30 rundown for youtube. also, the logo is fucked and makes him look like a dirtbag.

    he will make stupid loot, however, from the high times crowd.

  • ||

    whit - should we just get rid of the legislative branch altogether and give police the power to make the very laws they enforce? that is , effe3ctively, what many are proposing, except that it's ok with them, as long as the cops are slectively enforcing/not-enforcing the laws YOU agree with.

    No... We should severely constrain the ability of our federal legislature and executive branch (by force if need be) to tax unapportionedly and pass unconstitutional laws, and then, we should get rid of the federal police power. Likewise, we should severely constrain state legislators from passing unapportioned taxes. This would ensure that state police powers are minimal in each individual state of the union.

    Without the ability of our legislators and executives (both federal and state) to pass unapportioned taxes, and without a federal police power, and with a minimal state police power (that is only able to enforce laws against real crimes) it wouldn't matter what stupid laws any activist federal or state (or even local) legislator or executive tried to pass because then they would not be able to use our money to enslave us, like they are presently trying to do.

    How much more clear can it be?

  • ||

    brad, that's all well and good but it's not responsive to the question i asked, even though you are addressing me.

    the point was that GIVEN these stupid laws, bla bla bla

    as i said, the reality is that if you are a cop, you are forced to enforce some laws that you may be against, on a policy basis. that's the real world.

    i don't see how your post is the least bit responsive to the issue at hand, which is that GIVEN the war on drugs, bla bla bla

  • ||

    brad, iow maybe you should read the preceding posts, because either you didn't, or your reading comprehension needs a jumpstart :l

  • ||

    No whit, I did read your preceeding posts, and I think your arguments are flawed, so I see no reason to argue back and forth about this nuance or that nuance. I would rather spend my time by responding with how to end the abuses of the stinking operation you are defending.

  • Jennifer||

    look, using drugs is a CHOICE. the laws *are* stupid, but it is not a status offense, and it is a punishment that one can avoid by CHOICE not to break those laws

    And when sick people are imprisoned for taking more pain medication than the DEA currently allows, they can console themselves with the knowledge that living free of pain is a CHOICE. It is not a status offense. And when a chemotherapy victim is imprisoned for smoking pot to make her nausea go away, remember that eating your food and being able to keep it down is a CHOICE. It is not a status offense.

  • oncogenesis||

    whit: the point was that GIVEN these stupid laws, bla bla bla

    Revolution.

    Fuck off, you statist water carrier.

  • Sam Franklin||

    Whit if you go to the Cop Talk section of the Glock Talk forum for a few days, then you will see what the po po's are really about. They get way more excited about enforcing marijuana law than about chasing down tax cheats or corporate fraudsters. They claim that they know first hand that marijuana does a lot more damage. That ridiculous fiction is how you know they are lying about their true motivations.

    As far as what their real motivations are, they seem to be the following: new guns, new whirlybirds, asset forfeiture, new bullet proof vests, new Tasers (and a chance to finally use them) and pepper sprays.

    They, by and large, won't even give speeding tickets to fellow officers.

    In addition to having whacked out enforcement priorities (which is their fault), some of them glory in causing pain and in saying people who might not be guilty are guilty (and therefore deserve all pain and discomfort that the LEO is allowed to administer).

    Those people exist, Whit. They are scum and we are onto them.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement