Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
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.
|12.22.06 @ 6:56PM|#
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"
|12.22.06 @ 7:30PM|#
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.
|12.22.06 @ 7:55PM|#
""""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|12.22.06 @ 8:07PM|#
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!
|12.22.06 @ 8:19PM|#
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!
|12.22.06 @ 9:01PM|#
Heeeeyyy Joe, I heard you shot your woman down.
Isn't that about as relevant to the issue as Joe's post?
Matt Phillips|12.22.06 @ 9:19PM|#
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.
|12.22.06 @ 10:03PM|#
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.
|12.22.06 @ 10:44PM|#
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|12.22.06 @ 11:12PM|#
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|12.22.06 @ 11:20PM|#
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.
|12.22.06 @ 11:27PM|#
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.
|12.22.06 @ 11:35PM|#
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.
|12.22.06 @ 11:44PM|#
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|12.22.06 @ 11:47PM|#
It is irrational to expect anything different from those who have demonstrated their irrationality so thoroughly.
|12.23.06 @ 12:32AM|#
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|12.23.06 @ 2:58AM|#
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.
|12.23.06 @ 3:47AM|#
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|12.23.06 @ 5:28AM|#
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.
Admiral Ackbar|12.23.06 @ 9:35AM|#
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!
|12.23.06 @ 9:47AM|#
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|12.23.06 @ 10:25AM|#
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|12.23.06 @ 11:36AM|#
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.
|12.23.06 @ 11:46AM|#
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.
|12.23.06 @ 12:24PM|#
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.
|12.23.06 @ 12:31PM|#
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.
Larry A|12.23.06 @ 2:26PM|#
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?
|12.23.06 @ 2:32PM|#
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|12.23.06 @ 2:53PM|#
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.
|12.23.06 @ 3:39PM|#
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.
|12.23.06 @ 4:20PM|#
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
|12.23.06 @ 8:08PM|#
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.
Warren|12.23.06 @ 8:38PM|#
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.
|12.23.06 @ 8:45PM|#
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.")
|12.23.06 @ 9:33PM|#
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?
|12.23.06 @ 10:06PM|#
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.
|12.24.06 @ 7:13AM|#
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|12.24.06 @ 8:22AM|#
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
|12.24.06 @ 10:20AM|#
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
|12.24.06 @ 10:22AM|#
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|12.24.06 @ 10:28AM|#
Link to his website with a preview video:
http://www.nevergetbusted.com
Free Enterprise Rocks!
|12.24.06 @ 10:32AM|#
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.
|12.24.06 @ 11:01AM|#
yes, googly-moogly.
they spend their time dealing with dirtbags.
so, that's apt
|12.24.06 @ 11:05AM|#
This guy is doing the right thing. He's a hero up there with Sheriff Bill Masters of Colorado (author of Drug War Addiction)
|12.24.06 @ 11:05AM|#
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
|12.24.06 @ 11:53AM|#
"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|12.24.06 @ 5:32PM|#
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.
|12.24.06 @ 8:28PM|#
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?
|12.25.06 @ 3:18PM|#
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
|12.25.06 @ 3:19PM|#
brad, iow maybe you should read the preceding posts, because either you didn't, or your reading comprehension needs a jumpstart :l
|12.25.06 @ 11:00PM|#
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|12.25.06 @ 11:28PM|#
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|12.27.06 @ 12:50AM|#
whit: the point was that GIVEN these stupid laws, bla bla
bla
Revolution.
Fuck off, you statist water carrier.
Sam Franklin|12.27.06 @ 12:46PM|#
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.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245