FDA Attacks Menthol Cigarettes for Smooth Flavor


Credit:Tomasz Sienicki/wikimedia

The Food and Drug Administration has declared that menthol cigarettes pose a greater risk to public health risk than other kinds of cigarettes — entirely because of the way they taste.

From the BBC:

The agency said that while mint-flavoured cigarettes may be just as toxic as others, it was easier to start smoking them and harder to quit. Menthol cigarettes are one of the few growing areas of the tobacco industry. The FDA has commissioned further research into the subject.It is inviting input from the health community, tobacco industry and members of the public about the products. "Menthol cigarettes pose a public health risk above that seen with non-menthol cigarettes," said the preliminary results of the FDA's study. It also found the cooling and anaesthetic qualities of the menthol made them less harsh — and more appealing — to smokers.

The comments echo a 2011 FDA report, which concluded that "removal of menthol cigarettes from the marketplace would benefit public health in the United States." The report also warned of the blindingly obvious danger that would accompany the prohibition of menthol cigarettes: "A black market for menthol cigarettes could be created, criminal activity could ensue, and different methods might be used to supply such a black market."

The proposition, that menthol cigarettes require special restrictions or even prohibition is not based on the toxicity of menthol cigarettes but on their flavor. Menthol cigarettes, it is claimed, are easier to smoke, as they have a smoother flavor than regular cigarettes, leading to more people starting smoking and fewer quitting.  

Two former cabinet secretaries from the Carter and George H.W. Bush administrations condemned the lack of action on the part of the FDA in clamping down on menthols: "The failure of this administration to act undermines the public health and is particularly harmful to vulnerable young Americans and African-Americans." The push to regulate and possibly even prohibit menthol cigarettes would certainly have a disproportionate impact on African-Americans. 70 percent of African-American smokers smoke menthols as opposed to 25 percent of white smokers.  

Government officials and anti-tobacco campaigners may view the restriction of menthol cigarettes as a potential victory for the health of African-Americans. However, the FDA's militant paternalism doesn't exactly treat them as human beings responsible for their own decisions.

The FDA is preparing a consultation on possible measures to restrict menthol cigarettes.

NEXT: Former President Bush Goes Bald to Support Child with Leukemia

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Government officials and anti-tobacco campaigners may view the restriction of menthol cigarettes as a potential victory for the health of African-Americans. However, the FDA’s militant paternalism doesn’t exactly treat them as human beings responsible for their own decisions.

    I’m pretty sure only one of these is a concern to the FDA and Prohibitionists.

  2. Fuck these nannies. If you really get down to it, we should just ban all food and make us eat a flavorless paste that contains all the vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins, and carbs that the government thinks we need in a day. They can remove all that bad stuff, so we don’t get cancer or something. Then all we get to drink is water.

    I mean, this is a public health issue, afterall!

    1. At least for African-Americans, since the enlightened and non-racist thing to do is to treat them as especially in need of nannying. Also, the violence caused by prohibition is not at all a public-health issue; my statist friends tell me that it isn’t.

      1. People who get shot in drug deals are only a drain on healthcare resources if they survive.

    2. make us eat a flavorless paste that contains all the vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins, and carbs that the government thinks we need in a day.

      Yikes! I would be big as a house!

      They can remove all that bad stuff, so we don’t get cancer or something.

      Except they really don’t seem to know what that is. People try to tell us we should be vegetarians, but vegetarian countries (like India) have the highest cancer rates in the world.

      1. make us eat a flavorless paste that contains all the vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins, and carbs that the government thinks we need in a day.

        “If only” *sighs wistfully*

        /Michelle Obama

    3. I remember that episode of Star Trek.

    4. I sort of wish that paste was available sometimes. Though not designed by the government.

      1. When the Army was developing MREs, they actually developed something like this. I understood that only a couple of tablespoon contained all the nutrients and about 3500 calories (combat rations, after all).

        Only problem was that it was unpalatable. Like horribly so.

    5. make us eat a flavorless paste that contains all the vitamins, minerals, fats, proteins, and carbs that the government thinks we need in a day.

      Bachelor Chow!

      1. I’m thinking of something along the lines of the slop they gave the crew on the Nebuchadnezzar in The Matrix

        1. That’s when a weasly little fuck with an arc thrower ruins your day.

        2. “It doesn’t have everything the body needs…”

      2. Isn’t that what ramen noodles are?

        1. You take that back! Ramen is delicious, when done right (See: Tampopo)

          1. Ramen done right:
            Noodles boiled in water
            Water drained
            Seasoning added
            Soy sauced added (optional)

            I want damn Ramen noodles, not raman noodle soup!

    6. “Who will come and live a life devoted to chastity, abstinence, and a flavorless mush I call rootmarm?

    7. We can call it Soylent Green.

    8. Soylent Green is Menthol!

      1. The non-menthol would be Soylent Red Kings Softpack.

  3. As I’ve been asking since before the big tobacco suits settlement, why not just ban them if they’re so evil? Otherwise, go away. I thought that should have been their argument in court too. Back then I think they would have won on that basis.

    1. They don’t want to ban cigarettes, they want to share in the profits. All the rest is just pretext.

      1. Which is what that argument would have illuminated.

        1. It DID illuminate that.

      2. If they ban them then they can write people huge fines for smoking AND they can use the law to lock up people they don’t like.

      3. What do you mean, SHARE the profits?

        They want all of the profits, (and the company assets, and the employee assets, and anything else they can think of)

  4. A black market for menthol cigarettes could be created, criminal activity could ensue, and different methods might be used to supply such a black market.”

    Oh, just because there’s a “black market” for menthols, y’all think about “criminal activity”?

    1. I where I saw little dropper bottles of menthol for sale. I remember asking about it and being told menthol cigarettes were considered unmanly, and people would use this to mentholate their own at home. Philipines, maybe?

  5. it was easier to start smoking them and harder to quit.

    More paternalism towards the blacks: “Menthol cigarettes are easier to start smoking and harder to quit (implication: you black folk have poor impulse control)”

    The mask slips entirely at “The failure of this administration to act undermines the public health and is particularly harmful to vulnerable young Americans and African-Americans.”

  6. Wait, so mint flavor is more addictive? So when is the FDA going to ban Breyer’s Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream? Or mint juleps? Mint grows everywhere like a weed. Will the FDA declare a war on mint like the one on pot?

    1. I’ve seen mint run amok in people’s gardens. It’s time for asset forfeiture.

      1. “Your honor, I smelled the scent of mint coming from the open window and therefore broke down the door, at which point I was confronted by the homeowner’s cat, which was high on catmint, also known as catnip. I was forced to shoot it because it charged me.”

        1. I can totally see a cop getting away with that exact argument in 2 years.

        2. Never happen. A cat would either ignore everything, or start issuing SchutzHund commands.

          1. Won’t stop the cop from shooting it anyways though.

        3. “Upon shooting the cat, I also wrote up a citation to the owner for housing dead animals without a taxidermist permit.”

          1. … and then the dog sauntered in.

    2. I’m ok with everything mint being banned as long as that includes gubmint.

      1. You, sir, are a comic genius.

    3. So when is the FDA going to ban Breyer’s Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream?

      Coming soon in the War on Fat.

    4. I think that it may well be true. Not that the flavor is more addictive, but that it makes it so your throat hurts less and you are less likely to be motivated to quit because you feel like shit. Of course that’s not good reason to ban something.

      I don’t get it myself. Menthols are nasty. Why would you smoke tobacco if you don’t like the flavor of tobacco?

      1. I always smoked them, way back when. 90% of people trying to bum a smoke turn them down, a clear advantage from a personal economics standpoint.

        1. Except that “way back when”, smokes were maybe $2 a pack. Which meant a smoke was worth about 10 cents. Who cares if people bum a phone call off you? What were you, super poor? Why am I asking you this question? Of course you were.

          I smoked Marlboro Reds and sometimes this off-brand called Pyramid which had full length unfiltereds, unlike the shorter Lucky Strikes. More tobacco for the buck.

          1. I was a parliament smoker. In part because the recessed filter made for good coke storage for a little pick me up bump and partly because I have this Guy Fawkes fetish of burning parliaments down.

          2. Indiana was 16 or 17 to buy and Kentucky didn’t have any lower age at the time (or it is was 12 or something) and when I’d go to shows I’d get swarmed with people trying to bum. Friends I’ll give a cigarette to, random fucks so friendless they can’t find someone to buy them a pack of smokes can go spin.

            It wasn’t like I switched just for that, I always smoked menthols. The first pack I ever bought was Players Menthol at the Palmer’s Gas Station on Zion Rd. I was thirteen.

            1. My first pack was…I’m not sure because I was drunk, but it was bought at the WaWa on 195 in Storrs on the UConn campus. I think I was 15 or 16. Man were we hammered, and we drove there. That was a fun night.

        2. You are a shitty libertarian. When someone asks you for a handout, instead of offering something you know they won’t want, you should simply launch a diatribe about how you don’t even treat the child workers in your diamond mine that well, and they actually provide you some worth.

        3. You are not the only person I have met who said they smoked menthols for that reason.

    5. You can have my Andes when you pry them from the my cold dead hands. MY COLD. DEAD. HANDS!!!

    6. Flavored vodka, up next.

      1. 15 year old girls hit hardest.

        1. At the grocery store near my college they sell a lot of vodka, peppermint schnapps, and chocolate syrup to giggling college girls.

    7. Britain must have banned mint toothpaste.

  7. Ban menthols and flavored cigarettes, but leave cigar bars alone.
    Ban alcopops but deregulate craft brewing.
    Ban alcoholic drinks with caffeine but loosen restrictions on selling and shipping wine.

    These peoples’ motives are pure!

    1. Template:

      Ban (black person associated product), but leave (SWPL product) alone.

      But wear a hoodie while doing it so you can show solidarity and pretend you’re not a patronizing racist fuckstick.

      1. I’d have thought the alcopops and caffeinated alcoholic drinks were Snooki Class stuff.

    2. Hey, a majority of the eligible voters who bother to vote are electing them. They just reflect the will of 20% of your neighbors. If you don’t like it, come up with something better!

      1. Look, JJ, since a majority of a minority of people voted for a jackass, every single person in the country/locality can be tarred with the exact same brush. Don’t you know how collective guilt works? Idiot. Sometimes I wonder how you even wipe your ass.

        1. We’re all in this together, Epi. You get to sit next to Jimbo.

          1. Do I have to wipe his ass? Please say yes.

            1. It’s hairy, so you have to wipe a lot. It’s like trying to wipe a shit stain off of a shag carpet.

              1. get that waxed

              2. You say that like it’s a bad thing.

            2. Yes, but you have to use a piece of warty’s baby foreskin to do so

              1. I hear they used just a small piece as a ground cover at Progessive Field.

      2. If you don’t like it, come up with something better!

        Every time I do, people try to kill me.

    3. You know who else was pure…?

      1. The (alleged) Virgin Mary?

      2. Gottfried from Gravity’s Rainbow?

      3. Sir Gallahad?

      4. The dog the cop shot?

  8. Shoter FDA: How dare tobacco companies provide a product that people actually want.

  9. Obligatory: “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

    – H.L. Mencken

  10. Wait, people still smoke?

    1. Everyone but Jimbo. He just covers his scrotum in nicotine patches every morning.

      1. *steps out for a smoke*

      2. That’s why he waxes his balls. You people calling him a pervert should apologize.

  11. Won’t affect Obama. He’s a Marlboro man.

    1. I think he’s more of a cock man, personally.

  12. So I was misinformed that menthol cigarettes contain fiberglass? Or is that really less important than the FDA’s statement quoted above?

    1. I think that some brands (Kool, I think was the best known) did have fiberglass in the filter for a while anyway.

        1. I last heard it when I was smoking clove cigarettes 25 years ago, and haven’t really looked into it one way or another since then.

        2. As an aside, I did notice a difference in my performance when a BPD girlfriend of mine made me smoke Marlboro Lights for a while, but once I started back with my preferred Camel Filters (and lost her), I felt a rebound.

          1. Marlboro Lights are the most disgusting cigarettes out there, bar none. I cannot stand even the smell of them.

            1. Agreed. They are definitely the worst and most lingering smell of any cigarette. I remember when I was a kid, trying to hide that I was smoking, the only times anyone noticed was when I had smoked a Marlboro light.

          2. Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia?

    2. Yes. That is an urban myth.

    3. Or is that really less important than the FDA’s statement quoted above?

      It’s more them just trying to ban smoking one little piece at a time.

      Next will be non-filtered, after that will be “packaged,” and then finally just an outright ban.

    4. Also, more specifically, it depends on the manufacturer.

      Most companies just soak the tobacco in a chemical that produces the menthol flavor; American Spirit has some kind of patent where the menthol delivery is in the filter, similar to a Camel Crush.

      1. Not sure if American Spirit uses the same technology as Nat Sherman, which are “pure menthol crystals” in the filter. They are fun to break open and examine.

        1. You can see it here:


  13. A black market for menthol cigarettes could be created, criminal activity could ensue, and different methods might be used to supply such a black market.

    Could/ might??? Maybe someone should send them a history book with the section on alcohol prohibition bookmarked. Fucking morona.

    1. What actually happened is always an exception to the rule.

    2. If they ban just menthol, I think that a market for menthol you can add to your smokes is more likely than a big black market (or a bigger one than what already exists because of high taxes).

      1. Ban cough drops!

        1. Or at least sucking on cough drops while smoking.

  14. As I mentioned before the deadline for the US to comply with the WTO ruling against them vs Indonesia that the ban on other flavors (cloves in this case) but not menthol was a violation. They are partially talking this up so when they come out and say they need to ban menthols too (rather than reversing the ban on flavors) people will be softened up for the blow.

  15. Not long ago, as a menthol smoker, I was outraged by the possibility that they’d ban them. Now that I kind of want to quit, a ban would be as good a motivator as any. No way would I participate in a black market. Smoking is not important enough to me to bother with it if it ever became too inconvenient. People are not going to become more tolerant of smokers as time moves on, so I figure I might as well get on the bandwagon. I can’t wait till I’m exaggeratedly coughing at the slightest wisp of smoke and saying things like “I love this bar–it’s nonsmoking!”

    1. Shorter Tony:

      1. I thought “it’s all about me” was the theme of this place.

        1. The theme of this place is liberty, and banning things doesn’t fit that theme. Idiot.

        2. Says the guy who wants to enforce all of his preferences on his neighbors at gunpoint.

        3. “It’s all about me, so government should force everyone else to go along” is the opposite of the theme of this place.

    2. Government; please save me from myself!

      You are pathetic, dude.

    3. I hate smoking, but I don’t want it banned. That’s the difference between me (and a lot of Libertarians) and nannies. Just because we don’t like something or are even offended by something does not mean we have any inclination on banning it. Perhaps from our own property, but we would not dare do so on someone elses or society at large.

      Freedom is often too hard for people.

      1. What about the freedom to breathe clean air? Huh? What about that?

        1. You can make the claim about public property, because second hand smoke is dangerous. And when you’re out in public, you should not be subjected to it. But private businesses should be able to determine if smoking is/is not permitted on the premises. And patrons and employees are free to be or not to be on the premises with smokers.

          I get into this argument with my conservative friends all the time. They like cigarettes being banned in restaurants, and I don’t. I don’t smoke, and I hate being around it. But if a restaurant wishes to allow smoking, there should be no laws forbidding it. “But I want to eat there without smoke in my face”. Well, eating at that restaurant is a privilege extended by the establishment, not a right. Just as they cannot force you to be a customer, you cannot force them to serve you. If you don’t like the smoke, then feel free to go someplace else that does not permit smoking.

          But that’s too hard.

          1. I worked at a restaurant that was non-smoking by choice that went out of business when the city passed a smoking ban.
            The food was OK at best. So when the snobby clientele could breathe smoke-free air in any restaurant, that’s exactly what they did.

            1. FREE MARKET!!!


      2. I lean in the direction of non-prohibition, but with cigarettes and other highly addictive substances, the issue is rightly considered a bit more complicated. People choose (to an extent we can reasonably call “free”) to start smoking, but nobody chooses to be addicted to something (that’s the nature of addiction–removing choice). It’s problematic that companies can profit not just by selling a product there is demand for, but by selling a product they deliberately addict people to, creating a sort of artificial chemical demand that would not have existed if choice were the only factor.

        A good compromise would be to make cig manufacturers pay for anti-addiction research and therapies.

        1. There is always a choice. Always.

          1. Addiction is by definition the limitation or removal of choice.

            Even apart from addiction, free choice is largely an illusion.

        2. Or, maybe… people are armed with the information knowing the dangers and addictiveness of cigarettes can make their own damned decisions. No, cigarette companies do not need to pay for anti-addiction research or therapies. They can choose to do so if they wish. But no one can claim ignorance that “I didn’t know cigarettes were harmful and addictive”.

          That’s bullshit.

          1. I just don’t understand why all of you default to defending the freedom of corporations, no matter how obvious the issue is. Cigarette manufacturers sell a product that is designed to addict you. It’s not something anyone would use if they had a fully free and rational choice. I conceded that you can blame people for the choice to start smoking (even though peer pressure is also a restriction on choice, but forget about it for the sake of argument). But you must blame them less, and the seller more, for the addiction. To some degree they have imposed a medical condition on you. If they sold you something that immediately gave you lung cancer but that you were relatively powerless not to buy, it would be banned outright and nobody would give a shit.

            1. What a weak, pathetic vision of yourself and humanity do you have. That would cause most people shame enough to resolve to better themselves, but you just wallow in your lack of will, like a toddler with a full diaper.

        3. If people cannot choose to quit, why are smoking rates inversely correlated with price?

          1. People can quit. About 10% of those who try.

        4. Addiction doesn’t remove choice. Addiction makes it harder to exercise choice. But, hard decisions are still decisions.

          I smoked cigarettes for years, and quit. I smoked a cigar a day for years, and cut back to one or two a week. See? Choice.

          Personally, I’m not much interested in “compromises” that involve “making” someone do something.

          1. That’s not possible. Surely, you needed the guiding hand of government for you to cut back cigars and cut cigarettes… right? RIGHT?! I mean, no one else can choose healthier alternatives on their own without government paternalism.

          2. Reasonable people can believe that it’s a proper role of government to ban the large-scale manufacturing and distribution of addictive poison. As the saying goes, if cigarettes were invented today, no way in hell they’d be allowed to be sold.

            Without advocating anything, I do think libertarians need to appreciate more the arbitrary nature of the world. We could totally eradicate cigarettes and let someone nuke a city once a decade and the tradeoff in terms of body count would probably be worth it.

      3. I hate smoking, but I don’t want it banned.

        I feel this way in principle, but I can never really muster up the proper amount of outrage when it comes to things like smoking bans.

        1. wait until the ban is on something that you enjoy.

        2. First they came for the principles…

    4. No way would I participate in a black market.

      Translation: No way I would ever spit on the boot that I enjoy licking so much.

      I can’t wait till I’m exaggeratedly coughing at the slightest wisp of smoke and saying things like “I love this bar–it’s nonsmoking!”

      Translation: I’m not merely satisfied with being ordered to quit by the govt denying me choice because I’m too fucking incompetant to take my own initiative. Instead, I want to become that heaping pile of douche that has to exaggerate my superiority and look down on everyone doing the same shit I used to do by obnoxiously faking a cough when I smell the slightest hint of tobacco.”

      1. I apologize if my sarcasm was not obvious enough.

        1. My bad if that truly was sarcastic. My long H and R absense has left my sarcometer disfunctional. And I, admittedly, I kinda thought that behavior consistent with the sort of left-leaning abhorrance of smoking that SWPL tend to radiate.

          If you truly find that shit as annoying as I (admittedly a non-smoker now, but with the occassional smoke during a drinking night out), then we have something in common.

          1. I will march in the streets against bans on things like foie gras, and I used to be militant in my opposition to smoking bans, but I have to concede the public health issue. Workers have a strong case that they shouldn’t be subjected to a full day’s worth of second-hand smoke, and I also don’t have a problem with government policy that (gently) incentivizes healthier behavior.

    5. Then quit already. Other people do it without waiting for the nanny state to take action for them; why can’t you?

      1. Don’t respond to it, dude. That’s what it wants. Ignore it.

      2. Because he’s a progressive. He can’t wipe his ass without aid from a government bureaucrat.

        1. He can’t wipe his ass without aid from a government bureaucrat.

          Well, I’ve taken to wiping my ass with forms from bureaucrats.

        2. He can’t wipe his ass without aid from a government bureaucrat.

          Tony getting his ass wiped.

      3. I’m afraid of losing my figure.

        1. Said everyone whose ever made $150k before taxes…

    6. Well, I suppose this is a good illustration of how one’s natural temperament influences one’s political leanings. All the new restrictions and such on tobacco just make me want to smoke more. If I quit now then the nanny prohibitionist assholes have won! Which sucks because I really need to quit.

      1. Naaahhh. Don’t quit, Zeb. I’m gonna’ walk down to the hamburger stand, burn a couple Camel nons along the way, and eat lunch now. On the way back, I’m gonna’ burn a couple more, and stop in my local for a couple of drinks.

        Live it up!

        1. Well, you’ve inspired me to go out for a smoke now.

    7. short of a ban, you are unable to quit. So the next obvious step is to force everyone else to do something they may not want to in order for you to accomplish your goal. Really?

  16. Did you know that employees of the FDA die from cancer at a rate 400% higher than that of any other classifiable group of Americans? I didn’t either, but would that not be awesome if it were true?

    1. Does that mean we can ban FDA employees?

      1. That is exactly what it means. Public employment, it’s bad for health, and it’s bad for business.

        1. Woot, sign me up.

  17. Menthol lets you smoke far cheaper brands than you would otherwise tolerate (and often have lower tar than luxury brands).

    The ban on clove was targeted at Goths. This is targeted at African-Americans. Does the FDA hate black?

    1. Does the FDA hate black?
      Do you even need to ask?

    2. Not so long as the Skittles, Arizona Iced Tea Watermelon Juice, and Robitussin flow like water.

      1. The “purple drank” cough syrup people drink isn’t Robotussin (well some people do, but it’s not that awesome). It’s codeine.

        1. Yeah, but you can still get a buzz with DXM in large doses.

          1. Oh, you can get totally out of your head on DXM in large doses. I was just thinking of the association of cough syrup with black culture.

    3. The ban on clove was targeted at Goths.

      Really? Goths are a big enough thing that they actually legislate against them now?

  18. OT: Anyone try Shadowrun Returns yet? Can’t wait to see my special skill and Doc Wagon card!

    1. Quiet you. I have to wait until I get home from work to play.

      1. Me too chummer, just trying to get a feel for how many runners we got in these parts.

    2. I have an indoor soccer game and am going tubing this weekend, probably won’t even get to try it out till next week.

  19. The removal of the FDA would benefit public health in the USA. So let’s do it.

    1. If it saves just one child!

  20. Ban menthols!?!?! That aint Kool!

  21. The FDA is racist. Where is Al Sharpton when you actually need him.

  22. A ban on menthol cigs would last about an hour follewd by a month of apologies and much lamenting and calls for conversations about race.

  23. They better stay away from Doctor McGillicuddy Menthol Mint Schnapps.

    It’s like drinking a cigarette through a candy cane.

    1. Those look fun, and delicious!

    2. Stuff tastes like vomit.

    3. “It’s like drinking a cigarette through a candy cane.”

      I bet it’s like vomiting a lit cigarette through your nose, too!

  24. Reasonable suspicion, it’s what’s for dinner, and it’s what cops use, have used, and will use to investigate and make seizures of suspicious activity…

    State v. Lyons, 85 Wn. App. 268 (Div. II, 1997) Aug. ’97 LED:18 (Holding that RCW
    46.20.349 constitutionally authorizes stop of vehicle based on reasonable suspicion that
    registered owner of MV has revoked or suspended driver’s license). But see State v.
    Penfield, 106 Wn. App. 157 (Div. III, 2001) Aug. ’01 LED:12, which holds that, while a MV
    stop to check for the registered owner was permissible under the Lyons-type facts, the
    officer was not permitted to extend the stop to ask for ID when the reasonable suspicion
    evaporated once the officer noticed that the driver could not be the person identified by
    records as the registered owner.

    State v. Anderson, 51 Wn. App. 775 (Div. III, 1988) Oct. ’88 LED:10 (Known citizen’s
    action of pointing out car and making weaving gesture justified stop)

    State v. Hopkins, 128 Wn. App. 855 (Div. II, 2005) Oct. ’05 LED:09 (Where officers did not call back to get more details, citizen informant’s call on cell phone to report possible juvenile in possession of handgun was not shown, on the totality of the circumstances, to establish reasonable suspicion for Terry seizure of suspect, nor were there sufficient corroborating observations to support the Terry seizure)

    Reasonable suspicion. IT’s what’s for dinner

    1. Cop shooting dog thread is that way, troll man.

    2. Yeah, you know what though – we used to believe that humans in power could do the right things with correct training, proper boundaries, etc, etc, etc…

      But then judges all over the place went and used their discretion, not to help people in need, but to feed the pet habits – and the people “revolted” so to speak.

      In almost every state in the union, and at the federal level, sentencing standards went from guidelines, to mandatory – other laws forced judges hands such as three strikes…

      The same will happen to LEOs.

      If LEOs want to continually use the obviously easily abused standard of “the cop thought he smelled X, so everything extending from that is ok so long as it’s proper policy” they will do at the detriment of these so-called “necessary crime fighting tools”.

      Meaning – every single time the police union stands up for obvious abuses of power because such indefinable terms are believed to be more concrete – they only work to seal their fate and have those much vaunted, and according to you and many other LEOs – necessary tools, completely removed.

      When? Who knows? Who knows when the next grain of sand make a heap…but it seems obvious the NSA, FBI, Swat teams, etc, etc, etc, etc – are just asking for more and more laws to be passed to restrict more and more of the actions claimed to be needed to police control the populace.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.