Police

Brickbat: This Will Make You Sick to Your Stomach

|

Des Moines pharmacist Mark Graziano is already facing federal charges of illegally dispensing painkillers. Now, he's facing state charges of illegally possessing prescription drugs. Prescription Pepcid, in fact. A police officer pulled him over for not wearing a seat belt and for not having a current registration sticker on his tag. When the officer searched Graziano's truck, he found an old bottle of antacid under the seat.

NEXT: Headline Inversion: The Consequences of a Jennifer Rubin Mindset on Terrorism

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.

  1. no seatbelts AND antacid?! This Graziano guy sounds like a real Public Enemy…

  2. Did they get to kill his dog?

  3. Graziano gave the officer permission to search the truck.

    When are people going to learn *never* to give permission for a police search?

    1. Never. They are never going to learn this because the natural human response to “do you have anything to hide?” is “no, feel free to take a look.”

      1. Plus, if you “don’t want to get tased, shot, beaten with a nightstick, etc. etc.” – OBEY.

        You have nothing to fear if you’ve done nothing wrong – right?

        1. Now that police see a lack of fear as justification to impose lethal force, it’s almost impossible to exercise your rights. Saying, “no, you can’t search my car” demonstrates a definite lack of fear, which makes you an immediate threat, which justifies the officer shooting you dead on the spot.

          Apparently.

    2. They’re justifiably afraid of police.

      It takes an asshole, a libertarian, or someone with a rudimentary training in law (these are not mutually exclusive qualities in my experience) to refuse to cooperate with police or tell them no.

      1. All right! I’m 2 for 3.

  4. Land of the free.

  5. A textbook case on why one should never voluntarily cooperate with an agent of the State. One should consider every encounter with the State to be adversarial. Even though the individual is the weaker opponent in the conflict, he need not cooperate with his oppressor.

  6. “I think we’d do the same for anyone who was in possession of pills that were not prescribed to him,” the police chief said.

    This guy doesn’t have kids that have ever been sick and needed a prescription drug? Or a kid who’s ADD? There are thousands of parents who, once a month, are in possession of amphetamines that aren’t prescribed for them.

  7. From the linked article:

    “I think we’d do the same for anyone who was in possession of pills that were not prescribed to him,” the police chief said.

    REALLY??! So if I run to the pharmacy and pick up a prescription for my wife or my kid, and get pulled over, I’m busted for illegally possessing prescription drugs? That police chief is an idiot.

  8. “I think we’d do the same for anyone who was in possession of pills that were not prescribed to him,” the police chief said.

    So a stroll through the evidence lock up would yield what? Dozens? Hundreds of felonies? Even if we through out active investigations.

    I seriously doubt desks and lockers in the precinct outside the evidence lock up are squeaky clean in this regard; probably plenty of “harder” drugs too.

    1. Dammit: “threw”

      1. Umm…

        Looked right the first time.

  9. I didn’t know of any states that restricted retail possession of drugs that were not made of controlled substances. Maybe the charge is that, as a formerly licensed pharmacist, he was in wholesale possession of them, and hence acting illegally as an unlicensed distributor.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.