Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
August 2013
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Archives

Authors

How dare we take this away from them?

Delightful article from Ryan Grim on the reaction from some police groups… Police Groups Furiously Protest Eric Holder’s Marijuana Policy Announcement

WASHINGTON — A broad coalition of law enforcement officers who have spent the past three decades waging an increasingly militarized drug war that has failed to reduce drug use doesn’t want to give up the fight.

Organizations that include sheriffs, narcotics officers and big-city police chiefs slammed Attorney General Eric Holder in a joint letter Friday, expressing “extreme disappointment” at his announcement that the Department of Justice would allow Colorado and Washington to implement state laws that legalized recreational marijuana for adults. […]

Local law enforcement agencies rely heavily on the drug war for funding. Police departments are often able to keep a large portion of the assets they seize during drug raids, even if charges are never brought. And federal grants for drug war operations make up a sizable portion of local law enforcement funding.

The letter warns that marijuana can cause suicidal thoughts, impairs driving and is a “gateway drug.” The missive does not, however, address the failure of law enforcement generally to reduce drug use, even while tripling the number of people behind bars.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

25 comments to How dare we take this away from them?

  • strayan

    How dare I be ordered to stop enforcing a law I was never able to enforce!

  • claygooding

    I can’t think of a group that deserves a bigger cut in funding,,maybe if they aren’t chasing every puff of smoke they will have time to solve more than 20% of the violent crimes committed.

  • thelbert

    seems that it’s very important that the police have the power to arrest peaceful citizens doing no harm to anyone. leads me to doubt the honesty of the law enforcement elites and the aristocracy in general. after a century it’s obvious that the general welfare of the country is being harmed every day the drug war continues. that alone should make the prohibition of a plant uncostitutional.

  • Plant Down Babylon

    I think a sizeable amount of Leo’s are with our cause mentally, it’s just that there’s sooooo much $$ in federal grants and forfeiture that they have NO choice because they’ve been told by their ‘higher ups’ to generate revenue.

    I hate how it’s always about the $$. It seems to be everybody’s God these days. The money is the only reason for prohibition.

    It’s tough challenging things without becoming too well known by the ‘Prohibitors’, like having a sign warning about a speed/seatbelt trap down the road.

    Even though it’s protected 1st speech, you become ‘known’ very quick in a small town. That can cause you some major problems.

    I guess what I’m saying is that I admire people who stick their necks out to make change, especially when the cost is heavy.

    • divadab

      Right. It’s pretty hard coming out as a pothead. Safer to be in the closet. And potentially dangerous to your career to come out.

      What the hell I care more about ending the sick evil criminal prohibition of cannabis than about any apples I have to polish.

      And it’s great to live in a State where the people can make the laws. Because it’s not the people who imposed prohibition – it’s self-serving interests who lie as a matter of habit. Moral degenerates and criminals and enemies of the Constitution of the Republic.

      Serving and profiting themselves.

  • darkcycle

    Damn. Just lost a useful tool for harassing and subjugating people with brown skin.
    I bet they feel betrayed. I bet they feel devalued. I LIKE the sound of their wailing. So much better than the wailing of their victims.
    Fuck ’em.
    (sorry, my neck is out and it’s the most painful experience I can recall of late.)

  • Dante

    The police don’t want to end the drug wars?

    Makes perfect sense, when you understand their motto:

    Protect & Serve (themselves!)

  • Francis

    Here’s the one sentence in that letter that was bolded:

    The failure of the Federal government to act in this matter is an open invitation to other states to legalize marijuana in defiance of federal law.

    I couldn’t agree more. You hear that, other states? Get to work.

  • ezrydn

    We saw this coming when the economies started rolling belly up. We talked about it before it happened. And, it’s happening NOW!

    No more “snatch and grabs.” They might just have to return to their respective academies and relearn what it means to be a cop. Might even have to return to actually being one. That’s got to cause fear in some of them.

    We know there will also be some who can’t make the transition. They’ll fall by the wayside.

    Finally, there will be those who understand “the law changed,” and change along with it.

    Anyone know the state lineup for 2014?

    • Duncan20903

      .
      .

      There’s nothing carved in stone but I’m hoping for Election Day 1932 redux. On Election Day 1930 the voters of Massachusetts kicked their State drinking alcohol prohibition to the curb. On Election Day 1932 a dozen more States followed suit.

      Right now it looks pretty certain that medical will be on the Florida ballot. Ditto for Arkansas but State authorities appear to be willing to use every trick in the book to keep the question off of the ballot. It appears to me that it’s a pretty good bet that Oregon will have a limited re-legalization vote. It also appears that California is ripe for a limited re-legalization ballot initiative. I’ve observed considerable enthusiasm for Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts to have a vote for limited re-legalization.

      Of course the difference between Election Day 1932 and Election Day 2014 is that it’s a mid-term election and we’re not suffering a Great Depression though we’re really not far from one.

      **************************************************

      Hey, let’s play “Ask the Prohibitionist!”

      Q) How does it feel to get your ass kicked by people you think are amotivational, worthless, and unable to set and accomplish goals?
      A) [crickets]

  • First…

    “in a joint letter” (let’s intend the pun, shall we?)

    Second (but vastly more important imho)…

    I wish a national spotlight lasting months (similar to a high profile murder trial that offers no significant positive impact for society) would be shone upon this by the mainstream media.

    The level of disgust being publicly displayed (well, available for too much of the public to ignore) is hard to mentally digest.

    These “law” enforcement members (supporting “law” grounded solely in the obviously illegal judicial redefining of the Commerce Clause from “to regulate commerce” to “to regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce” in this case) are reacting strongly, because they have no choice.

    The foundation of their prohibition (which is largely Cannabis Prohibition) is the false public notion that if society weakens drug laws, disaster occurs. Their critical problem is drug laws have been weakened often over the past few decades and there is no noticeable change.

    However, it’s key to note society is drowning from the horrible disaster from law abuse, ironically begging for a prohibition against law abuse. Moreover, we effectively already have a prohibition against law abuse. It’s called our Constitution, which (among other serious limits implicitly against public servant power) legally protects unalienable rights via amendment nine in the Bill of Rights. This must mean, despite its popular embrace throughout American history, no risk-based law and the disastrous law abuse that inevitably comes with, constantly according to history — i.e. the fact is to legally define risk is to legally define liberty against unalienable rights, critically noting such rights are supposed to be legally enforced at the state and local levels too.

    Too bad our national public doesn’t understand this critical national obligation, thanks to the corrupt educational system quickly tucking these facts in a tiny corner of a child’s understandably uncaring mind.

    “marijuana can cause suicidal thoughts, impairs driving and is a ‘gateway drug.'”

    Law abuse does cause the unhealthy stress increasing the risk of suicidal thoughts, and given its mainly broad scope of destruction, has a far more deadly societal impact than any other form of abuse.

    Note additionally that I’m putting aside the absence of science concluding that cannabis “can cause” suicidal thoughts.

    I challenge the notion that a small amount (and even moderately intense yet steady effects of certain strains) of cannabis impairs driving. It increases focus and caution while driving, so improves driving performance. Unhealthy stress (anger, etc.) impairs driving. Stupidity impairs driving. The notion that any potential impairment should be singled out for risk-based law (and all of the horrible legal precedence that comes with this horrible slippery slope against liberty) is ironically impairing at the society level. This national impairment causes our national public to become unable to safely “drive” society forward, due to the horrible visibility that is responsible people struggling (at times heavily) to navigate the gross and overwhelmingly complex so-called rule-of-law (which is actually rule-of-people-in-power-serving-law).

    As for the gateway effect, putting aside the fact that myth was formally debunked in the 1999 Institute of Medicine report commissioned by the prohibitionist ONDCP (then unethically ignored by them), the gateway effect towards drug abuse (not use) is unhealthy stress. Want a prohibition against (or war on) unhealthy stress? I can almost hear the societal laughter in response.

    And the prohibitionists know this about stress:

    “Researchers have long recognized the strong correlation between stress and substance abuse” (U.S. NIDA back in 1995)

    And they unethically ignore it:

    You will not find the word stress even once at the U.S. government hub for substance abuse (http://samhsa.gov/), noting sound reasoning concludes it should at least be prominently all over their home page to reflect the aforementioned strong correlation (and the common sense that supports it btw).

    To conclude, these “law” enforcers are complaining about a reduction in their ability to get their “law” fix. Does the letter contain anything like “C’mon, man. We just need one more (SWAT) hit.”

    Public intervention against law abuse actually destroying our nation is urgently needed. If only the public could be made well aware of that, right, mainstream media and your unethically undisclosed conflict-of-interest with law enforcement to supply a consistent stream of “news” about tragic events?

    Just demonstrate no to law abuse.

  • Jean Valjean

    “Law enforcement, the police groups said, “becomes infinitely harder for our front-line men and women given the Department’s position.”

    Yes, now they won’t be able to go after the soft target of cannabis consumers and will have to start arresting real criminals…and that has got to be “harder.” Poor dears.

  • Fearless Freep

    The LEOs “front-line men” are already lavishly geared up for combat, so send the well-armed military after them. There’s a drug war I’d like to see. FLASH BANG!

    • Jean Valjean

      Or, send them with all their paramilitary equipment to Syria to see what real front-line action is like.

  • sub = robopoems x g x h

    “Peter Hitchens does not support this message” 🙂

    http://tiny.cc/7myo2w

  • thelbert

    i can’t wait until the whining becomes infinitely shriller. high as a dog whistle shoud be about right.

  • Washington Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Are Still Targets According To Feds

    http://t.co/daGXTQXaga

    We need Congress to act on this or States rights are not going to be respected. We need to get as loud as it takes.
    That 300 mph freight train better still be rolling.

    • claygooding

      Until the feds remove the bounty money from marijuana crimes the prosecutors are the “oversight” on how those funds are spent,,they have their own little bank full of money and they are in charge of it,,,,there have been about 6 prosecutors in TX charged with embezzling grant money and seizure funds within the last year,,how many are never mentioned at the federal level?

    • Windy

      I just an hour ago sent the following to 19 members of WA State’s legislature:
      Please fix this egregious error by Gov. Gregoire, save the MMJ dispensaries from the feds’ smash and grab raids.

      The collection of dispensaries, co-ops, and farmers’ markets that have proliferated in the Puget Sound area and the Palouse operate on a wink and a nudge since 2011 when then-Gov. Christine Gregoire line-item-vetoed the portions of Senate Bill 5073 that established a regulated dispensary system. Gregoire’s fear at the time was that the involvement of state officials in regulating dispensaries would subject them to potential federal prosecution. Ironically, that lack of state regulation now puts these businesses in greater danger than had Gregoire signed the regulations.

  • N.T. Greene

    When have the police ever needed EVIDENCE to prove something?

    Perhaps it is time that we start asking for some. Or in the very least insist that they don’t use “evidence” that has already been refuted.

  • Darn, no more welfare for cops. And we won’t get to wear our bad-ass SWAT costumes as often.

  • War Vet

    I think the creation of drug money and what might happen with Syria (or the next war) is far more important than all the reasons why the police want or need to keep cannabis prohibition.

    • War Vet

      What about this: how dare the police fund 9/11 via the law and its influence over the laws of other nations?