Denver Post: The hypocrisy of John Suthers by Sean Paige
The AG’s major complaint about medical marijuana, as I understand it, is that it’s all a giant scam â€” a backdoor path to legalization. He, like a lot of law enforcers, look back fondly on a time when the “drug war” battle lines were boldly drawn in the sand. Use of pot for any purpose was prohibited. Drug busters were the good guys, marijuana users the bad. Partial legalization complicates their jobs. It’s disorienting. It goes against deeply ingrained (but largely personal) prejudices.
Suthers is nostalgic for that simpler time, because it made his job easier. But policy isn’t and shouldn’t be made for the convenience of attorney generals. His personal prejudices about pot and potheads are largely beside the point. And if he can’t adapt to the new situation, and defend the Colorado Constitution, he should go back to private practice.
I’m not an advocate for medical marijuana or non-medical marijuana. I don’t doubt there’s some abuse of the new system (such as it is) going on. And, yes, I’m sure some out there view the medical marijuana movement as a circuitous route to full legalization. But I am an advocate for freedom, reason, limited government, states’ rights and constitutionalism (both state and federal), which in this case puts me at odds with an attorney general who (at least on paper) espouses some of these same values.
Nice job. That particular point: “if he can’t adapt to the new situation… he should go back to private practice” needs to be made more often regarding law enforcement officers and prosecutors/attorneys general who defy the wishes of the people.
“Suthers is nostalgic for that simpler time, because it made his job easier. But policy isnâ€™t and shouldnâ€™t be made for the convenience of attorney generals. His personal prejudices about pot and potheads are largely beside the point. And if he canâ€™t adapt to the new situation, and defend the Colorado Constitution, he should go back to private practice.”
And in a fiscal (and therefore, political) environment in which a prohib’s insouciance regarding the will of the electorate, expressed legislatively, literally cannot be afforded? Those words will eventually be accompanied by a pink slip. A few of those, and the prohibs will sit up and take notice. If they want to keep their porcine snouts in the public trough, they’d better…
Even some police officers that support marijuana legalization,because they realize that the only way to remove the violence and crime surrounding the marijuana market,is to remove the market,are hesitant to lose all the federal subsidies and the seizure profits they are enjoying now. Prohibition and the police have built a system from which they are realizing a profit. Maybe not a direct,in their pocket profit,but better equipment and more cash to operate stings and investigations,without asking the city council for the money.
It has changed the whole police motivation from “To protect and Serve” over to Search and Seize.
Humm.. thing is..what would happen to one of us if , our boss said the were changing the rules and we said we werent going to follow said new rules? Ya pink slips may be needed. Wake these’PUBLIC’ servants up, knock them off their self appointed pedestals.
We , the public, are tired of the wasted time and money. We are also tired of having our rights violated ‘FOR OUR OWN GOOD’ and paying our taxes for said violations.
This waste is being realized at local and state levels. Its trickling up to the federal level. Look out…here we come. The time for fraud ,corruption and waste is OVER!
“It has changed the whole police motivation from â€œTo protect and Serveâ€ over to Search and Seize.”
Perhaps you recall a story in the not too distant past about an investigation into the Tenaha, Texas Police Department for abusing asset forfeiture (as if asset forfeiture wasn’t unconstitutional in the first place.) This particular police department had developed the habit of stopping people (usually minorities) on the way to Shreveport, La. to do some gambling. If a car they stopped had any occupants who were carrying large sums of cash (to be used for legal gambling), they were accused of being in possession of drug money and threatened with arrest and jail for drug trafficing *IF* they didn’t surrender their cash, and sometime their vehicle. They were eventually investigated by the Texas Rangers but I never did find out what the outcome was.
Drug prohibition has corrupted many of our law enforcement agencies with asset protection being one of the most abused of tools. To this day, I still don’t understand how anyone can confiscate the assets of a suspected drug dealer (this practice has spread to more than just suspected drug violations) and remain within the bounds of the Bill of Rights. Can anyone explain this?