Why do we listen to cops about marijuana policy?

[Flaneur]

I attended the hearing in Sacramento yesterday for the California marijuana legalization bill. There was a phalanx of high-ranking police officers lined up to testify against any reforms. What makes cops experts on pot?

Cops handle domestic disputes, too. Does that make them experts on marriage? (Their divorce stats would suggest not.)

[Flaneur]

1. Unrecced? Please explain.

[BolivarianHero]

3. Nothing to explain...

The Freepwads are making their argument for why unrec names should be made public.

[Rebubula]

15. UnRec

I do not disagree with the original post, but I get sick of people whining about the UnRec feature. It exists and not everyone will agree with everything.

I will always UnRec a post that has the OP bitching about UnRecs.

[Flaneur]

17. Well, thank you for your crusading work, I guess...

[Rebubula]

18. No Problem...

...thanks for getting mad when someone does not agree with you for whatever reason.

I am really not trying to be a dick (of course, when someone says that they are usually being a dick...lol), but why get pissy when someone unrec's?

[D23MIURG23]

25. Because It hurts the visibility of a post to have it unrec'd.

I'm also a supporter of the unrec function, but I fail to see what giving unrecs to random people that you don't disagree with accomplishes.

[Flaneur]

43. If you weren't trying to be a dick, it didn't work.

I didn't "get mad" at the unreccer, nor did I "get pissy;" I merely asked why. And the original unreccer didn't agree or disagree, as far as I can tell, merely unrecced. Other than that, spot on post.

[timtom]

56. I'm always around. When someone unrecs a post, I rec it.

Regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I'm just psychotic, I guess.

[ixion]

2. yeah, and they have a vested interest in keeping it illegal

as they seem to gleefully use it as an ice breaker to search vehicles, houses, etc.

It's pretty basic, in my opinion: when you have millions of people using a non-toxic, non-lethal substance, that substance should not be illegal.

Prohibition does not work.

[truedelphi]

8. The anti marijuana laws not only give them search leeways - but

Allow for the provisions that offer vast amounts of property to be confiscated which end up in "discretionary funds." These amount to billions of dollars each year.

For instance, for Marin County in Calif, a police officer in San Francisco is handed over some money and then he gives it to County Supervisors. (It used to be $ 135,000 per Supervisor-- don't know if it has changed.)

They use it for "good causes" such as local theaters, and elder care programs.

What the public doesn't realize is

1) possibilities of some money never being accounted for
2) the fact that if your program receives some dough from Supervisor, a "contribution" is expected to keep that politician's coffers filled

[Ignis]

20. Bingo. Thanks for raising this important point.

The War on Some Drugs has been extremely lucrative for many in the US. Why would they ever want to turn off the Golden Spigot of unlimited seizure money, increased budgets, increased influence, relaxed search-and-seizure laws, fancy technical toys, etc.?

[Romulox]

36. Even worse, when the gov't seizes your property, the burden of proof is on YOU!

Civil Forfeiture (In Rem)

What is it?

Unlike criminal forfeiture, civil forfeiture proceeds against the property, not the person. In theory, civil actions are remedial, not punitive like criminal proceedings. By acting civilly, the government seeks to remedy a harm, through the fiction of the property's "guilt."

The same statutes apply--18 U.S.C. §981 (parallels 18 U.S.C. §982) and 21 U.S.C. §881. To complicate matters, these statutes incorporate by reference Customs procedures from 19 U.S.C. §1602 involving searches, seizures, administrative procedure, holding, and disposal. When the government learns of a crime, establishes probable cause of the property's involvement (usually as an instrumentality), it may seize the property by executing a warrant. A criminal charge or conviction is not required to seize. Notice occurs through presentation of the warrant and publication in a newspaper. If a party files a claim within the answer period, a civil hearing commences. In uncontested situations, the forfeiture may be handled administratively.

Due to its civil nature, the roles of the parties change. Instead of prosecutor versus defendant, the hearing concerns a plaintiff, the United States in the case of Federal forfeitures, and a defendant, the property in question. The owner is effectively put in the position of being a third party claimant. Furthermore, civil hearings involve a more lenient burden of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove by "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not.

Since the government determines which form of forfeiture to use, it is not surprising that most are carried out using the civil (in rem) procedure.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/background/forfeiture/

[GreenMetalFlake]

38. +1

[Starbucks Anarchist]

32. Exactly.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

59. its much worse than that

Cops received a minimum of 22.1 BILLION DOLLARS last year to fight the Drug War: at least 75% of that figure is used to arrest and prosecute marijuana users. If marijuana were decriminalized, these idiots would be out of a job or would have to do some real police work, like catching killers, rapists or bustng meth labs. Cannabis users are easy targets.

John Walters is a fine reference point for this: he keeps to all the old propaganda talking points about how marijuana is the most-abused drug, the most dangerous to children etc, etc. It's all lies, of course, but he knows that any deviation from that line means that we have to release millions of non-violent offenders from federal prisons (less $, again) and that suddenly he would be exposed as a fraudulent, pathetic appartchik for an oppressive system of control.

The US does NOT have a "drug problem", we have a police problem....and that is MUCH more dangerous, IMHO.

[slackmaster]

4. Their opinions as individuals don't matter any more than anyone else's

They work for us. We tell them what's permitted and what is not.

K&R

:kick:

[dhpgetsit]

5. Many cops favor reforming marijuana laws.

They think chasing pot smokers is a big waste of time. Apparently those cops were not invited to attend.

[Caliman73]

37. They never are.

When you notice that "Police" are against reforming or legalizing anything it always seems to be the "chiefs". Even if a chief has come up from the street, he/she is usually a political animal and will always back the powers that be. I have noticed many a time that line officers and chiefs tend to have very different opinions about many things when it comes to enforcement and community issues.

[Joanne98]

6. Job security

[LuvNewcastle]

7. Bingo

They're part of what I call the Prison Industry Complex.

[backscatter712]

53. On the spot.

Ruining people's lives is the business of police, and if marijuana were legalized, business would diminish.

[midnight]

9. Times are changing thank goodness. The fact that you have articulated

such a wonderful question as to their expertise is a wonderful jumping point.

[Mithreal]

10. If it were legal, for some reason I don't think cops would be the experts anymore.

Like we listen to teachers about education, or,
like we listen to doctors and nurses about health care reform.

[glen123098]

11. Cops want anything possible to be give them more power.

Thats why they support seatbelt laws, (the real reason for seatbelt laws is to give cops another reason to pull people over) drug laws, etc. But thankfully we have seperation of government branches.

[Gman2]

12. The four, that barged thru my door, guns drawn, didnt know SHIT

I had to spend at least a half hour edumacating them. With handcuffs on. And they equated all kinds of right wing assumptions with pot. And they thought the patient theng was a scam. Dumbfucks. In fact, they didnt even know about that little rule. The fourth ammendment.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Because too many in power have morphed

"The land of the free and home of the brave" in to the Earth's preeminent, record breaking, police state where freedom; only counts when used as propaganda to wage war.

If our world leading prison population of 2.3 million were a state, it would rank 35th as of 2005 surpassing the states of

Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, while nipping at the heels of Nevada.

State 2005 Population Percent Change
Ala. 4,557,808 0.7
Alaska 663,661 0.9
Ariz. 5,939,292 3.5
Ark. 2,779,154 1.1
Calif. 36,132,147 0.8
Colo. 4,665,177 1.4
Conn. 3,510,297 0.3
Del. 843,524 1.6
D.C. 550,521 -0.7
Fla. 17,789,864 2.3
Ga. 9,072,576 1.7
Hawaii 1,275,194 1.0
Idaho 1,429,096 2.4
Ill. 12,763,371 0.4
Ind. 6,271,973 0.7
Iowa 2,966,334 0.5
Kan. 2,744,687 0.4
Ky. 4,173,405 0.8
La. 4,523,628 0.4
Maine 1,321,505 0.5
Md. 5,600,388 0.7
Mass. 6,398,743 -0.1
Mich. 10,120,860 0.2
Minn. 5,132,799 0.7
Miss. 2,921,088 0.7
Mo. 5,800,310 0.7
Mont. 935,670 0.9
Neb. 1,758,787 0.6
Nev. 2,414,807 3.5
N.H. 1,309,940 0.8
N.J. 8,717,925 0.4
N.M. 1,928,384 1.3
N.Y. 19,254,630 -0.1
N.C. 8,683,242 1.7
N.D. 636,677 0.1
Ohio 11,464,042 0.1
Okla. 3,547,884 0.7
Ore. 3,641,056 1.4
Pa. 12,429,616 0.3
R.I. 1,076,189 -0.3
S.C. 4,255,083 1.4
S.D. 775,933 0.7
Tenn. 5,962,959 1.2
Texas 22,859,968 1.7
Utah 2,469,585 2.0
Vt. 623,050 0.3
Va. 7,567,465 1.2
Wash. 6,287,759 1.3
W.Va. 1,816,856 0.2
Wis. 5,536,201 0.6
Wyo. 509,294 0.7
Nation 296,410,404 0.9
___
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

I wonder, with that kind of growth industry fueled in large part by the so called "War on Drugs" for the for profit prisons, police, criminal justice system, big pharma, organized crime, etc. etc. is imprisoning the American People by criminalizing life becoming "too big to fail"?

Instead of changing our society to a much more functional, just, effective, wise, moral, compassionate and emphatic model, will we keep pouring precious resources down the rat hole, in the same manner as we did with the corrupted mega banks and apparently to the for profit "health" insurance corporations?

Thanks for the thread, Flaneur.

[PM Martin]

14. The more things which are illegal, the more

laws there are to enforce, the more work there is for the police.
Also, police tend to be patronizing authoritarians who do not respect peoples rights.
Consider that the police are allowed to keep any goods (and sell them) found during drug raids.
There is alot of money in the drug war.

[damntexdem]

16. Because it's funny when officers who get stoned out of their heads in private ...

bloviate about the evils of weed in public?

[me b zola]

19. Like this

:rofl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU6AVtQethw :rofl:

[jmowreader]

28. Some cops really need to find a better hobby...

Dude called 911 because he ate an eighth of a lid?

[OnionPatch]

21. They should have invited these guys instead:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

But they make too much sense.

[eridani]

22. Bingo--some cops worth paying attention to

A local organizer tells me that their organization is dominated by retirees, as active duty cops are too intimidated to speak out.

[rgbecker]

23. Read about LEAP. "Law Enforcement against Prohibition"

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

Many who work in the Drug Wars see the answer in ending Prohibition. These are the ones who see the waste of time and money in fighting something that could be controled in more sane ways.

[truedelphi]

27. Thank you for that link. Good to know some law enforcement people are

On our side.

[D23MIURG23]

24. I don't listen to them about anything. They have no qualifications or they wouldn't be police.

[GA_ArmyVet]

35. Ouch, Please don't generalize,

There are good and bad police, just like any profession.

[D23MIURG23]

41. Sure, there are good and bad people in any menial profession.

Which doesn't in any way qualify people in menial professions to speak on matters of science or public policy. There are plenty of good and well meaning trash collectors as well, but forgive me if I balk the next time the head municipal sanitation worker is summoned to the capitol to rant about disease control.

[GA_ArmyVet]

42. Just for my edification

I was wondering if you feel you are qualified to speak in these matters and if so what your chosen profession might be. I am curious since I feel as if you believe all of us poor dumb cops are simpletons who can not possibly have any ideas of merit based on our profession.
This despite the fact that many if not most of us are well educated, holding Graduate and Post graduate degrees in Criminal Justice, Police Management, Criminalistics.

I am certain they did not ask beat cops who have only a general idea of Law Enforcement and policies involved. However, to ask senior police officials of their view based on their experiences over several decades of enforcement seems prudent.

I do not happen to agree with their position but I do believe they have reason to be at the table for policy when the policy involves Law Enforcement issues.

I don't want to be an a jerk, but honestly you come off in your reply as a bit elitist and that you are too good or intelligent to listen to the opinions of others simply because of their status or profession.


Perhaps that was not your intent, perhaps it was, I don't know, but it does make me curious about you and your qualification to pass judgment on others.

[D23MIURG23]

54. I'm a graduate student in chemistry, not that it really matters.

I wouldn't feel comfortable taking the stage to talk about marijuana policy publicly, as the relevant experience is primarily in the biomedical and public health domain. For the record I don't think Law Enforcement has anything to do with this. Marijuana is either an issue of public health or it isn't, and whether or not the "beat them up and throw them in the can" approach is a viable option, it is a demonstrably stupid way to address the issue. The USA has a serious problem with heart disease, but again, I would balk at cops speaking to that issue. I would even balk if they were senior cops with fancy degrees in "criminalistics".

"Perhaps that was not your intent, perhaps it was, I don't know, but it does make me curious about you and your qualification to pass judgment on others."

I'll remember this statement and smile a little the next time I'm being given a condescending lecture about the ethics of driving 5mph over the speed limit by an overweight dropout of a fourth tier law school along the side of I-94.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

62. you forgot SADISTIC overweight dropout

and don't smile too widely or you will get beaten by that same sociopath in a badge!

[GA_ArmyVet]

64. So it was your intent

to come off as arrogant and elitist. So as a student, and graduate student at that, in Chemistry, you feel you have enough experience in life to decide who should have an opinion on legal issues. Whether you view it as a matter only having to do with Public health or not does not make it so.

Here are a few issues that may be of concern and one might logically ask the LEO community.

1. How do you enforce DUI laws concerning Marijuana? Are there any roadside tests? Do we have anything similar to the Breathalyzer to determine if you are intoxicated at the time or just that you used in the last month?

2. Are there any observed experiences of Marijuana Intoxicates Drivers? Are they more or less reckless? Do they pose a greater or less hazard to other drivers?

3. If legalized, how would it affect Gang related Crime?

4. Could we restrict the use to adults as we do alcohol, and if so what enforcement problems might we expect?

5. If possession is legalized but distribution is restricted or still criminalize, how does that affect enforcement?

These I came up with in two minutes,I am sure there are plenty of other questions that might be posed to the senior police officials

As for this remarK " I'll remember this statement and smile a little the next time I'm being given a condescending lecture about the ethics of driving 5mph over the speed limit by an overweight dropout of a fourth tier law school along the side of I-94."

Your response is unusually poor for a graduate student, since it appears you can only respond by throwing insults and a personal anecdote which may or may not be truthful as their is no evidence or proof of such an incident occurring. The fact that you must resort to insults (overweight, drop out) is usually an indicator that the person is seeking to shift attention from relevant facts..(I was speeding, and got pulled over). You arrogance and condescension is amazing. Your belief that although you were speeding, you should not have been pulled over is amazing to me. The lecture is usually given in lieu of a ticket, which indicate to me that the policemen actually trying hard to let you go with a warning. The issue is not over the ethics of speeding, but the inherent risk you pose to others by speeding. Again, you seem to have a self importance issue in that you believe you have the right to endanger others simply because you are running late or cant be bothered to spend an extra 2 minutes to get somewhere. When you speed, particularly in construction, or residential zones, you are placing others at risk without their consent or knowledge. My 25 years in Law Enforcement has demonstrated to that most fatal traffic accidents occur from speeding by people who are not trained or skilled enough to drive at the speeds and road conditions above the posted speed limits. This is particularly true on the interstate at high speed. Your actions while speeding, which may or may not affect you, creates a hazard to other people who utilize those roads.

And since you are intent upon staying with your arrogant, elitist and discriminatory position, I can only respond in kind.

I will remember this the next time I am pulling some drunk Grad student out of the bloody wreckage caused by their arrogant and selfish behavior. Please try to respond with reasoned arguments and leave you rhetoric and insults behind as you do not do justice to yourself or your institute of higher learning.

[D23MIURG23]

71. Yup, and here is the case in point:

"Again, you seem to have a self importance issue in that you believe you have the right to endanger others simply because you are running late or cant be bothered to spend an extra 2 minutes to get somewhere. When you speed, particularly in construction, or residential zones, you are placing others at risk without their consent or knowledge. My 25 years in Law Enforcement has demonstrated to that most fatal traffic accidents occur from speeding by people who are not trained or skilled enough to drive at the speeds and road conditions above the posted speed limits. This is particularly true on the interstate at high speed. Your actions while speeding, which may or may not affect you, creates a hazard to other people who utilize those roads."

You are out there keeping everyone safe from themselves and everyone else aren't you? What would we ever do without people like you? Incidentally, I'm wondering what methods you used to measure the speeds these people had been going prior to having crashed. It seems like an awfully convenient explanation to pull out in the middle of this thread, and it may or may not have a factual basis. Its also a statement I hear all the time; "most auto accidents are caused by _____ " (fill in the the blank however you please; speeding, drunk driving, cell phones/texting, getting blowjobs while driving, insufficient prayer etc.). Whichever of those the actual leading cause is, I'm reasonably sure that 25y worth of police officer anecdotes aren't enough evidence to pinpoint it.

As a matter of fact I fabricated the incident above as a hypothetical example, and have never been pulled over for speeding. For the record I'm not going to apologize for not treating congressional dictates as divine authority in those cases when I do speed. The speed limit in Michigan has gone up 5 mph in my lifetime, and many of us are still alive even in spite of this.

The fact of the matter is that I'm not really interested in having a "reasoned" debate with a self important authoritarian regarding the logistics of screwing people for smoking a joint. I don't have any more reason to believe that mj is going to increase reckless driving than I have for believing your field sobriety methodology has a sound basis in the first place. I do know that if I was ever accused of a DUI I would insist on a blood test immediately, because I do know that blood tests are reliable. And no, that doesn't imply that I drive when I'm toasted. But enough. I've wasted too much time already on this, and I have real work to do.

As for my representation of my graduate program, that occurs as a function of my research, not 5 minute anonymous posts I make on internet message boards.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

60. "a bit elitist"??

I have now have several reasons for not trusting anything you write or say. Thanks!

[blueamy66]

48. Can I steal these two sentences?

Please?

[D23MIURG23]

55. I would accept no royalties.

[ensho]

26. I've noticed on the various cop reality shows - that the cops love pot busts

they get all excited and afterward they give each other high fives, etc.

they don't act the same doing meth busts or domestic abuse.

maybe its because they know they are taking part in a ruse.

[GA_ArmyVet]

34. There is a large amount of adrenaline involved in the

drug raids.

It is very nerve racking on the law enforcement part (I know it is not any better on the other side)and while most people who are busted do not resist enough do that it is very risky to actually do a raid.

We never know who is in the house or how they will react.

The objectives in the raid are two fold.

1. Secure the suspects safely, quickly and without loss of life

2. Secure the evidence before it can be destroyed or hidden,

Normally, police are trained on aggressive entry as it has been shown to reduce the amount of resistance and therefore lowers the risk of injury or death to all.

It is not guaranteed and those do occur.

Advice from an LEO if you are ever in a house that is raided.

1. Do not resist.

2. Immediately get on the floor with your hands clearly visible.

3. Do not argue, now is not the time to spout out your rights are being violated. If that is so, it will come out in court and you are not going to convince the police at that time anyway. They have already had their legal review that it was legal and most likely have a court order.

4. When the situation calms down (you will know as police will begin holstering weapons), then ask a question if you feel you need to.

5. Best advice, if obey their instructions, ask for a lawyer at your first opportunity and and shut you mouth. Most incriminating evidence comes from the suspects own lips..sad but true, just shut up and file you complaints with the lawyer, if they made legal errors he can take advantage of it for you.

[blueamy66]

49. Yeah, there was a alot of adrenaline....

when 2 cops found PRESCRIBED oxycodone in my friend's purse during a traffic stop. I thought that both of them were going to have an orgasm.

Dumb asses. But hey, they had to search those 40+ year old women.

:eyes:

[RedCappedBandit]

29. "we" don't

idiots who can't think for themselves, however, tend to listen to people with power

[GA_ArmyVet]

30. Well as a Law Enforcement Officer

I would be glad to give my perspective:

1. I have enforced drug law and despite having arrested many Street level dealers, I have not stopped one person from obtaining any drugs they wanted to purchase.

2. It costs a fortune (rough estimate) to place enough officers on the street to actually reduce the amount of drug traffic, and to house those convicted of these offenses.

3. Despite the risks involved, the demand does not seem to decrease.

4. The prohibition inflates the profit margin for the illegal gangs and organized crime involved in the trafficking.

5. Without the income from illegal drug trafficking gangs and organized crime would be seriously hurt financially if the prohibition would be removed.

6. Due to the massive amount of money and risk involved, violence will always be a part of the equation for Prohibition and it follows that removing the prohibition would drastically reduce violent crime.


These are a few of the things I have come to accept as facts based on my experience.

My opinions are as follows:

1. Our politicians must have some profit motive for continuing this prohibition and I suspect payoffs or bribes at the highest levels.

2. I believe we would be better served by legalizing, regulating and taxing and using the money for treatment and education.

[Romulox]

31. LEO are, by and large, decent and sensible people. Thanks for the post. nt

[G_j]

33. couldn't have stated it more clearly

thanks

[rgbecker]

39. Have you considered joining LEAP? The link is in #23 above.

[GA_ArmyVet]

40. I might.

I am pretty selective on groups I join, I still have to work and those online memberships showup in checks.

[thefool_wa]

44. So what a previous poster said is true?

LEO's don't participate in groups like LEAP due to intimidation that stems from their active duty role?

I don't mean direct intimidation, but more the threat of repercussion's on-the-job.

If so...that is just deplorable. You may be a cop, but you are still a free citizen entitled to your opinions. You should be allowed to support the overturning of any law you choose so long as you still enforce that law on the job.

I've also gotta say, I agree wholeheartedly with what you said about it being a money game, and that bribery and collusion are what keep prohibition in place. The unfortunate side of that is that I think as much of that bribery and collusion comes from the CRIMINAL element as it does from the law enforcement element..and that scares the holy be-jeezus out of me.

Keep fighting the GOOD fight, cause MJ laws or no there are a huge number of people out there who make your job necessary for all of our safety.

[GA_ArmyVet]

45. It is not really a written rule or even a spoken thing

but just like life elsewhere, the bosses perception is reality when it comes to work.
No one would ever threathen my job based on partiicpation, but promotion or job selection becomes an issue as it could be viewed as a willingness not to enforce the law, or you are a risk of being bought out since you are "sympathetic".

But I have never seen overt discrimination. Its kind of like if you heard you boss go on and on about how he dislikes "illegal immigrants" and you at that point have to decide whether you would want him to know you have a more favorable opinion. He might not fire you over it, but would his opinion about you change enough to affect your future, possibly and whats worse you could likely never prove it.

[thefool_wa]

46. ya - just like any other job out there I guess

[GA_ArmyVet]

47. That is pretty much it,

One of the best things I ever learned about being a cop was not to take any of it personally. It is just a job and the most important thing is to be alive and at home at the end of the day.

Never let your work become a crusade or personal vendetta. It is bad business, unprofessional and when you see it in an organizations leaders you can be pretty sure that they don't play by the rules or at the very least, stretch those rules way past the limits.

[blueamy66]

50. Um, my job in sales and marketing

could never evolve into a personal vendetta.

Yours, on the other hand, could.

And yeah, I have a Criminal Justice degree and have chosen NOT to put it to use.

[GA_ArmyVet]

51. I understand

I was meaning for it to apply to law enforcement, but it holds in many places as well. If you see the leaders taking on some crrusade or another it is a bad sign.

The real lesson is that it is just a job..dont let it get to you to much.

Take care

[blueamy66]

52. But you see....

LEOs and their bald heads wield alot more power than I do.

For them, it's not just a job...they can affect someone's future..and they find alot of fun in wielding that power. You can't fool me. I've been there.

You take care...and think about your power....and think about the "little" peoples' lives that you affect....on a daily, no, hourly, basis.

[GA_ArmyVet]

57. Sounds to me

like you are projecting a lot of your own insecurities and shortcomings onto other people. Simply because, as you admit, you found a lot of fun in "wielding power" you assume that everyone else must as well.

I will admit I enjoy my job. I help a lot of people. I meet with people whose have had their lives affected traumatically everyday and they look to me to help them find out who took their stuff, who raped them, who beat them, or who killed their loved ones. But it is not the "wielding of power" so much as the challenge of finding the truth that I enjoy. Finding the evidence, putting the pieces together to figure out who did what to who is exciting to me.

I still have no idea what it is that you do and how you found out that you like to wield power, so it is hard for me to really respond to you without assuming you are just making rhetorical, generic insults and a dislike of an entire group of people based solely on their profession rather than their actions.

The bald head comment is a bit strange, are you using it as an insult, and if so I am not sure why it would be.

At any rate, have a nice day, and perhaps one day you can come through my jurisdiction and I can show you that not all LEO's are the stereotype you seem intent on perpetuating.


Really, it is just a job. A job many of us find exciting and challenging, but at the end of the day, simply a way to make ends meet.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. You speak of 'projecting' after you declare that all jobs

are like being a cop? Please, Officer Silly, I pretend and make up shit for a living. No vendettas no weapons, no bribery or corruption. No one gets wounded or killed. I'm very sorry, but your job is not just like any job, it just isn't.
And for what it is worth, in many areas and major cities, cops almost universally shave their heads and keep a very fascist look. I personally assume that when that poster said 'bald' he meant skin headed, shaved, because that is how almost all of them many of us see keep their hair. Skinhead style. It is a look that is not helpful to the image of the profession at large. Scares kids, puts adults off, and to some, it seems like a racist badge. But they keep that skinhead look anyway. It is something to consider. I think they'd be better liked with some hair.

[blueamy66]

69. Thank you.,

I couldn't have said it any better.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

63. it is NOT "just a job"

and that attitude is absolutely part of the problem with police in the US. Thanks for the self-righteous, myopic view.

On edit: I love how you think you have managed to move the discussion away from the pathetic Drug War into the general, comfy realm of "not all cops are all bad"....which is true, at least until people begin to do research about the rates of brutality, lies and corruption of police departments all over the nation, then it becomes much more debatable. It's a systemic issue, not a personal one, but police take it personally because they are ego-driven (and quite often sadistic/sociopathic) personalities.

I would not trust most police officers to give me the proper time of day and I understand exactly why there is a "no snitch" culture in this nation.

[GA_ArmyVet]

66. Thank you for your reply

1. It is just a job is precisely the attitude you want from an organization of LEO's. Once that organization begin to develop a crusade mentality or and us against them mentality, your law enforcement agency will begin to have problems from brutality to illegal search and seizure. The ends justifying the means ideology will quickly permeate the entire agency.

2. I did not thrust this away from the discussion on Marijuana Legalization, I posted my agreement with Legalization. From there i responded to the remarks from others to clarify my position. If anyone helped direct it away it was you.

3. You posted insulting rhetoric in response to my post, which I can only assume was aimed at me, to which I responded.

4. I thank you for your response, but I am unsure why you feel as if I should not be offended by you blatant generalizations and stereotypical insults toward my entire profession. From you responses and others, I apparently must be an egotistical, power mad, balding, overweight, uneducated man in a menial profession which should not be allowed to have an opinion on anything, as these are the insults you and others have thrown at me so far. And this for supporting the legalization viewpoint.

I see no reason to justify my viewpoint to you as you seemingly have no interest in discussion, but would rather sit and hurl insults at me in anonymity.

So thank you for your responses, but I could do without your insults.

[blueamy66]

70. What was your major in college?

Criminal Justice?

[GA_ArmyVet]

72. No, I have degrees

in History and Sociology and a Masters in Emergency Management. My focus was on Disaster Response. I never really enjoyed CJ. My LE training comes from FLETC.

I have a particular passion for history.

I am trained in hostage negotiations, Sexual and Child Assault Investigations, and Executive Protection.

I earned my first degree at UGA in the early 80's.

[blueamy66]

68. Sorry, but you're full of shit.

I've worked with many LEOs and 85% of them are power hungry POS.

Street cops don't find evidence or put pieces together. They make cash for the state/county. Oh, and fuck up traffic.

[GA_ArmyVet]

73. Ok, I think

understand, fine it is your opinion. However, if you are going to quote a numnber, I would like to see the references to the study you or someone else did to determine that number...


I say that 85% of Chemistry Majors sell Crack to infants. Makes just as much sense as your made up statistic.

If you say, 85 percent of the time you have dealt with police, they were dicks to you, then ok, I would not even question you.

I however disagree with you estimate and perception of police officers.


Thanks for the discussion.

[blueamy66]

67. Hey, you don't have to tell me to "not let it get to me too much"...

tell the power hungry LEOs out there.

[butterfly77]

61. Also,they use it too..

and they sell it...

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

65. Wanna Really Get Angry?

Read this:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/21708

Rachel Hoffman's Family Continues Fight For Justice
by Jeremiah Vandermeer - Tuesday, January 12 2010

The sad case of Rachel Hoffman - a 23-year-old Florida State University student busted for marijuana possession, threatened into becoming a police informant, then murdered during a bungled drug sting - continues to play out in court.

After being threatened with jail time for pot and agreeing to work for authorities, police officers gave Rachel $13,000 in marked bills and arranged a buy of cocaine, ecstasy and a hand gun. She was killed with the weapon she was supposed to buy and robbed of the police money.