Strangely Quiet

I would have expected more of an uproar over the attorney general's unilateral decision to ignore federal law and give those who would use illegal drugs a free 'get out of jail' card. Marijuana is still illegal. It is still harmful. People go to jail all the time for having it on them, loose their car, etc in many parts of the country. It is like this administration is trying to divide the country all over again. Look at the map where radical changes are taking place and compare it to the states that elected Mister Obama.

Now back to the attorney general. I believe it is true that he had to take an oath of office, as did the president, to uphold (and enforce) the laws of the United States of America. I understand that the president must have the authority as commander-in-chief to move the military forces around as he sees fit. The laws of the land are not under the authority of the commander-in-chief. They are under the executor of the constitution. The civilian president. The laws of the land were enacted using the guidelines (and demands) of the constitution. There is a legislative branch of government, there is an executive branch and there is a supreme court for entities to go to when they think the other two branches are wrong. You can't just make laws and arbitrarily make political decisions with them.

If the attorney general does not like the marijuana law, he is within his rights to ask the president to send legislation up to Congress to have the law changed. However, I believe it is a breach of his oath of office to just ignore the law and broadcast a statement telling others to ignore the law. Suppose tomorrow, he decides that meth would be a good way to treat the rest of the diseases that marijuana cannot help, will he tell everyone to go ahead and ignore those laws against making meth?

He has opened a can of worms. The problem is, though, there are so many other ridiculous things going on that illegal marijuana is dwarfed by them. The propaganda machine has been busy for years telling us of the terrible pain that marijuana relieves. I don't like pain either. I'm against it. Then, once the attorney general makes his historical decision to have people ignore federal law, we find out that a backache is sufficient reason to get a prescription for marijuana. Who doesn't have a backache, or nerve problem, or depression some days. Look at the shape the world is in. You either are affected by it or you are doped up. Even that is no reason to ignore the law. Without law, we have anarchy. You wouldn't like that.

So, he dumps it on the states. You folks do what you think is right. Yeah, we tried that once and got invaded. The feds allow states to govern themselves only when it suits the needs of the feds. In this case, it was the thing to do politically. It is a little security for the next election. Don't pull my leg...it hurts already. Besides I went through the teenage years with three leg pullers and I'm not all that easy to fool anymore.

Crimes and Bullets

Tough subject.

There is now an ongoing story in our area about a young man that was supposedly talking of suicide who did not cooperate with police and was shot over 20 times (perhaps many more). They played the tape of the whole thing and it was awful. I remember three volleys of shots.

Now what's going on. We are not suppose to be in combat laying down cover fire.

Things are different from what they were thirty years ago. Back then a policeman could do as much with a good tongue lashing as today's cops can do with a tazer. It is now a different breed of citizen and a different breed of cop.

Back in the day children were children, adults were usually stronger and could control the younger generation. In our day, many children look like adults due to growth hormones, bodybuilding and the like. It is hard to tell a thirteen year old from a twenty year old.

Cops once knew the people they dealt with. An older cop probably knew who your parents were and you didn't even want him telling dad about your meanness. Cops were in the prevention business then. Nowadays, cops can only respond after a crime has been committed.

Drugs are another thing and in my opinion, the number one problem on the streets and in our homes. I remember the first story I heard about PCP where someone who would ordinarily be average strength was suddenly strong enough to overpower several police and break straps on a hospital gurney.

So cops are afraid of what they are going to come up against when they confront someone even for questioning. They are sitting on a hair-trigger either figuratively or literally. This makes citizens afraid, as they ought to be. A case of mistaken identity or mistaken house or misunderstanding during questioning can land a person in the morgue or hospital or jail.

Basically, we have a society that is afraid on both sides of the law which makes for a very dangerous situation. As someone said, we need to chill out.

I think the definition of aggressive behavior has changed too. Back when I got caught for speeding, I would always get out of the car and make sure the officer saw my hands. Nowadays you better sit still with your hands on the steering wheel. Back in the day, something such as speeding was resolved in a few minutes and everyone was on their way. Nowadays, the car is torn apart and it is not uncommon for anyone to be thrown on the ground at the whim of an overzealous officer.

So what's the answer? On the criminal side, there will be no solution until drugs are taken off the streets and stopped at the source. On the legal side, officers must win their respect back. They must learn again to treat law abiding citizens with respect. There are those of us who dislike drugs and crime as much as they do but all crimes do not deserve the death penalty.

Pocket Knives and the Bill of Rights

Guess I will get stopped tomorrow by Mister Law but here goes anyway.

There is a stipulation in the Bill of Rights which is part of the Constitution of the United States, by the way, that protects citizens from having law enforcement walk up and say I'm going to search you. All you were doing was going out to spend your hard earned money anyway.

I remember when men used to pass the time comparing the pocket knives they carried. Often, they would trade and bargain between themselves. You let a bunch of men pull out pocket knives in public nowadays and the National Guard would be called in to put down a terrorist attack. Really! On the farm, a pocket knife was a necessity. Maybe you couldn't afford a toothbrush and had to use baking soda and a clean cloth, but you had to have a pocket knife. There were feed sacks to open, splinters to get out, fishing poles to cut down...lots of important stuff. If you reached into your pocket and could not find your pocket knife, well, the kids were called together for a detailed search and they better find it. "I didn't loose it there, look over there."

Well, I hope I have established the importance attached to carrying a pocket knife back then. Many of us carry on the tradition which is as American as 'hog-killing-time'.

(Insert: I believe a society must have law enforcement to protect us. I also believe that a society should have safeguards to protect us from over zealous law enforcement. There you go.)

Now to the nullification of that part of the Constitution that protects us from illegal, unnecessary and down right rude searching of our home and person by law enforcement...... (next paragraph)

.... A very important tool that law enforcement uses these days (or nowadays) is to ask a person if they have a knife on them. Dah! I'm a guy, of course I have a knife. They know that. 'Okay, I'm going to have to find that knife and hold it while we talk.' The justification is that the officers life could be in danger if the person has a knife while they talk. This practice opens the door for the officer to pat down a person all over until they find the knife. Of course, they know that about any of us country boys carries the knife in the left pocket because our right hand is busy holding the 'pig by the ear' or something else. Anyway, they pat the person down all over, whoops! then something illegal is found, then they go to the knife and arrest the person.

The problem with this procedure is that number one they did not have reason to suspect the person, they were just looking for the knife in a round-about-way and came across something else. Now they can say, 'probable cause'. The only problem is the 'poison tree' case way back at that lumber company. They went in and found evidence then came back and got a search warrant after the fact. No. No. That is against the Constitution. Another problem is, there are few constitutional lawyers in small towns who will go to bat for the little guy. Guess most people say, 'Well they was guilty anyway.' No wait a minute, you can't have one side of the 'coin' going by the Constitution and the other side making it up as they go along.

Okay, so the officer feels he could be in danger. He ought to know that when he pens on his badge. He has a dangerous job. A military man knows he stands between the bad guys bullets to protect citizens. Law enforcement bare the same burden. I don't go for unnecessary danger for those guys. But when they are out there protecting the very document that allows them to enforce the law, they can't go bending it around just for their benefit.

That reminds me of a joke I will not tell about the guy who pulled a knife on someone. The someone pulled out a gun and told the guy with the knife: 'just like you to bring a knife to a gun fight'. Well I almost told it but that's the point. An officer standing at a proper distance with a gun is pretty much safe even if they other guy pulls a knife.

It's okay in the movies where we can see inside walls and want the hero to smash down the wall to rescue someone. In real life, the Constitution must be protected or we are all lost to the whims of everyone else.

Maybe if we call our pocket knives, splinter getters (put a nice sticker on it saying so), we could tell the officer honestly: 'No I don't have a knife.' thus protected our rights against those unnecessary intrusions into our private life and persons. Otherwise if a bad cop wants to run up his numbers, he can visit the evidence room, pull out some stuff and palm it while doing his search. 'Hey, look what I found.'

(Insert: By the way, I despise illegal drugs and those who produce and transport them. I have more compassion for those who are addicted, even if they are not a movie star with a high priced lawyer. On that note: Why is it a sickness for those with money and a crime for those who have to use a public defender? Huuh?)

Thanks Tom and crew for a fine piece of literature, hope we don't end up ignoring it altogether.

Drug lords Winning in Two Ways

We live in troubling times. What used to be a nuisance (drugs) has now engulfed our nation and changed our society and legal system. Drug lords are winning in two ways:

First they still get drugs into the country or make them here and manage to recruit users from elementary school level (not just in schools) and by the time they are teenagers they are proficient in the language and process of procurement of drugs, should they desire them. If a pusher can get them to take that first free hit, they are usually hooked by the drug and the false pleasure it brings. The habit continues and escalates as they go into adulthood without maturing into adults. We end up with a society of grown bodies but immature minds. They are like people with split personalities. The user will function as an adult in some ways, i.e. working and living on their own (for a time) but when it comes to proper judgment calls, they are still stuck in their adolescence. So, the pushers have a ready market. As the older users become wrecked physically and cannot hold down a job to support their habit, they become a burden of the legal system where they will either go into the prison system or support the legal system in fines.

Second, the drug lords have succeeded by changing the legal system and the attitudes of law enforcement. It seems everything is centered around drugs. Those other crimes are simply incidental to the job of law enforcement. Every stop by law enforcement becomes a combat situation while the officer expects every stop to be a confrontation with strung-out drug users. Gone is the courteous officer, who speaks politely to a citizen of a democratic society. They have stopped the enemy and the enemy must be jerked around and slammed onto car hoods. Anyone associated with the 'criminal' must be treated as a co-conspirator. So, the legal system is clogged up with user-victims of the pusher, while the pusher goes about his business of getting new recruits. Every resource is used to catch the drug addict. The pusher has already paid his way and in many cases the legal system has been corrupted. It appears that the problem is being addressed with all the arrest but the real problem is seldom addressed: the big time pushers.

I am not one who believes that all cops are crooked. I do believe that people live in fear of retaliation in this country. Obviously, the user will not report their supplier for two reasons. One is fear. The other is turning in their source for future drugs. A good cop would be putting his job and life in jeopardy if he reported corruption, especially if it was dominate in the force. We will never know because allegations will never be investigated. It should be obvious that someone is on the take when government officials live so much above citizens financially.

My solution, if there is one, would be to treat all drug addicts like victims and provide them with treatment instead of tossing them in jail and collecting money from them which parents must often come up with to try to help their children. Drug addicts are causalities of a war that law enforcement is loosing in a big way. If the drug addict were taken out of the arrest tally, results against this plague would be shameful.

I am convinced that even good elected law enforcement people should be replaced periodically to discourage the infiltration of drug money and the corruption of officials. Entrenched, appointed officials should also be replaced but that would be difficult because they are in-fact entrenched with the people who are the movers and shakers in a given county.

Conclusion. The old argument of supply and demand is just that an old argument. They say stop using and drug lords will stop making the stuff. My answer is: When they train our children to use drugs how exactly are we going to convince their drug stained mind to stop using when their judgment is already ruined. If their teeth are rotten, we take away their sweets, so why tell them to stop using drugs and we will stop the bad people from making them. No. We should be taking away the 'sweets' and treating the damage it has done. Not punishing the victim. From a legal standpoint (if I was qualified to argue the point), a person who has once used could be said to be mentally incapable of knowing what they were doing at the time of the second offense. Their mind has been altered, has it not?