As you all know, I have been cleared for duty and will be reporting back shortly. I have been re-reading the NH Constitution carefully so that when I return I am well versed.
I have come to a conclusion in reading the document I am sworn to defend: It is unconstitutional for the state to take action against a sick person who decides to use Marijuana to treat a medical condition.
I will never arrest a person who possesses, uses, grows marijuana to treat a medical condition……. and neither should any other NH LEO who intends follow his or her oath. I won’t even take it from them.
You can read the rest of his letter here. His argument is basically that medical marijuana has been proven to work and since police officers enforce the law with discretion (meaning they don’t enforce 100% of the laws — which would obviously be impossible), he can and will ignore the marijuana laws.
Heroic.
>Meanwhile, not one human being who actually wants to use this plant does without it.
You just contradicted yourself.
If the ban is making things more expensive, then someone is doing without it. Indeed you gave yourself as an example.
>Meanwhile, not one human being who actually wants to use this plant does without it.
>You just contradicted yourself.
>If the ban is making things more expensive, >then someone is doing without it. Indeed you >gave yourself as an example.
Rather than contradict myself, I failed to write properly:
“When pleasurable intoxication reached a certain price point, I became aware of options at that same price point that I found far more preferable, (to wit, Balvenie, et al) and thus ceased desiring the plant. However, if I did desire the plant to the same degree as Balvenie, I would certainly obtain it.”
To put it simply, for me marijuana failed to compete in the marketplace of comparably priced intoxicants. If one believes that such a price-driven shift in preference is worth trillions of dollars expended in interdiction, prosecution, and incarceration, then the war on that particular shrub can be called a success.
I doubt, however, that creating a price support system for growers, smugglers, and dealers was the specific intent of the government. It is, however the exact result they’ve achieved.
Several of you have said this is a good cop! I disagree. A cop who publicly proclaims he will not enforce the law – good or bad law though it may be – is a cop who ought to be looking for a new job. I have a brother who is a cop and I know he has on many occasions looked the other way to a little MJ, medical or not. That’s fine. But if he starts telling people he will not prosecute them when they break the law, he’s a bad cop. Cops are enforcement officers not legislators.
#34 Animby
First of all he doesn’t prosecute offenders, he arrests and charges them.
Secondly, I understand your point about selective enforcement of the law. If he had avoided enforcing the law when confronted with the offense and had not told anyone then his ethics would be out of line. However he is being public about it allowing elected civic officials take corrective action.
He is publicly owning up and being personally responsible for the outcome. That could include suspension, firing, or even an arrest. Even if you disagree with his stance I think his ethics are above board.
Heroic./soon to be unemployed. Not saying right or wrong, just an observation.
So if you have cancer he won’t arrest you. If you don’t have cancer you bleep is still fair game.
After a life of being against legalized recreational drugs, I think I could support legalized pot (and only pot.)
But, as a drug, I think it is really stupid.
OK, it may help pain but then it gives you lung disease! That’s insane! Drugs are supposed to help people without causing an even worse disease!
http://bit.ly/aw6MIy
One reason to legalize pot is to make sure the growers are legally liable for any disease their product causes — just like the tobacco companies.
All growers should be required to pay into a really big annuity fund to pay for the inevitable lawsuits from their users.
Nope. A bad cop who shouldn’t be there.
Cops enforce the law as decided by the courts. They don’t get to decide what the law is. Good or bad.
Secondly, cops don’t decide policy. That is the function of the administration. Any cop trying to set policy is not following the policy laid out by the administration elected by the people. There can not be more than one person setting policy.
Third, does any boss like having underlings thumbing his nose at them?
“I will never arrest a person who possesses, uses, grows marijuana to treat a medical condition”
And as an officer of the law he has also medical training to tell the difference between someone who has a medical condition that requires pot or not.
Either he doesn’t understand it is a slippery slope argument or he is a user of the said product.
Though if he uses pot that would mean his reasoning skills are already damaged. As all recreational drug users from pot to booze to cocaine to caffeine lack basic reason and rely solely upon self indulgence.
Give a monkey a brain.
Cursor_
#34 The principal duty of the Police officer is to “Enforce” the law. Not Prosecute. The Police Enforce, The District attorney Prosecutes, the Courts administer the Law. Second The Federal law supersedes All State laws on Marijuana. I’m neither for Legal, or against it, but I defend a lot of folks who stray into trouble from time to time.
Wow a cop that respects the liberties of others for a change and everyone takes a shit on him. You morons deserve a police state.
“Cops enforce the law as decided by the courts. They don’t get to decide what the law is. Good or bad.”
He didn’t decide what the law is. He choose not to enforce a law. That is not the same as making up laws. Police choose which laws they are going to enforce all the fucking time. If police were required to enforce the law no matter what you would get a speeding ticket everytime you were pulled over for a moving violation. There is no such thing as a cop who enforces all the laws. Every cop chooses which laws they are going to enforce because there are tens of thousands of laws. It’s impossible for any cop to claim that he/she enforces all the laws. Police have discretion to pick which laws they are going to enforce at any given time. If it’s wrong for Brad to not enforce the drug laws it must logically follow that all police officers are wrong for not enforcing the hundreds of dumb laws across the nation.
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/new-hampshire
Perhaps we then need to start at the political level? Weed out (pun intended) the legislators who make such “Dumb” Laws in the first place. Then try to make sense of how the law was passed in the first place. Now that is in place. get rid of laws that burden the courts, and in general waste tax payer dollars by tying up Courts, Police, etc..
QB : Prosecute was, perhaps, an unfortunate choice of words considering the topic but it was used correctly and appropriately. Before you correct someone’s word usage, please invest in a dictionary. If you wish, I’m sure we’d be able to give you links to several on line.
#44, Fission,
He didn’t decide what the law is.
Yes he did. He decided that one law was unenforceable.
If police were required to enforce the law no matter what you would get a speeding ticket everytime you were pulled over for a moving violation.
Uummm, no. Only if you have actually been speeding. Even then, most jurisdictions encourage warnings for speeding at a certain range over the limit.
. Every cop chooses which laws they are going to enforce because there are tens of thousands of laws.
Uummm, again, NO. Police generally enforce criminal law, traffic regulations, and some local ordinances; all to maintain the public peace. Most of these laws are to define the exact crime and come under the jurisdiction of the prosecutor.
Police have discretion to pick which laws they are going to enforce at any given time.
No they are not. For example, if a cop is sent to keep anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists apart, he can not decide to ignore assaults from side against the other. That is generally called “Dereliction of Duty” and may be dismissed for it.
And your “dumb laws” are dumb. Maybe if the laws were referenced and the entire section was listed it would have some credibility. It is hard to comment on someone’s concept of a law.
Animby. Sorry you took it the wrong way. In western legal systems prosecutors, not police, are responsible for enforcing the law. It’s not a trivial little distinction but a check on the power of the police.
In Iran or China, the prosecutor is there for show. The police actually do the enforcement of the law those countries.
Lets get to the stats, have an open mind and realize what I am saying is true. Never mind! Call your local law enforcement agency and ask them to give you the number of deaths by liver disease because of alcoholism. When they give you that number, then ask how many deaths by marijuana use in the town. Now ask how many deaths by alcohol related driving accidents. If you cant see my point then multiply the two answers together divide them by 2 and that my fellow New Hampshire residents that has a closed mind and probably drinks a bottle just to kill the memories, is your IQ