Sheriffs' Association Urges 'Investigation' Of Assistant Attorney General Nominee For Her Pro-Drug Legalization Comments

from the WE-HAVE-SO-MANY-MOUTHS-TO-FEED dept

When it comes to the business of law enforcement, there's one golden rule: thou shalt not derail the money train. Drug enforcement is a multi-billion dollar industry -- not just here in the US, but all over the world. "Industry" is the correct term. Drug busts push people into private prisons. The pursuit of drug dealers and users gives local law enforcement agencies access to federal funding and cheap (or free) military gear. Millions more are spent on "educational" programs like D.A.R.E., which teaches children subtleties like "all drugs are bad" and "so are all drug users." Just Say No, anyone?

These billions are wasted. Four decades into the drug war Nixon formally kicked off by deputizing multiple-substance abuser Elvis Presley as a "Federal Agent at Large" for the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and we have nothing to show for it. Drugs are as widely-available as ever, often featuring both higher quality and lower prices.

If law enforcement agencies were honest, they'd admit they want this war to go on forever. It's profitable, plays well with much of the voting demographic, provides them with new toys and it gives them the excuse to claim property that isn't theirs.

That explains this bit of noxious stupidity from the National Sheriffs' Association (the other NSA) [via The Drug WarRant]:

On behalf of the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) and the 3080 elected sheriffs nationwide, Sheriff John Aubrey, NSA President and Sheriff of Jefferson County, Kentucky wrote today to The Honorable Chuck Grassley to advise him of our strong concerns over the potential nomination of Vanita Gupta as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. NSA believes that Ms. Gupta’s previous statements on a range of issues make her ill-suited for this important post.

If Ms. Gupta is formally nominated, NSA urges Grassley to investigate her previous statements on the legalization of drugs. As recently as 2012, she wrote in the Huffington Post that “states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs, particularly marijuana, and for small amounts of other drugs.” Decriminalization of all drugs—including heroin, LSD, cocaine, and more—would have disastrous effects on our communities and our citizens. Communities have been crippled by drug abuse and addiction, stifling economic productivity and destroying families. Ms. Gupta’s short-sighted statements on legalization and her apparent beliefs would put her at odds with the goal of public safety day in and day out. As the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, it is imperative that any nominee understand the challenges faced by law enforcement in protecting our communities.
The NSA "urges" Sen. Grassley to "investigate" statements publicly made by Ms. Gupta. In what reality does that sentence make sense? How do you "investigate" opinions that were offered freely and publicly? What this association wants isn't an "investigation." It just wants to throw some mud and hope it's enough to head off a nominee that might tamper with the money train's tracks.

Look at the wording it uses to describe what's happening because of "drug use and addiction." As if tossing tons of people in prison for violating outdated drug laws doesn't "stifle economic productivity" or "destroy families."

The NSA also completely ignores the fact that four US states have fully legalized marijuana for recreational use and many more are working towards decriminalizing possession. If there's a drug problem in America, at least half the blame lies with the enforcement of drug laws. The US locks up more people per capita than any other country in the world, and has led to an expansion of law enforcement power at the expense of Americans' civil liberties. No-knock raids -- almost all of which are propelled by drug charges -- have placed both citizens and police officers in the line of fire. A cottage industry of law enforcement-focused surveillance technology has sprung up over the past decade, thanks to this constant and narrow focus on one section of criminal law.

These sheriffs want an assistant AG that works for them, rather than for the public. That's the most disgusting message this letter sends. Hopefully, Sen. Grassley will file this in the recycling bin shortly after reading it. Without a doubt, Gupta will be questioned about her views on legalization, but let's hope that's just because there's still too many reactionary, tough-on-crime types circulating Capitol Hill, rather than this self-serving agency being capable of wielding any significant amount of influence.

Filed Under: assistant attorney general, doj, drug legalization, drug war, legalization, sheriffs, vanita gupta


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    NoahVail (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 4:10am

    Hijacking the comments to note that Loretta Lynch didn't even wait for her appointment to declare that Unconstitutional Surveillance is constitutional.

    http://www.newsweek.com/ag-nom-lynch-dodges-republican-questions-defends-obamas-execu tive-action-nsa-302812

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 4:20am

      Re:

      It's sort of funny, because this started, albeit in a minor way, under Bush Sr's watch.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:09am

        Re: Re:

        Proof that Obama = Bush, and main differences between the two are...

        1. ignorant and stupid cons love bush.
        2. ignorant and stupid libs love obama.

        Neither group is bright and neither are worth the votes they wasted on these turds.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:22am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Nah, I'd argue that politics should be a career for life; that is, when you're out, you die.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Seegras (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          There are no conservatives and no liberals involved here.

          Because conservatives are opposed to change, or want change very slowly, and sure as hell they don't want outlaw abortion which was legal since the middle ages. And because liberals are concerned with liberty, and not specifically with "health-care". But liberty happens to include the right to bear arms...

          So whatever the names of these two groups, they're probably neither conservative, nor liberal.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            which was legal since the middle ages.

            Not sure why this should be the determining factor for what is accepted and what isn't. Slavery has been around since the dawn of time, do you want to bring that back?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            spodula, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" in US politics mean something totally different than is understood in history, or even most of the rest of the world.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:57am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Yes, and it gets more retarded every day.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              That One Guy (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 7:09am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              In the US at least, 'liberal' and 'conservative' basically share the same definition, and that is 'Someone that I don't agree with, or that disagrees with me'.

              Any time someone calls something, or someone, liberal or conservative, that's basically what they are saying, 'That is someone, or something, that I don't agree with'.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Pragmatic, 2 Feb 2015 @ 2:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Look up "Democrats in favor of guns." You'd be surprised.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:56am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Excellent - you did not berate educated and smart people.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          me, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          nope, perpetual war...by design

          yes.. both sides suck

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 4:23am

      Re:

      Huh, well, if that article is anything to go by, if she does take Holder's place, looks like it'll be more of the same, with absolutely no interest from that office in stopping or even investigating the NSA's actions.

      There was at least one tiny sliver of good though, apparently she was pretty blunt regarding at least waterboarding being torture, and didn't try to brush it off with the revolting 'enhanced interrogation' label.

      Asked by Grassley whether waterboarding constitutes torture, Lynch said, “Waterboarding is torture.”

      “And thus illegal?” Grassley replied. “And thus illegal,” Lynch responded.


      Of course, whether or not she'd actually do anything about it is another matter entirely.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 5:06am

      Response to: NoahVail on Jan 29th, 2015 @ 4:10am

      She's also pro-Drug War! I can't help but think all the criticism Gupta is receiving is meant as a distraction from Loretta Lynch

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:09am

      Re:

      She also thinks that Obamas unconstitutional amnesty for illegal immigrants is ok. So basically, more of the same from Obama and his administration.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 7:06am

        Re: Re:

        No Obama fan but he's actually deported more illegals than Bush.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 7:18am

          Re: Re: Re:

          It isn't about deportation, it is about usurping power and violating the constitution. It might seem all well and good while "your guy" is in office but wait until the "other guy" is in office. This is why nobody should be allowed to do it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm not an Obama fan but he has a point when he says that Congress has had 6 years to solve this issue (and many others) since he came into office and the Republicans have fought tooth and nail against making any progress whatsoever. Bush overreached his powers and the Republicans praised him for it. It all sucks for the American people, but it's not like his opposition would balk at taking such power if they were in his shoes.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:29am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Uh, you made my point. It is congress' place to act or not, the King, I mean President, doesn't and shouldn't have that authority no matter which party he belongs to.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 1:49pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It's debatable as to whether he has the authority to do it (based on precedents set by his predecessors and what they were able to get away with). But if Congress refuses to do its job, the President should be able to take executive action to do the things that need to be done. You can't say, "the President can't do that, but it's okay that Congress won't do that." If you indict the president for overreaching with his powers, you should likewise indict Congress for not fulfilling its responsibilities.

                The Republicans wanted this situation and that's why they created it. They created a scenario where they just refused to support anything Obama wanted (even if it was originally their idea, like the fundamental aspects of the Affordable Care Act). And they're going to use this history in 2016 to pretend like the President was the reason that nothing got done during his administration.

                I think Obama has made a lot of mistakes and bad judgments and too often did what a Republican would do in the same situation (prolong wars, persecute journalists and whistleblowers, etc.), but the Republican circus in Congress has held the country hostage.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 7:49am

          Re: Re: Re:

          No Obama fan but he's actually deported more illegals than Bush.

          Not enough of them. A convenience store clerk was shot and killed last week by an illegal awaiting a deportation hearing!

          (and the local newspaper site is paywalled, dammit.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            As opposed to the number of convenience store clerks who have been shot and killed by citizens and legal residents? The legal status of the killer seems irrelevant to the fact that they shot someone.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 4:26am

    that's the beauty of being a dirty cop in a corrupt police state, you just make up charges against the people you disagree with and they vanish in the night.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    me, 29 Jan 2015 @ 4:29am

    This just goes to show how much of the ""law"" is about revenue and has shit to do with anything resembling Justice.

    The use of the word Law Enforcement Business is apt. The DOJ, The Sheriff's Association should come under the Rico act for fucking racketeering.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 29 Jan 2015 @ 5:14am

    How unpatriotic of you.

    The US locks up more people per capita than any other country in the world

    You make it appear as if the US can only win in competitive jailing if one looks at the relative incarceration rates.

    The truth is that the US does not need to revert to "per capita" accounting to put countries like China and India to shame. It is also the world leader in absolute incarceration numbers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Leit, 29 Jan 2015 @ 5:56am

      Re: How unpatriotic of you.

      I see an "Insightful" button, and I see a "Funny" button, but I don't see a "Grim Amusement Bordering On Despair" button...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:21pm

      Re: How unpatriotic of you.

      "The US locks up more people per capita than any other country in the world"


      U.S.A.! We're number one!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 5:45am

    Unwinnable Wars

    So the "War On Drugs" has been going strong for 40+ years without any clearly defined goals for what a victory would look like, no plan how to reach the undefined goal, no defined upper limit to the amount of treasury being spent in the persuit of the unknown win condition, no milestones defined so any progress towards the undefined goal can be gauged.
    In short; spend money indefinitly until something happens that for all intents and puposes looks like a "win". However, since noone knows what this mythical "win" actually looks like, this will never occur. At least until the stream of public money dries up.

    Does this sound an awful lot like the "War On Terror" to anyone?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Richard (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 5:49am

    The point is this

    "Communities have been crippled by drug abuse and addiction, stifling economic productivity and destroying families. "

    All this has happened under the current prohibition regime.

    We don't know what would happen if Ms. Gupta's ideas were followed because people like the NSA have made damn sure that it hasn't been tried on a large enough scale.

    Einstein's definition of insanity springs to mind.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 5:56am

      Re: The point is this

      That. It' somewhat like the way the Govt is dealing with file sharing. Everybody does, society more or less accepts it with caution because somebody said it's infringing/illegal. Drugs should be treated as a Public Health issue much like alcoholism and tobacco.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Seegras (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:49am

      Re: The point is this

      "Communities have been crippled by alcohol abuse and addiction, stifling economic productivity and destroying families. "

      All this has happened under the current prohibition regime.


      I changed the wording somewhat to fit the tone to the 1920ies.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 7:19am

        Re: Re: The point is this

        Yep - in fact the whole "prohibition" thing started when the drinks companies got drugs like heroin, cocaine etc banned in order to preserve their own business models.

        Unfortunatley for them, having started the prohibition bandwagon, they found they couldn't control it and alcohol got banned too.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:34am

          Re: Re: Re: The point is this

          To be historically accurate, the temperance movement was the key factor in the start of Prohibition.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:00am

    Well, this makes sense doesn't it? Surely it has to be illegal, or at the very least highly suspicious, to hold a political view that differs from that of the current government or government agencies.

    Having a different opinion is bad enough, but exposing it openly in such blatant defiance of law and order has to be illegal, right?

    Give it a few more years and it'll finally be illegal to suggest changes to taxes as well. With all the finance and drug questions out of the way, we can finally focus on the important part of politics: the candidates' status with the church and how their daughters dress.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:06am

    This is why we must keep the 2nd ammendment

    Four decades into the drug war...Drugs are as widely-available as ever

    I know this is off topic, but this is why we must keep the 2nd ammendment. If we outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. It is cliche, but true. You only have to look at drugs, and alcohol from the prohibition era, to see what affect outlawing something people want has.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 6:14am

    This is why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment

    Four decades into the drug war...and we have nothing to show for it. Drugs are as widely-available as ever

    This is exactly why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment. You can see from the drug war and prohibition, that if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. This is cliche, but true.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Seegras (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 7:01am

      Re: This is why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment

      This is exactly why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment. You can see from the drug war and prohibition, that if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. This is cliche, but true.

      This is a total bogus argument. "We outlawed alcohol, and the Mafia has guns, therefore we also need guns"?

      This is not what the 2nd amendment says. The 2nd amendment says you need guns if the government turns against the people, like by putting everyone under surveillance (4th amendment), or by incarcerating people for minor infractions (8th amendment), or by torturing prisoners (5th-7th amendment). In that case, your duty would be to depose of the government.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 7:20am

        Re: Re: This is why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment

        Slow down there hoss, not where I was going at all. I am merely pointing out that the myth that outlawing guns will make them magically go away. Those of us who support the 2nd ammendment understand what it is truly for.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 8:11am

          Re: Re: Re: This is why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment

          I'd rather live in a country where everyone had guns than the police state we'd have if only the government had guns.

          If the government wants us to give up our guns, they'll have to give up theirs too.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Pragmatic, 2 Feb 2015 @ 2:54am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This is why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment

            I'd like to see ANYONE try that hypothesis out. To date, only the Cliven Bundy case is an example and it seems you need a) a lot of supporters, also with guns, and b) to ensure that they don't figure out that targeting the supporters's homes to force them to choose between you and their own homes would break up the party.

            Let's not kid ourselves: guns are no defense against government actions and you wouldn't win a revolution with them, however many you've got.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 4:39pm

      Re: This is why we need to keep the 2nd ammendment

      "...if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. This is cliche, but true."

      Except there has never been a serious argument about outlawing guns. It's simply never been on the table for anyone other than the rabid gun nuts looking for a strawman to attack. Bringing it up removes any chance of your comment being taken seriously.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 8:11am

    DARE

    Millions more are spent on "educational" programs like D.A.R.E., which teaches children subtleties like "all drugs are bad" and "so are all drug users." Just Say No, anyone?

    I always mentally thought while in the D.A.R.E. classes that it was "DARE to do drugs".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    pete, 29 Jan 2015 @ 8:20am

    All the problems of drugs are crimes in and of themselves

    -robbing the gas station [for drug] $ -> crime
    -beating your wife [while high] -> crime
    -walking around naked outside [on PCP] -> crime
    -murder over an unpaid [drug] debt -> crime
    -screaming, fliping trash cans, and bouncing around like a monkey on the sidewalk [while on bath salts] -> crime
    -crashing car [while high] -> crime (DUI convictions have never required passing or failing any drug test, only the testimony of a Drug Recognition Expert, or you will be charged with reckless driving)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:15am

      Re:

      Sure, concentrate on the negatives. All of us normal drug users, we need a union or something to...um......hey, I wonder what's on TV?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Rapnel (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:33am

      Re:

      let's make drugs illegal because drug use is known to cause some criminal behaviors. brilliant. that would definitely solve the problem of crime. we should've thought of this four decades ago, imagine where we'd all be to be free of drug induced crimes. if only we had more crime we could blame on things instead of the people committing them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 8:22am

    decriminalize vs. legalize

    There is a big difference between decriminalize and legalize. According to her statement it would still be illegal and therefore not sellable or use the drugs however you won't be punished for possessing the drugs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Shawn, 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:26am

    Investigate everyone

    the Sheriffs' Association should push for investigations into everyone holding any kind of public office. That way we can get all the crooks either going into office or coming out of office.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 29 Jan 2015 @ 9:38am

    Investigation

    The NSA "urges" Sen. Grassley to "investigate" statements publicly made by Ms. Gupta. In what reality does that sentence make sense? How do you "investigate" opinions that were offered freely and publicly?

    Well...
    I've investigated Vanita Gupta's statements, and I think her suggestions make a great deal of sense.

    But I'm guessing that's not what the NSA meant.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anon, 29 Jan 2015 @ 10:40am

    NSA - National Sherrif's Assoc - "The *Other* White Meat"

    The idea that the Law Enforcement Business makes a lot of money off drug enforcement, doesn't want it to stop - reminds me of the other side - the only partial joke that organized crime lobbies politicians to ensure that drugs stay highly illegal. Otherwise, their profits, based on "risk", would plummet.

    As for issues of immigration - the Canadian government firstly has a better policy. Any employer who hires someone without a valid Social Insurance Number will be fined. They keep an eye on these, you don't have a dozen different people across the country using the same number. It's on their tax return too, someone will get nailed if a person earns 10 normal salaries... the employer will be told to withhold all their pay as taxes, all their bank accounts will be frozen, etc. If there were a will to enforce US laws against hiring illegals, the illegal workforce would mainly disappear.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:10am

    How dare she be against 24/7 day-in day-out public enslavement *cough* mean protection.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 11:42am

    "crippled by drug abuse and addiction" = If it's only abuse because it's illegal, then why not make it legal and stop the abuse?

    "stifling economic productivity" = they aren't buying from a taxable regulated market as well as arrests and jail time negatively affect their ability to work and their ability to contribute to society. Legalize it and this clears up right?

    "and destroying families" = Yes you do when you lock up family members and punish them for the rest of their life

    This NSA sure doesn't care about anything more than making people live the way they want to live their own life. Mistreatment of other people including family members is already illegal. Making drugs illegal doesn't do anything but stop someone momentarily and harm them more in the long run. I wonder if they want to tally how many lives they have destroyed against the lives 'saved'. Or maybe it's ok because one of those lives was a child, or maybe a teen, or young adult, um.. what age is it a person's life is worth more than another's again? Maybe it was a formula, one that also included expected lifetime earnings.

    This self-righteous 'Take you're freedoms because I know best' is exactly what the country was founded against. Helping is not the same as Hiding. They are counter productive in not addressing the real problems and actually helping people, but that's actually more difficult than burying them away when they get caught and hoping they get better at hiding. Which is usually the case for people who try to impress their superior morals, they actually are just accepting behavior that presents itself in a way they find proper, as long as immoral behavior is hidden to whatever arbitrary degree. Which comes down to they just don't want to be offended by others doing what they dislike.

    If you want to ensure public safety day-in and day-out (which I take as in their own home and outside of it) the sure-fire way is to remove everyone's limbs and tongues and there won't be any more physical or mental abuse. If it's not there they can't be tempted right? I'm sure it'll cut down on 90% of crime too. It's that or we could handle things like civilized humans that hopefully care for more than just themselves.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2015 @ 12:59pm

    Didn't all the prohibitionists say the same thing about alcohol?

    'Alcohol is destroying our communities! We must make it illegal!'

    We're simply witnessing history repeat itself in the war on drugs. Obviously the National Sheriffs' Association skipped out or played hooky during history class in school.

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

    -George Santayana


    We can say a lot of things about the National Sheriffs' Association. That they're intelligent, wise, and educated isn't one of them. Do we really want such an ignorant organization dictating national policy?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    justme, 29 Jan 2015 @ 2:39pm

    Related Problems. . .

    The current problems with over aggressive cops is a result of 40+ years of the war on drugs. Where those officers that seek the high risk, adrenalin fueled, action that drug enforcement provides, are unfortunately the one's that get noticed and ultimately promoted!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 29 Jan 2015 @ 3:44pm

    Sheriff John Aubrey Cretin of Jefferson County Kentucky

    Sheriff John Aubrey, NSA President and Sheriff of Jefferson County, Kentucky is a tax-feeding cretin.

    Has the cretin known as sheriff Aubrey heard of the Bill of Rights?

    Perhaps John Aubrey believes only his cretinous ideology should be publicly espoused?

    Whats wrong with destroying families and lives because some American serfs have the audacity to ingest substances that the moral busybodies and petty authoritarians infesting the US government have arbitrarily decreed verboten?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Raven, 2 Feb 2015 @ 5:08pm

    Really Quite Simple

    I can't believe that Obama would nominate this woman for U.S. A.G. and then nominate Gupta for Ass. A.G. makes no sense. Especially after Steve Cohen's grilling of Eric Holder over Title 21 (sub chapter I) last summer.

    Sub chapter I gives a clear path of the maintenance of drug schedules starting with the U.S. A.G. as long as H.H.S. Secretary, U.S. Secretary of State, U.N. Secretary General and "The World Health Organization are all in the loop. This is all that's needed to change cannabis from schedule I. And here's the best part; No treaty violation! Well Shazam!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.