Police Unhappy with Holder's Decision on MJ

page: 1
67
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+57 more 
posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Seems police aren't happy about Holder's decision to let Washington and Colorado to implement state laws on MJ. They feel they weren't given an opportunity to have their say on the matter and think this decision will lead to more crimes. But I feel the biggest reason they are ticked off is in the article itself:



Local law enforcement agencies rely heavily on the drug war for funding. Police departments are often able to keep a large portion of the assets they seize during drug raids, even if charges are never brought. And federal grants for drug war operations make up a sizable portion of local law enforcement funding.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

Now they fear that other states will legalize and further shrink their profit making scam on average Americans. Poor Police
Where will they get their money to buy all their new toys?


About time we tried something different on this so called war on drugs. It's obvious the old way isn't working.

Peace




posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


It's always all about the $$.

But I'm sure there are many police officers who would welcome the chance to not waste their time with marijuana smokers/dealers (gang members not included).

On a side note, if CO and WA can make their own state laws about MJ does that mean every state can now, effectively legalizing it?
edit on 31-8-2013 by Swills because: (no reason given)


+19 more 
posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Yeah sorry.

The, we get funding from throwing non violent folks in jail and seizing their property excuse isn't going to cut officers.

IMO you don't need that much funding for anything, you should be peace officers. No reason you need a new shiny car every damn year.

~Tenth


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I know in Florida, Sheriff's organization own a large part of the privatized prison industry. I am sure it is the same way in other states. They like the drug laws because it makes it easy to keep the incarceration rates high thus helping the profit of the prison industrial complex. Those involved with the cannabis trade and consumption are easy targets for LEOs.

The decision by Holder is great, hopefully more people are waking up to the scam known as the war on drugs and the prison industrial complex.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by jam321
 


Yeah sorry.

The, we get funding from throwing non violent folks in jail and seizing their property excuse isn't going to cut officers.

IMO you don't need that much funding for anything, you should be peace officers. No reason you need a new shiny car every damn year.

~Tenth


Im okay with the new car, its the tanks that worry me, less funding means a less militarized police force.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

jrod
I know in Florida, Sheriff's organization own a large part of the privatized prison industry. I am sure it is the same way in other states.


I know that there are MANY private (for profit) prisons in the US, but if what you state above is true, that should be BLATANTLY illegal.

It's a conflict of interest.

ETA: Back to the OP, of course the cops aren't happy. Along with revenue they'll loose (AND the money the courts rake in for city and county with fines, programs, etc) there will be fewer people's lives they can butt themselves into and ruin for a bunch of "because it's illegal" BS. Why can't cops (and the gov't) just leave people alone who aren't hurting anyone? Ugh. Oh yeah, control.
edit on 31-8-2013 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 





less funding means a less militarized police force.


We would hope, but it seems many departments are intent on becoming more militarized.

Police Militarization

Peace
edit on 31-8-2013 by jam321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Should be more than damning to the institution of law enforcement that their concern is funding and not "public safety".

Something just occurred to me. Those grants they're whining about are for the "war on drugs." So if they are no longer fighting it then they wouldnt miss the money they are no longer getting.

So they must be using the grants for other things than the "war on drugs" if this bothers them so much, right?

Seems like the police are routinely committing welfare fraud.
edit on 31-8-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





concern is funding and not "public safety".


Public safety is their concern when they are lobbying for new toys. "We need a few drones to keep the public safe from the terrorists living in our city. Those drones will lower crime and make the area safe."


Peace



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
You can't hate on the po po for longing for the good old days. I, too, would be sad. I'd want a new police weaponised tank and a new system of inflicting pain. How can they get all this stuff now if they have to rely on funding and actually catching crims... it's the worst thing to ever happen to law enforcement, taking away free money.




posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I agree about the private prisons, it is no different than Judges who profit from DUI schools. The police don't have to worry about funding because when the money runs out the government will just take their pensions to pay for their "services".



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
How times have changed.


In the old days, possession was nine-tenths of the law. Nowadays, gossip has become nine-tenths of possession. Under asset-forfeiture laws and regulations, thousands of American citizens are being stripped of their property solely on the basis of rumors and unsubstantiated assertions made by government confidential informants.


fff.org...

Guilty until proven innocent


As a defendant in a civil case, property owners do not enjoy the same advantages as criminals like murderers or rapists do. Criminals are innocent until proven guilty. With “reverse onus” however, civil defendants bear the burden of proving their innocence. They are presumed guilty, and the presumption of guilt is all that is necessary for the government to seize the property of the accused. In other words, they are guilty unless they are able to prove that they are innocent.


janmorganmedia.com...

Thanks for comments
Peace



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swills
On a side note, if CO and WA can make their own state laws about MJ does that mean every state can now, effectively legalizing it?

As a resident of CO we were pretty surprised it passed. I imagine other states can do the same.

It was a process, approving medicinal use opened the door/changed many attitudes. Observing medical MJ facilities in operation allowed people to relax a bit. They have shown they're not instigators of crime, in fact many MJ facilities have become victims of crime, break-ins/robberies.

Baby steps is the way, getting it on the ballot/letting voters decide. It really depends on people's attitude. Citizens of CO and WA obviously felt mature/responsible enough to handle it. Unless you push for honest representation by government they'll keep doing what they think is best.

I'm glad the federal government has finally come around. It should pave the way for other states. I'm proud CO listened to the people.

Right now Colorado DOC is investigating the mess our probation/parole department is in. It's going to cost a lot of money rounding up criminals that should've never been released. Without MJ arrests/convictions clogging the system maybe we can do a better job keeping violent criminals from slipping through the cracks.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Has anyone tried challenging this reverse onus thing in supreme court? There's nothing they can say to justify such.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It's not like the end of the War on Drugs. Now they can concentrate on truly dangerous substances.

It may require more work than going after docile potheads, but isn't what their armour is for? Heck, they might get a chance to put down some real crime.

Get over it!

edit on 31-8-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   

if CO and WA can make their own state laws about MJ does that mean every state can now


They said the same thing in calif then the feds went after everyone they thought were making a profit and even growers that were just breaking even.
Some growers and medical MJ shops were hit and the owners had everything taken without them even being arrested.
just because they made a few dollars profit.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Oh no! What will the police do when a major source of "protection" funding dries up? Bookmaking? Murder for hire?



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 

So the "war" on drugs, like every other war being waged by our government, is about power grabs and profit.

Imagine my surprise.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The War On Some But Not All Drugs (as Bob Wilson would say) does create wealth for certain segments of the population, and since Holder gave the thumbs up and Federal OK to go ahead and legalize, I can see how they would be irritated. But as soon as California, Oregon, the New England states and others legalize in '16 if not before, it will expand the practice so much that a nationwide ban will seem out of date, and even the anti-legalization people may soften on the issue.



posted on Aug, 31 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Police Unhappy with Holder's Decision on MJ

Poor policemen, blindsided by this decision, never saw it coming. How could they know the voice and vote of the people would carry any weight in today's society? I expect since the measure was passed by the voters last November, 9 months ago, they have been anxiously awaiting marching orders to trample through living rooms and put an end to this exercise of democratic freedom. After all, for what purpose were all those new shiny new urban assault vehicles given to them other than to violently put down the vote of the people? We can't have a popular uprising however legally and constitutionally it was carried out.

Let's not jump the gun and say the Drug War is over. There are still the users and traffickers of those other more dangerous substances to go after, though their numbers are much smaller and hardly comprise a valid statistic that warrants police officers to get up in the morning and go to work to tend to.

It at first seems obvious their discontent is largely due to Drug War economics and the power it carries to force intrusions into peoples' homes and private spaces, and that those will now rapidly lose their justifications. But we also have to expect some others will just be slow to accept changes and can't expect them to warm up to peoples' hard sought-after and fought for liberties. The same can be said here on ATS. If we declare this Drug War over we lose the privilege of even mentioning the little green plant. Although there are many uses and industrial applications for MJ we are a very long way from having the freedom to grow enough to make a new shirt fom, weave a rope, or consider it an essential for our SHTF survival/restart civilization garden. We are miles away from that and only recreational use has been granted. Count our victories on one finger.

Recreational drug use has been a visible, active, and jubilant part of our society for 80 years, after the imposition of a brief period of prohibition that didn't exactly work out well. Alcohol has been our gateway drug into accepting recreational drug use as an accepted and welcomed part of our daily lives. We can't expect the victory just handed down to us from our Justice Department to give us free reign to discuss this matter though, at least not with the cavalier manner we can freely speak of lcohol consumption in these forums and empaticall declare how we're going to pop a cork and get wasted or Miller time ourselves right up to bed time. One needn't even be of legal age to speak that openly here.

I hope that attitude does not carry over to this newly granted pasttime. Somehow that sort of dialog just does not seem appropriate here on ATS however readily it is accepted in the context of drinking ourselves into oblivion. There are critical matters that should be hashed-out here during this transition time, matters that concern our basic freedoms and life choices in regards to this restored liberty. But I don't expect staff and admin at ATS to be any more accepting of our liberties than the uniformed police officers that are now wondering how they will spend their day or make inroads past our privacies. I am curious how this will play out, but don't expect the "anti's" to go down without a fight.

edit on 31-8-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
67
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join