The Drug War Is A Cash Cow For Police
Minnesota state Rep. Carly Melin, who sponsored a medical marijuana bill, found that policing agencies are hooked on drug enforcement dollars, writes Mike Mosedale at PoliticsInMinnesota:
According to Melin, Dennis Flaherty, the executive director of the MPPOA (Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association), explicitly told her that he was worried that legalization -- in any form -- could lead to harmful reductions in the federal grants that are an important funding source for many police agencies....Nationally, the U.S. Department of Justice distributes between $300 million and $500 million annually through a program called the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.
Byrne grants are especially critical to the operations of inter-agency drug task forces, which don't have the same dedicated funding sources as municipal police departments. In 2012, 23 such task forces in Minnesota received a total of approximately $4.2 million from Byrne grants. The money is spent on everything from military-grade hardware to officer overtime.
Critics contend that Byrne grants effectively encourage police to pursue relatively low-level drug offenses, including marijuana possession. Mainly, they say, that's because the performance measures used in determining awards are based on such factors as numbers of arrests or new task force investigations, with little regard paid to the quality of the arrest or the outcome of the court case.
"The agencies that are successful have to demonstrate a commitment to drug enforcement. The nature of that enforcement is much less important," said Norm Stamper, a former chief of police in Seattle who now serves on the board of the drug reform advocacy group, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. "Those who develop a dependency on federal funds such as Byrne grants are likely going to oppose any kind of initiative to legalize anything that's been a cash cow for them."
via @radleybalko
Hey, California actually budgets for income from traffic violations.
Know what the solution is?
Don't break the law.
But most don't want to think about that.
Radwaste at February 18, 2014 5:39 AM
Then there is the whole confiscation process that abuses the Fifth Amendment.
The system needs to be broken down and starved for cash.
Jim P. at February 18, 2014 5:47 AM
Hey, Radwaste.
When marijuana is legalized we won't need so many cops and the problem will solve itself.
Canvasback at February 18, 2014 7:24 AM
True.
My major points, summarized:
Change the law first. Otherwise, any claim one might make about being "responsible" is simply a lie.
Establish impairment standards. Critical industries need the force of law to use against those who put themselves above industrial safety standards.
That's pretty much it.
Radwaste at February 18, 2014 9:46 AM
>>Change the law first. Otherwise, any claim one might make about being "responsible" is simply a lie.
I have a moral obligation to disobey laws I disagree with. This does not mean I recklessly endanger anyone by doing so.
Assholio at February 18, 2014 2:05 PM
No, you need a union that actually allows your employers to enforce standards that don't have a legal backing, or a company that is in a right to work state that can pretty much fire anyone for any or no cause.
Jim P. at February 18, 2014 6:54 PM
I'm glad that 2016 is two years away. By then, I'll be surprised if BOTH major parties haven't had to shift their positions on federal marijuana laws.........drastically. It should be plenty of fun.
Here are those conservatives who seem to be for and against legalization.
Against:
Pat Buchanan
Chris Christie
Ann Coulter
Newt Gingrich
Sean Hannity
Bill O'Reilly
Mitt Romney
For:
John McCain
George Will
Pat Robertson
Rush Limbaugh
I'd love to see who else can be added to either list. (Though it's hardly surprising when conservative incumbents are against it. Columnists and radio hosts are another matter.)
lenona at February 19, 2014 8:50 AM
"I have a moral obligation to disobey laws I disagree with. This does not mean I recklessly endanger anyone by doing so."
Excellent. You have just taken the position that allows others to recklessly endanger the public because you don't like the law. Laws are collectively established. This means that whether you like it or not, you will be part of the group that asks for a change of law.
Your actions are exactly the same as those of someone who says, "Screw those people, I am going to get high."
Jim P: FALSE. Any company which terminates a person is vulnerable to litigation. The sooe protection a company has today against such litigation is the simple fact that weed is illegal.
You might be one of the people who compares the legalization of marijuana to the current situation with alcohol. Well, guess what? There are impairment standards for alcohol, and the standards are referred to whenever an employee is terminated for abusing alcohol.
I have seen, on this blog, repeated claims that legalizing marijuana will lead to responsible use. This is strange, because responsible use is not guaranteed, nor is it demonstrated for any other substance.
And now, here is backlash, against any attempt to establish standards for that responsible use. Curious.
Radwaste at February 19, 2014 1:12 PM
Currently the standard is piss in a cup and you're guilty.
Until that changes you have are not any more in the right than I am.
Jim P. at February 20, 2014 9:20 PM
"Currently the standard is piss in a cup and you're guilty."
False, again. Why are you soiling yourself in this manner?
Radwaste at February 28, 2014 6:59 AM
Leave a comment