Protected to Death
Jacob Sullum | October 31, 2007, 3:58pm
Last March, when the Drug Enforcement Administration seized less than half an ounce of cannabis that Robin Prosser, a Missoula lupus patient and medical marijuana activist, had been sent by her caregiver, the special agent in charge of the DEA's Rocky Mountain Field Division said it was "protecting people from their own state laws." Last week, unable to find a reliable supply of the only drug that relieved her pain without causing unacceptable side effects, Prosser killed herself. Although the use of medical marijuana is legal in Montana, friends say suppliers were spooked by the DEA. Writing in the Helena Independent Record, activist Tom Daubert calls Prosser's death "a direct result of DEA actions."
About a month ago I debated drug policy on the Dallas PBS station with a former head of the local DEA office, who insisted that marijuana was not a big priority for the agency. When I pointed out that his former employer was continuing to raid medical marijuana growers and dispensaries in California and other states, he said it couldn't very well sit back and allow that sort of thing. To which my response was: Why not? It is hard to understand, even from the DEA's point of view, how half an ounce of pot can be such a threat that it's worth risking an outcome like this one.
sv | October 31, 2007, 5:05pm | #
"[We] couldn't very well sit back and allow that sort of thing."
I think many government servants, most especially law enforcement and prosecutors and judges but even low level pencil-pushers/clerks, sincerely believe that they are our soverigns instead of the other way around; government has become equated with authority over ordinary citizens ("the authorities") in such a deeply entrenched way that people who don't view government as such (such as libertarians) are at best dismissed as kooks and at worst vilified and persecuted as being dangerous.
This is just my vague feeling from years of interactions with government. I could be wrong and I welcome dissenters. But I feel like there is a general disposition in government (and even amongst large portions of the public) in general which holds that government has an inalienable right to power over the general population, that government (even here in America) is solely responsible for taking 'care' of citizens in an increasing number of ways and deciding how that care ought to be administered. There's also the maintainence of authority to be considered. The above quote from the former DEA head got me thinking about this. Cops, even the very many honest and good-natured ones who I believe make up the majority, have to be authoritarian and somewhat bullying in the streets; they have to intimidate, because that is mostly where their power to enforce laws comes from: fear on the part of citizens.
In other words, they cannot tolerate any disrespect, lawful or unlawful, or even the appearance of such disrespect, because it makes them look bad and hinders their ability (or at least, they believe it does) to deal with the population and do their jobs. That's why you don't even talk back to a cop, why you run when he tells you to move along, why you don't dare question him when he seems to be violating the rights of another citizen.
I guess I'm just venting in a vague way here, and I don't even think it's the cops' fault, nor do I know any solution, although i suspect it would involve vastly reducing the number of laws they're called upon to enforce, as well as an alteration in the fearful nanny-state mentality that demonizes all manner of ordinary things, inflates every minute danger, and expects government to make it all better. (Sure, sounds easy.) It's the subtly superior and almost punitive attitude I sense whenever I have to deal with any government bureaucracy whatsoever, that I object to.
If you've ever gotten a sense that cops are something like a semi-benevolent armed gang out there, yet one with official sanction and endless reach which you dare not cross (even though 'crossing' a cop is not equivalent to committing a crime), you know where i'm coming from.
whit | October 31, 2007, 7:29pm | #
"That doesn't mean the DEA agent is not responsible for his immoral actions. We've hopefully gotten past the "I was just following orders" defense for thuggery."
rubbish. the "i was just following orders' defense does not work for ILLEGAL actions.
what the DEA did is WRONG, but it is not illegal.
the DEA is executive branch. they don't MAKE the law. they ENFORCE it.
you cannot work in law enforcement without accepting that you will be forced to enforce (some laws) you disagree with.
bad laws are the fault of the LEGISLATURE. ***not*** the DEA, and certainly not individual agents.
if a DEA agent does something corrupt, illegal, etc. THAT is his fault. if he is forced to enforce BAD LAW that is not his fault.
as usual, in this blog, nobody wants to blame the legsilature, they want to blame the cops. the LEGISLATURE makes medical mj illegal (under federal law) and ***only*** they can change that (or an activist scotus decision).
blaming the DEA agents is like blaming a SCOTUS justice for making a legal decision that has a bad result. judges don't write the constitution. they are duty bound to act within the rule of law (legal precedent, the constitution etc.).
LEGISlATURES can change bad law.
it is THEIR fault that this stuff is happening. ONLY they can change the RULE that is the LAW that makes medical MJ illegal.
executive branch members are unfortunately often forced to enforce BAD (and good) LAW.
individual agents have far less discretion than individual street cops, generally speaking (many cops will just give warnings and toss out MJ instead of citing or arresting).
blame the people who make bad law. NOT those that are forced (by their superiors) to enforce it
whit | October 31, 2007, 7:45pm | #
brian, what do you honestly expect DEA agents to do? that NOBODY should be a DEA agent (or a police officer) because they necessarily will enforce some laws that they find immoral?
that is an IMPOSSIBLE standard. my point about legality is that this is CLEARLY a policy issue.
they are not violating the constitution or some sort of universal human right.
we live under the rule of law. sometimes the rule is stupid, immoral, etc. we still HAVE to have executive branch members (in law enforcement)
the BLAME lies with the legislative branch. only THEY can change unjust laws.
and i notice a pattern too. everytime a cop (DEA, cop, etc.) is tasked with enforcing BAD law, then the cop, dea agent etc. is immoral, etc.
the FAULT is with the legislature. we have a seperation of powers. THEY are tasked with making (and repealing) law.
my point is about where the fault lies.
it does not lie with the executive branch. it lies with the branch that is responsbile for the immoral law.
if a law rose to the extent of nazi-esque behavior, i would agree with you. but clearly, this doesn't.
do you expect DEA agents to conscientiously object to these raids and not take part? seriously?
how about holding the people who SHOULD be accountable, accountable - those who make UNJUST laws and refuse to repeal them even in light of evidence that they are simply wrong.
medical mj has been a reality for a long time, and i have yet to see a change in the federal drug scheduling that STILL makes it a crime under federal law.
part of the rule of law means we accept that immoral and/or wrong laws will ALWAYS exist (always have always will) but they we have a system to CHANGE bad law.
we have that system and nobody is doing #$()#-all to change these stupid laws.
whit | October 31, 2007, 8:12pm | #
ok. that's clear enough. i totally disagree but i can respect that POV
as i said, i accept that NOBODY could be a LEO if they were not willing to enforce (some) laws they found wrong, morally or practically.
there is no way around it.
if everybody felt the way you do, we would either not have ANY law enforcement officers, or we would have cops that on an ad hoc individual basis decided what raids to participate in, what raids not to participate in, what laws to enforce, what laws not to enforce etc. (which would be anarchy), or we would have law enforcement officers who were unthinking automatons that didn't have the moral sense to disagree with any laws that were on the book.
none of those solutions are either good or practicable.
it's a CLASSIC example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
on the whole, our laws are pretty reasonable. many, are not.
i believe in the RULE OF LAW, even if i disagree (to put it mildly) with many many many laws.
there are plenty of cops who think (for example) that growing mj should not be illegal, and that it is morally wrong to imprison somebody for doing so.
does that mean they must conscientioulsy object - refuse to participate in any mj raids? refuse to testify to any grows that they see? refuse to arrest anybody for same?
etc.
it's simply an unworkable ridiculous standard imo.
im a pragmatist. bad laws exist and we can't expect cops to pick and choose (although again, local cops have a fair amount of discretion, especially for misdemeanors)
J sub D | October 31, 2007, 9:45pm | #
Fact is, in almost every big city police department, cops routinely violate the citizenry's civil rights. I'd put that most at 80%. I live in Detroit, so defending police behavior in 21st century America to me is going to be nigh impossible. Do you truly believe that cops don't do racial profiling routinely, don't lie to obtain warrants routinely, don't carry drugs to plant on "smartass punks" routinely? Must be nice there in Maybury.
Here are the 10 largest cities in the United States.
1 New York, New York 8,084,316
2 Los Angeles, California 3,798,981
3 Chicago, Illinois 2,886,251
4 Houston, Texas 2,009,834
5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1,492,231
6 Phoenix, Arizona 1,371,960
7 San Diego, California 1,259,532
8 Dallas, Texas 1,211,467
9 San Antonio, Texas 1,194,222
10 Detroit, Michigan 925,051
I contend, and have seen nothing to dispute this, that civil rights violations are endemic in at least 8 of these cities police departments. Just for fun, pick three that you think are free of widespread abuses.
You are assuredly correct that the public, by and large still respects the police. The public, by and large are fools. I am correct that the police in the United States act more like an occupying power than civil servants.
whit | October 31, 2007, 10:06pm | #
Siv, i know lots of narcs (and DEA agents).
in general, they think mj is a harmless drug. many did (and admitted this when they applied to be a cop) mj when they were younger (there's a time and a place for drugs and its called college).
of course there is some institutional momentum (in ANY govt. agency) for increased power and not killing the golden goose (civil forfeitures, etc.)
street cops i know really could not care less about some dipsh*t with a couple of joints. really. especially in the privacy of their own home.
that's cause they know, among other things, that guys who smoke mj are more likely to be chillin' out laffin at dumb movies and eating cheezy poofs, then they are out there "committin' crimes" like many tweaked out meth-heads.
otoh, since mj remains illegal, it DOES give cops an "excuse" to conduct a search and few cops aren't gonna take advantage of THAT.
that's just the reality.
i'm telling you there is a strong dichotomy between the cop-o-crats and the line cops (field agents) just as there is in most labor situations. with rare exceptions (darryl gates comes to mind), the powers that be are not viewed as "real cops" and in many instances - they aren't or weren't. wambaugh, among others, riffed on that reality frequently.
the head of the DEA is an APPOINTED position, and it's entirely political. if the govt. is officially against mj, if it's the law of the land, that's gonna be the official stance of the DEA, regardless that many field agents think mj is a relatively benign (if somewhat stoopid) pasttime.
i am telling you that the dichotomy exists. it DEFINITELY exists on gun control. most cops are all for CCW's, but you'd NEVER know that if you listen to the IACP, and other org's peopled by police/leo admins.
as an example of cop-o-crats promoting OFFICIAL policy...
when the testimony was given before congress to schedule AAS (anabolic androgenic steroids) both the DEA *and* the AMA came out AGAINST making steroids a controlled substance. that included cop-o-crats. now that they ARE scheduled, you will be hard pressed to find examples of muckety mucks that will supoort that position. why? mostly because it's policy, and they are POLITICIANS. you don't get to high levels in the DEA or most PD's without being a politician.
there are some cops who do occasionally speak out pro-mj, but usually that's "among friends". it's just not politically healthy
