Seems Like Some CO Cops Need a “Freed” Mind

HoT editor Chris Bennett provided, as an item of interest, an article written by George Rice, a self professed police officer of (Sterling?) CO. I believe the item was meant for SG, but I wanted to pipe off.

Officer Rice starts by mocking the very people who pay his salary by calling them “latter-day hippies” and further insults them by letting them know that he, a man of the law, does not realize that the PEOPLE make the laws- not him.

It seems that his biggest argument is over the term “safer”. “Safer than what?” he wonders- and yes- publicly. He mentions some soccer moms smoking pot in their “ranchettes” could fail to obey a traffic signal and cause an accident. But wait! He is worried about an accident. But hey, it is only pot- not margarita parties- that cause that. But then, Officer Rice states:

I got news for that biddy-brain. The kids already know. If the three or four of them are fuming up the place a couple times a week, everyone else in the house can smell it. Makes me wonder about the husbands. And the odds are great that, by the time the kids have reached middle school, they’ve smelled it somewhere else and will certainly recognize it.

Hmmmm, the hubby is the keeper? How patronizing. Hubby should be a co-parent- and as such, he would likely share “soccer mom’s” ideals. And he would likely smoke some herb. And as for,

I had to arrest combative kids whose “freed” minds refused to accept that urinating in the middle of a crowded dance floor was not acceptable conduct. Or explain to a stoned kid after the wreck that driving in reverse on a one-way street is not legal, even if the car was pointed in the right direction. And I had to explain to parents that handcuffs are necessary when anyone, even their darling, believes he’s Cassius Clay and tries to fight an officer twice his age and strength.

I laugh. I don’t know anyone- pro or anti pot”war”- that would say that this is a smoker’s action. The universal perception of a smoker is passive person not tackling life. Honestly, it is more the action of a protected kid partying (on booze) in the French Quarter of New Orleans. A stoner acting violently? I think not. Unless he targets you for hogging the Funyons. It seems that the only dealer/addict here is this cop. He is marketing GOV grade dope to the masses. The dope of ignorance and division. But hey, he needs his job. As long as there is a drug war in Sterling, he is employed. I said before, when your livelihood is dependent on fear, you incite fear. It is real hard to be objective as a soldier in the drug war.

  1. Too bad so many of find it necessary to need drugs and/or alcohol to escape reality. I really do pity you.

    There was a time when I also used alcohol to escape but choose not to do that anymore.

    Life is tough. People are weak.

    I believe we should totally legalize all drugs, remove restrictions on the use of alcohol and make both freely and readily available anytime, anywhere. I am favor of what Seattle is doing by giving free alcohol to the derelicts but am opposed to taxpayers money being used to house them. Leave them homeless and deliver the booze to them. No food, just booze. What a savings that would be to taxpayers.

    It is my opinion that by encouraging drugs and alcohol use and abuse, we have a built in population control and guess who gets controlled? The weak.

    Each person must choose for himself. What a concept. Libertarianism at its best.

  2. If we do legalize drugs, close all treatment centers. If you become addicted, then it will be up to you to get off the drugs. This goes for alcohol too.

    Now that is true libertarianism. Each person takes full responsibility for his own actions. No one should lift a finger to help the sorry ass addict or alcoholic. He did it to himself so the choice is die or quit.

  3. I tried to get the NORML President of Colorado to rebutt this too Michelle but I got an e-mail saying that he would not do so. What is he afraid of? The article was just right for Stephen since he is active in the marijuana issues. I would still like to see him rebutt this cop. I contacted other organizations as well like MPP and LEAP. The facts will speak for itself.

  4. If we do legalize drugs, close all treatment centers. If you become addicted, then it will be up to you to get off the drugs. This goes for alcohol too.

    Since I think it would benefit society to have charity treatment centers (less addicts = less problems for me and my family), I would privately donate to them. Since you want to play the asshole libertarian, no one would force you to pay for them with your taxes.

  5. Stephen

    You know I truly believe each individual is responsible for his own actions. I still hold my position we owe nothing to alcoholics or drug addicts. If my father had drank himself to death, so be it. We did not owe him treatment. Multiple DUI’s and jail time did it for him.

    I believe the only way to “free” the mind of the cop is to introduce him to all the benefits of drugs and how drugs help free individuals of their inhibitions and enhances their creativity.

    All the cop sees in his job are the alcoholics and drug addicts, traffic accidents, injuries, displaced children and the misery. They do not see the fun and experience the high.

    The cop most likely needs to partake and join the party. Maybe he would then have a different perspective. He has not yet been introduced to the benefits to him as an individual, to his family and to society.

  6. I think that a public move to decriminalize drugs, and in this case legalize pot should be seriously considered. I do not smoke weed. The only thing that I personally stand to gain from the end of the drug war is perhaps a little more money in my pocket. It is very expensive to feed, clothe and shelter non-violent drug users. The cost goes far beyond prisons. Broken homes and overcrowded courts- very real costs. Most drug use does not result in addiction, but for the addicted, private help- not publicly funded treatment centers or jails. Libertarianism at its best. You betcha. Personal freedom and personal responsibility.

  7. Michelle

    You spend your own money to support privately funded treatment centers. I won’t. I do not want my taxpayer money going to public facilities either. I don’t care about the alcoholics and drug addicts. They made the choices, therefore they must live with the consequences.

    Do you believe you should help their families? I could care less about their families. We cannot save everybody.

  8. Julian, thankfully, there are no addicts in my family. But if there were, I would gladly do what I could to help. Helping other people? I do not believe that I should be taxed to help them at all. I do have a very generous heart, and there are organizations that can count on my time and money whenever they need it. PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS that spend my hard earned money in a manner consistent with my beliefs. I mentioned broken families as a real cost of the drug war because when a mom or dad is jailed non-violent drug crimes, a child’s support is removed from the home. And then because of a multitude of welfare programs, my tax dollar is spent unwisely and in a manner inconsistent with my beliefs. The drug war is unwinnable and it is time to look at alternatives. CO is doing that and they get in return name calling and misinformation from public servants. That’s real mature.

  9. Julian, that’s the beauty of libertarianism. You don’t have to fund drug treatment centers if you don’t want to, but you have the option to do so if you do want to. Same for pretty much everything else.

    It’s pretty hard to keep arguing when everyone’s agreeing with you, so why bother? :)

  10. Don’t run for public office with that attitude Julian, it will defeat the purpose of advancing the cause for liberty. Julian must be a youngster because I felt the same way when I became a libertarian eons ago. Compassion in certaian instance may go a long ways….the lack of human compassion amongst libertarians is at a low point in certain circles.

  11. One comment for the cop:

    I’ve seen more people urninating in public because of alcohol consumption (especially beer) than marijuana intoxication.

    Perhaps that is Hot is bill as “Common Sense, Shoved Up Your…”

  12. One thought process worthy of exploration is whether publicly funded treatment centers might actually be part of an incremental approach to freedom. While I certainly don’t wish to pay for them, might it not be cheaper to pay for drug treatment centers than to continue paying the overall cost (in freedom and dollars) of the War on Drugs?

    What needs to be considered is whether this more politically palatable solution might be a reasonable SHORT-TERM libertarian direction to pursue.

  13. From many of the 14 million alcoholics and 6.7 million drug addicts in the U.S. relapse after initial drug treatment, the scientists concluded that treatment is the most cost effective way of addressing the problem. According to PLNDP researchers, incarcerating a drug addict costs $25,900 annually. According to Dr. Donald Shepard of Brandeis University, a year of traditional outpatient drug treatment costs $1,800, intensive outpatient care costs $2,500, methadone treatment for heroin users costs $3,900 and residential drug-treatment program costs range from $4,400 to $6,800 a year. Every dollar invested in drug treatment can save $7 in societal and medical costs, said former Assistant Health Secretary Philip Lee. Addiction treatment consistently ranks in the top 10% in cost effectiveness of more than 500 health- and life-saving measures, said David C. Lewis, M.D., editor of the Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory and Application.

  14. I want to make clear that I was simply addressing SG’s question of cheaper with my last post. But, when is anything “short term” in the government’s eyes? One has to be very careful when introducing something-even workable somethings- to the government. I believe that some states are working with treatment for some addicts, but have no idea if they have reduced jail spending as part of the experiment. We may end up paying for it all.

  15. Michelle,

    Even if it is long term, if it is less invasive and cheaper, it is a topic which at least should be discussed.

  16. Chris Bennett

    I’m one month from 60. My disbelief in helping anyone, including family members addicted to drugs or alcohol, comes from age and experience, not from lack thereof.

    Live long enough and your attitudes and opinions will change. I am not an idealist. There are plenty of them on this site. I am a pragmatic realist. I believe everyone is individually responsible for his own stupid choices and you or I owe them nothing including bailing them out for their self-made misery.

  17. I believe everyone is individually responsible for his own stupid choices and you or I owe them nothing including bailing them out for their self-made misery.

    Ahhh the other side of the baby boomer coin… the I don’t give a damn about anything or anyone but myself… side…

  18. Julian,
    To distinguish, I don’t think I owe anything to an addict in need in the sense that they can make a demand of me that I help. At the same time, I feel a duty to help my fellow man as part and parcel of my humanity.

    A fine distinction, maybe, but that’s how I see it.

    Yours truly,

  19. I have to agree that smoking pot does not affect others as much as others would like you to think. People who smoke are so much more passive, and all together less violent. I don’t think that the government is in a position to tell people want they can inhale, that’s just way too far.

    I’m not sure if legalizing it is the best answer, but I do not think it should be strictly inforced. There is no victim. Some people, in this case, victimize themselves, but we cannot help that. No victim, no crime.

    I’d rather the cops be our protecting us from robbers versus stopping kids from smoking and other petty “crimes”.

  20. There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

    Example: A married man visits prostitutes, supposedly a “victimless” crime. What about his wife? Is she not a victim, at least emotionally and possibly physically if he presents her with an STD?

    Example: A person uses and abuses drugs, even marijuana. Where does the money come from? What about his job performance? Is his family not damaged? Is he not at his optimum performance at work? What if he drives and kills me in an auto accident?

    Again, I believe drugs, all drugs should be legalized. There would now be no crimes, therefore no victims of a crime. There would still be damage done to others by abusers and addicts but I really don’t care as long as they leave me alone. If they don’t, I’ll just kick them while they are down.

  21. Julian, you are absolutely correct when you say that a wife would be emotionally hurt if she learned her hubby was bedding down with a hooker. But she would be equally upset if he screws around with a neighbor or co-worker. And believe it or not, his risk of contracting an STD is less with a prostiute than some woman picked up in a club. (there have been studies) If a person abuses any stimulant (legal or not) and his work performance suffers, his employer has cause to terminate the business relationship. If that person injures someone under the influence (legal or not) he should rightfully pay for the loss of life and property. That some people act irresponsibly is a sad fact of life. But they really represent such a small number of humanity.