Like most blawgers, I get my fair share of emails of press releases from marketers and publicists, ranging from the banal garbage of “Law firm so and so just landed a new client in the fascinating and earth-shattering representation of a fender bender.  If you would like to interview Joe Dipshit, Esq. for your blog, please contact the undersigned to make arrangements given Joe’s very busy schedule.”

This description isn’t far off from what actually comes in.  Ask any blawger, and they will confirm the receipt of these cringe-inducing emails.  It’s truly embarrassing that lawyers pay publicists to promote their latest bowel movement.  Some are really that bad.

But some of the press releases speak to things of substance and interest to the criminal law community.  There are movies of interest.  There are articles in major magazines like Time and New York Magazine, which oddly seek to entice blawger’s interest in the hope of creating “buzz”.  And there are conferences on issues about which criminal defense lawyers should know.  One such email arrived yesterday, and caught my eye.

To whom it may concern:

My organization is putting on an upcoming conference called “Law & the Brain: How Recent Advances in Neuroscience Impact the Law” on neuroscience and law in March in NYC.  We have many of the members of the MacArthur Law and Neuroscience Project speaking at our conference including Michael Gazzaniga, Owen Jones, Martha Farah and Judge Jed Rakoff.

I was wondering if you could mention our event on your blog or post a link.  We have an early bird registration deadline this Friday about which you may want to alert your readers.

I’m always curious when someone asks me to promote their conference, why? Are you asking me to speak (no), to participate (no), to come for free (no), because we’re old, dear friends (no).  And yet you want me to promote your conference because, well, you want me to.

So why would I want to promote your conference?

As a group, they suffer the indignity of being seen as less than real lawyers by the very people whose lives they are charged to protect.  Individually, they can be great lawyers, awful lawyers and everything in between.  Institutionally, they are overworked, underfunded and under-appreciated, except at saloons close to the courthouse.

Public defenders.  They shoulder the bulk of the work of defending the accused against the State. 

And then there’s the Jefferson Parish Indigent Defender Board.   Jeff Gamso tells the story, which he found at   Second Class Justice, of what they did to Vincent Castillo.  Not for Vincent Castillo, but to him.  Castillo was their client.  And they burned him.  Deliberately.  And put in all the effort they could muster to do so.

Over at the ABA Journal, someone got the bright idea to solicit lawyers who wanted to see their name in lights to tell why they love being lawyers.

We’ve all seen the downbeat headlines—surveys show as many as half of all lawyers wouldn’t enter the profession if they had it to do over, wouldn’t recommend their children become lawyers, would rather be digging ditches or breaking rocks. As the profession struggles to recover from the Great Recession, it’s certainly not easy being an attorney.

But what about the other half of the profession—the half that doesn’t grab the headlines, that finds satisfaction in their jobs?

If you can get past the logical gaps that would make a satisfied lawyer cringe, the balance of the article consists of some curious testimonials.  My absolute favorite was the very first.

I knew nothing about criminal law and said as much to a California federal court judge who wanted to appoint me to represent a woman facing forgery charges. I was a business and tax attorney in court that day for a calendar call. The judge saw my name on a pleading and appointed me.

The woman was about to plead guilty to 22 counts of forging signatures on Social Security checks. Her hearing was scheduled for 2 p.m. The judge told me to educate myself and if I needed more time, he could continue the case for a week.

I introduced myself to the defendant. She told me that she was guilty, and I asked her why she had forged the checks. “Because he told me to” was her answer. The “he” turned out to be the woman’s husband, a Social Security recipient who was hospitalized in Texas. She handed me a letter her husband had written directing her to sign the checks and deposit them in their bank account.

Relying on what I learned in bills and notes class, I told her that an authorized signature wasn’t forgery. At the 2 p.m. hearing I moved to vacate the woman’s plea, offering her husband’s letter as evidence. The government acquiesced and the case was dismissed.

It was at that precise moment of dismissal that I realized being a lawyer was about helping people who needed help. And I felt that I had found my calling in life.

Jay Foonberg
Beverly Hills, Calif.

Before you jump all over Jay Foonberg for the procedural, ethical and substantive issues his story raises, bear in mind that he is the  author of such scholarly tomes as How to Start & Build a Law Practice and How to Get & Keep Good Clients, prominently displayed for sale on his website.

Assuming that they are leading with the best they’ve got, the ABA Journal’s “other half” promotion isn’t quite moving me to tears.  In fact, my initial reaction was to respond with some very snarky thoughts about dredging up dead bodies to fill the empty space.  But that’s really not my view of the law. 

Some days, I love being a lawyer.  Some days, I hate it.  There have been more of the latter than the former over the years.  Everybody loves doing something useful and productive, feeling that their efforts have had a positive contribution to others and society, which is why being a good carpenter can be so fulfilling.  Criminal defense lawyer?  Not so much.

But rather than serve up a heaping bowl of snark in reaction to the ABA Journal’s “let’s get happy”-fest, I wondered what you, kind reader, think about being a lawyer.  We do it because we must, because if we don’t, then who will stand between the accused and the mighty.  But do you love it? Do you?  Tell the truth.

Addendum: As I’m reminded by my buddy Bennett, this question has been asked before, but as time passes and new folks come by, it’s worth another go ’round.

It’s been a bloody start to 2011 for law enforcement. In a bizarre sequence of events, 11 officers in five states were shot in a 24-hour period between Sunday and Monday of this week. The most brazen attack happened in Detroit where a gunman opened fire inside a police precinct.

This is the opening to an NPR program interviewing John Jay College of Criminal Justice Professor Jon Shane. Scary. Following the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, attributed initially to anger and frustration fueled by intemperate rhetoric, this bit of news suggests that things are indeed out of control.  And Jon Shane sees it that way.

Prof. SHANE: Well, there’s certainly something to be said for that. I think it follows some bit of a larger trend in the United States, that there’s this overriding sense of entitlement and don’t tread on me. And law enforcement stands between the law-abiding people and this chaos that’s going to erupt, that these would-be criminals would have if they get their way. And it’s, well, police work is intrinsically dangerous, and just kind of highlights the larger social movement that’s afoot.

This is neither the  first time we’ve heard this view, nor the first time it’s come from the mouth of a John Jay professor.  Eugene O’Donnell  pumped and dumped last time, but it failed to ignite.  Note the use of putative academics (to the extent one can consider John Jay College of Criminal Justice part of the Academy, given it’s facially partisan perspective and myopic educational direction), but the fact that the media can put a fella on the air and call him “professor” lends a certain scholarly air to his musings.  Credibility attaches like leather patches to threadbare tweed elbows, and that’s more than enough for most folks.

And if it’s true, then it’s a real problem.  After all, eleven dead cops in 24 hours is, well, a lot.  But the question remains whether these are random or reflect a trend, and if the latter, whether the trend can be attributed to a cause by more than professorial fiat.

At Reason, Radley Balko considers this claim, that there’s a war on cops happening and it reflects an assault on authority.

Dig into most of these articles, however, and you will find there is no real evidence of an increase in anti-police violence, let alone one that can be traced to anti-police rhetoric, gun sales, disrespect for authority, or “don’t tread on me” sentiment. (CNN is one of the few media outlets that have covered the purported anti-police trend with appropriate skepticism.) Amid all the quotes from concerned law enforcement officials in MSNBC’s “War on Cops” article, for example, is a casual mention that police fatality statistics for this month are about the same as they were in January 2010. Right after suggesting to NPR that the recent attacks were related to anti-government rhetoric, Shane acknowledged there has been little research into the underlying causes of police shootings.

What’s particularly interesting is the cross-connection between varying political factions being blamed at the same time. 

anti-police rhetoric, gun sales, disrespect for authority, or “don’t tread on me” sentiment

This runs the gamut, from liberal to libertarian to tea party conservatives and RKBA supporters.  It must be hard to figure out what to wear to the rallies, love beats or camo. 

Balko goes the unfashionable route, crunching numbers to show that this year is little different than last year, but very different from earlier years.

In truth, on-the-job police fatalities have dropped nearly 50 percent during the last 20 years, even as the total number of cops has doubled. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 279 cops were killed on the job in 1974, the worst year on record. That number steadily decreased to just 116 in 2009. The leading cause of death for cops on duty is  car accidents, not violence. For the last several years, the number of officers intentionally killed on the job each year has ranged from 45 to 60, out of about 850,000 cops on the beat. That makes police officers about 50 percent more likely to be intentionally killed than the average American. But contrary to Sheriff Smith’s claim, the job isn’t among the 10 most dangerous in the country, let alone the “the top five,” even if you include officers unintentionally killed in traffic accidents.

The message here is that it’s safer to be a cop than a logger, farmer or fisherman.  Does that mean that angry rhetoric is fueling attacks on people who fish? 

Police are well aware of the power of spin, and have used it well to their advantage over the years in persuading people to respect their authority.  There’s really nothing wrong with this, as they’re promoting their self-interest and making their life, job and situation better.  We all do this, whether consciously or not.

But at a time when videos reveals that those we entrust to protect and serve prefer to serve themselves first sometimes raises the stakes.  When it was just our word against theirs, and law-abiding citizens would be naturally inclined to stand alongside their men in blue when challenged, the effort to remind us that we’re better off calling a cop than a criminal was easy.  Maybe we know too much now.

I recently bemoaned the fact that we have become deluged in police misconduct and abuse, and feared that we were  becoming desensitized toward wrongdoing.  While that concern remains, the counter-effort from John Jay, that hotbed of cop-love propaganda, suggests that the police remain very concerned that people are not becoming inured to police misconduct, but rather growing deeply concerned that the shield may be badly tarnished. 

Let the professors from John Jay take to the airwaves and cry about a war on cops that doesn’t exist.  As long as there are people like Balko to debunk the spin, we’ll get past it.  In the meantime, maybe our daily dose of police misconduct is opening up minds about the reality on the street of police becoming a law unto themselves, putting both bodies and rights at risk.

The more the police apologists and spin-meisters whine, the more it appears they are afraid that people are seeing the truth behind the blue curtain.  If the cops don’t like it, then all they need do is clean up their act and demonstrate the respect for others they wrap around themselves whenever a new video of a beating comes out.  If the professors at John Jay want to do some good, they could spend more time teaching respect for civil rights and less giving interviews about this non-existent war on cops.

Senior Judge John Kane in the District of Colorado enjoys a benefit that many of his juniors can’t.  As he’s not on the short list for the Supremes, and doesn’t plan to displace Nancy Grace as the most dangerous mouthpiece misleading the public about the law on television, he’s left to think long and hard about the failings of the system and ways to improve it.

I’ve become a huge admirer of Judge Kane.  It’s not that we’re necessarily on the same page on every issue (which is said in concession to him, since he’s a federal judge and I’m just some lawyer with a keyboard and internet access), but he does what few have the balls and gall to do: He looks squarely at a system that too often fails, says so and tries to find a way to do better.  Sometimes it’s good to be a senior judge with life tenure.

In Stephanie West Allen

At Cato @ Liberty , Walter Olson posts about a little appreciated aspect of cleaning up the mess left behind by dirty, abusive cops.  Rank and file police officers, or as they’re thought of in labor relations terms, a public employee collective bargaining unit, operate under a collective bargaining agreement.  It provides for many things, from new shoes to days off to salary. 

It prevents them from being questioned about their criminal conduct, whether driving drunk or shooting unarmed people for the hell of it, within a certain period of time following their seizure to having their union representative at their side.  It makes the social compact, the “agreement” under which the rest of society operates, look downright tepid.

But what it does, much to the chagrin of those of us who wonder why it is that when we shoot and kill someone, we face the life in prison at best while they get a two week paid vacation, is require that the decision to terminate a police officer because of misconduct be put to binding arbitration or some civil service panel.  In other words, it’s not the police chief or the public that gets to dictate the outcome. 

Rather, it’s a person on a negotiated list who hangs a shingle calling herself arbitrator, or some amorphous appointed board no one has ever heard of, who decides whether a bad cop stays or goes.  We don’t know who this person is, or have a vote in his election.  She doesn’t have to please us or run for re-election.  And after it’s all over, we live with the consequences of his decision, both financially and physically, as he has the authority to put a gun back in the hands of a killer and set him loose on the streets to use it.

Can this possibly be true?  Listen to Walter.

Why are public-sector managers often reluctant to fire errant employees, even when the stakes of misbehavior are high? One reason is fear of outcomes like that in Aurora, CO, where a civil service commission has just ordered reinstatement and back pay for an officer terminated from the police force after he “allegedly kneed a female suspect in the face while she was handcuffed and on the ground,” to quote the Denver Post, and then failed to report her injuries even though she was bleeding profusely. The police chief said he considered the incident an “egregious” use of excessive force, and the woman, whose orbital (eye-socket) bone was broken, won $85,000 in a settlement with the city.

That was not good enough for the civil service panel considering the officer’s firing, which said excessive force had not been proved to its satisfaction. It did find that the officer had violated a number of department policies — he should have reported the woman’s injuries, for example — but said termination was too severe a penalty; instead, it said, he should be docked 160 hours of pay and made to undergo training. The docking of pay seems to be of a somewhat notional variety, however, given that the commission ordered him awarded back pay for the salary he would have earned had he not been dismissed in June 2010 (the underlying incident took place in February 2009).

What distinguishes the decision maker from us is that they lack our focus on cleaning up the mess of abuse and misconduct, saving human beings from the harm, maybe even death, and instead focusing on this as a labor relations issue, a question of comparative discipline between employees. 

The stakes are huge.

When reinstatement is ordered, it means that the police department, a budget driven enterprise like any other in government, has to pay twice for a very expensive employee.  When the officer is fired or suspended, another officer has to take his place.  Someone has to be on the shift patrolling, and that someone gets paid for it.  Sometimes it’s a new cop. Sometimes it’s a cop on overtime. 

Should the officer be given his job back, and the termination be deemed too extreme a punishment for the conduct, he gets back pay, meaning that the police department now has to pay the full freight, salary and benefits, to an officer who didn’t work as well as the one who did to take his place.  For the “wrongfully” discharged officer, it’s a huge windfall, a paid vacation on top of getting away with, well, murder, maybe.  In Denver, granted it was only kneeing a handcuffed woman in the face.  Imagine a place where such conduct isn’t worthy of termination.  That place would be Aurora, Colorado.

Consider the rarity of a cop being fired for engaging in misconduct.  Only in the most egregious cases is anything done, any consequences at all for abuse.  And then consider that it’s subject to reversal by someone who couldn’t care less about Carla Meza, the handcuffed woman, but instead considers only whether the severity of the punishment, the firing of Police Officer James Waselkow, the he-man law enforcer who kneed her in the face, was comparable to the treatment of other abusive cops.

Normally, discussion about cops harming people is defended on the issues of right and wrong, giving cops a break, making snap decisions in the midst of dynamic situations.  None of these typical issues play a role in this decision.  It’s merely a labor relations issue, sanitized from the nasty details that we entrusted this cop with a gun and shield, and he abused that trust and engaged in conduct that would have meant some serious prison time for anyone else.  No, labor arbitrators don’t concern themselves that way.  It’s only about what’s fair to the public sector employee.  Ultimately, that’s the only issue that matters to this higher authority.

Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates never fired a cop before Waselkow.  Want to bet how long it will be before he first another for misconduct and abuse?  Forget about the harm done to the public, and consider what the true power behind the shield will do.

Antonin Pribetic, the Trial Warrior, pointed this fellow, Jack Toomey, out to me on a website called AllExperts.  His expertise is criminal law.

Expertise

Please do not ask me about potential jail sentences that you, your friends, or family might receive in court. There is no way for me to know that. Only a judge could answer a question like that. I am also NOT a probation officer or parole officer so I cannot answer questions that relate to parole or probation. Also please keep in mind that every state has different laws. If you are planning to ask a question about a specific law or criminal charge that pertains to your state only it could be difficult to answer. I also cannot give you legal advice on what to do or what not to do in court. Retired police officer with 26 years experience. Worked in the patrol division as well as over 14 years in the detective bureau. Investigated a wide range of crime such as murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, missing persons, and other very sensitive crimes. I am available to answer your questions about criminal law and especially as it applies to police work. I taught at the police academy for several years and am especially knowledgeable about search and seizure. Any question about criminal law is welcome! Please don’t ask me to do your homework or ask me questions that obviously come from your teachers or professors. I also do not do online interviews or surveys. Young people need to gain face to face interviewing skills. Local police officers usually are very agreeable to assist in these assignments.

Experience in the area

I am a retired police officer with 26 years experience. I investigated almost every type of crime including murder, rape, theft, missing persons, fraud, and domestic abuse. I am very knowledgeable about search and seizure and taught at the police academy for several years on a variety of subjects. I can answer questions that a lot of attorneys cannot since they do not have “street experience”.

Education/Credentials

Bachelor of Science degree in Criminolgy from the University of Maryland.

What do you still hope to achieve/learn in this field?

Please do not ask me what someones jail sentence is going to be. There is no way for me to know that.

I am very knowledgeable about search and seizure and taught at the police academy for several years on a variety of subjects. I can answer questions that a lot of attorneys cannot since they do not have “street experience”.

The word “Quora” has been bandied about by the early adopters as the newest greatest/worst way for lawyers to craft an online reputation for brilliance.  Because the internet needed a  new place for lawyers to give advice for free.

The  Cult of Positivity promoted by social media gurus urges lawyers to promote themselves by posting answers online to questions asked by people who can’t afford lawyers or just don’t want to pay for advice.  The failing of this concept eludes many lawyers (and all social media gurus), but those of us who get the daily calls asking for free consultations or answers to “just a couple of questions” know the score.  You don’t?  You’ll find out, after wasting a hundred hours pretending to care deeply about people who have no potential to be your client and only want a quick freebie from you.

But time-wasting isn’t the only potential problem you’ll endure in trying to build that internet reputation that everyone says you need to survive as a thriving lawyer in the internet age.  Huntington, New York, matrimonial attorney Gary P. Field learned that the hard way.  I don’t know Gary Field, and he may well be a fabulous lawyer, but he had at least one person who didn’t like him.  That person had a keyboard.

[S]omeone had been posting anonymous comments about him on two websites, blasting him as, among other things, “dumb,” a “fool” and “the most worst attorney licensed to practice in the State of New York.”

Mr. Field suspected that Robert Grant, the ex-husband of a client, was responsible for the posts. Mr. Field sued Mr. Grant for defamation and asked the court to order Mr. Grant to turn over his hard drive.

Mr. Grant moved for dismissal and sanctions against the lawyer.

Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Thomas F. Whelan dismissed the lawyer’s action, Field v. Grant, 34898-2010, although he declined to order sanctions.

“Viewed in the context in which they were relayed and the website forums on which they were posted, the comments constitute pure opinions which cast general reflections upon the plaintiff’s character and/or qualities which are not a matter of such significance and importance so as to amount to actionable defamation,” Justice Whelan said.

Judge Whelan understood what Gary Field didn’t, that reputation on the internet is a two-way street, where expression of opinions about a lawyer can just as easily be negative as positive.  A negative opinion, even if utterly groundless and borne of antipathy for a lawyer having done his job too well, is still just an opinion.  Nobody wants to talk about the fact that people can say bad things as well as good things on the internet.

This reality gap in online comprehension is preventing lawyers and the consumers of legal services from gaining a meaningful appreciation of what the internet has to offer, and what it doesn’t.  The attack on Gary Field was anonymous.  Where are the social media gurus explaining to the public that anonymous attacks are worthless as any angry idiot with a keyboard to vent his spleen. 

They won’t do that, however, as it simultaneously informs their target audience, lawyers who don’t know any better, that there are pitfalls in the digital world.  It’s hard to sell marketing when acknowledging that there are major risks involved.

As the hype about Quora heats up, one has to wonder whether it has occurred to lawyers that their answer to questions, intended to promote their expertise, may reveal them as incompetents?  Just as Bennett shows, and Windy shows, with the misbegotten Avvo Answers, answers are easy to come by.  Correct answers are not. 

Sure, there are opportunities on the internet to show the world your competence.  And there are opportunities to show the world your lack thereof.  And there are opportunities for others to say wonderful things about you, and opportunities for others to say less than wonderful things.  We tend to believe that kind words are humbly deserve, but unkind words are an assault on reputation. 

Maybe, just maybe, they are all well-deserved.  After all, the underlying claim is that this vast resource of information is empowering people to know what they’re getting into.  Sometimes, the accurate information is that they’re getting into trouble.

Judge Whelan made the right decision dismissing Gary Field’s complaint.  Not because the attack was necessarily undeserved, and I will assume arguendo that he’s an excellent divorce lawyer, but because the nature of opinion is that it can go both ways.  Field can fight the attack by offering demonstrable evidence of his competence.  The internet is there for him as well as his erstwhile detractor.

But Gary Field, like each of us, should be aware of the reality that any effort to prove our brilliance on the internet may well do just the opposite.  We may get the reputation we deserve, whether we like it or not.  With Quora added to the mix, there is certainly no shortage of places to strut our stuff.  The only question is whether we look as attractive in hot pants as we think we do.

While some of you were fighting the good fight, standing firm for the Constitution and protecting a human being from the vast might of the government, I was snowbound.  My small piece of New York has seen wave upon wave of snow this month, to the point where we’re within an inch of the all-time record.

My love of snow has waned significantly over the years.  It’s beautiful for a few minutes, until Dr. SJ yells that she needs to get the Prius out and go see her patients.  The Healey has never seen snow while in my care.  When I took a look outside the back door the other morning, I realized that I was in trouble.  The five inches predicted overnight fell short of the reality.



The only aspect of snow that still brings a smile to my face is the opportunity to fire up the John Deere 6×4 Trail Gator with electric plow.  During Long Island’s typical winters, the Gator is just right for plowing the drive and garages, and I enjoy riding around, manicuring the grounds. 

One of the complaints of the Slackoisie is that old lawyers, and those who don’t cry whenever someone suggests that being a lawyer takes work, is that we lack hobbies.  While I can’t speak for others, I have a ton of hobbies.  The notion that hard work and hobbies are somehow inconsistent is hogwash.  Busy people manage to do everything they want, and need, to do. 

Plowing with the Gator is something of a hobby with me.  It’s peaceful and serene out there as I carve paths in places where only a field of white existed.  I usually spend about an hour plowing, even though I could finish it up in far less time if I had to, if I limited my plowing to just the necessities.  But stopping at the earliest opportunity isn’t my way.  As with most of what I do, I do the best I can, striving for plowing perfection.

But on that morning, it was clear to me that the snow had beaten the Gator.  Five, six inches were no match.  Eighteen inches, sadly, was well beyond its limits.  I called my gardener, who plows in the winter, for help, only to learn that his plow had broken overnight under the weight of the snow.  He had worked with me for more than 20 years, and I rely on him.  He apologized, but he was stranded. So was I.

I started calling others to find someone to compensate for my Gator’s inadequacies.  I was only able to reach one person, who informed me that his price was $250 per 100 feet of driveway.  While I might have been cutting off my nose to spite my face, I was outraged at his gouging, and turned him down.  I kept on calling, but no one else answered, and so I went to sleep that night wondering whether I would make it out before spring.  Dr. SJ was not happy.

The next morning, one of the fellows picked up my message from the day before and returned my call.  Willy told me he would be there that morning.  I explained that it was not only deep, but now icy from having sat for a day.  He told me not to worry, he had a way to deal with it.

Dr. SJ, concerned that Willy would arrive at the bottom of our driveway, see what the county plows had done by piling their snow and mush over the end, and drive away rather than deal with the disaster.  She sent my son and me down to the end of our drive to shovel out the six foot high, six foot wide, ice-mound that formed. 

It was the closest to envisioning a heart attack coming I’ve ever experienced.  But we did it, though my son took off in the middle to go on a breakfast date to IHOP (nothing, but nothing, stops a teenager from going on a date), leaving me gasping and wheezing by myself.  In anticipation, I brought along my walkie-talkie so I could tell Dr. SJ my final words if the big one hit. I was barely able to make it back to the house when I was done, but somehow I did.

Then I heard a roaring sound.  I went outside and saw it.  It was incredible.



Some days, the fight is against The Man.  Other days, it’s a fight against mother nature, weather, physics and a variety of natural laws.  Regardless, we just keep fighting, whether we wield swords or plows. 

Thanks to Willy and his Bobcat, I won the fight yesterday.  The TV weather guy says we’re getting another 12 inches this week.

The past few days have seen a number of press releases from LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of current and former LEOs who seek the end of the war on drugs, not because they believe that drug use is a fine thing, but because they believe drug prohibition has been a disastrous failure.

LEAP member and retired deputy sheriff MacKenzie Allen entered YouTube’s “Your Interview with the President” competition, where users submitted and voted on questions to be posed to President Barack Obama.  He won, and here’s the asked and answered:

The caption of this video on Youtube is “Obama Says Legalizing Drugs is Worthy of Debate”>Obama Says Legalizing Drugs is Worthy of Debate.”  This strikes me as overly optimistic, as I don’t hear President Obama saying that at all.  Rather, his response is the same string of words that suggests we consider drug use a public health problem (like smoking, drunk driving and wearing seat belts!?!), but that the war itself go forward unabated.

The president does say that steering first-time, non-violent drug offenders into alternatives to incarceration is “worth exploring.”  Worth exploring?  Like forming a blue ribbon committee of current and former prosecutors to study for a decade whether putting a hundred thousand people in prison for possessing small quantities of drugs?  Is this idea so novel, so wildly radical, that it gets a “worth considering” rather than a “you bet” from our president of hope and audacity?

Many of us, and this includes my old buddies at LEAP, believe that we’re making some headway in restoring rationality and proportionality to the war on drugs.  But when a president, the most liberal we’re likely to have for the foreseeable future, refuses to offer any affirmative support to the notion that a half century of the war on drugs has failed to eradicate drugs from our society and solve all the problems attributed to it, then there’s little justification for optimism.

As much as I admire what LEAP is doing, and the LEOs who risk castigation by their “high and tight” brothers in blue, and despite the hope that arguments by police officers might be taken more seriously by those whose re-election depended on their being perceived as tough on crime, the answer to this question was notably unsupportive. 

My guess is they can put away their reflective Ray-Bans, as the future doesn’t look too bright at all.