Some of you may have noticed Captain Steve Watson of Eureka Police wrote a commentary on Prop 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act. He's opposed to it. I'm not sure, but I think I'd still be bothered if he'd come out in favor of it. Maybe not as much, but still bothered.
What bothers me is police telling us how we should feel about issues. The police are the cutting edge of government power. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to voice opinions, but it seems to me somewhat inappropriate for them to suggest what laws are passed.
It might be appropriate for them to chime in on how those laws are enforced since they're in the unique position of seeing those laws enforced, but that could lead to another can of worms. Could you imagine a police officers union writing it's perfectly okay for suspects to be beaten upon arrest?
I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm just suggesting a possible conflict of interest in our electoral and law making system if the enforcers try to dictate to us what laws are made and how they're enforced. Some might say that would be an affront to "our democracy".
I say democracy be damned, but that would be a valid point. We don't want enforcers telling us what laws we should accept. It should be the other way around. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to express opinions. I almost feel this rant is akin to attacking the messenger rather than the message so back to the message: Yes on Prop 64!