Dallas to allow druggies as cops?

Not that I particularly care about pot, but do we really need anybody with a known history of breaking the law in a notable way being recruited… in Dallas, a.k.a., the home of the lookalike scandal and the closest thing DFW has to Louisiana-corrupt cops?

Ultimately, though I’d like to see some of the drug laws get changed in a major way, this is just a recipe for the real bad apples to start slipping into the force.

Leave a comment


  1. So should people with a history of speeding tickets be precluded from becoming cops? What about parking tickets? If these are different, why?

  2. You know with all the over zealous cops I’ve met through the years… I think perhaps a pre-shift bong hit might go a long way towards a more humane and even handed use of their authority.

  3. and you know, I’m just fine with that. But cops with a history of heroin or meth? These are drugs that fundamentally alter personalities… and not for the better.

  4. Agreed. However, I always wonder a bit what is left for the person that has screwed up (past tense) to allow them to have a life that doesn’t paint them back into a corner of going right back to their old ways….

    I mean, sure we can’t have these guys as cops, thats a given…. or doctors, god no. Or, teachers, think of the children. A pharmacist? are you mad? A security guard? as if. At some point paying your debt means paying your debt. I’ll agree that the idea of former meth head being a cop is a scary one, but…What do they get to be?

  5. Anything else, so far as I’m concerned. I don’t think that the slippery slope applies to police service the same way that it applies to a lot of other gigs. I wouldn’t have a hesitation about somebody who was clean being my doctor. But with Dallas’ corruption problems already, this just screeches “Danger Will Robbins, Danger.”

  6. @Zathras — speeding & parking tickets are infractions, not crimes. Accidentally blowing a stop-sign isn’t a criminal act — although blowing it doing 90 in a 25 while stoned with an open jug of Old Smuggler while ‘denaturing’ a few chickens to the tune of Copa Cabana at 110 decibels might be.

  7. Anna

     /  October 26, 2007

    JimDesu–that is a *very* disturbing image right there, you know? 🙂

  8. JimDesu, there is no relevant difference between an infraction and a crime (at least in Texas). Whether it’s a ticket or armed robbery, you have the right to be silent, you have the right to a jury trial, etc. The only difference is which court you go to.

  9. Zathras: name me a misdemeanor or felony infraction. One that, for example, I might have to declare as a condition of employment. The fact that infractions carry no loss of liberty compared to crimes shows that they’re considered to be different animals, and that is the relevant difference here.

  10. In Texas, “Conviction of a Class C misdemeanor does not impose any
    legal disability or disadvantage.” TPC section 12.03(c). “An individual adjudged guilty of a Class C misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.” i.e. no “loss of liberty” TPC 12.23. You are drawing a distinction between crimes that are higher than a Class C misdemeanor and those which are one.

    See also Tran. Code §§542.301 & 750.002(b) “All Speed Law Violations are Misdemeanors.”

  11. Very interesting — that shifts the ground slightly. Are the drug possessions which are relevant Class C, or are they higher? If the former is the case, you win. 🙂

  12. IIRC possession of marijuana is at least a class B misdemeanor. Some other Class C misdemeanors I can remember are disorderly conduct, minor-in-possession, and public intoxication.

  13. Along the lines of “quis custodiet ipsos custodes”, I’m fine with class C’s, but if “society” disqualifies you of your liberties, I don’t feel you should be able to be in an office responsible for administering societal order.

    I certainly wouldn’t say that someone should be denied police-work for being drunk in public, etc. In Oregon, marijuana possession’s an infraction/Texas-Class-C, so that’d be fine, but if it’s a Class B here, then that should that should disqualify someone here.

    (Granted, I don’t personally believe in victim-less crimes at all, but clearly Texas does. 🙂 )

  14. (I don’t believe in them, either, but we have to consider these things in our present context, not an ideal one…)

  15. Nobody believes in victimless crimes. The only question is whether there actually is a victim….

  16. Every time you smoke a joint, God kills a puppy….

  17. Oh, man, but I *like* puppies!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

  • Featured Eyeballs

  • What’s today again?

    October 2007
    M T W T F S S
    « Sep   Nov »
  • Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 133,176 hits
  • Recent Comments

    Cults and Context |… on So, about that Bruce Jenner…
    Cults and Context |… on Yes, I AM, in fact, looking at…
    Cults and Context |… on How The Internet Says “D…
    Kat Laurange on Hungarian Military Sabre …
    Kat Laurange on Rose Garden! The Home Edi…
  • Advertisements
    %d bloggers like this: