Jeffrey Quick's Blog

Not a good cop at all! It is the job of cops to enforce the laws, whether or not they believe in them.

Tell it to John Demjanjuk.

I would agree with you to the extent that one should do the job one is paid to do. If you find that job morally repugnant, you should quit...which is exactly what Mr. Cooper did. Since he is no longer working for the force, and since cops generally don't sign nondisclosure agreements about their professional expertise, can you tell me why what he is doing is wrong?

No one said what he was doing anything wrong. You called him a "good cop, very good cop" which he is NOT.

I do no think it really is the best way to fight a law - teaching others how to do it.

This is not just a good cop. This is a great man. When one really gets into the prohibition laws against drugs, one finds a list of problems miles long. The prohibition on drugs actually makes the problem worse than if they were legal and regulated. Drugs are not a good thing. No one is saying this. But people on drugs have a problem, and they need help. If you just spent half the money you spend of prisons on help centers for these people you would see change. Throwing someone in jail for life because its the 3rd time they have been caught with drugs is not just wrong, its moraly sickening.

Yes he has a job to do...but thats just stupid. If more people would stand up to the injustice and mistakes of our leaders the world and the people of it could finally continue to grow in the right direction.

when the laws against men are unjust, it is time for men to fight the laws. Stop being so subservient people. Grow a set and fight for your rightful freedoms.

You cannot be a good cop and not obey the laws. He may be an activist or other, but no longer a cop.

When one really gets into the prohibition laws against drugs, one finds a list of problems miles long. The prohibition on drugs actually makes the problem worse than if they were legal and regulated. Drugs are not a good thing. No one is saying this. But people on drugs have a problem, and they need help. If you just spent half the money you spend of prisons on help centers for these people you would see change.

Proof? Closest thing we have that is similar is alcohol. It is regulated and millions is spent on treatment & education, but addiction, illness, and death is on the rise.

For blank who posted at 1:22 PM.

Medical care and prescription drugs are regulated and millions are spent on treatment of disease and education, but there also illness and death are on the rise.

Perhaps if we withdrew government regulation and government spending, illness and death would decrease.

Medical care and prescription drugs are regulated and millions are spent on treatment of disease and education, but there also illness and death are on the rise.

Perhaps if we withdrew government regulation and government spending, illness and death would decrease.

I wonder what you mean by this? The world population is on the rise, including the U.S. Life expectancy is also on the rise.

SBC anonymoose:


You've got me on a technicality...I can't call Mr. Cooper a good cop, because he currently ISN'T a cop. But in the time that Cooper was considering resignation from the drug force, he was a very good cop then.


I agree that a cop who does not obey the law (like many of the cops discussed at http://www.theagitator.com, or cops who don't wear seat belts) is a bad (i.e., unprofessional) cop. But that's a red herring re Mr. Cooper, as he isn't a cop, and he is not breaking any laws with this video.


As for "the best way to fight a law",well, OK, maybe doing it legislatively would be best, if that were possible. But we live in a Potemkin republic, with totally unresponsive legislators and a democracy-worshipping electorate who actually believe that being part of a 50% + 1 voting bloc gives them the right to control their neighbors' bodies. The best nonviolent way to repeal a law is to violate it massively and make enforcement so difficult that the State gives up. Or would you rather that people defend themselves when their rights are being violated by the police?

The best nonviolent way to repeal a law is to violate it massively and make enforcement so difficult that the State gives up. Or would you rather that people defend themselves when their rights are being violated by the police?

That it is the "best" method is your opinion. Legislatively is the correct way. Mass violation can greatly backfire and result in more spending on enforcement, increased penalities, or deaths. Just because people do something does not prove it is fair or right.

In people defending their rights, it is only a right if granted by a law. Rights are protected by limiting other rights. You are confusing rights with desires.

Case-anon wrote:

In people defending their rights, it is only a right if granted by a law.

If rights were a matter of law, how could we speak comparatively of human rights in other countries? After all, if North Koreans also have rights granted by law, as we allegedly do, how can we say we are better or worse off, just because their "rights" are different from ours? Is freedom to leave the country or freedom to own property just "a desire"? And since animals don't have laws, then they have NO rights.

You did not read the entire statement. Rights are not granted directly by a law, they are granted by limiting other laws.

We have the right to own a gun, if we do not just murder others. We have the right to drink if we do not drive. We have the right to practice our own religion if we allow the others the same experience. We have the right to drive if we obey all the driving laws. We have the right to freedom of speech if we do not cross over to slander.

In our legal system, animals do not have rights. We have laws that protect people from doing stupid things to animals but they do not have any rights.

I read your whole statement. And you're spouting nonsense. While I agree that the function of law is to preserve rights, law is not in any way a source of those rights. If rights didn't exist prior to law, how could we have invented law to protect or to grant them? And our own rights are not conditional on our respect of others' rights. They exist regardless, but we have agreed as a society that those who will not respect others' rights will have some of their own rights withheld. It's easier and less wasteful than just killing those who violate rights.

Re slander: I recommend to you Block, Walter: Defending the undefendable : the pimp, prostitute, scab,slumlord, libeler, moneylender, and other scapegoats in the rogue's gallery of American society. New York : Fleet Press Corp., c1976. The Case law library has it (HB95.B58)

I recommend you read the Wikipedia entry on rights. It gives more examples of rights granted by restricting others. It is not nonsense. It is how our entire legal system is structured.

Interesting how the Wikipedia article on "rights" is virtually identical to that on "legal rights". The article on "natural rights" is far closer to my own position. The author clearly believes that it is possible for there to be "rights" which create a positive obligation upon others, like the "right to a free public education", or the "right to own slaves" (the 2nd being a more total and absolute expression of the principle of the first), as opposed to the negative obligation to not interfere in the rights of others. If I'm wrong in my claim that rights are implicit in the nature of humans, then why don't you show us why that is, instead of leaving some anonymous and prejudiced Wiki writer to do your heavy lifting for you?

When I tried to make a similar point as the Wikipedia author(s), you told me I was "spouting nonsense". I have no desire to put any forth anymore effert in the discussion than linking to the other sources, because you have demonstrated you do not care about other's opinions anyways.

When I tried to make a similar point as the Wikipedia author(s), you told me I was "spouting nonsense".

That's because the Wikipedia article you pointed me to was nonsense too. And when I pointed out the flaws in that whole line of reasoning, you ignored my points and instead used Wiki as an appeal to authority. (BTW, while I find Block's arguments interesting, I don't necessarily agree with them all. And Block isn't dealing with a theory of rights, but with the economic utility of certain oft-villified occupations). Even if we accept Wikipedia "rights" as being a descriptive rather than prescriptive use of the word, it fails, because most people don't use it that way.

I have no desire to put any forth anymore effert in the discussion than linking to the other sources, because you have demonstrated you do not care about other's opinions anyways.

That's exactly right. Opinions don't interest me. Facts do. And one fact is the meaning of the word "rights". In this discussion, and in a civil society, we need to agree that "rights" refers to something concrete, if the word is to be of any use at all.If "rights" are "whatever 50% + 1 of the electorate says they are", then we're blowing smoke whenever we discuss them, and we might as well abandon all pretense of basing a society on them, and get nasty, brutish and short with each other.
So, go bye...I'm not impressed with people who engage in long discussions while hiding their identity anyway.

"Natural rights" is not how we live in today's society. We have rules that allow each person to live together without stepping on the rights of each other.

Even if "natural rights" exist it is only because a law protects it by limiting another right.

Besides I do not need to "impress". If you are going to set your blog to allow anonymous postings than you have to accept people will use that ability.

You did not point out any flaws in the wikipedia article but proposed another question. There is a difference between pointing out flaws and stating your opinion. There is no facts in your conclusions on rights stated above. The fact is laws do exist that limit actions thus protecting our rights.

Jeffrey can you please give some concrete examples of rights that demonstrate what you are talking about? It may help this discussion.

OK, things we agree on:

'Natural rights' is not how we live in today's society.

True. Our rights are constantly violated, usually by claiming other "rights", the implementation of which violate our natural rights.

The fact is laws do exist that limit actions thus protecting our rights.

Also true. That's the sole legitimate function of government, IMO.

But we disagree here:

Even if "natural rights" exist it is only because a law protects it by limiting another right.

A right does not cease to exist because it is being violated. Otherwise, how could we speak of "human rights violations"? The right may not be enjoyed, but it still exists, in the same way that my car is my car, even if you hotwire it and drive it off. Rights are inherent in our existence as humans. Nor can rights be protected by limiting other rights. To do so would require establishing either a heirarchy of rights or a heirarchy of people enjoying them, and from where would that power legitimately come? The examples presented of "rights being limited to protect rights" are rather non-rights, because they cancel the rights of another person. Let's consider the right to life. This is the most basic right, from which most others flow. Since each human has a right to life, I cannot kill you, because to do so would violate your right to live. But if you attempt to kill me, my right to life has a corollary right of self-defence. I have the right to do what is necessary to survive that, including killing you. Have a violated your right to life? No, because the only life you own and can legitimately end is your own. By choosing death, you've opened to experiencing it yourself. Now, since government exists to protect the lives of all, I will probably be investigated until the facts of the matter are clear; I can't just claim that you attacked me, if I killed you just because I don't like you. If you're starving, do you have a right to steal food? I'd say no, because to admit that as a rule would violate the right to life of those with food. An act-utilitarian would say yes, because your victim has more food than he needs, but I don't pretend to know what people "need".

As to the Wiki article, I did point out the primary flaw:

The author clearly believes that it is possible for there to be "rights" which create a positive obligation upon others, like the "right to a free public education", or the "right to own slaves" (the 2nd being a more total and absolute expression of the principle of the first), as opposed to the negative obligation to not interfere in the rights of others.

Since this evidently wasn't clear, let me expand. To demand a positive "right" is to obligate somebody else to provide that "right". In a state of nature, I have the right (as part of the right to life) to obtain food for myself; I do not have a right to the food that you have obtained for yourself. I clearly equated "free public education" with "slavery" because in principle they are exactly the same thing: a claim by another on the fruits of my labor. The sole difference is whether the claim is partial or total. I spend maybe 4 days a year in involuntary servitude, paying my property tax bill. I have no say in whether to pay. I must pay wherther I voted for or against the millage. If I refuse to pay, the sheriff will seize my property, and if I defend it, I will eventually die.

I've written on rights before. If you're curious go
here, here,
here,
here,
here,
here, and here, among others.

This is not the first questionable thing Barry Cooper has attempted, such as the church that he started where you had to be 18 or older to attend because of some of the things going on there. Needless to say the church shut down for lack of members. Right here is the reason he is trying all of these bogus stunts. He just wants media attention to show his warped opinions about everything under the sun. If I was a cop Id be waiting on him to make a legal mistake and fine him a big one

you are forgetting the main point, weed is good!

I oppose the war on drugs, but I find some Cooper's claims ridiculous. I think he is just a self serving pompous buffoon who will get you busted for possession. For example, swallow your drugs = yet this would amount to obstruction of justice, second example a cat in the car or roadkill distracts dogs = yet dogs are trained to ignore this scent...) I also like the anonymity when it says on the shipping label NEVER GET BUSTED AGAIN.... seriously. He made money throwing people in jail, and now he will do it by proxy.

He's not a cop anymore morons.

The church you speak of was not a church but a Life Coaching Center. The meetings were "adults only" so I could discuss sensitive issues with parents who were not comfortable engaging in such diologue with their children listening. A day care was provided next door for the kids. You must not have attended and are only repeating inaccurate gossip.

Blarf,

Obstruction of Justice? What law are you referring? If a person swallows a joint, how can a cop differentiate between whether a joint was swallowed or a cracker?

A person can get in trouble for "Tampering With Evidence" but only if it is evidence s/he is swallowing. Swallow the evidence and claim you swallowed a cracker.

You also need to speak with other K-9 experts beside myself. You will learn it is IMPOSSIBLE to train a dog to ignore "prey drive" scents. K-9's will react to cats and roadkill because of their genetic code and this cannot be trained out of a K-9.

The "Never Get Busted" tag on the first 100 orders was a mistake made by the fulfillment company who handles the orders. This mistake was bad and was corrected immediately. All orders now read "Barry and Candi Promotions."

I'm a little concerned that you might be a cop because you are steering people away from the good information contained in my DVD that will help them stay out of jail.

Regards,

Barry

Our new website nevergetbusted.com has a new page mapping locations citizens are likely to encounter drug interdiction officers on the highways of America. We also added a forum where all can ask questions that I answer weekly.

Thanks to the majority of you who posted on this blog. There are some very articulate and intelligent people posting here.

In my opinion:
When Mr. Cooper was hired as a police officer he took an oath to serve and to protect. Integrity never goes away. Somehow this man lost sight of doing the right thing. Everyone can make all the excuses they want about how hes robbing from the rich and giving to the poor to help fight all of the bad LEO's and Court systems in america.

The fact is that younger kids will see his line of BS and someday, somebody important will lose a child to drugs and Mr cooper can then create and sell a dvd on how to help a grieving father and mother through the loss of a child due to drugs....

You can try all the tricks in the book when it comes to hiding dope, bottom line is someday they will be caught and prosecuted. It never fails... Thats what they call KARMA......

Barry Cooper selling ( AS SEEN ON TV )DVDs on how to not get busted with drugs ? GREAT !

Barry Cooper getting sued or arrested ? PRICELESS !

I saw you interviewed by Paula Todd on CTV. Thanks for speaking out on behalf of Marc Emery. He's a good person and doesn't deserve the treatment he's received or likely to receive.

I'm 57 and back in the 70's I engaged in smoking pot. Why? Not because inhaling smoke felt so good but because others did it. My aunt would say: "if someone told you to jump off the bridge, would you?" Well, smoking something that looked like a cigarette wasn't the same. Cigarettes were glamorized and greatly promoted. Now, how many people are dying of lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke, let alone directly inhaling? Pot-heads will argue that cigarettes kill but pot "opens your mind". And what about the smoke inhaled into the lungs? Is that some form of special, purified, unadulterated smoke that benefits?

I know what smoking pot does to one's mind. How many times did I get paranoid when smoking pot? At times, being high was no fun, it was stressful. Once high, I prayed to return to normal. I didn't tell those I smoked with how I felt out of fear of rejection. So, I inhaled, got high and didn't accomplish much.

I haven't picked up since those days. I smoked only when others did and only did so for a couple of years. Pot was smoked in Vietnam so the soldiers could deal better with their "missions of killing." If not a mind-altering drug, then why is the mind ALTERED when smoking?

I see first hand what pot does now and back then. My son started with pot and now does crack-cocaine. He's 35 and struggles to get free from the "hard" stuff. Both are addictive, regardless of the scientist wannabes who claim otherwise.

Legalizing pot will not be in this country's best interest. Look at the prescription drugs, controlled, legal, yet how many teens and youngsters are doing Vicodin? How many young people in their 20's are dropping from heart attacks? Pot, legal prescription drugs and the good old SAD diet...Standard American Diet are shortening the younger generations lives.

Many are sheep and believe everything that comes along without legitimate evidence. Pot is DANGEROUS to the human body at the cellular level where most people don't get to see. I'm a microscopist and see the damage that occurs in the blood immediately following the person inhaling the so-called harmless pot!

Maybe if all could see what happens to our red cells when toxins are introduced either by eating, smoking, inhaling, through the skin and even via thinking, then they would become believers. On the other hand, even absolute evidence for some is not enough.

Look people. Get educated on the subject and then chime in with your two cents! The comments I see here are making you look foolish. If you smoked pot and had a bad experience, DON'T SMOKE POT! If you can't hold your liquor, DON'T DRINK! Arm yourself with knowledge on the matter, then lets talk! To continue to persecute the masses for marijuana is a huge waste of government resources. That is a fact. I don't know why they are continuing the madness over it.

From the point of view of the drug dealer, legalizing drugs would be a real downer!
Common sense tells the thinking person that if drugs were legalized, several things would happen:
1. Crime related to the relatively high cost of black-market drugs would decrease. Most illegal drugs are very cheap to produce. How many times have you heard of someone mugging or burglarizing
to get money to buy beer or cigarettes?
2. Prostitution would decrease because of the reasons given in #1 above.
3. H.I.V./AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases would decrease because of #2 above and also the increased use of sterile needles if the drugs were regulated by the government and obtained via pharmacies.
4. Drug use itself would decrease because with the loss of the black-market profit motive, drug pushers would be fewer and therefore fewer new users.
5. With fewer people in prison, due solely to drug charges, more of the limited resources would be used to deal with serious crime. Also fewer families would be destroyed by these idiotic drug laws.
6. Even modest taxation, such as that on tobacco and alcohol, would bring substantial revenue to the government.
If anyone can give me any reason to disregard this thinking (besides the vague moralizing one often hears), I'll be glad to consider it.
It is obvious that Barry Cooper is a genuine American hero!

It's not about a bad experience on pot, it's about consistent mind-altering experiences that occurs with every individual who smokes pot. Of course, when one engages in it's use on a consistent, ongoing basis, one isn't as aware of the damage being done at the cellular level over the long term. The smokers focus is aimed at the high and the temporary reduction of "pain" because of the mind being altered.

There are functioning crack addicts. Does that imply that one can handle their crack, therefore, next step is to legalize? Alcohol and cigarettes have no benefit other than to whet one's urge to drink or smoke.

Over 30 years ago, we demanded sex education for children to prevent teen pregnancy. We legalized abortion so illegal ones are not done in back alleys. What's been the outcome? We are currently at the highest rate of pregnancy and abortions than in all of history of young adults and teens. Government mandated education and legalization has not been the answer.

More young people are dying than ever despite our modern technology. Drugs, sexually transmitted diseases are at an all time high, no pun intended. Rehabs dot the entire USA. Anyone who does crack, cocaine, prescription drugs, etc. ALL started on POT. That doesn't imply that all pot smokers move to the hard stuff but the majority do step out of the box and try other "stuff" at least once. Sometimes, that one try at cocaine is their final act on this earth.

It's the few who love lighting up that want to dictate what's good for all based on their own opinion. Scienfically, it is evident that pot alters the mind by disorganzing the cells and bringing an "imbalance" of the natural order of these cells and their function. This disorganization at the cellular level, albeit by pot or some other chemical imbalance, is what eventually leads to the breakdown of the body.

All it takes is looking under the microscope at the blood of someone who has smoked pot to recognize the horrific damage being done in a slow and methodical way. Just as arsenic kills slowly with little evidence to the naked eye, so does pot, cigarettes, alcohol and all drugs.

I'm with Charlie, not Jennifer. I don't want to minimize the bad effects of prolonged drug use. I have a relative with pot-induced fear of crowds, and depression. These very real symptoms have "earned" her SSI, but you can't tell her that her dope smoking is the cause. She might have to figure it out or die, if it were not for the vote-buying largess of our government.

What Jennifer doesn't get is that it's MY body, not hers, and whether a crack addict can function or not is simply IRRELEVANT to the moral matter of relegalization. They can function, learn to function, or die in the street. And if they rob for cheaper legal drugs, it'll go farther...PLUS we get to shoot them if they try to rob us with a weapon, whereas if they rob us at the polls we're pretty much stuck.

"It's the few who love lighting up that want to dictate what's good for all based on their own opinion." So...who is FORCING people to take drugs? Besides the American educational system, I mean? It's the Jennifers who are forcing people to NOT take drugs. I have the natural right of any other animal to inject any food or herb that I believe right for me, and to suffer the consequences without bailout if I am wrong.

Look, don't get all mad and bring crack into a marijuana thread. I have been high on pot and high on alcohol. I would prefer the marijuana. I don't like the mind altering effect of alcohol. I don't smoke it everyday, I am not for being high at work. I just wish the government would stop the perpetuation of a war on pot that is unjustified. If the gov. believes alcohol to be o.k. then make pot o.k. as well! Alcohol kills way more people every year then the marijuana. Again, if you don't want to smoke for whatever reason don't. This has to do with common sense and freedom of choice.

Crack has no business in a marijuana thread. That is just crazy to get mad and bring that into the mix. The government for whatever reason is perpetuating a war on marijuana without justification. I have been high on pot and alcohol. It is my opinion that the alcohol had a worse effect on me. It warped my perception. High on pot never changed my behavior other than making me relax and possibly hungry. I want less government in my life, not more and more regulation and licensing. When will the madness stop? No body will force anybody else to smoke the stuff if it is legalized. Please be secure in who you are and let others have the freedom of choice. Marijuana is not crack!

You know, you people is exactly what is wrong with this country. How can you bitch and complain about someone trying to do something noble. Who gives a flying shit if someone smokes marijuana, why don't you mind your own business. They are not hurting anyone, not forcing anybody to smoke it, not becomeing violent, not overdosing, who cares...? The problem with this country is that our population flips out about somone smoking pot or brief nudity on television, yet you still support Bush's regime which has eliminated foreign policy and killed thousands of innocent people. WAKE UP AMERICA, the rest of the world hates us, and no matter what you say about the strength of this country, we will never make it without allies.

You know, you people is exactly what is wrong with this country. How can you bitch and complain about someone trying to do something noble. Who gives a flying shit if someone smokes marijuana, why don't you mind your own business. They are not hurting anyone, not forcing anybody to smoke it, not becomeing violent, not overdosing, who cares...? The problem with this country is that our population flips out about somone smoking pot or brief nudity on television, yet you still support Bush's regime which has eliminated foreign policy and killed thousands of innocent people. WAKE UP AMERICA, the rest of the world hates us, and no matter what you say about the strength of this country, we will never make it without allies.

Charlie:
I thought it was a law-enforcement thread, myself.

4. Drug use itself would decrease because with the loss of the black-market profit motive, drug pushers would be fewer and therefore fewer new users.
5. With fewer people in prison, due solely to drug charges, more of the limited resources would be used to deal with serious crime. Also fewer families would be destroyed by these idiotic drug laws.

Aren't you the idiot? Beer and liquor are both legal and people still overindulge and get sent to prisons everyday for DUI charges.

Come on...you will say whatever you have to say no matter how ridiculous it sounds just to justify legalizing marijuana.

how dare you. our country is ruining lives and families, all in the name of "justice". they focus on pot because it is the only thing they have ANY possiblity of "enforcing". watch the video! he is completely RIGHT! thank GOD for someone with the knowledge to come through for US!
the pot smoking, hard working, tax paying, no benefit getting "americans"!

law dog: this man has lost sight of doing what's right? are you insane? or have you brainwashed just enough? he quit law enforcemant BECAUSE that is what is right (for him). don't get me wrong. there are alot of men and women in law enforcement who help people every day, but busting people for pot is ludacris. robbing the rich to give to the poor? what has he taken FROM you to GIVE to me? knowledge? obviously not, you don't have any! i hope the children, MY CHILDREN, read this and see this as revolutionary, because it is, AND it is SORELY NEEDED! our children need to know the TRUTH so they CAN grow up safe. not only from population predators, but, most vehemently, from law enforcement dictators and POLITICAL predators! i agree with barry, i think yopur are an idealist punk, who never got recognition or appreciation for anything. that's why you became a cop, or always wanted to. to feel a need to take down others is almost a requirement nowadays to be in law enforcement. the higher ups depend and PREY on you to do their dirty work. get a life, and a BRAIN of your own. RESEARCH the FACTS!

law dog: one more thing; you couldn't BE more right about karma. thank (insert your own god), Barry is FINALLY turning HIS karma around!

Check out the mugshot.. lol

THEFT CLASS C

TERRORISTIC THREAT

ASSAULT CAUSES BODILY INJURY

Oh boy! Look at our "American Hero" - what a joke.