Thursday, May 10, 2018

What’s so sensible about police dog, gun sanctuary political policies?

I remember once talking with someone of a social conservative ideological bent who seriously perceives conservatives as merely being people who view their ideas as “common sense” principles that we all ought to be eager to follow.

Is this canine the victim of  possible drug law?
I remember laughing in his face at the thought of some of the extremist thought being perceived as logical by any means, and some of the ideas cropping up in Illinois these days in the name of sane social policy are equally ridiculous.

MUCH OF THIS comes from the regional split between urban vs. rural – with many of those in less-populated places being (in my opinion) too isolated from the real world to fully appreciate what goes on amongst the majority of us.

Take marijuana use.

That drug oft inhaled in the form of handmade cigarettes (although I’m sure some are making jokes about brownies) is the focus of proposals that could come before the General Assembly in the near future as to legalization. Some see the logic in legitimizing the substance, with the product being produced under regulated conditions and taxed.

Boy, do some government officials want to tax it! While some are so determined to keep the taint of illegitimacy attached that they’re going to come up with lame arguments as to why its use ought to remain some sort of criminal act (mostly because they think it’s people NOT like themselves who are using it – which is itself absurd).

WHICH IS WHY some law enforcement types are now spewing out an argument against legalization – it would reduce their need for those police dogs whose principal purpose is to use their strong sense of smell to detect the presence of pot.

One thing about the dogs used by police is that they are trained intensely to serve a sole purpose. The idea of retraining those animals likely is not practical – and they’re certainly not of any use as house pets.

The Herald & Review newspaper of Decatur reported about how law enforcement officials are saying their dogs would all have to be retired, and in many cases euthanized, since the one task they were trained to do would now be something no longer needed by police.
The real target of those 'sanctuary' gun communities
Maybe they think they’re going to get all the animal rights activists on their side because of the very thought of all those dead dogs piling up somewhere.

THE THOUGHT THAT a change in law would mean there would be no more need for such dogs in police work is just too radical a thought for those people determined to keep pot criminal.

Although the more absurd line of logic being peddled by ideologues involves another measure being pushed in certain counties of rural Illinois where the gun rights activists are determined to think their firearms are some sort of moral right – just like they want to think only “hippie freaks” use marijuana.

These are the counties following the lead of officials near Effingham that have declared themselves to be “sanctuary” spaces for people with firearms.

As in the local law enforcement officials will not feel compelled to assist with enforcement of firearms restrictions that local officials deem to be intrusive on their idea of what are our “rights.”

MUCH OF THIS thought ties into the ongoing debate over federal immigration policy and those who want to alter laws so as to boost deportations from this country. These ideologues are offended at the thought that some cities have declared themselves “sanctuaries” or “welcoming cities” where local cops let federal immigration officials do their own work – rather than offering any unasked-for cooperation.

So now they think they’re “mocking” those who want serious reform of immigration policy, while also strengthening the position of political partisans who are obsessed with firearms and who think that singer/songwriter John Lennon got one thing right in his life when he wrote, “Happiness is a Warm Gun.”

Beatles' parody of gun magazine that parodied Peanuts
Of course, I feel like I’d get the last laugh when somebody who doesn’t fit into their idea of a “real” person winds up showing in their isolated communities bearing arms. How quickly would they cooperate with prosecution of an "undesirable?" And would that person be able to use the idea of inconsistent application of the law to “beat the rap,” so to speak.

Just like I’m sure the same ideologues suddenly become rational about drug laws when it’s their own kids who get caught taking a toke and trying to figure out if Bill Clinton wasn’t totally full of it when he said he, “didn’t inhale.”


No comments: