Border Patrol agent fired for criticizing the War on Drugs

[mrjarrell]

Words have consequences, especially stupid ones. There's a definite conflict of interest for a border patrol agent being pro drug.

Being anti-war on drugs is NOT being pro-drug.

 

[lashicoN]

Words have consequences, especially stupid ones. There's a definite conflict of interest for a border patrol agent being pro [STRIKE]drug[/STRIKE]. freedom.

Fixed it for you.

 

[steveh_131]

If this was a private employer firing an employee, would you have an issue with it? Most of us seem to think an employer should be at liberty to hire and fire at will, right?

If so, why does the government as an employer not have this same right?

 

[level.eleven]

If this was a private employer firing an employee, would you have an issue with it? Most of us seem to think an employer should be at liberty to hire and fire at will, right?

If so, why does the government as an employer not have this same right?

I have no problems with him being fired. It sounds like he wasn't interested in fighting the war on some drugs. Border Patrol probably isn't for you. My first post more in reference to unresponsive management.

 

[Love the 1911]

If I get a job at a Honda dealership and tell a coworker that I hate selling foreign cars because it's un-American, should I get fired? How about if I work at Wal-Mart and express that big-box stores are destroying America? What if a drug cartel hires me and I explain that drugs are dangerous and we shouldn't deliver them?

This Thread = FAIL

 

[rambone]

I think what irks me the most is how government props up the delinquents many times and roots out the whistleblowers and critics. Like every time government agents are given months & years of paid leave time after egregious abuses of power. Instead of those people getting fired, they are rewarded.

I don't think any legal action should be taken in this case after thinking about it, but it marks a trend in government hiring practices that doesn't sit well with me. As someone said, they want everyone's mantra to be "just following orders."

I have heard a few (very few) LEOs on this site make worse criticisms of the Drug War than what is contained in the article. Maybe all the LEAP members and Oath Keepers should be purged from the government ranks as well. Maybe every conservative cop should be fired for disagreeing with policies of Barack Obama.

 

[lashicoN]

Private business isn't the same thing as government employment.

 

[steveh_131]

Private business isn't the same thing as government employment.

So do you believe there should be laws outlining valid and invalid reasons for hiring and firing by the government?

 

[lashicoN]

I don't think you should get fired from a public job because you critique public policy. I believe in the first Amendment.

If the guy was saying "I'm not going to do my job because I don't agree with the war on drugs" then fire him. It isn't right to fire someone from a public job over an opinion.

I'm mostly angry because this is so one sided. Police officers, all the time, offer their opinion on if drugs should remain illegal, and what they would like to do about people who open carry a firearm and it always goes unnoticed, but as soon as a worker speaks up in a non-tyrannical tone, he gets canned.

 

[indykid]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Granted the guy worked for the government, but a part of the first amendment that so many people forget is that last part, you have the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Granted this guy did it in a way that doesn't look right, but he was posing a grievance against the government's "war on drugs" which according to the first amendment he has the right to do so.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Words have consequences, especially stupid ones. There's a definite conflict of interest for a border patrol agent being pro drug.

Bullcrap...there is no conflict of interest.

Legalizing drugs would put Mexican drug cartels out of business overnight. The border would infinitely easier to police and a safer place to live for everyone near it. Who is better qualified to point that out than a border patrolman?

People have a RIGHT to hear what publicly funded LEOs have learned on the job without those LEOs risking their employment.

 

[Hotdoger]

Bullcrap...there is no conflict of interest.

Legalizing drugs would put Mexican drug cartels out of business overnight. The border would infinitely easier to police and a safer place to live for everyone near it. Who is better qualified to point that out than a border patrolman?

People have a RIGHT to hear what publicly funded LEOs have learned on the job without those LEOs risking their employment.

If the cartels are the biggest suppliers how would legalization put them out of business?
Legalization in Ca. through medical marijuana has increased use thus increased demand.

 

[mrjarrell]

If the cartels are the biggest suppliers how would legalization put them out of business?
Legalization in Ca. through medical marijuana has increased use thus increased demand.

Almost every gram of medical marijuana in California comes from Californian growers and co-operatives. Not from the Mexican cartels, where the quality is far lower.

 

[Hotdoger]

Almost every gram of medical marijuana in California comes from Californian growers and co-operatives. Not from the Mexican cartels, where the quality is far lower.

And demand in Ca. for the imported dope has decreased?

LOL You know it hasn't or street prices would have dropped.

Any price drops for you lately?

 

[mrjarrell]

And demand in Ca. for the imported dope has decreased?

LOL You know it hasn't or street prices would have dropped.

Any price drops for you lately?

Street drugs are not the same as medical marijuana, which is what you were talking about. Admitting you're ignorant of the subject isn't a bad thing. Street weed in California comes from a variety of places, many of which are in state, Humboldt County comes immediately to mind. As for price drops, I wouldn't know. I don't indulge in drugs or alcohol so their price is of no interest to me. Of course if you're aware of the prices that says a lot more about you than me.

 

[Cherryspringer]

This is the new America and you had better not speak against her... Or else.

 

[kingnereli]

Bullcrap...there is no conflict of interest.

Legalizing drugs would put Mexican drug cartels out of business overnight. The border would infinitely easier to police and a safer place to live for everyone near it. Who is better qualified to point that out than a border patrolman?

People have a RIGHT to hear what publicly funded LEOs have learned on the job without those LEOs risking their employment.

You can speculate all you want. One facet if this guys job was to curtail the influx of illegal drugs over the southern border. He is also a critic of the war on drugs. How much can we trust him to perform his duties?

[STRIKE]Fixed it for you.[/STRIKE] I'm a doo-doo head

It's easy to modify someone's posts. You should try actually making your point instead. My point stands.

Being anti-war on drugs is NOT being pro-drug.

Tomato, Tamahto!

 

[Hotdoger]

Street drugs are not the same as medical marijuana, which is what you were talking about. Admitting you're ignorant of the subject isn't a bad thing. Street weed in California comes from a variety of places, many of which are in state, Humboldt County comes immediately to mind. As for price drops, I wouldn't know. I don't indulge in drugs or alcohol so their price is of no interest to me. Of course if you're aware of the prices that says a lot more about you than me.

Of course they are different. I never said they were the same. So your ignorant statement is ignorant.


If you don't know about prices and demand issues google them and try to keep up.

 

[steveh_131]

Of course they are different. I never said they were the same. So your ignorant statement is ignorant.


If you don't know about prices and demand issues google them and try to keep up.

What the hell are you talking about?

They are two different products serving two different markets. The demand of one does not proportionately affect the supply of the other.

 

[Hotdoger]

What the hell are you talking about?

They are two different products serving two different markets. The demand of one does not proportionately affect the supply of the other.

The two makets are not exclusive to users.

Most medical users were users berfore they had accesss to the "legal" pot And many buy street dope when the medical pot isn't available or when finanical issuses makes them seek cheaper pot or sell their mediical bought supply.

And if you know anything about dope smokers you know they share their smoke, so you have the cross use effect from all sources.