Hub rips cops featured in soft-on-marijuana ads
Thursday, October 23rd, 2008 at 2:38 pm | By: Radical Russ
Hub rips cops featured in soft-on-marijuana ads – BostonHerald.com
Boston cops and Mayor Thomas M. Menino are up in arms that pictures of two uniformed officers and a marked cruiser appear in new political ads supporting a controversial proposal to decriminalize marijuana.“Their decision to incorporate the BPD brand into their ad campaign was very inappropriate,” Boston Police Department spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said. “They did not ask for permission and we in no way endorse this advertisement.”
In one ad, retired Sgt. Howard Donahue says he supports Question 2 because it would free up cops to fight “violent criminals.” The ad features an old picture of Donahue in uniform in front of a BPD cruiser.
Another ad features retired Lt. Tom Nolan and a picture of him in uniform while he argues that existing weed laws give offenders a lifetime criminal record that makes it hard to get jobs and student loans. Question 2 would make possession of up to one ounce of pot a civil offense punishable by a fine.
“I entered law enforcement to catch bad guys, not to deny someone an education for life just because they made a mistake,” Nolan says.
While state ethics laws ban the use of taxpayer-funded resources in political ads, Yes on Question 2 spokeswoman Whitney Taylor said, “There are no ethics violations. Those were personal pictures from retired police officers.”
Menino spokeswoman Dot Joyce also slammed the group’s use of the BPD car and uniforms, saying, “It’s an unfair tactic to try and confuse voters. The mayor doesn’t support this ad.”
OK, got that? Using the Boston Police Department brand in a political campaign is just wrong. “It’s an unfair tactic to try and confuse voters.”
Got it. So, I suppose this photo, appearing in the header image of the No on Question 2 website, is similarly unfair and confusing?
See, folks, when cops appear in uniform on the website of the group opposed to reforming marijuana laws, a group that includes 11 state DAs, a bunch of police chiefs, and other officials alleged to have been using taxpayer resources to oppose a citizen initiative, see, that’s OK, because drugs ‘r’ bad, mmmkay?
But if a couple of old retired cops (the only ones who are free to speak out) use a couple of their personal photos from what, the 1980’s?, that’s a huge violation of ethics and a slander of the Boston Police Department brand, because, well, drugs ‘r’ bad, mmmkay.
And since when did police departments become “brands”? How about “protect and serve” for a brand, huh? How about “enforce the law, not influence the law” for a brand? They’re not even active police, they’re retired!
I’ll bet there are a whole lot of Boston and other Massachusetts police officers who will be voting yes on Question 2 because they know popping young people with a baggie of weed is a ridiculous waste of law enforcement time in the age of drive-bys, identity theft, and potential terrorist attack. I hope many of them will join Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, too.
Topics: Boston Police Department, Question 2
