[dinopoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you feel the drug laws are archaic or 'wrong', isn't it within the scope of your duty not to enforce them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't that one of the benefits of the separation of powers, that 'unjust' laws may not be enforced by the police?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no. Do some reading up on "separation of powers."

[/ QUOTE ]

I just did. The article expressly said that one of the C&B elements possessed by the executive branch of government is the power to decide which laws passed by the legislature will be enforced.

Obviously this is theoretical, but in practice, doesn't a PO exercise that power almost continuously. For example, you may choose to let a speeder off with a warning, even though he, strictly speaking, broke the law. Why can't you exercise the same power over a drug offender. Isn't it true that you may choose not to charge someone with a crime if they give you information about another crime? Counldn't that be considered the same thing?