If traffic enforcement was done by bureaucratic staffers who never gave a second thought to any other laws besides maintaining a functioning traffic system, they wouldn't need to be cops at all. They wouldn't need to be armed. There wouldn't be shootouts in traffic stops because criminals on the run wouldn't worry about being taken in by a traffic enforcer who only wanted to notify you that you made an illegal lane change.

This is much like the way immigration law is used to drive a wedge into civil society. We have these structural rules that could be dealt with buy functionaries, like the guy who reads your gas meter, but we criminalize the whole thing by making it a cop's job. The threat of violence is introduced. People fear getting arrested. Nobody fears getting arrested or deported when a librarian tells them a book is overdue. What's so different about traffic than libraries, or gas meters?

There's so many opportunities to remove cops from our daily lives. So many fewer people would be shot for no good reason. Whole populations would rejoin our community because they wouldn't fear getting nabbed at ever interaction with officialdom. And so, so much cheaper. Cops are expensive and when they fuck up they cost us millions. Less cops, less problems.

This Kennedy boy illustrates exactly what is wrong with these manufactured opportunities for cops to invade our daily lives.

Goddamn well said, @1.

Well when he was 'in the court system' was he a prosecutor? Because this sounds like the sort of thing you would get from just about any prosecutor. They are all shits. It's genetic or something.

Retired lawyer chiming in here. This is the biggest, steaming pile of horseshit I've seen from a non-Republican in a long while. Is he really attempting to say that if a cop pulls a car over and it reeks of pot, the cop can't do anything? Because that's not true. Not here in Washington, not anywhere. "I smell marijuana" was always a pretext for random searches. That's what he's defending.

What disqualifies him for me at least as much as the position(s) Dan points out is the fact that he doesn't seem very bright -- at least not from reading that interview.

@5 -- well, if that is what Kennedy had said, I don't think Dan would have written this article.

Kennedy: I don't want someone high behind the wheel of a car
Dan: Kennedy is disqualified!

Yea...that's not the article you just read.

“or a stop-and-harass-racial-minorities-in-cars program...” so only minorities smoke weed? Stereotype much?

As for smelling weed in vehicles. Stop and frisk in the streets and pulling someone over are two different context. It’s been well established when an officer pulls someone over and smells alcohol they can further investigate...it’s called probable cause. Same would apply to the smell of marijuana.

Sounds like Kennedy III was thinking out loud about issues confronting states and the legal system. Jump the gun much?

Booze is legal. And if a driver smells like booze a cop can sobriety test them and, if during the course of that finds another reason for detaining the driver they can. So just because pot is legalized doesn’t impair a cops ability to sobriety test if they smell weed on a driver.

@8 No one said that - it's that racist cops use the "pot odor" pretext to search the cars of minorities more often. You know, like the "your windows are tinted too dark" BS. They use that too.

it is still illegal to smoke weed while you're driving in WA, prob still in MA, too.
just like drinking behind the wheel (unless you're in NOLA or parts of TX). hell, it's still illegal to smoke it in a city park, a state park, a national park, a national forest, a national monument, within 25' of a door or window, in your apartment, in your non-smoking condo, and walking down the street. WA cops could pull over dumbasses all day if they felt like it.

the only legal place is in your own house or your own backyard. in every other place, enforcement is up to the officer's discretion.

Kennedy's just tap dancing, trying to avoid getting tagged as being in favor of decriminalization. that's still a tenuous place to be if you have national office ambitions. Obama tap danced around it to.

be on the leading edge, not the bleeding edge.

Pretty soft-titty case being made here, Mewn.

Joe Kennedy III for president? I know liberals hate old people now, but I’m not willing to put forth a 39-year-old man (as of 2020) who has almost no qualifications except his boyish looks and famous last name. C’mon, Dems, we can and should do better.

#10 they don’t need a pretext when they smell it. All they need is to investigate, no matter the race of the driver. When they smell it they ought to be obligated to assess whether the individual behind the wheel is impaired or not.

Don’t want to be searched, don’t fucking smell like weed or booze when pulled over.

As for racist cops, where? Seems to me a cop pulls over a car smelling like weed, they have a great reason to investigate what is illegal activity.

And what’s up with this stereotyping POC as the only ones who smoke weed and drive?

What @1 said, a million times.

Couldn't agree more, Dan. He leaves me with, "Yeah. No."

What a pompous growth of Hyannis Port mildew this peter-principled rookie Rep is. His great grandfather was a bootlegger, and had his great uncle been smoking pot instead of boozing, Mary Jo Kopechne might still be alive.

BTW - Chappaquiddick looks good.

Yeah I haaaaaate this guy. He wrote an op-ed in the Providence Journal last year when legalizing marijuana was being considered. Of course against it. He should be run out on a rail, he’s massively out of touch.

@1: Police are often used in these situations because there is no way to tell if the person you are stopping for a traffic infraction is going to violently fight you on it, or may be a felon who needs arrested.

In regards to immigration, how is a meter maid going to enforce deportation or arrest if that is what the situation requires?

You just want only a very narrow spectrum of laws enforced due to your personally feelings on what is just. This is of course fine, but I don't see the point of pretending not to understand why police are burdened by the expectation to enforce laws.

@19 I'm for de-fanging cops across the board because they operate with impunity and manufacture bullshit because they are told they are in a war. Taking it down a notch and getting them to stop murdering wantonly will require us to favor personal liberties in a few cases where someones gonna get away with something here or there.

I bet Joy Ann Reid still supports this schmuck because she's pretty much a shill and a piece of work herself.

Mr Savage is trying way too hard on this issue. Normally, I'm similar to those women who would never have an abortion themselves but would not legally attempt to stop anyone else, but Mr Savage's over-reach into generalizing pot as a positive overall good that 95% of the population should be using on a regular basis and his prediction of a future where non-potheads would have no chance of winning high elective office because the general understanding would be that someone who never used pot had to have something seriously wrong with him/her is about the only way to push me into a hard Anti position.

I am also a Mr. Klein fan and listen to his and many other podcasts with a keen ear. My work pretty much allows all day listening, one of the few side perks of my employment. I listened to this interview with great interest because of his recent St. of the U performance. I would like to concur with your article and the very, very troubling response to legalization. When I heard it I was taken aback and had re-listen a couple of times. And yes, in my opinion, he is no longer a candidate for higher office based on that response.

20

"getting them to stop murdering wantonly"

We have great news for you;
the police hardly ever murder wantonly.
In fact, just about never.
Are you aware of any instances of the police murdering wantonly in the past year?

Nobody who was seriously running for president could afford to appear marijuana friendly, at least until Donald Trump broke every rule he could and got away with it. This was dumber-than-dirt but I'm not willing to write Kenedy off over one interview. We really need an over qualified woman-of-color but I'll settle for a cute ginger guy. First he has to run for and win the Democratic nomination.

You know who else is against marijuana legalization? Hillary Clinton. And that was fine with Dan back in 2016, because Hillary was running for President and MJ legalization is new and not popular at the federal level and she's a moderate and we gotta attract those independent voters. So what changed? Why did Dan suddenly become a single-issue voter for marijuana legalization of all things? My guess is that Kennedy is a bit more progressive than Dan would like and so he's trying to nip this in the bud by highlighting a wrong-headed but mostly irrelevant (MJ won't be legal at the federal level for decades no matter who is POTUS) position.

meh.
Progressives applying a purity test. Like reading the PCC newsletter.
Like it just kills you guys to give the man props for his resume and his pedigree. Throw in the good-looking factor and you guys go ballistic.
Being a prosecutor is great way for progs to become electable- Jenny Durkan.
Some people are just naturally charismatic, deal with it.
Because you will be hearing a lot from this guy over the next 10 years.

Why Dems Lose? Because people pick on a single issue and say fuck it I'm not voting. Marijuana cannot be so important that we say no to Kennedy. I don't care about Kennedy, I know little about him but if he will win as a Democrat I'll vote for him.

@7 totally agree with what you said about @5's comment. Kennedy could have just said that and moved on.

BUT Kennedy just prove here that he's a frickin' idiot! No Democratic national candidate can afford to be this unaware of their own words.

AND an unreformed pretext loving prosecutor,

AND tone deaf to a key issue Democrats care about - racial disparities.

God, if he really is gearing up for some kind of national campaign, I don't think appealing to Nixon Democrats is going to make up for all the non-whites and younger types he's going to lose in the process. And if I was a GOP candidate running against him, I would run endless ads FOR him repeating this search-the-car prosecutor-love shit. Hell, I'd start running the pro-Kennedy ads during the primaries to force him and his opponents to talk all sides of searching cars. The age of faceless PACs and fake news will use this guy like a rechargeable battery of disaffection and disillusionment against Democrats.

Yeah....young Kennedy doesn't ring any of my bells, but then, I knew his grandfather and grand uncle. His opposition to grass may be based on his cousin's addition to Ambien and scotch. Yeah, Patrick. sorry about your issues and continued success with recovery, but hasn't anyone ever told you how tedious it is when someone in recovery insists that everyone has to walk the straight and narrow? Joe III isn't the answer for the Democrats - and he may never be.

WTF Dan ... you are fine with and encouraging of liberals voting for "imperfect" candidates in the instances when a Dem is anti-abortion, as you have said many times ... repeatedly scolding those who want women's bodily autonomy ie the most basic of human rights to be something that we DO in fact insist on in a candidate ... YET this Kennedy guy, who is otherwise toeing the liberal line just fine in all areas, except for pot ... suddenly THIS type of "imperfection" rules him out in your mind?

no more kennedys ever please, same for clintons or bushes.

Wow, Joe III---did you have a Sessions moment? You're not my choice for Democratic Nomination 2020 with clumsy talk like that. RepubliKKKans would eat you up and crap you out.
@1 I nominate you winner of tis thread. Well said.
@13: Agreed, and
@13 & @31: After 14 months too long of GOP-fossil fueled Dark Ages, I'm ready for another Obama. Channeling Michelle, Sasha, and Malia..........

@25 Joe Kennedy is no progressive. Just one example: He just voted to deregulate the banks.

I, for one, like Dan calling out shitty DINOs for shitty political stances. Especially shitty DINOs in districts or states where true blue Dems actually stand a chance.

Anybody who is still decrying “purity tests” has an 85% chance of being either a paid Hillary bot or a “former” Republican. Yes, we can and should be critical of Democrats who don’t uphold progressive values.

@34 There were articles about David Brock’s army of paid pro-Hillary trolls before there were articles about Russia. In the LA Times, no less. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-cl…

Earlier this month, HuffPo wrote about Sally Albright’s anti-Bernie Pro-Hillary bot army still going strong in 2018.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dem…

Judging by your comment history, I’m guessing you might have voted for George W. Bush.

@1 traffic enforcement can't be left to bureaucratic staffers because traffic transgressions can legitimately get you sent to jail. Gas meter shenanigans not so much. Here in sunny Toronto, a few years back, they started dressing up the parking ticket minions in cop outfits so people would stop punching them.

You people to the south should definitely make this Joe III guy your next president. The current one is shit, and this new one would look great on the arm of our Justin Trudeau.

Will The Left require Junior to repudiate his sexual predator gramps and uncle Jack?
They should.

@35 ahahaha Sally Albright. "Come on, everyone, down with Bernie cause he's not a REAL DE, unlike me, a paid politico who campaigned for Newt Gingrich.

Perfect position for a Hillary dem to take that meddling in elections by tweet amplification is only problematic when others do it to us unlike the countless democratic processes we actively sabotage and through media, sanctions and violence.

*DEM

First noticed Joe III while glancing at FB feeds of speech videos with my sound muted. His body language suggested poser. His lightweight comments here reinforce those first impressions.

@20 In 2017, police killed atleast 68 unarmed people, 85 people who were driving a vehicle, and 26 people who had a toy weapon, along with some people who were 'armed' with baseball bats, tasers, pieces of wood, a beer bottle, etc. They also killed another couple hundred people who were fleeing. That doesn't add up to 'never'.

Are you talking to me?

It doesn't add up to wanton murder, either.
A lot of police killings fall under the 'Awful but Lawful' category;
tragic but no misconduct.
Were any of the cases you cited wanton murder?

@Brandon 25

It's not that. Here's my guess. Dan was among the liberals that really enjoyed Kennedy's speech, thought he was presidential and inspiring, then did a little research and saw that he ticked all the liberal boxes that he knows/cares about. Then he found out that Kennedy has some really bad takes.

Kennedy has more bad takes than this, but they aren't among things that Dan knows/cares about.

So it's not that Dan is a single-issue voter, just that among the issues that Dan knows/cares about, this is the one that Kennedy is really bad on. So Dan was super disappointed about it.

And to Dan's credit, he is not just criticising Kennedy's take on pot, but also his expression of that which includes what appears to be sympathy towards cops who want to use the smell of pot in a car to violate people's civil liberties- which is used to harass certain groups of people more than others (the poor, people of color, young people). Dan is correct about this, so it's a bigger issue than pot.

As for progressive values, Kennedy is no more progressive than Obama and only slightly more than Hillary, or else Dan probably wouldn't be too into him enough to be disappointed by the pot stance in the first place.

I have no doubt that if Kennedy were the Dem nominee running against the GOP candidate, Dan would support him. Just like he did Hillary, just like he would've done if it had been Bernie. We can admit all this without denying that Dan did prefer Hillary. I think he's been pretty consistently clear that he understands lesser evil voting. So that should explain why he'd criticise now someone who he voted for in the general, etc. It's a different context.

Again this is all conjecture, but that's my understanding of it based on the fact that over the years, Dan seems to be extremely progressive on issues of civil liberties- even willing to learn and understand nuance and move with the times and even willing to use his platform and money to work on advocacy that actually does help- while likewise being clueless to regressive on issues of economics and foreign policy. This is very frustrating, yes, but it's not the same thing as being a single-issue-voter even though I also get weary of the pot talk, being an old fashioned alcoholic (much more unhealthy) myself.

Kennedy needs to recognize that addiction has hereditary components and just because he grew up surrounded by it on all sides across all generations does not mean that substances need to be outlawed.

EVERYBODY SMOKE POT!
EVERYBODY SMOKE POT!
EVERYBODY SMOKE PO^T!

First time I agreed with a Kennedy on anything.

sdfsdf

What I remember is this guy slobbering all over himself.