Can you legally sell or buy a single cigarette? (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just putting aside the question of what happened to poor Eric Garner and the NYPD police for the moment, I have a separate question:

Should a person be able to sell one of his own cigarettes to someone else, as he likes, where he likes, when he likes?

Do you think the police should have been arresting Garner for selling those singles in the first place. Personally I don't think so.

I am happily out of the news cycle these days, so please just let me know if I have the facts wrong.

 

[DropKick]

Something as trivial as selling a single cigarette shouldn't be an issue. I don't smoke but I remember people "bumming" cigarettes all the time. As they approach $10 a pack, I could see why someone wouldn't just give them away routinely anymore.

The issue gets cloudy when the cigarettes are "illegal" (lack tax stamps). The guy distributing loose cigarettes is just the end of the chain.

Along similar lines, the police probably won't break up your office NCAA bracket pool but might address illegal gambling at a higher level.

Seems like a very minor aspect of the Garner case, in light of police brutality, etc.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Something as trivial as selling a single cigarette shouldn't be an issue.

Seems like a very minor aspect of the Garner case, in light of police brutality, etc.

That's just it, it is trivial, it is minor, and they were sending him to jail for it. It's absurd.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

First of all, of course I agree the cops don't write the damn laws, I'm saying the law itself is ridiculous. I also agree that Garner should not have been resisting arrest.

Secondly, mayors and sheriffs and police chiefs declare certain offenses not worth cop enforcement all the time, for instance pot quite recently in several places has become a ticketable offense only, if that, as cops are instructed to focus on other priorities. Wasting time on this is just ridiculous when there are real crimes going on.

I will add that I think if you bought a pack of cigarettes you should be able to give or sell one to whoever you like, it's your property. Cigarettes are legal. It's crazy to think they might tell you to move along or give you a ticket for pot (illegal) and send you to jail for selling a cigarette (legal).

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

First of all, of course I agree the cops don't write the damn laws, I'm saying the law itself is ridiculous. I also agree that Garner should not have been resisting arrest.

Secondly, mayors and sheriffs and police chiefs declare certain offenses not worth cop time all the time, for instance pot quite recently in several places has become a ticketable offense only, if that, as cops are instructed to focus on other priorities. Wasting time on this is just ridiculous when there are real crimes going on.

I will add that I think if you bought a pack of cigarettes you should be able to give or sell one to whoever you like, it's your property. Cigarettes are legal. It's crazy to think they might tell you to move along or give you a ticket for pot (illegal) and send you to jail for selling a cigarette (legal).

They do indeed. Given that, if the cops are enforcing this law, one which, BTW, could have been written without jail as a possible punishment (that was done by the legislature), then the cops are doing so at the behest of the civilian government leadership. It is not as if they decide how their discretion will be used in a vacuum. Their budgets, and the retention of their Chief depends on the goodwill of the elected officials.

As for selling loosies, I think government is too pervasive. If I buy a pack and want to sell one that ought to be my business. Now if I heist a pack, or acquire a pack before the tax has been paid I can understand why government might have concerns about its lose of revenue, but if government is pervasive enough to be down on street level concerning itself with the sale of loosies, well then government is too pervasive.

 

[mr roboto]

Of course.

 

[otello]

Sure. Would he not need a business license to do so, or some other type of street permit?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sure. Would he not need a business license to do so, or some other type of street permit?

I'm speaking of one person selling one cigarette to another person, not via a storefront or business.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Sure. Would he not need a business license to do so, or some other type of street permit?

I'm speaking of one person selling one cigarette to another person, not via a storefront or business.

I am willing to bet the genesis of this law and this enforcement effort is twofold, politicians who want to insure their tax base, and local store owners who object to paying their taxes only to have unlicensed, untaxed persons standing outside their establishments undercutting their business. That coalition got this done. It, the law and the enforcement effort, represents a coalition of minority intersts which, through interest in this issue were able to drive it forward in the face of indifference from the majority.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sure. Would he not need a business license to do so, or some other type of street permit?

I'm speaking of one person selling one cigarette to another person, not via a storefront or business.

I am willing to bet the genesis of this law and this enforcement effort is twofold, politicians who want to insure their tax base, and local store owners who object to paying their taxes only to have unlicensed, untaxed persons standing outside their establishments undercutting their business. That coalition got this done. It, the law and the enforcement effort, represents a coalition of minority intersts which, through interest in this issue were able to drive it forward in the face of indifference from the majority.

So you agree with the law itself, or disagree with it? That is, do you think that one person should be arrested for selling a single cigarette on the street to another person?

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Something as trivial as selling a single cigarette shouldn't be an issue. I don't smoke but I remember people "bumming" cigarettes all the time. As they approach $10 a pack, I could see why someone wouldn't just give them away routinely anymore.

This is how 50 Cent got his name.

 

[The Big Guy]

While I think that the selling of individual cigarettes should be illegal, I do not think that he should have been arrested, just ticketed for the infraction. NY seems to love giving tickets for everything else, so why not this?

The reason that I am going to give as to why is different then the tax one. Do you believe that an individual will care if they sell cigarettes to people of age or not?

Side note--I hated people who used to bum cigarettes from me when I smoked. They do cost too damn much and I don't want to give you one for free

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This is called a "double-barreled" question. You can't ask multiple questions at the same time.

 

[Hooper31]

They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts).

ORLY?

 

[NutterButter]

Single cig no, but if its to multiple people, than fine. Don't pay the fine, arrested.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Sure. Would he not need a business license to do so, or some other type of street permit?

I'm speaking of one person selling one cigarette to another person, not via a storefront or business.

I am willing to bet the genesis of this law and this enforcement effort is twofold, politicians who want to insure their tax base, and local store owners who object to paying their taxes only to have unlicensed, untaxed persons standing outside their establishments undercutting their business. That coalition got this done. It, the law and the enforcement effort, represents a coalition of minority intersts which, through interest in this issue were able to drive it forward in the face of indifference from the majority.

So you agree with the law itself, or disagree with it? That is, do you think that one person should be arrested for selling a single cigarette on the street to another person?

I disagree with this law as written.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts).

ORLY?

Yes really.

 

[Christo]

They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts).

ORLY?

Uh, yeah. This cop had an elected official and a grand jury review his actions. The fact that they determined he was not criminally liable for the death doesn't mean he wasn't answerable to them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is called a "double-barreled" question. You can't ask multiple questions at the same time.

The questions are consistent:

Can you legally sell or buy a single cigarette?

Should you be able to sell a single cigarette in NYC or anywhere else?

Were the cops were wrong for trying to arrest Garner?

- Would you answer one way to one of the questions and a different way to another of them?

- Only thing I'd like to clarify, as DW pointed out, I guess you could not blame the cops for doing what they are instructed to do, so the real question is if the law they were enforcing is just wrong.

 

[cstu]

No - You Should Not be able to sell a single cigarette in NYC or anywhere else, and the cops were right to arrest Garner for this. (5 votes [29.41%])

You guys are ####ing nuts.

 

[cstu]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

Despite there being a law against it, do you believe it benefits "the people" to arrest someone for selling a single cigarette?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts).

ORLY?

Uh, yeah. This cop had an elected official and a grand jury review his actions. The fact that they determined he was not criminally liable for the death doesn't mean he wasn't answerable to them.

He will now also likely be subject to administrative discipline potentially including firing, and to civil suits.

 

[cstu]

While I think that the selling of individual cigarettes should be illegal, I do not think that he should have been arrested, just ticketed for the infraction. NY seems to love giving tickets for everything else, so why not this?

The reason that I am going to give as to why is different then the tax one. Do you believe that an individual will care if they sell cigarettes to people of age or not?

Side note--I hated people who used to bum cigarettes from me when I smoked. They do cost too damn much and I don't want to give you one for free

Exactly.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

Despite there being a law against it, do you believe it benefits "the people" to arrest someone for selling a single cigarette?

The post where I said I disagree with the law as written remains my response.

 

[Christo]

This is called a "double-barreled" question. You can't ask multiple questions at the same time.

The questions are consistent:

Can you legally sell or buy a single cigarette?

Should you be able to sell a single cigarette in NYC or anywhere else?

Were the cops were wrong for trying to arrest Garner?

- Would you answer one way to one of the questions and a different way to another of them?

- Only thing I'd like to clarify, as DW pointed out, I guess you could not blame the cops for doing what they are instructed to do, so the real question is if the law they were enforcing is just wrong.

You're missing the point. You ask two questions at the same time: (1) should you be able to sell and (2) were they wrong to arrest. One is a function of the law and the other is a function of its enforcement. A person could believe that it should not be against the law to sell but in this case the law called for the arrest and they were within their discretion to do so.

 

[cstu]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

Despite there being a law against it, do you believe it benefits "the people" to arrest someone for selling a single cigarette?

The post where I said I disagree with the law as written remains my response.

My point is that the police have a lot of leeway when it comes to enforcing laws.

 

[The Big Guy]

While I think that the selling of individual cigarettes should be illegal, I do not think that he should have been arrested, just ticketed for the infraction. NY seems to love giving tickets for everything else, so why not this?

The reason that I am going to give as to why is different then the tax one. Do you believe that an individual will care if they sell cigarettes to people of age or not?

Side note--I hated people who used to bum cigarettes from me when I smoked. They do cost too damn much and I don't want to give you one for free

Exactly.

But having said that, if the law states that it is an arrest-able offense, then I have no problem with the officers following the law.

Changing the law to a lower level offense would seem to be the correct play for elected officials.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is called a "double-barreled" question. You can't ask multiple questions at the same time.

The questions are consistent:

Can you legally sell or buy a single cigarette?

Should you be able to sell a single cigarette in NYC or anywhere else?

Were the cops were wrong for trying to arrest Garner?

- Would you answer one way to one of the questions and a different way to another of them?

- Only thing I'd like to clarify, as DW pointed out, I guess you could not blame the cops for doing what they are instructed to do, so the real question is if the law they were enforcing is just wrong.

You're missing the point. You ask two questions at the same time: (1) should you be able to sell and (2) were they wrong to arrest. One is a function of the law and the other is a function of its enforcement. A person could believe that it should not be against the law to sell but in this case the law called for the arrest and they were within their discretion to do so.

Ok, maybe I will change the wording. The point (to me) is the law is wrong.

 

[Christo]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

Despite there being a law against it, do you believe it benefits "the people" to arrest someone for selling a single cigarette?

The post where I said I disagree with the law as written remains my response.

My point is that the police have a lot of leeway when it comes to enforcing laws.

Of course they do. If they didn't the system would be paralyzed.

 

[jon_mx]

The people voted for representatives who made the stupid law. Not the cops fault.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The people voted for representatives who made the stupid law. Not the cops fault.

But you disagree with the law?

 

[Dippa]

Side note--I hated people who used to bum cigarettes from me when I smoked. They do cost too damn much and I don't want to give you one for free

The worst are people who "don't smoke" so they don't want to buy a pack, but actually they do smoke occasionally, so they just bum your cigarettes.

I fully support the sale of loosies for this reason.

 

[jon_mx]

The people voted for representatives who made the stupid law. Not the cops fault.

But you disagree with the law?

I am not a fan of big taxes on thing, so I don't care for the law. But if you are going to have big taxes on items, you can't allow loopholes.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I'd like to know if anyone here knows why the law was made in the first place? I would be shocked if they just came up with the law for no reason. Maybe it was affecting local business. Maybe the homeless were harassing people all the time for cigarets? Maybe drug sales were being done at the same time as the lossies?

 

[Jack White]

Hey, here's an idea: don't criminalize voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges between consenting adults.

 

[Christo]

Hey, look! Jack White posts here.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

Despite there being a law against it, do you believe it benefits "the people" to arrest someone for selling a single cigarette?

The post where I said I disagree with the law as written remains my response.

My point is that the police have a lot of leeway when it comes to enforcing laws.

And my point is that they do not exercise their discretion for their own amusement nor to be evil, but because their masters, us, reward them for the behavior. You put your blame on the wrong entity, and by doing so exacerbate rather than address the problem. You are blaming the dog for ####ting in the house when you neglect to let him out. Cops have substantial incentive to please their masters. That incentive comes every time a Municipality passes a budget, and every time they negotiate their next contract. If they are enforcing this law rather than eating a donut it is because they have been told to do so.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Hey, here's an idea: don't criminalize voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges between consenting adults.

I wholeheartedly agree, as long as that exchange does not negatively impact those around them to a substantial degree. The problem comes when do-gooders and nanny state idiots take power. They often look at clauses in charter documents which have an expression along the lines that they should make laws for the health, safety, and GENERAL WELFARE. They presume to much on the last statement. They can articulate some improvement, they think, to the general welfare which just so happens to also fit their personal picadilloes or their friends interests and they are off and running with no idea of the consequences of their legislative acts.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

While I think that the selling of individual cigarettes should be illegal, I do not think that he should have been arrested, just ticketed for the infraction. NY seems to love giving tickets for everything else, so why not this?

The reason that I am going to give as to why is different then the tax one. Do you believe that an individual will care if they sell cigarettes to people of age or not?

Side note--I hated people who used to bum cigarettes from me when I smoked. They do cost too damn much and I don't want to give you one for free

Exactly.

But having said that, if the law states that it is an arrest-able offense, then I have no problem with the officers following the law.

Changing the law to a lower level offense would seem to be the correct play for elected officials.

That will get you part of the way there. For the compliant this works. For the noncompliant they will not pay their fine, the matters will go, eventually, to warrant, and we are back at an arrest. This is not to say that your idea should not be implemented. It may improve the situation some and that is a start. With perfection most often unattainable there is no reason to not move towards it. This also gets the conversation where it needs to be. This is a step in understanding how to interact with Police, to effectuate change.

 

[Guest]

Maybe it's been brought up already, but should I be able to buy a 12 pack of beer and sell them individually out on the street without any type of license or permit? I agree with a ticket versus an arrest.

 

[Jack White]

Hey, look! Jack White posts here.

That's right. So pay attention.

You just might learn something you weren't taught in your 12 years of state indoctrination child prison camp.

 

[Jack White]

Maybe it's been brought up already, but should I be able to buy a 12 pack of beer and sell them individually out on the street without any type of license or permit? I agree with a ticket versus an arrest.

Of course you should.

 

[timschochet]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

You're suggesting here that law enforcement doesn't prioritize? Of course they do. Yes, we (the public and our representatives) wrote the laws, and we determine the punishment. But certainly the police play a role in deciding which Infractions to punish and which not to. For example, if the speed limit on a highway is 55 miles an hour, do patrolmen stop everyone traveling at 60 miles an hour? Obviously not. But if you're driving 70 or 80, you'll probably get stopped if you're caught. That's a subjective judgment by the police.

Selling loose cigarettes may be illegal, but the police could easily decide by themselves to ignore it. I would wager that in several major cities, they do.

 

[Christo]

Hey, look! Jack White posts here.

That's right. So pay attention.

You just might learn something you weren't taught in your 12 years of state indoctrination child prison camp.

Stick to music, pale face.

 

[tom22406]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

You're suggesting here that law enforcement doesn't prioritize? Of course they do. Yes, we (the public and our representatives) wrote the laws, and we determine the punishment. But certainly the police play a role in deciding which Infractions to punish and which not to. For example, if the speed limit on a highway is 55 miles an hour, do patrolmen stop everyone traveling at 60 miles an hour? Obviously not. But if you're driving 70 or 80, you'll probably get stopped if you're caught. That's a subjective judgment by the police.

Selling loose cigarettes may be illegal, but the police could easily decide by themselves to ignore it. I would wager that in several major cities, they do.

When a city is in debt as bad as NY is they might have been told to enforce whatever they can to generate revenue.

 

[tommyboy]

i guess the bigger question is do you want to live in a society that makes selling a single cigarette a crime?

 

[timschochet]

And yet THEY, the Cops, did not write the laws. Our elected representatives did. It is not they, it is us. The Cops do what we direct them to do. They do not run their cities, they are answerable to elected officials (as well as to the courts). If this activity, or any activity, is illegal it is because our elected representatives made it so. If those representatives made it so against our wishes we should have been more vigilant in watching them.

As far as I know, no police force is running an American city. They are not occupiers. They are not dictators. They are answerable to the people. Many problems arise, however, when a person comes to believe that they are "the people". Individual persons often believe they can tell the cops how to do their job, when, and where. They want to legislate and to litigate on the streets once an action has jumped off. The streets are no place for arguing ones rights with cops, we have courts for that. Cops do not work for any individual person, they work for "the people", society. If you want to argue with a cop, and there are certainly times when you should, do so in the courts, through elections, or through the legislature, not on the streets, and particularly not during a crisis you have precipitated. Crisis reaction is always uncertain

You're suggesting here that law enforcement doesn't prioritize? Of course they do. Yes, we (the public and our representatives) wrote the laws, and we determine the punishment. But certainly the police play a role in deciding which Infractions to punish and which not to. For example, if the speed limit on a highway is 55 miles an hour, do patrolmen stop everyone traveling at 60 miles an hour? Obviously not. But if you're driving 70 or 80, you'll probably get stopped if you're caught. That's a subjective judgment by the police.

Selling loose cigarettes may be illegal, but the police could easily decide by themselves to ignore it. I would wager that in several major cities, they do.

When a city is in debt as bad as NY is they might have been told to enforce whatever they can to generate revenue.

Perhaps. But it's a silly way to do it. It probably costs more to crack down on these loose cigarette sellers than any revenue that might be generated from it.

 

[Jack White]

Hey, look! Jack White posts here.

That's right. So pay attention.

You just might learn something you weren't taught in your 12 years of state indoctrination child prison camp.

Stick to music, pale face.

Stick to TV and movies, shorty.

 

[timschochet]

i guess the bigger question is do you want to live in a society that makes selling a single cigarette a crime?

We already do. But so long as it's not enforced, what's the difference?