“Quite to the contrary, arrests for marijuana possession— a drug less harmful than tobacco or alcohol— accounted for nearly 80 percent of the growth in drug arrests in the 1990s” (Michelle  ) Cheers! I support this whole-heartedly. It seems like a habit in this country – that we constantly get fixated on trivial matters in politics and argue fanatically about them when we could be spending our time and money in much better and more humanity-oriented ways. Does the government care about testing a drug like marijuana and seeing if it actually is less harmful than legal substances? It would help cut down on the prison rate if they legalized it. But I wonder if science even matters in this case… from what Michelle is saying politics have the last word, and politics have decided marijuana should be a very singular conquering campaign for law enforcement.

A lot of what Michelle is saying in Chapter 2 definitely resonates with me. This line in particular stood out to me, “In the years [from 1982 to 1991], the Court has heard argument in 30 Fourth Amendment cases involving narcotics. In all but one, the government was the petitioner. All save two involved a search or seizure without a warrant or with a defective warrant” (Michelle 62). She goes on to list some more things, but what kind of jarred me was, “In all but one, the government was the petitioner”. It’s kind of scary actually, especially because these are nonviolent crimes. Its like we’re moving into a dystopian future where the government controls our lives. Seems to me that at least 50% of the petitioners should have been citizens for the numbers to be fair, because the government was founded as an institution for the people, to protect the people. Not to act on its own as a watchful eye on the people. And the law, to me, should be mainly for citizens seeking to get justice, not the government.