"I really hoped I wouldn't have to write a post like this."
My Nephew #3 of Six is driving around Bethany last night around 2 AM and gets pulled over and cited for improper lane use. The Cop found he had been drinking alcohol and since he is 3 months shy of his 21st birthday and subject to the zero tolerance policy, charged him with DUI. The Cop also found marijuana residue and a pipe in his truck, so there's a possession charge and a charge for drug paraphernalia. The Cop didn't find insurance verification in his truck, so he wrote a ticket for that too.
And, of course, my bro is out of town and can't deal with it, so I (using bro's money) paid the fines and got Nephew out. His truck is still there. The fines added up to $3,050 + $42 for the privilege of spending the night in Bethany, Oklahoma's new jail.
Like every good coin, this story has two sides. Let's play heads or tails.
HEADS
Nephew was obviously up to no good. Nothing good is going on at 2 AM. He had been drinking and is not 21 yet. The zero tolerance policy exists for a reason. If he wasn't high at the time, he had been. He has been warned, lectured, threatened, taught, and didn't listen. He got caught red handed, and must now face the charges. The last thing any civilized society needs is some dumb-ass 20 year old kid driving around drunk and high. Innocent people die because of this, and the punishment is severe and justified. Nephew knows better than to behave this way, and did it anyway. The cop threw the book at him and should be applauded for his handling of the situation.
TAILS
The test showed his blood alcohol level to be .06. For someone three months older,this would be considered under the limit, and no DUI charge would have been filed. He was drinking, but barely. The pot residue they found was less than a gram, basically insignificant. The cop told him that if he had been 21, there wouldn't be enough here for a ticket. He has insurance but the cop wouldn't let him go find it. Nephew was wrong, but not very wrong, and the aggressive charges are not a result of his actions so much as the result of overenthusiastic law enforcement by a typical small hick town cop, supported by a municipal government that is just as belligerent and parasitic.
So? Heads or Tails? I can go either direction.
Heads is obvious. Nephew lives with me, and it's been a long standing question as to whether I'm helping him get on his feet and establish himself as an adult in society, or whether I'm enabling this kind of behavior that he probably couldn't afford if he had to go get his own apartment, pay utility bills, etc. etc.
On the Tails side, I grew up in Bethany and hate it. I don't even drive through it if I have a choice, and refuse to spend money there. It is a hick town, run by the Nazarenes and Baptists who elect Sally Kern, Oklahoma's consistent national embarrassment, to the state senate over and over. It's a terrible place to live, and the cops there are only different than the thugs because they have badges (I never got cross threaded with them, but they even treat honest, law abiding people badly). As far as I'm concerned, the world would be a better place without Bethany, Oklahoma.
The Truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in the middle.
My question, and I'm fighting being mad over it, is why I have to play heads and tails in this case. I try to live my life in a way that avoids this kind of dilemma. I don't drink and drive, and I know places like Bethany are crawling with government sanctioned thieves called policemen. (If they were real policemen, they'd do something about crime in their city. They pick on 20 year old kids, but real criminals flock to the place like flies to dog shit.)
One of the benefits to living a clean life within the boundaries is not having to ponder situations like this. The whole thing makes me feel dirty and sick. I feel like I have to negotiate or be caught between two perspectives that I can't stand. I find the whole paradigm distasteful, and want to get away from it. And here I am blogging about it.