The Heroic Brad Jardis Kicked Out of LEAP!

Brad JardisA few days back on this blog we posted the news that longtime NH police officer Brad Jardis was no longer going to arrest medical cannabis users. Jardis has shown much courage – far more than the average cop – in first coming out verbally against the insane war on drugs, and now taking the first step into actually doing the right thing and refusing to enforce bad laws.

Despite the courage he has and the support he has earned in the community because of it, the organization known as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition has unceremoniously booted him from their ranks. Brad posted the email he received from LEAP’s head, Jack Cole, on the Free Keene Forum. In it, Cole takes position that while LEAP members are encouraged to speak out about the horrors of prohibition, as long as they are employed as LEOs, they must enforce bad laws, because to not do so would be “unethical and wrong”. It’s a sad statement that outs LEAP as an organization of nothing more than a bunch of talkers, rather than doers. Of course, Cole is incorrect. Enforcing laws that harm peaceful people is what is unethical and wrong.

Other law enforcement officers, who are members of LEAP, have announced they will be sending in their resignations. Many other supporters of LEAP are sending in revocations of their membership, and explaining why. Some of these messages can be found on this forum thread.

Here’s the message Jack Cole sent to Brad, with Cole’s full contact info at the bottom.

Dear Bradley Jardis,

I have tried but am unable to reach you by telephone.

It has come to LEAP’s attention from the below blog entry, that you have
chosen to violate the oath you took on joining the police department; to
enforce all the laws of the federal and state governments in which your
police department has jurisdiction. And worse, you are calling on other law
enforcement officials to violate their oaths of office.

This is the opposite of what LEAP requires of our representatives. We have
always said that we will in no way ask that any law enforcer decline to do
his or her duty by refusing to enforce the laws as they are currently
recorded. That would be unethical and wrong. What we do call on them for is
take action on their off-duty time to help us change those laws.

Because you have so blatantly stepped over that line, your actions have
caused people to lose respect for our organization, which leads to a loss of
our credibility within the public, the media and the policymakers; the very
people whom we are trying to convince to change these laws.

The Executive Board of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition was made aware of
your actions in their January 22, 2010 Board meeting. They were unanimous in
their decision that you must no longer represent Law Enforcement Against
Prohibition while espousing this belief.

As Executive Director of LEAP, I therefore am notifying you that,
effectively immediately, you are to stop referring to yourself as a speaker
for or member of LEAP in your publications, interviews, and public or
private addresses.


Jack A. Cole
Executive Director
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
121 Mystic Avenue, Medford, MA 02155
(781) 393-6985 LEAP Office (781) 393 2964 FAX
(781) 396-0183 Home Office (617) 792-3877 Cell

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


This letter was sent to a Sheriff in another state, but says it all (edited for N.H.)

Dear Jack Cole,

I am writing you out of concern for the people of New Hampshire.

An incident occurred this weekend that places the sovereignty of our citizens, and the implicit authority of Officers of the Law in grave jeopardy. The actions that were allowed to happen are actually cause for your removal from office. I do endorse this type of action, because it is your fault due to lack of knowledge of the law and/or the oath the LEO take.

First, you must understand that they take their oath of office and this oath was to “uphold, support, defend and obey the United States Constitution”. If your oath of office did not include this phrase, then the administrator of that oath is in clear violation of Article VI paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution. If you did not know, they are actually in the “EXECUTIVE BRANCH” of government. You are the Executor of the Law. What is that Law? The U.S. Constitution to which you swore your oath.

Second, the 10th amendment of the U.S Constitution states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. Federal laws -enacted outside the Constitutional mandate- are not binding to any states legislature or Citizens of the particular States. This was confirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Mack/Printz v. United States ( ). The only people that can be held accountable to this Federal Law, in my opinion, would be Federal employees or persons dwelling on Federal Property. I am pushing the envelope on the former, but believe I am 100% accurate on the latter.

Your states Legislature enacted a law allowing for the cultivation and use of this substance for medical purposes. This law is the Supreme law of New Hampshire and is to be enforced by the Executive/Judicial branch of your State, not the Federal government. In fact, the Federal government has no authority over any Law Enforcement authority or person in your state when it comes to this issue.

It is up to you to support and defend the individual sovereign rite of the people of every State. You will be one of them when you retire, do you want to be on the wrong end of illegal enforcement of un-Constitutional laws? I pray not sir, pray not.

To be honest with you, I do not encourage or support the use of marijuana in any way, shape or form. I am concerned with the distinct separation of powers, the Constitution of this Country and the individual Constitutions of each Sovereign State of the Union.


I fully understand the pressure those law enforcement members are under. Yet, listening to the argumentation thread of John Cole at Freetalk Live the other week made me rethink my appreciation for that organisation.

He literally said that if an officer gets an order he has no right whatsoever to decline to follow that order.

What kind of mindset is that? Is a man who enters law enforcement to give up his consiousness? Give up his freedom? This would mean that, to have freedom for the citizens some men have to give up their "inalienable" rights?

I am of German heritage and I have to tell you, I heard that phrase more often than I would had love to hear it. It was the excuse of all the SS guys and petty dictators after the regime of national socialism (mind the word socialism) had broken down.

Now get me right, I do not say that law enforcement in the US can be compared in any way to the Nazis.

But the argument used by John Cole is just the equivalent of theirs to justify their deeds.

That should make him rethink his position. At least I hope he will.

Have a great weekend all.

Dana Larsen
Dana Larsen

There are many current police officers who have joined LEAP and no doubt taken flack from their co-workers and risked their jobs to show their support for ending prohibition.

If LEAP was to be seen as a group which encourages police officers to not do their jobs, their on-duty members could be fired or forced to quit LEAP.

Of course Brad Jardis is doing a brave thing, but for LEAP to endorse his actions would risk the jobs of all their other on-duty officers.


My apologies king if I misread your post.

When you said you were ashamed of every one on this thread I thought you meant our point of view of ending prohibition & changing tactics by regulation & education rather than continuing prohibition & the drug war.

Let me clarify on regulation. I am not for the fed gov doing that. I do favor state govs doing it. The feds have too much power as it is & meddle way too much in state's affairs.

Plus the only way to get control of the drug war is to legalize everything. The dangerous stuff like coke,heroine, meth, X & so on should be allowed, but connected to what I call Consequences Of Use education. Cannabis is the only drug that they have to lie about how dangerous it is. That cannabis is not a dangerous addictive killer means it should be RE-legalized & left alone like alcohol, tobacco & coffee.

I agree that cannabis should out be be RE-legalized. If we can make beer & wine at home why not be able to grow the much safer than alcohol cannabis plant?

To my mind prohibition of 'smoking' cannabis & industrial cannabis [hemp] is in place to protect the killer Rx industry, synthetic industries (plastics, synthetic 'supplements', rayon, nylon...), big cotton big oil & lumber... It's all about the $$ & protecting huge profits.



WHOA! Hey, samfox, you've got my position all wrong, dude! offense taken on my part...Anslinger? Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs. W.R.Hearst, control of vast timber interests, & warmonger. See: W.R.Hearst's role in the bogus "Spanish-American" ""war""...(To this day, there is *NO* solid evidence that the U.S.S. Maine exploded by any reason other than accident/sabotage. *NO* solid evidence of *ANY* Spanish involvement exists...Yes, I know my shit, dude...Marijauna Tax Stamp Act, $100./ounce tax...The anti-mexican rascism of early anti-cannabis efforts...Gimme a break, OK?...I think that the "gov't" should take a "hands-off" approach to weed, and deal w/harder drugs separately. Yes, I'm aware that in 2009, more NH citizens died of drug/alcohol overdoses than in car crashes. 1/2 of those deaths were due to RX drugs! The other 1/2, mostly methadone overdoses...(the rest of the kiddies here need the education, so, thanks for raggin' on me. &No, my crown isn't "to" tight...I had to pawn it at Good Fortune. I don' need no crown nohow...*I has cheezbrgrz* *MEOW*...


Norbert's 100% correct here. Thanks! I say, decriminalize marijauna. Let adults grow and smoke it in private. Within a year or 2, the import market for weed would be gone. No more narco-trafficers in weed, anyway! Very little else would change in a bigger public perspective...just go look at the latest High Times. The American public is producing ever greater quality and quantities of weed, even under current prohibition conditions. The "other drugs"??? whatever.///



that question seems valid in the first place. Yet, the reason for the shadow market is the prohibition itself. Because the risk to deal with prohibited goods is of magnitudes higher than with, say bubble gum, criminal gangs will start to run the market, as they do not shy away of violent action and big scale bribery to minimize their risk getting caught.

Once the prohibition ends, the market for gangs with such violent behavior dries up (see alcohol prohibition) and crimes in this realm almost ceases to exist.

End prohibition equals end crime that paid during prohibition.

Now instead just having a free market you would opt to have the gov control the good. Admitted it might reduce the violent crime, but not as much as just ending prohibition.

Government would come up with rules on whom to sell, what to sell at what price, all the good stuff. Rules to be effective are always enforced at gun point. And voila, we have again a market with a pretty high risk for all those bad guys willing to provide those that do not fall within the government admitted group of users.

That's why I think just ending the prohibition is the right means. Besides my basic belief that government has no business in any victimless crime anway.


We don't need either the criminals on the streets or the criminals in government controlling things, we need to let people be free to make their own decisions, as long as they don't harm others. People can handle buying beer, other food, pharmaceuticals, etc, etc, without government control. There are many sources of good information these days other than the government.

I of course agree with you that regulation would be better than prohibition, however.

No good person should kidnap sick people for using cannabis. Jardis took the right stand. I think the thinking of LEAP (not that it's unusual) is far too concerned with process, rather than morality. Actions are not judged rightly by whether they follow a certain process e.g: did politicians elected in a vote approve them? Rather, they are judged rightly by their inherent nature.

It is no conflict to say that for southern police to refuse to arrest murderers of minorities was immoral, but refusing to arrest Rosa Parks would have been moral. Rosa parks was not harming others -- the murderers were. That is the criteria -- the law is not the criteria.

Again: there is no valid moral judgment of an action on any basis other than its inherent moral nature.

I certainly wish LEAP great success in their efforts against prohibition, but I choose to use my limited resources on efforts I find to be more principled. Reformation towards a society in which all individuals, including cops, take responsibility for their own moral actions is far too important a goal for me to sideline it in any way.

I don't want respect for the law, I want respect for people's rights, and opposition to aggressive violence.



I understand where you are coming from.

One is tempted to ask then why we should be campaigning for prohibition to end? Cos the Government doesnt have control - criminal gangs do.

I want people to decide for themselves, on better information than they have now. We can only do that with regulation - which means some government involvement



Letting government to control anything will always lead to bribery, higher price, worse quality and racketing.

Not sure you want that,no?



i agree with everything you say, except yes, i do want the government to control them. In fact, I would be happy with anyone controlling them - excet the criminal gangs that control them now


Comment by theKINGofKEENE

January 28, 2010 @ 6:22 pm

"YO!, rory! L.E.A.P. wants, in addition to “legalizing” all drugs, for the *GOV’T* to control production & distribution of drugs. That what you want? Here’s your new LEAP acronym: “LEAP”: Lame Excuses for America’s Police”. I’m not proud of *ANYBODY* in this whole story. I’m ashamed of you all. Please stop proving how stupid you all are, OK???…anybody else see the Union Leaders’ comments section on this story???…Where has my America gone???…"

Yo, King of Keene. I think your crown is to tight.

How else can we handle drugs & the drug war? What would you suggest? Do you know that LEO's have killed more people in botched drug raids in the last 15-20 years than cannabis has in all recorded history? Here is your lame excuse for many US LEO's.

Do you want to live in a free country?

You must acknowledge that drugs are here. To stay. After decades of the failed war on drugs, there are more drugs in the US than ever. They are 'better' & cheaper. So, do you think the war on drugs is a success? Would you rather have the drugs manufactured & controlled by the States who would impose quality controls so doses would be uniform & prevent many over dose deaths or let the cartels keep producing them?

The only thing that has not been tried is the RE-legalization of all drugs. The Fed gov should not do the dispensing or manufacture, the states should. The RE-legalization & dispensing of drugs should be linked to Consequenses Of Use education as some drugs are very addictive. Drug use should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal one. RE-legalization would be much less expensive than the war & would save lives.

Do you have any idea of how many die every year from legal Rx drugs, "whose side affects may include"... death?

Who is making $$ from the drug war? The cartels make the most. How much is funneled to bribes? How far does the corruption reach? You are not tired of all that? RE-legalization would take a lot of $$ from the cartels & reduce corruption. I say dry up their profits, RE-legalize! But educate, honestly, as well.

You need to do the research on WHY cannabis was made illegal. Here is a teaser: Did you know that W.R. Hearst was not really worried about cannabis? Do you even know who he & Harry Anslinger were? Hearst was after hemp, not the kind of cannabis that gets ya 'high'. So he linked smoking cannabis to industrial hemp so he could get HEMP outlawed. I challenge you to find out why.

No disrespect is intended. But you set me off by your apparent lack of knowledge as per your statements.

Please realize: THE WAR ON DRUGS IS AN ABJECT FAILURE!!! IT IS SO TOTALLY LOST!! Not to mention so expensive & deadly to freedom & liberty & innocent lives! To change direction is NOT NOT NOT surrender!!! It IS changing tactics so that lives can be saved & freedom to choose is restored. Re visit my 2nd link.

Not shouting. Caps are for emphasis not shouting. Thanks.



YO!, rory! L.E.A.P. wants, in addition to "legalizing" all drugs, for the *GOV'T* to control production & distribution of drugs. That what you want? Here's your new LEAP acronym: "LEAP": Lame Excuses for America's Police". I'm not proud of *ANYBODY* in this whole story. I'm ashamed of you all. Please stop proving how stupid you all are, OK???...anybody else see the Union Leaders' comments section on this story???...Where has my America gone???...

Ronnie Smith
Ronnie Smith

I will no longer be giving money or other support to leap. I am upset by the way they treated Barry Cooper, and now Brad.

These officers took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution first and foremost, not enforcing those laws is the heart of that idea.

Russell Kanning
Russell Kanning

Do local cops really swear to uphold all federal and state laws? Do they have to read them or are they just told which ones to enforce?


Hey Seth thanks for the tip on the book - I will look into it.

and thanks to some of the positive comments.

Look we all want the laws changed. Currently there is a tyranny of the majority (of non drug takers) using law enforcement to impose their will on a minority (drug takers)

LEAP understands this and wants this changed. Allowing one cop to, noble his motives undoubtedly are, to pick and choose, is good news for a few people that would otherwise have been arrested by him.

I am concerned by all the rest of society as well.

If we want the majority to respect the laws once we end prohibition and the war on drugs then we have a lot of wok to do to persuade them.

LEAP are crucial in this.

Plus - can you imagine Fox News? Instead of talking about the injustivce of the war on drugs, Fox News will just bang on about cops breaking the law the next time a LEAP speaker is invited to speak on their channel.

For those of you withdrawing your support from LEAP - I wish you all the best, but I would like to remind you that we are all wanting to end prohibition. We should move forward on that agenda, even if you are supporting another group.

Then we will be that much closer to getting these insane laws changed.

ps - i am so jealous that in the USA this subject is being debated. Here in the UK the silence is deafening.


"In theory the law is the will of the people, and so should be followed by the officer."

That worked out great for the Nazis, it was the will of the people to kill Jews.

Just like it's the American Taliban's will to have men with guns kidnap cancer victims for using a natural and safe medication to ease their pain and cure their vomiting. They hire cops to do their dirty work; most of them will do that dirty work for money. (They won't do it for free, it's pure greed on their part.)

Your Nuremberg Defense is a failed theory:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility" see:

Cops are responsible for the things that they do, even if it's "the will of the people."


I'm smoking a bowl right now, and I still can understand LEAP's position. While I may not agree with this decision, I understand LEAP not want to encourage officers to ignore laws at their own discretion. In theory the law is the will of the people, and so should be followed by the officer. I can't help but be a bit disappointed at this action by one of my favorite groups for marijuana law reform, but I understand their actions.

Sam A. Robrin
Sam A. Robrin

Comment by SamFox

January 26, 2010 @ 2:12 pm

I think Brad put LEAP in a bad position. He gave the foes of reform a topic to attack us with, something along the lines of “Look at LEAP. They are just anarchists who do not respect the rule of law."

I wrote a piece addressing just that issue. While I still think it needs some polishing, I stand totally behind the basic sentiment:


He's no cheap politician -- he costs us plenty of dough!

He does the work of three men -- Curly, Larry, and Moe!

When it's time to choose,

Too bad both sides can't lose.

Anyone can be President -- this election proves it's so!

Don't say he's not responsible -- he's responsible for every disaster.

You call him a public servant, but he's really a private master.

There's no difficulty proving

When he lies: his lips are moving.

He may run for office, but he runs for the border faster!

And with the federal, state, and local law,

I'm perfectly content.

It's the best damn country you ever saw

Because of the government.

Sure, there're plenty of troubles --

We can solve them if we vote.

The ease of the journey doubles

When everyone rows the boat.


An honest politician stays bought when he's paid.

He keeps on running -- he's got special interests to evade.

People who love saus-

Ages and federal laws

Should never watch while either's being made.

But the rule of law in the USA

Has worked year after year.

Don't like it? You can move away.

I'll bet you stay right here!

Bad-mouth it, and I'll give you

A good sock in the jaw

To preserve the way we live, you

Better respect the rule of law.

They can count upon our laughter.

Proceeding merrily,

We give them what they're after


Our early education

Made us much too sentimental.

If we want to heal the nation,

We'll have to be less gentle.


Hey, I'm still glad LEAP exists. It's just not something I'm going to spend a lot of time supporting. We've got enough tepidity and general lack of moral courage to go around already.

Trying desperately not to offend people does not effect change. Standing on principle does. Ron Paul, for example, was considered crazy by many at the time of the campaign. They simply had not heard a clear statement of pro-liberty principles. Now, his issues he advanced are all over the political debate, and he has sparked a major movement.

Beltway libertarians have been at it for years. They try to appear moderate, not offend anyone, etc, and they accomplish nothing.

At some point, politely asking if at a plan might be made for slaves to have slightly better living conditions doesn't cut it. Engaging in that debate cedes the important point: Slavery is morally wrong. Instead, you've got to say, "enough!", and take a stand against evil.

Suppose you are an abolitionist in 1820. Suppose a brave cop stated he would not arrest escaped slaves, or those who help them, because slavery is wrong. Now suppose a purportedly anti-slavery group put a statement out condemning that cop -- and saying that it would be "immoral" not to arrest escaped slaves, and send them back to their "masters".

Who would be advancing the cause of freedom in that case? Who would be thwarting it? Is that organization an organization you would support? Of course not.

Perhaps these people need to be offended. Perhaps they need to begin to think about and address these issues, and realize that these are not parlor games, they are hurting real people. You win by taking a stand, not by making everyone like you.

I think the broader, even more vital issue, is of personal responsibility for one's actions.

If I could either have the legalization of all drugs by the legislature, or a police force full of men and women who understand that they are morally responsible for their own actions, and who obey healthy consciences, I would choose the latter.

The true threat to liberty is blind, rote, unthinking obedience, and lack of principle on an individual level.

Doug nusbaum
Doug nusbaum

It is the same at all the sites. Complaining. Ignorance. Ignorance of our history. (We were not founded as a Democracy which our founders despised with many stated reasons). Ignorance of human nature. If you do not understand the problem (go look in a mirror) you are doomed. You might as well try and stop the plague buy killing cats.

I have some ideas on the subject. (But you need a long attention span since this runs to 6000+ words) And I have some ideas on how to address the current situation. Go to and then go to orwell's boot.

I have not posted any ideas for solutions since I do not want people just telling me why my ideas suck. I want to gather the thoughts of others.


Yup. His name is Brad, not Sam. My mistake. My apologies.

But I still think, given the public divide over the lost war on drugs & those who want to take a different approach, that Brad should have been more discrete.

I think Brad put LEAP in a bad position. He gave the foes of reform a topic to attack us with, something along the lines of "Look at LEAP. They are just anarchists who do not respect the rule of law. They advocate breaking the law." You know the enemies of freedom & shills for the Rx industry will spin any thing they can to confuse the voters & scare them away from reforming big brother's attack on personal liberty via prohibition. We must remember that many are still misinformed by Reefer Madness style propaganda.

If the establishment can scare the general public with more BS before they hear the points of view of drug law reformers before they hear our side they will. Don't forget the excesses of the '60's are still used to blame the substances rather than individuals who made choices. I was there. I know how big bro works. They will lie & deceive. In '68 I was framed by a local county sheriff before I had even seen any drugs just because I was growing my hair.

Rather than dumping on LEAP, we should still support them. We should support Brad as well. I don't think LEAP wanted to lose Brad as a member. But I gather that they have to protect their public image in the midst of the currant unjust drug law atmosphere.

If Brad had made his announcement independent of LEAP I think they would not have said any thing. It's hard to say. But he said he was making his stand as a LEAP member. Did he not know LEAP's position before he used the LEAP name in his E mail?

Brad to me is a hero. He took a very courageous stand. But IMO he should not have been so provocative in doing so. Brad is taking a brave stand. But sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

LEAP has made inroads to many in positions of power & and authority in the US & and around the world. They have done a LOT of good for the drug law reform movement. Please, let us not throw out baby with the with water.



Hey Rory, I'm with you on the "let's not over-react to the LEAP ordeal" stance. I still think LEAP is a huge net positive despite this last charade. However, it doesn't sound like you spent much time investigating Natural Order, or Anarcho-Capitalism as an alternative to Democracy. The truth is every "service" the government provides for us can be done more efficiently and qualitatively through the voluntary free-market.

I don't know how much you've read on Austrian Economics, so I don't know if the book I am about to recommend is a good start or not, but the book that brought me around to the Anarchy camp and away from the Constitutional camp is titled "For A New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard. It can be purchased through I highly recommend it.


I remember hearing on Free Talk Live, that the NH Police's oath specified the officer's ability to use their own disgression. Perhaps I am mistaken...but if LEAP is going to call Brad out as having chosen to "violate the oath" he took; show me the oath, in its entirety, and show me exactly which portion is supposed to have been violated. I know; it was probably intended to have been a private correspondence, and I'm just being nosy, but I suspect LEAPs claims would fail to hold up to scrutiny.

Malcolm Kyle
Malcolm Kyle

I agree; "If LEAP was an anti-segregation organization, they would have kicked Rosa Parks out for sitting at the front of the bus."

Or if LEAP was around in 1939-45 they would have happily condoned herding Jews into freight cars, while falsely claiming to campaign for a different outcome.

I'm done with them!


Freedom is the greatest thing we have. Not democracy.

When democracy gets in the way of liberty and freedom, then it's not good anymore, like an apple that has rotted: It may have been good when it was fresh, but it stinks now. There is no way to make a rotten apple fresh again. Just like failing and corrupt governments have never been fix to a previous "glorious" state.

Without democracy there is still freedom and voluntary association. Democracy is not freedom. You do not get freedom from democracy.

I want to live in a place where I am not forced to pay for other people's wars through mandatory taxation.

This includes wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the war on drugs.

Centralized federal governments are a horrible experiment from the 1700's, it's time to put those old barbaric ideas to rest. Mandatory taxation will be looked back upon as a black mark in human history, it's no different than slave trading.


The adage is right: democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

What do I prefer? A society in which individual rights are respected, free of the delusion that if you use government to do your theft (or other abuse) for you, it's somehow "legitimate".

Slavery was once ubiquitous, and universally protected, but is now not tolerated. We need to have a similar ethical awakening. If a behavior would be immoral for you as an individual, it's immoral for a government. Aggressive violence is not acceptable behavior, and popular opinion does not determine morality.


Democracy is the greatest thing we have.

It is not a question of faith to suggest so - more analysis of comparisons between conditions for people that live in a democracy and those people that dont.

Without it - what else is there? This may not be a forum for a discussion on international politics - or maybe it is - but where else would you want to live?

LEAP want to change the drug laws, and I am with them in this.


On what grounds do you believe in democracy? It hasn't turned out any better than some of the old monarchies. But beyond that, on what grounds do you believe in the state? Why all the faith?


Ok - dont support LEAP - your call, your freedom of choice.

You may even join or create another group if you so wish. I am going to stick with them because they, and the other drug reform groups are the best chance we have of getting rid of our insane drug laws.

Dont stick with them if you want - but it just brings us further away from the day when prohibition has finally ended.

What remains is that the conversation will continue as will the debate on the drug laws of my country, and in the USA.

I for one believe in democracy despite all its faults. As Churchill said, it is the worst system of all, apart from from all of the others.


"We need to convince more of our fellow citizens to get on board and demand that change of our politicians. Politicians work for US, the people. And if they dont do what we say, then we elect someone else."

Unsuprisingly, Rory turns out to be a sniveling collectivist.


Brad Jardis swore an Oath to support uphold and defend the Constitution and he's honoring his Oath.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws, like, Shall Not Be Infringed. Start standing up and protecting all of your "in a lien able" Rights, support and defend the greatest document our Founding Father's could possibly leave for us. Read it, learn it and protect it. Thank you for honoring your Oath Brad, you're a hero!


Anti-LEAP comments here are justified.

Turn your back on LEAP - and support an organization that is truly against prohibition.

If LEAP was an anti-segregation organization, they would have kicked Rosa Parks out for sitting at the front of the bus.

What sane organization makes it a requirement that their members arrest people dying of cancer that use a safe and natural medication to ease their pain? -- That's not an organization I am going to support.

Kicking people like Brad out of LEAP for refusing to arrest sick people was a stupid move.

To me LEAP stands for: LEAP over the cliff of stupidity like a mindless lemming.

Malcolm Kyle
Malcolm Kyle

I've pondered over this intensely, every waking hour of the last 24. I have spent the last 20 years researching every aspect of drug prohibition and the last 4 years actively blogging (daily) and writing LTEs (not often enough) against it. The only sense I can make of this is that Jack Cole has lost his grasp on reality.

I shall no longer promote or have anything further to do with LEAP, as I now consider them to be part of this very grave problem.


Ok - again anti-LEAP comments here are unjustified.

They want to end PROHIBITION of drugs. All of them.

Turning your back to them is exactly what the Prohibitionists want you to do.

They want the Drug Reform Movement to split so they can maintain the War on Drugs.

You want the War on Drugs and Prohibition to stop?

Then it can only be done by changing the laws of the USA, and I want my country the UK, to change our stupid drug laws too.

How do we change the laws?

We need to convince more of our fellow citizens to get on board and demand that change of our politicians. Politicians work for US, the people. And if they dont do what we say, then we elect someone else.

Turn your back on LEAP - and you make the day that Prohibition ends that much further away.


FYI, the name's "Brad Jardis", not "Sam".

I think the public announcement is the most important part of this. It is unlikely that Brad would have run into many medical cannabis users anyway. The most important point is to take the stand that police should be men and women of conscience, who think for themselves -- not mindless automata. Police used to be more connected to the community than to the bureacurats and politicians, and they used to care more about maintaining peace and protecting innocents, than blindly enforcing obedience.

These are the kinds of cops we need -- this point is larger than just the war on drugs. Effecting real change requires just this kind of courage.


I read the LEAP comment. I can see where they are coming from. Mr. Jardis, according to the LEAP statement, posted his intentions on the net. He went public rather loudly rather than just going about his LEO business of not arresting non violent folks for drugs.

To me it would be better for Mr. J to have kept a lower profile. If he loses his job because he was to blatant, we who love the Constitution will have lost a good friend and patriot in a position to do a lot of people a lot of good. I do not think Sam J acted wisely by his loud proclamation. Hope his boss is not mad at him and takes action to cull the Sam J's from the force. Sam may have put a lot of others who share his view in the spotlight and cause them to lose their jobs or be warned not to follow Sam's example. Especially if this goes national via the net & other news outlets.

From the LEAP statement I gathered that they had no problem with his intent to stand for the Constitution by not arresting certain people. LEAP, as far as I can tell, only made their statement and took their action because Sam J was TOO public. It must be noted that LEAP, because of Reefer Madness type propaganda, is in a rather precarious position before the uneducated part of the public and those in power.

Sam J is to be highly commended for his stand. But he should have been a bit more wise in his approach and just go about his job on the QT.



Sam Jardis should join the Oath Keepers, especially since LEAP has abandoned him, the Oath Keepers will support his determination to not enforce unconstitutional laws. I will be withdrawing my membership in LEAP over this, as well. LEAP will lose far more support because of this action than they ever would over their members who are still on the job refusing to enforce laws that violate their oaths and the Constitution.


<blockquote cite="WALLACE J. HILLIARD">

Before you’re robbed, maimed, or murdered by a government officer in the U.S., you are entitled to hear the wheels turn inside the head of the government officer and hear from the officer himself his exact reasoning of how he is not in violation of your 9th Amendment protection against infringement of all non-enumerated rights.

I'd rather have the wheels turn inside his head, questioning the morality of his actions as well, but constitutionality is certainly better than nothing.


One hundred and forty years years ago LEAS - Law Enforcement Against Slavery - kicked out Sam Jardis for daring to declare that he would no longer chase down and arrest run away slaves. He should be obeying the law of course!


To TOM and the other members of law enforcement .

A year ago I may have laughed at Brad .. calling him silly or stupid .. I would have definitely suggested any one comparing his opinions to the cops who dealt with Rosa Parks or even those who rounded up people and dragged them to concentration camps as idiotic .... as America is far from Nazi Germany , but police who enforce laws that are in reality detrimentally to society as a whole are remiss in their duties. He just says the cops have a duty to ignore unjust laws , as we would as jurors , if we were told we had that right during deliberations (fija).

I do not use drugs , I do not like the way I feel under their influence . I do think what some one wants to put into their own body is their choice. If privacy is good enough for a lady who wants to abort my child then under equal protection under the law it says the same about ingesting what ever I choose to .

Please tell me how prohibition has ever had any positive effect. How do you begin to tell an adult what they can do ? Do you ever think we can be stopped from doing what we WANT ?

I want one single LEO to prove the war on drugs had shown any real benefit to society as a whole .

Brad is just telling the truth .. the war on drugs is an abject failure .. always has been and always will be. It serves no purpose but to enrich the Industrial prison complex and I dare you to try and prove me wrong . Please tell me how jailing over 500,000 non violent citizens for possessing a god damn plant does a single thing to make our streets safer . Please.

It boils done to this .. the powers that be feel they have a right to tell me what I can do with my own body .. and I say FUCK OFF !! I own my body .. and if I choose to waste the time I have here so be it.. leave me the hell alone!!

Wallace J. Hilliard
Wallace J. Hilliard

lpviper wrote to the leap guy: "Maybe you should try knowing what the damn oath says. Constitution first, then the laws. Because if the law is unconstitutional, then you shan’t enforce it, ok stupid?"

I love to explain to the government mafia's hitmen that they are sworn first to uphold the federal and states' bills of rights and then--secondly therefore--only statutes that are not in violation of those bills of rights.

Often they are trained to respond by saying that they are actually sworn to uphold court opinions concerning the bills of rights and not their own understanding of the bills of rights.

But I call them liars. Their oaths are directly to the constitutions. There is no intermediary. That means that the difference between living in Nazi Germany and a constitutional republic like this--where the government's executive officers must swear oaths directly to the constitutions--is that when they come for me to murder me or load me on the train bound for the camps, they must tell me how according to their own understanding their actions don't violate the bills of rights.

That's all. That's the only difference between the American constitutional republics and a nazi-style dictatorship. So don't forget: Before you're robbed, maimed, or murdered by a government officer in the U.S., you are entitled to hear the wheels turn inside the head of the government officer and hear from the officer himself his exact reasoning of how he is not in violation of your 9th Amendment protection against infringement of all non-enumerated rights.

If the government officer doesn't do this for you before he robs, maims, or murders you, you might as well be robbed, maimed, or murdered by a German Nazi and you're missing out on all the benefits of living in a free constitutional republic!


In it, Cole takes position that while LEAP members are encouraged to speak out about the horrors of prohibition, as long as they are employed as LEOs, they must enforce bad laws, because to not do so would be “unethical and wrong”.

Does this mean we should put presidents Bush and Obama in prison because they write signing statements stating why they are not going to enforce the laws that Congress passes?


I thought readers might be interested to know that LEAP's executive director, Jack Cole, posted an official response today to the concerns raised by some supporters at I thought readers might be interested to know that LEAP's executive director, Jack Cole, posted an official response today to the concerns raised by some of our supporters at:


Fuck off, LEAP, and Fuck off, Jack Cole. You are no friend of liberty.

My association with and endorsement of LEAP is at its end.

Maybe you should try knowing what the damn oath says. Constitution first, then the laws. Because if the law is unconstitutional, then you shan't enforce it, ok stupid?

And whoever the bunch of assholes is on your board, they suck too.


What a surprise.. a compromising political organization.

Wouldn't a statement saying that Jardis doesn't speak for the organization have sufficed? It would be one thing to give Jardis the boot.. that would be normal, cowardly, pathetic, politics. However, saying that what he is doing is unethical is unnecessary, and revealing of just how worthless LEAP is.

Is it possible that the LEAP's "executive board" is just being childish, and jealous, as Brad's courageous action is showing up their pathetic talk? That would be sad, but not as bad as them being another corrupted organization that neuters efforts toward liberty, and distorts understanding.

Another example of how supporting groups, using labels, and collectivist thinking, is used to sabotage an individual's freedom.


Yes, and sadly this public relations move panders to the most damaging attitude among LEOs and citizens today -- perhaps the most damaging attitude possible in any civilized society -- the notion that one should ignore one's own conscience, and knowingly do what one believes to be evil -- simply because one is ordered to do it. Talk about setting up the pins for some real tyranny ...

Scott Bieser
Scott Bieser

In fact, LEOs routinely exercise discretion in enforcing the laws. Every day, thousands of people caught in minor violations are "let off with a warning" by police who decide that arresting or citing someone in a particular situation is inappropriate.

This move by Cole is all about public relations, not about any vital principle of law enforcement.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!