Police chief in MA: “Illicit drug use is a form of domestic terrorism”

“Illicit drug use is a form of domestic terrorism to some extent,” Wilmington, Massachusetts Police Chief Michael Begonis said today. “It is preying on folks who are more susceptible and who need a better life. And it’s something that we need to deal with head on.” Like hell, writes Mike Riggs at Reason.com. (via @radleybalko)


  1. I wonder how many other police chiefs haven’t even taken Crim Law 101?  At a minimum, someone needs to help this lost soul look up the meanings of malum in se and malum prohibitum.

  2. “Drugs are terrorism … kinda … sorta … I think.  People who use drugs need better lives …  maybe in prison, where they can’t scare anybody anymore.  I dunno.  Maybe”

  3. He’s right, to a point. It’s not “terr’sm,” of course, but that’s just the current social conservative catch all term for “thing I don’t like” a la speeding is communism. Drug dealing is extortionate and victimizing.

    The solution that both of these asshats are trying so hard to ignore is legalized drugs as well as a civilized, universal health care system (including mental health) and a guaranteed minimum income.

    1. Well, one of the asshats has the power and the resources to imprison people and shoot those who resist, while the other just has an opinion.

    2. Do you consider bottle (alcohol) shops extortionate and victimizing? What about fast food stores?

      Don’t get me wrong some drug dealers are extortionate and victimising. Other people are simply buying in bulk at wholesale prices and selling in smaller quantities at retail prices to people that are well aware of the system, and the affects drugs are having. My weed dealer/good friend falls into the later category.

    3.  Terrorism scares the living bejeezus out of everybody. 
      If it doesn’t induce utter terror it is probably misnamed. 

  4. So if I apply his logic to actual terror spreading terrorists it should still make a certain amount of sense yes? Let’s try it: 

    The 9/11 attackers are… “preying on folks who are more susceptible and who need a better life.”Nope, doesn’t really work. At all. 

  5. In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s a lot of money to be had in fighting “terrorism”.  He’s making the war on drugs into another revenue stream.

    1.  I thought that the “War on Drugs” already was a revenue stream…

      Doesn’t he know that crossing the streams is bad?

      1. Well unless you’re crossing the streams to increase the protonic energy to such an extent that you can close the door-rift to the Gozer’s temple and banish Gozer the Gozerian back to its dimension.  After all, Gozer is really a terrorist, you know, because it is preying on folks who are… uh.. more susceptible and who need a, um, better life…

        Well shit, it doesn’t work there either

        Edit: tag trouble

    2. Or trying to explain why he should be able to take Federal cash doled out to him for fighting terrorism and using it to fund his anti-drug work.

    3. You’ve got it backward. By combining the War On Terror with the War On Drugs, he can dramatically reduce expenses caused by duplication of effort. We need more thrifty-minded officials like Michael Begonis.

      After this, they’ll merge with the War On Poverty and start saving some serious cash.

  6. Maybe if Chief Wiggum there would fire up a joint every now and again, his life would get a little better. But maybe that’s just the reefer madness talking.

  7. I, for one, congratulate our Boing Boing masters for the new site look.


    No, I am not trying to hijack the thread . . .

    1. Has anyone else noticed that clicking the images in the comments now brings up a popup with an equally small scaled version of the image clicked? Thankfully there is an ‘original’ button here which opens a new tab, but it’s a shame its a two click process.

  8. “It is preying on folks who are more susceptible and who need a better life…” 
    Maybe he was thinking of State run Lotteries and Casinos.

  9. ““It is preying on folks who are more susceptible and who need a better life. ”

    I assume, of course, that hunting down, imprisoning, and hobbling with a permanent police record, these same susceptible people in need of a better life is somehow not terrorism?

    1. I got a jaywalking citation once near the Grand Lake in Oakland. Of course, I was walking down the middle of the road wearing a sandwich board calling for the overthrow of the US government.

    1. I believe that the conventional way to deal with this level of idiocy is to talk them into running for office.

  10. When someone says something that proves clearly they don’t understand their job or their language, they should be fired and sent back to school.

  11. Who, even the most clairvoyant among us, could EVER have imagined that once the executive branches 9-11 Power Plays took hold, and the Patriot Act was signed into law, that these laws would be reinterpreted to herd the rest of us like cattle? 

    Welcome to the US’s wet dream – a veritable Neo China where each and every personal and economic freedom evaporates at the will of our overseers.

  12. YAY! They’ll finally do something to make peoples lifes better! Right? Right? Please tell  me that’s what they’re thinking of as solution…

  13. Considering the fact that marijuana has never killed anyone due to overdose or adverse drug reaction in 5,000 years, and the Mexican cartels exist because of the war on drugs (50,000 deaths in 6 years), I think it’s safe to say who the terrorist really are.   

    We legalized alcohol and the bootleggers stopped shooting citizens with tommy guns.

    Is that really so hard for Chief Big-one-over-on-us to understand?

Comments are closed.