Warning: Hypocrisy may Singe Eyebrows

This week's Concrete Dildo award goes to a commenter for the very first time. Not at this site, though, instead at the Drug WarRant in response to this post about the slow, painful death of the 4th Amendment. Commenter "mccm" left this comment (if it's satire, it's brilliant, but if not, whoa boy...):

i'm not just perilously close. i am right on top of them. when pot is illegal, which is the case right now all over the country, it is dumb to carry pot. it IS against the law, and if the guy had nothing to hide, then the sniffing (which the SC majority argues is not a search) would not have resulted in any sort of invasive search. i'll tell you what i do have a problem with though. speed limits. the fact that there are speed limits and everybody speeds means everybody is a criminal. that means cops can selectively choose which criminal they wish to pick on (interesting that this guy has a latino last name). plus, the only case i know of where they lifted speed limits the auto crash fatalities decreased. sort of wish someone would take speeding tickets to a higher court. anywho, point is..drugs are illegal. that is what we need to take care of. you can't expect them not to enforce the law to the full extent while it exists. please don't take this as excusing cops from their responsibility not to be racist bullies. i have no love or respect for the police. i just think that when the laws are on the books you should be perfectly prepared for them to be enforced, and that means if you are going to deal in pounds you better not give a cop even the slightest reason to look at you twice.

So speeding shouldn't be illegal because it allows for selective enforcement, and the laws don't work, but that's totally different from drugs?

No, there's no selective enforcement in the drug war.