I've often wondered why conviction rates indicate that law enforcement
concentrates drug prohibition efforts on poor and minorities. It seemed
strange since middle-class people use most of the drugs, and forfeiture
laws supposedly provide incentive to go after people with lots of property
to seize.

The Michael Irvin trial has answered this question beyond a reasonable
doubt. The unfortunate patrol officers who arrested Mr. Irvin, a wealthy
and famous man, tied up half the force on one case, subjected themselves to
embarassing cross-examination in front of the press, and smothered their
bosses in an avalanche of paperwork for months and months.

Used more routinely, the same police resources could have gotten a hundred
plea-bargained felony drug convictions and generated several hundred
thousand dollars in fines. On top of that, the investigation into nightclub
security has pried open a can of worms that may cost every police officer
in Dallas the opportunity for lucrative part-time work.

Hardly the stuff that makes one a hero.

Even if Mr. Irvin's negotiated community service makes him a veritable
Poster Child for Prohibition, the message to front-line police remains
crystal clear: Why risk grabbing a tiger by the tail when you can meet your
quota by shooting fish in a barrel? Stick with busting the "sleazeballs",
the poor people who couldn't put up a fight even if they were innocent, and
who don't threaten your career when inadvertently injured or killed.

Bob Ramsey,
Irving, TX