February 13, 2007
War On Drugs Department
Open Letter To Barry Cooper
Barry,
From your lengthy comments at FlexYourRights, you know I rather like your video, so please read this with that in mind.
I think part of what's angering people (in addition to the substantive "consent to search" issue) is that your message conflicts with your promotional style. You say you want to right wrongs—on your video you actually say you're doing it all out of love—which implies a degree of altruism on your part.
However, when you're promoting yourself, you come across with all the sincerity of an infomercial pitchman. Combine those two, and you sound like a televangelist. And just to be clear, I don't mean that in a good way.
Personally, I disagree with Loretta Nall's opinion of your video, but the things you've said about her will not win you points in the drug liberalization community. Chill out.
Perhaps your heart is in the right place, but the dark egotistical salesman within your nature is getting in your way. If that's the case, then you know what I'm talking about, because it's been causing you trouble all your life. Again, chill out.
Look, you've got a product that nobody else has. The drug reform groups are trying to get the laws changed, and in the long run, they're the ones who will probably end the war on drugs. In the meantime, however, there are a lot of people who need help avoiding arrest under laws that all of us regard as unjust.
FlexYourRights and similar web sites provide terrific information about the legal issues, but are often lacking in explaining the ground truth of how to handle an encounter with police:
"You have any illegal drugs, sir? Mabe a little pot?"
"No, officer."
"Then you won't mind if I take a look, will you?"
Handling a simple interrogation trick like that takes at least as much street psychology as it does legal acumen, and that's where you have knowledge that most lawyers do not. Your knowledge is a valuable supplement to what's already available on the web.
On another matter, you express dismay that people are complaining that you're doing this to make money, and you point out that doctors and pharamaceutical manufacturers make money for helping people too. True enough. But then don't compare yourself to FlexYourRights or LEAP, both of which are operated as 501(c)(3) public charities.
Listen, I'm hardly an expert, but if you want respect here on the internet, there are a couple of things you could do:
First, give good stuff away for free. My favorite example comes from Googling the phrase "Tivo upgrade". At least from where I am, the number one search result, after the paid advertising, is some guy who sells Tivo upgrade kits out of his house. At his site, you'll find complete instructions for every step of upgrading your Tivo box, including what kind of harddrive to buy, what tools you need, and what software to use. This is great stuff, and it brings people to his site. This openness also makes him trustworthy, which is why I bought an upgrade kit from him instead of doing it all myself.
You can sell your stuff this way too. Start a blog and start giving out free advice to attract traffic. Allow discussions. Some people will trash you (this is the internet, after all) but you'll also find some like-minded supporters. Maybe when sales die down for your video, post the whole thing on your site so people can see it for free. You'll have little to lose, and much to gain with the attention you'll get, especially if you coordinate it with the release of your next video.
Second, and this is the real lesson of all the so-called Web 2.0 companies like YouTube and Flickr, get the community involved in your work. Listen to other people's suggestions, ideas, and yes, even criticisms. You may know more about narcotics enforcement than almost everyone else in the drug liberalization community, but there are many thousands—maybe millions—of us, and collectively we know a lot more than you.
Use our knowledge. For example, you say that refusing a vehicle search never really works. That may well be true in Big Sandy and the Permian basin, but that's not the case everywhere. Instead of arguing about it, set up a web page on your site for people to report what happened when they refused a search. Did the cops press on anyway, like you say they will, or did they shrug their shoulders and find someone else to question? Gather a few thousand of these reports from around the country and plot them on a map, so people can see where the police respect the Fourth Amendment and where they don't.
Then go a step further and start gathering detailed reports of police enforcement tactics and publish those on the web. Become the clearing house for information about police activities. Since you'll be relying on voluntary contributions of information, you won't be able to sell this stuff—nobody would give it to you if they couldn't also see what everyone else was saying—but you could certainly leverage the web traffic by putting ads for your products on every page.
I'm not a web entrepreneur, so these specific ideas are probably worthless, but these are the kinds of things that successful web companies do. Yes, places like Amazon make money by selling products, but they also give away vast amounts of information about the stuff in their catalog and they provide tools for users to rate and recommend products, all for free.
You can't beat the internet, but you can still be one of its many winners.
4 Comments
Leave a comment
.
Mark,
Absolutely the best idea I have heard thus far!!!
I will present this to my team and we will begin working on the new pages of my website to include a page allowing citizens to post their consent encounters with police and a page geographically mapping the attitudes of police behavior.
We should have this accomplished within the next 30 days.
I really wish some of my critiques would come and meet me and my circle of supporters. Any person with any discernment at all quickly notices we are trying our best to provide a product to help people. I knew attacks would come from law enforcement but never dreamed some drug reformers would kick at me.
Keep in mind there are some drug reformers embracing me. I am working with a guy in NORML to speak at Universities in Florida.
The infomercial pitchman style that some seem offended by is my true personality and it has not harmed me in life. This personality of mine is what has brought me to the surface of nearly everything I do and all respect intended...I am not going to change me because of a few haters. I like me and am comfortable with who I am. This personality serves me well at my number one gift...public speaking. I've been told I am better at this then writing, making dvds, selling cars or whatever. I will be traveling and using this gift to motivate people to help in our cause.
I am no longer commenting about Loretta. It is clear to all that her and I have a personality conflict that began with her attacking me and calling me names months ago. The comments she made about me have been posted on the internet by others and can easily be found. I believe my energy is better served promoting my product not in-fighting with Loretta.
By the way...you write beautifully and thanks for how you are handling this.
Barry
Mr. Cooper's insistence that I said negative things about him months ago is another lie. On Tuesday I posted our email and MySpace conversations on my blog. There is nothing negative in any of those emails except Mr. Cooper's threat to 'advise his people against me'. What I have said is all posted there with the exception of the first message I sent Mr. Cooper on Myspace welcoming him to drug policy reform, telling him how excited people were and also that if his product was the real deal that I hoped he made a million dollars. What he has said to me is all posted there as well.
Everything I have said that Mr. Cooper sees as negative or personal has to do with the fact that he did not care for my review of his DVD. I see his advice in the DVD as dangerous at best and it is my duty to warn people against it. I mean....MY GOD he sent the damn thing out in an envelope clearly marked with the wordsd NEVER GET BUSTED indicating that the recipient had something to be busted for. When it was pointed out to him he said...'Hey...it's not my fault'.
What is interesting is Mr. Cooper's insulting attitude toward people who have been doing drug policy reform work for years. He has these grandiose dreams that he will come swooping in 12 YEARS AFTER he was a law enforcement officer, sell outdated, WRONG, and DANGEROUS information to people we care about and then expect us to accept him with open arms all the while never questioning his motives. It is absolutely absurd!!
Then he uses the slogan
"The Most Trusted Name in Anti-Prohibition"...
Yeah.... and I'm Santy Calus!
Mark mentioned Loretta Nall's review. Don't pay attention to the review it is bias. Here's the proof:
Loretta posted this on Feb 14, 2007 on the Flexyourrights site:
"For the record, I have nothing personal against Mr. Cooper. I have a great deal of mistrust for him because of so many red flags over the last few months. I contest his assertion that we have had words in the past. We haven't. I posted our conversations on my blog yesterday so that everyone could see that I was always polite in my queries."
She posted this on her own web site Feb 11, 2007, three days prior to the above post:
"I don't think his insertion of his wife into this discussion has anything to do with police psychology. I think it has way more to do with the fact that most drug policy reformers and organizations are about to take my lead and rip this fucktard to shreds. He's scared and he is running to hide behind wifey's skirt because he has no legitimate defense to offer regarding the questions and red flags raised."
Barry Writes:
POLITE AND OBJECTIVE? I purposely discontinued responding to Loretta's bias comments several months ago because I knew her own words and time would reveal the truth. I was patient and confident time would prove my sincere intentions more than arguing on the internet with haters.
I am curious what policy reformers and organizations are about to take Loretta's lead and rip me to shreds? The Dallas NORML Chapter and the University of North Texas NORML Chapter recently sponsored my Anti-Drug-War Conference at the University of North Texas while ABC's 20/20 was present for the story. (go to www.nevergetbusted.com and click on the photo of me in a suit and beret to watch the speech for free) I do and always have supported all drug reformation organizations regardless of certain individual personality conflicts between a few.
I have received several emails reporting Loretta has deleted posts on her web site that respond in my defense. A quick look at her site shows no post opposing her views. Her forum and review is bias and can't be trusted. She should stop erasing post and allow free speech.
You can visit my updated web site, nevergetbusted.com, browse the NGM COMMUNITY PAGE and discover a map reporting where citizens are likely to encounter drug interdiction officer on the highways of America. I also added a forum where you can ask questions and your post, negative or positive, will not be deleted to slant my arguments.
drug reform is go i believe that the user needs more help and not just jail.but when you sell a illegal drug you need to go to jail. if you get caught with a felony amount of any illegal drug you go to jail.i do not believe that you should show or tell people how to hide an item that by state and federal law is illegal.you talk about k9 units making their k9 false alert. then single them out and let's deal with them not all are bad. you said you wanted to right some wrongs.you can not right your wrongs by blaming all law enforcement officers.if you as an officer put someone in jail because you made your dog false alert then go to the courts and tell them what you did.if someone got a ticket or went to jail because you did not do your job according to the law then you need to adment your wrong and that will correct yours.