I don't know him, and I know he's never done anything to harm me. So far as I know he's a thoroughly respectable man. So I wanted to say that right off the bat.

I don't believe it adviseable to pin one's support or oposition to a sheriff based on the DARE program. DARE has been a popular program. Popular and effective are two different things. Popular does not make a program effective at what it is supposed to do. A lot of research can be done on a program that had been around as long as DARE has, and there is significant research out there to show that it is often an ineffective program that still costs money to produce.

Let me quote one PhD who has done research on DARE:
"DARE is very popular with students, school administrators, police, and the general public. This, in spite of the fact that research over the decades has repeatedly demonstrated that DARE is not only ineffective, but also sometimes counterproductive. That is, students who graduate from DARE are sometimes more likely than others to drink or do drugs. There are probably many reasons for the remarkable ineffectiveness of the DARE program. For example, it is based on out-dated theories of learning and human behavior, it fails to distinguish between legal substances and illegal drugs, it views all use (even by adults) as abuse, and it presents a view of substance use inconsistent with that most students see in their own environment. Unfortunately, many people have a vested interest in seeing DARE continue and expand in spite of its ineffectiveness and even harm to students. About 750 million dollars are spent on the program each year and thousands upon thousands of police officers are assigned to teaching the program. Thus, although DARE is a disaster for students, it is a great success for those profiting from promoting and teaching it. DARE leaders defend the program largely on the basis of anecdotal evidence such as 'students tell me it works.'"
Entire article is at: (link...)
See also:
(link...)
(link...) This link is to a research article published in the American Journal of Public Health. This is not a political publication.

Don't accuse me of claiming nobody has ever been helped by participation in the DARE program. But a costly and complex program cannot be justified by here-and-there anecdotal evidence.

A sheriff of police chief who does research on what programs he invests time and money in (as any chief executive should do) is quite likely to find that there is not good evidence to support the use of the DARE program.

Again, popularity does not equate to effectivenes in the objectve sense. IN fact, the popularity of the DARE program no doubt has SOME root in the fact that it's easy to get votes by saying "I support DARE" because everybody knows of the GOALS of the DARE movement. Having good goals, however, only counts if those goals can be met.

I said all that to say this: Putting in a DARE program should not be enough to turn a vote to support a sheriff candidate simply because he/she says they would support or operate a DARE program.

I know many members of the public who feel better protected now than they have for a number of years. I know many members of the public who say they have good access to the Sheriff. Can everybody possibly say that? Of course not. There's only one Sheriff and a lot of people want his personal attention rather than the attention of some of his deputies. It's a physical impossibility for a person to be 100% accessible to everybody.

That said, let me state I have never provided one dime of financial support for the current Sheriff. Nor have I for a number of the previous ones. I can't be counted as one who has said all this because I have any financial ties to the office.

As WC stated in his blog earlier (called "Let's Talk")... I'm not sure why it is people think the way they are supposed to wage an election campaign is simply to tear down an opponent. I say the contenders should promote what they do that they feel is good and worthy of votes, and simply let the people decide. ONe does not have to try to make someone else out as a lesser person, IMHO.

RB