Elements of Reasoning and Intellectual StandardsApparently this case provides the best scenario for analysis. In my opinion, I would describe it as an irresponsible behavior among law enforcement officers. Being that I am the one in charge of the situation and that we have arrested a person in possession of marijuana, I find myself in the same ship as the criminal in the event that I collude with the other police officer. Such a situation becomes tricky when the criminal decides to blow the whistle on the corrupt practices practiced by police officers. This reasoning is supported by past experiences whereby criminals have been booked for certain mistakes and in the case of illegal possession of drugs of abuse, the law demands that the police officers keep the evidence for the purpose of prosecuting the victim. Keeping the marijuana also comes in handy during court proceedings as it is mandated by the courts that the value of the marijuana be measured to see if it was tampered with. Based on this argument therefore, if I allow my partner to take the marijuana to his ailing wife, then it will be prudent that we do not book the criminal. This further complicates the issue because we would be forced to set a criminal free. This is a mistake referred to as collusion and it is such a mistake equates both of us (law enforcement officers) to the criminal (Ralph, 2010). This means that my job would be left at the mercy of the criminal who might threaten use with exposure in the event that we booked him for punishment or parole.My intellectual thinking would not allow me to take part in such a ploy because it could risk my life and that of my family too. Often are stories told of police officers being trapped into drug syndicates without their knowledge because the circle of drug traffickers is often too wide, interconnected and so underground that they can easily trap an innocent law enforcement officer into their dirty dealings. Furthermore, refusing to book the criminal will be an act of non-compliance to the laws which demand that police officers to be role models to the other members of the society. This implies that compromising the ethics of the police force is likely to create a tainted image for not only me and my partner but it will also be a bad example to the rest of the police fraternity across the world. Statistics from commissions dealing in corruption have identified police forces across the world as being the most corrupt institutions with many cases going unreported for fear of a negative publicity (Dung 2006). Personally I would not want to be one of the corrupt officers which might put my life at risk. According to the Bible, it is much better to be prosecuted for doing a right than for doing a wrong because two wrongs never add up to make a right. The best way that I could be help to my friend and colleague would be giving him money to take his ailing wife to hospital or I would advise him to look for other sources of medication rather than administering her wife with an un-prescribed dosage of marijuana which might harm her even further. This is because overdosing marijuana could be lethal to the health of any person either healthy or ailing.ReferencesDung, P. M., Kowalski, R., & Toni, F. (2006). Dialectic proof procedures for assumption-based, admissible argumentation. . 170(2), 114-159.Ralph, H. J. (2010). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum