This can be twisted into a chicken-and-the-egg type argument. "The cops are at fault for enforcing such a law" as opposed to, "without that law, the cops wouldn't be able to enforce it."

I don't know what the actual ordinance is that is being enforced. I don't know if there is an actual law that specifically forbids eating foods on the trains or platform areas or if the law is worded vaguely so that it allows some pretty ridiculous interpretations. The news article didn't provide that type of detail. My point is that the cops were ordered to crack down on this type of activity and they can't crack down on it unless there is a law or ordinance that acts as the basis for their actions. From reading the article, it seems as if the intent of the crack down was to cut down on litter. Could be wrong on that, but that's the way the article reads.

By the way, don't know if it's still in the books, but as recently as 10 years ago, cattle rustling and horse theft was still a hanging offense here in the great state of Texas. Not that anyone is going to enforce that law, but the law still stands (or it did when I was made aware of it). I think the same goes for spitting on sidewalks. Point: yes, there are some dumb laws still in the books!

One more thing, I'm sure that the cops would rather enforce other laws that have more substance to them. The fact that a crack down was ordered ought to tell you that they weren't enforcing the candy wrapper ban. But if your point is to refer to the Metro police as "jackbooted thug cops," for whatever personal satisfaction you gain from that, then I'll let you have the last word.