Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Spending Your Tax Dollars to Gloat
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has a terrible weblog, at which you can almost hear the anti-dope dopes singing "neener-neener-neener!" in response to Raich. My favorite of the many playground taunts:
More bad news today for drug legalization groups who have preyed upon the compassion of Americans to advance their agenda of legalizing marijuana.
You can send comments after each post....
|6.8.05 @ 6:21PM|#
I note that they refer to "medical" marijuana, in the same scare quotes that the "journalists" at the Washington Times "newspaper" are fond of using to refer to gay "marriage".
|6.8.05 @ 6:27PM|#
What assholes. That story on the football player is rediculous. Why are arrest or loss of job due to a drug test a negative consequence of marijuana. They are negative consequence of prohibition.
|6.8.05 @ 6:49PM|#
OMG, that site is horrible. "Pushing Back"? Give me a break.
They're the ones who are pushing, the rest of us, people who are
pro-freedom are just trying to hold on. We're not the ones with the
coercive power of the government.
And you're right on, friend. The WoD causes all the heartbreak. I
mean, if someone fucks up because they're an addict, ok, then maybe
you can hold that up as an example of the evils of drugs (even
though I know that a few people who can't handle themselves
shoudln't ruin everyone else's fun). But because they got fucked
over by a draconian law?
Give me a break.
|6.8.05 @ 7:01PM|#
Is this anything like how the Chinese gov't was paying stooges to go online and talk about how swell Communism is?
Mark Winger|6.8.05 @ 7:12PM|#
Here's the comment I posted!
Why don't you POST your reader comments for people to see,
cocksuckers? You people have preyed on my tax dollars for 30+ years
with your fake War On Drugs, which has done absolutely nothing
except pad your fat wallets a little more and turn this country's
local cops into gung-ho fanatics who don't even remember that
police used to Help People. I hope each one of you monsters has a
long, long, long drawn-out death by a particularly painful
cancer.
Douglas Gray|6.8.05 @ 7:22PM|#
The basic psychology behind drug demonization is this: if a person gets messed up while using marajuana, LSD, alcohol, etc. it is easier but much less emotionally mature to blame the drug as the primary cause, rather than just something incidental to it. That is why parents of teenagers are the primary fans of demonization; they hate to admit their kid is messed up
Derek Ashworth|6.8.05 @ 7:26PM|#
Don't forget the snarkiest use of the obligatory quotation
marks:
Smoking illegal drugs may make some people "feel
better."
Next the ONDCP can try encapsulating "multiple sclerosis", "AIDS",
and "cancer" for a truly compassionate approach.
|6.8.05 @ 7:32PM|#
Douglas is definately on to something. I think that there was at some point in the last century declared a universal human right to lack of responsability. It's not my fault it's the drugs. It's not the cops fault it's their job. It's not the states fault they were voted for. It's not the voters fault they were lied to. It's not the liars fault they wanted to make everyone safer. Etc. Truly sad times. And when the shit hits the fan and you get thrown in jail, hey at least it's not your fault.
|6.8.05 @ 7:32PM|#
Suggested comment:
Hey Assholes,
Nice "website." Lot's of "useful" "information."
Have a "nice" day...
|6.8.05 @ 7:34PM|#
My post:
When my friend's father was dying of cancer, marijuana was the only
thing that made his chemo-induced nausea go away. Are you saying
this man was a criminal for wanting to keep his food down and
mitigate his dying agonies? I sincerely hope all of you come down
with a debilitating form of bone cancer.
I notice your comments are not posted here. What have you to
hide?
|6.8.05 @ 7:40PM|#
Jennifer, Mark Winger,
I find wishing rectal cancer upon people particularly
theraputic.
|6.8.05 @ 7:43PM|#
Steve,
Sure, but I find that taking the initiative and running them down
with my car is incredibly more satisfying.
|6.8.05 @ 7:59PM|#
Wow. These guys are world-class assholes. However, after
perusing the ONDCP site, I found out the price for pot and coke in
my area (I just moved here! I had no idea it was so cheap!) as well
as this little church/state line-blurrer:
Marijuana and Kids: Faith
http://www.mediacampaign.org/faith/kids.pdf
What if the young buck's faith is Rastafari?
|6.8.05 @ 8:12PM|#
My comment:
At least you're astute enough to realize that medical marijuana is simply the first step in a strategy toward legalization of drugs.
What you either fail to realize (or else realize all too well) is that legalization is absolutely necessary if we are to ever break the backs of street gangs, the mafia, and terrorist organizations. As anybody who took Econ 101 realizes, prohibition simply reduces supply and inflates prices, creating a very lucrative black market that the most corrupt elements of society will exploit.
Either you guys are too dumb to realize this, or you are in cahoots with the black marketeers who profit from the drug trade. Hmm, stooges or traitors. Not sure which is worse.
Either way, you guys at ONDCP are doing the bidding of Afghan warlords, South American guerrilla armies, inner city street gangs, and every other type of mobster, thug, and terrorist. If you really wanted to curtail violence you'd stop prosecuting the insane drug war and simply end the black market. Terrorists and gangs would see their funds evaporate that way.
Then again, from what I've seen, it seems more likely to me that at least some of you guys know exactly what you're doing and don't care. Drug dealers have a reputation for paying handsome salaries to cops, after all.
|6.8.05 @ 8:14PM|#
Needless to say, I posted it anonymously.
My admittedly futile hope is that some intern reads the comments
and has second thoughts. The senior staffers are beyond redemption,
but maybe the interns are still redeemable.
|6.8.05 @ 8:48PM|#
Jennifer,
The reply looks an awful lot like a generic response. I wouldn't be
surprised if http://www.pushingback.com/blogform.asp did nothing
more than verify the e-mail and comment fields were non-blank,
write the fields to the end of a single text file, and then resent
that single, hard-coded e-mail back to you.
And addressing you as "Madame." Tsk, Tsk. I know a few women who
would be quite offended being associated with the
world's oldest profession.
|6.8.05 @ 8:50PM|#
You know, thoreau, it sucks that I read your little comment to
the assholes at the ONDCP, and it seems as though no
rational person could read that and not at least be given
pause to consider what exactly it is you're saying.
So I have to ask again, are these people evil or misguided? You ask
those same questions a couple times yourself, and I my guess would
be that you have both. Because there is simply no way that someone
who actually knew what in the hell was going on could continue to
support the drug war.
Then again, I can't understand how someone can be religious,
either, but I don't want to get into that again.
But for the most part I think they are corrupt and evil, and it
makes me so angry. Because this is the crap that is really ruining
this great country.
|6.8.05 @ 9:00PM|#
Shawn-
Yes, I know that was an automated response. I still thought it was
pretty funny in an unintentional way.
No need to post anonymously, Thoreau--just include an anecdote of
real-life human suffering, and when the feds come to get you, you
just cry and say that your compassion was preyed upon. Of course,
crying probably works better when you're a fluffy-looking little
woman. Men might find that the strategy backfires.
A Bad Woman is technically a Madam, not a Madame. But I'll bet the
ONDCP doesn't know that.
|6.8.05 @ 9:06PM|#
Here's my comment about the football guy:
So you admit outright that the greatest cost of making a personal
choice to use this drug is the wrath that you choose to bring to an
otherwise innocent person. Perhaps someday we'll realize that "just
following orders" is not a real excuse for the evil you
irrationally commit. The proper decision would be to quit your job
and move on before we all wise up and prosecute you for your crimes
against this country.
|6.8.05 @ 9:08PM|#
Lowdog-
What saddens me the most is that everybody learns in public
school that alcohol prohibition failed. Everybody learns
that it empowered gangsters. Even in the public schools! I mean,
it's not like the failure of alcohol prohibition is some dirty
secret that only private school alumni are privvy to (fwiw, I went
to a Catholic grade school that gave a better education while
spending less per student than the public schools). It's something
that every freaking American is taught in school!
And yet so few people draw the obvious connection. I mean, how much
cognitive dissonance is required for a student to go to a D.A.R.E.
lesson and learn how imperative it is to fight the war against
drugs, and then go to US history and learn that alcohol prohibition
only benefited the Mafia?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I know for a fact that
there are drug dealers with day jobs in the public sector. And they
aren't all precinct cops. Some of them rise to positions of
considerable influence. That doesn't mean they're household names:
If the aide sees the information before the boss then the aide has
time to act on that information and stay one step ahead.
No doubt there are plenty of useful idiots in there, but you don't
have to be a conspiracy buff or take me at my word. Just look at
alcohol prohibition and the way that Al Capone owned most of the
Chicago city government. Look at the FBI agents who operated their
own speak-easy in NYC. Look at the Senator who authored the
Prohibition amendment and then started his own illict alcohol
production ring.
Are we really supposed to believe that people are so much better
nowadays? The problem may not be as wide-spread as it was back
then, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that organized
crime functions without help from the public sector nowadays. If
anything, organized crime has simply become more efficient and
found ways to operate with a down-sized pool of public employees.
But even with their corporate downsizing they still hire public
employees.
If I really thought that a more aggressive drug war could put the
gangsters out of business and save people from self-destructive
habits then I would not hesitate to support prohibition. But those
conditions only hold in a fantasy world. In the real world,
prohibition doesn't restore broken lives, it merely empowers
gangsters.
|6.8.05 @ 9:21PM|#
FWIW, I suspect that there are more legalization supporters than
we realize. A couple months ago I was talking to my brother-in-law,
who lives in San Diego and works in Mexico. He told me that every
day when he crosses the border back into the US he sees "WANTED"
posters with pictures of drug dealers. He remarked that only an
idiot would turn one of those guys in if he values his life and the
lives of his friends and families. He also remarked that when they
finally do catch one of those guys a new one immediately pops
up.
I observed that there's an easy way to pull the plug on the drug
cartels and flush away all of their money, and let the comment
dangle without going into specifics. He caught my drift, laughed,
and said it's too bad nobody will ever go for it. I remarked that
there's too much money at stake for everyone involved, so there's
no way they'll let it happen. He just laughed and agreed with me.
Then I said that if they did it the drug lords would probably all
be killed in a couple years: Their revenue would evaporate, they'd
soon run out of money to hire bodyguards, and then the relatives of
the people that they've killed would come looking for them, and
that would be that. He agreed.
The problem is getting more people to come out of the closet and
admit that they oppose this insanity. But, with a few exceptions,
nobody except a radical, anti-establishment non-conformist (i.e. a
libertarian) is willing to stand up and admit to opposing this
insanity, because nobody wants to be pegged as the crazy hippie who
doesn't care about The Children.
That's why I think drug reform will have to come from Republicans:
It will have to come from somebody with an impeccable reputation
for law and order. Whether or not Republicans actually fit
that bill, they're perceived as fitting that bill, and
perceptions are what count. Yes, I know, drug reformers aren't
exactly numerous among GOP politicians, but they aren't numerous
among Democratic politicians either. The point is that if these
ideas are ever to go mainstream, a Republican will have more
credibility to do it.
|6.8.05 @ 9:40PM|#
Doesn't all the snickering condescension seem like some kind of
pathetic vestige of the Culture War?
...Will the Worst Generation ever get beyond the Spitting Hippie
vs. Silent Majority thing?
|6.8.05 @ 9:44PM|#
I think drug reform will have to come from
Republicans...
Sorta like that ancient Vulcan proverb: only Nixon can go to
China...
tros|6.8.05 @ 10:29PM|#
On the day of the Raich decision I had a conference call with my
mother, my case worker at my school's Disability Resource Center,
and some miscellaneous Dean. A week before I had told my case
worker that my psychiatrist had decided to stop treating me because
I use marijuana. Then, when my mother called them about utilizing
their services, (reduced course load, untimed testing, etc.) they
told me that I was ineligible, and that she would not speak to her
without me in the room.
Since I was documented for Adult Attention Defecit Disorder,
marijuana use was considered "illegal self-medication" and that
under the Americans with Disabilities Act they could/would not
provide services if I used marijuana. I informed her that she had
misunderstood me, and that I had already discontinued my marijuana
use in order to utilize their services.
Up to this point, after 2 years, I have found their services
abundantly useless. I am considering transfering. My latest summary
is here:
http://braincrab.blogspot.com/2005/06/allow-me-to-undisassemble-myself.html
|6.8.05 @ 10:34PM|#
I'd like to see a version of that blog substituting "jews" for
"marijuana". I think you could pretty much conjure Goebbels by just
asking "how far will you go to hide a Jew? Turn zem in today!!" and
detailing the arrest and death camp sentence of someone illegally
transporting jews out of the Raich.
"More bad news for those who wish to legalize judaism:"
"Those who hide ze Jews are having their compassion preyed upon by
the untermenschen."
|6.8.05 @ 10:42PM|#
I've always thought L. Neil Smith was a bit whacky, but his catch phrase seems appropriate here: "Are you stupid, evil, or insane?" In the case of those gloating about prevening sick people from feeling better, it must be one of the three. The saying "reasonable people can disagree" simply does not apply here. Reasonable people do not tell people in horrible pain to shut up and deal with it.
|6.8.05 @ 11:11PM|#
I'm curious; aside from the obvious conflict of interest, what
exactly is the legality of government lobbying itself...or us? This
is is absolutely revolting (no pun. Yet.)
What the hell gives Pataki the right to lobby Albany? What right do
special interests in the judiciary in my state have to violate our
constitution (as they just did) and lobby the legislature?
This shit blows my mind. Government competing for tax dollars,
votes, and everything else that their constituents and masters used
to have exclusive right to. At least I thought we did.
At this rate they'll simply become 51% of everything, not just the
things they are already the exclusive majority on already, and
obsolete the private citizen.
Somebody set the record straight: How can government take a stand
on damn near anything and not be in egregious and continual
violation of the US Constitution amd separation of powers, etc.,
etc...?
tros|6.8.05 @ 11:28PM|#
The basic psychology behind drug demonization is this: if a
person gets messed up while using marajuana, LSD, alcohol, etc. it
is easier but much less emotionally mature to blame the drug as the
primary cause, rather than just something incidental to it. That is
why parents of teenagers are the primary fans of demonization; they
hate to admit their kid is messed up
...
I'd like to see a version of that blog substituting "jews" for
"marijuana". I think you could pretty much conjure Goebbels by just
asking "how far will you go to hide a Jew? Turn zem in today!!" and
detailing the arrest and death camp sentence of someone illegally
transporting jews out of the Raich.
...
Wow. These guys are world-class assholes. However, after
perusing the ONDCP site, I found out the price for pot and coke in
my area (I just moved here! I had no idea it was so cheap!) as well
as this little church/state line-blurrer:
Marijuana and Kids: Faith
I definitely believe that faith has a lot to do with drug
prohibition and demonization. My parents happened to sincerely
believe that marijuana makes my ADD worse and is the root cause of
all my problems, because my psychologist told them so.
http://braincrab.blogspot.com/2005/05/lenard-adler-md.html
"Also, I understand why everything that you are telling everyone
about this drug and this disease [Adult ADD] is absolute bullshit.
How's that? Well, when I was in third grade my mother was
brainwashed by a psychologist. She was an intelligent, but
spiritually weak (sorry mom!) upper middle class liberal who knew
that she had Adult ADD before you invented it. Because the only
spiritual guidance she ever received as a child was from the
Religion of George W. Bush, she felt that the best thing she could
do to be a good parent was to pay an "expert" to tell her how to
raise her kid."
I wrote this earlier in the summer. I was under the influence of
LSD at the time.
http://braincrab.blogspot.com/2005/04/my-religion.html
"They should be afraid. Take a hint! How effective is your religion
when your kids would rather rape their own minds than put up with
it, and you need to force it on others to get off. I doesn't
compare. Psychedelics alone do not constitute religion. You need a
lot of bullshit and trappings and paperwork and slaves before you
have one of those. Psychedelics do make individualistic
spirituality possible, and it's a spirituality that is more real
than the depressing filth peddled by America's churches. It's real
because there is no faith involved. Faith is what makes you go
through the motions when you know its not real. Faith is what makes
you put up with it every time you get screwed. Faith is your excuse
for not making your own decisions, your own judgments, or your own
values. I'll believe in your god when I see it."
|6.9.05 @ 12:02AM|#
"But, with a few exceptions, nobody except a radical,
anti-establishment non-conformist (i.e. a libertarian) is willing
to stand up and admit to opposing this insanity, because nobody
wants to be pegged as the crazy hippie who doesn't care about The
Children."
I didn't see this part of your comment when I posted above--great
comment.
I attended a co-ed, boarding school in central Virginia run by
fundamentalists when I was in high school, so maybe my view is
skewed here, but it always seemed to me that, in spite of the fact
that the drinking age was only 18 at the time, it was probably much
easier for the average high school or junior high school kid to get
his hands on a dime bag than it was to get his hands on a six pack.
(Most fundamentalist parents don't have alcohol at home.)
...It's my understanding that was the case in other junior high and
high schools too--access to marijuana was easier than access to
alcohol. Was that my imagination? Is this still the case? Because
if it is, it would seem that there's an argument to make that says
we have to legalize and regulate marijuana for the
children. I'm dubious of the argument that marijuana
consumption would go down among adults if it were legalized, but I
would expect use among school aged children to drop. No?
Kevin Carson|6.9.05 @ 12:05AM|#
Right on, Mark! Here's my comment:
How about those who have preyed upon Americans' manufactured
anti-drug hysteria to advance their agenda of turning the Fourth,
Fifth, and Sixth Amendments into toilet paper, militarizing local
police forces, and turning school kids into police snitches?
If the guys on Lexington Green had known the country would someday
be run by filthy fucking pigs like you, or that a day would come
when an allegedly free American couldn't get a job without pissing
in a cup, or that we'd have an internal passport system, they'd
have thrown their flintlocks to the ground in disgust and headed
for the nearest tavern.
I think we should celebrate this Fourth of July by burning the
Declaration of Independence and apologizing to King George.
tros|6.9.05 @ 12:46AM|#
...It's my understanding that was the case in other junior
high and high schools too--access to marijuana was easier than
access to alcohol. Was that my imagination? Is this still the case?
Because if it is, it would seem that there's an argument to make
that says we have to legalize and regulate marijuana for the
children. I'm dubious of the argument that marijuana consumption
would go down among adults if it were legalized, but I would expect
use among school aged children to drop. No?
In the beginning of seventh grade i transfered to a charter school
that ran 7-8th grade. I was always a bright kid, but school was
always a tedious chore and I got no benefit from the instruction
outside math and science. At the charter school there was a team
taught humanities course that I now consider to be the peak of my
formal liberal arts education.
In high school I attended a public magnet school focusing on math
and science. It turns out that the administrator who instituted the
school-within-a-school at the vocational high school we shared was
embezzling money, and after he was fired the entire program lost
almost all support. Teachers started leaving when I was a
sophomore, and I began sneaking my parents alchohol. I transfered
to a regional high school in january.
Once I was at this high school I began smoking cigarettes and
drinking 2 cups of coffee a day. I tried smoking marijuana a couple
of times, but due to my parents overprotective hysteria I was often
unable to escape my house and had little exposure to drug
subculture. I finished high school my
|6.9.05 @ 12:50AM|#
The ONDC people will never be swayed by logical or economic
arguments against prohibition -- neither logic nor economics is
behind their position.
They are, essentially, Puritans. Mencken was only half joking when
he defined Puritainism as "The haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, may be happy." To the puritain minded, suffering is good
(thus arguments that medical marijuana reduces suffering fall on
deaf ears -- they simply do not care, and think you must be weak or
godless for even bringing it up.)
Drugs (or insert any other vice here -- gambling, prostitution,
drinking, pornography, homosexuality, tax cuts, etc. -- the mindset
of most prohibitionists is the same) are EVIL in their view, and
therefore must be stamped out. Persons who indulge their vices are
thus EVIL too, so it's only fair they have their lives destroyed as
God intended.
Not all, even most, I would guess, drug warriors anti-vice zeal
stems from this root consciously, nor would they call themselves
Puritans, but the Puritan strain runs so deeply and pervasively in
American culture that they imbibed it with their Mother's milk (or
bottle formula, more likely) and it stands as immutable reality to
them, not to be challenged by the likes of a bunch of pot smoking
hippies.
To them, pot is just obviously bad, and YOU must be the deluded one
if you don't support eliminating it by any means available. And
thus the fight against evil goes ever onward.
|6.9.05 @ 12:55AM|#
I just posted another comment to the ONDCP. I know the bosses
won't respond, but maybe a few of the interns will get a guilty
conscience and quit. Or, even better, maybe a few of the interns
will get a guilty conscience and stay, if you know what I
mean.
Anyway, here's my comment to them:
Let's imagine what might happen if we ended the insane drug
war:
First of all, the drug cartels would watch their profit margins
evaporate.
Drug lords would soon lack the necessary funds to hire the private
armies that protect them.
The relatives of the many people killed by drug lords would
undoubtedly notice that the drug lords were no longer surrounded by
private armies. I think we all know what would happen next.
The street gangs, guerrilla armies, central Asian warlords, and
terrorist groups deriving profits from the drug war would also
watch their funding evaporate. The government of Colombia could
finally reclaim territory formerly controlled by Marxist
guerrillas, right-wing paramilitaries, and cash-flush drug cartels.
The government of Afghanistan could finally unite the country and
contain the warlords. Warlords sympathetic to the Taliban would
lose their revenue. Tajikistan might finally enjoy the rule of law
instead of the rule of gangsters.
Street gangs would lose the money that attracts recruits and pays
for weapons. Inner city neighborhoods would still face many
problems, but at least there wouldn't be as many bullets
flying.
Addicts would still face a lot of problems, but they could be
brought out of the underground. Those who were willing could
receive help, and those not yet able to break their addiction could
at least get drugs made by trained chemists rather than shady labs
that contaminate the product. And they could buy from reputable
retailers rather than people who pull guns to settle disputes. And
with the lower prices they wouldn't have to steal or prostitute
themselves to support their habits.
Please understand, I have relatives who have abused drugs. I
volunteer at a homeless shelter with clients who have abused drugs.
I know just how much harm drugs cause. I also know that people only
beat their addiction when they make the deliberate decision to take
control of their lives. Laws and prisons don't fix problems, they
just drive the problems into a dangerous and lucrative black
market. Addiction is solved by the conscious decision of the
addict, supported by family, friends, churches, colleagues,
neighbors, and others.
Finally, there is the darkest aspect of the drug war to consider:
Drug dealers have public employees on their payroll. The black
market is full of cash, and the people who work in it have no
objections to bribery, blackmail, and violence. Most public
servants may very well be devoted to fighting the drug war
honestly, but there will always be people who are willing to get a
slice of the black market cash. Just look at alcohol prohibition:
Al Capone owned most of the Chicago city government and police
force. The Senator who wrote the alcohol prohibition amendment was
busted for making alcohol illegally. Do you really think that
politicians have become any more honest since then?
If you guys have any compassion, and any concern about crime and
violence, you'll stop what you're doing and support
legalization.
Or, at the very least, if you have the courage of your convictions,
you'll permit comments on your blog. Let's see if your readers
share your enthusiasm for this insane war.
Franklin Harris|6.9.05 @ 12:55AM|#
If it took a constitutional amendment to allow the feds to ban
alcohol nationally, why does it not take a similar amendment to
give the feds the power to prohibit anything else?
That's a rhetorical question, mind you.
tros|6.9.05 @ 12:57AM|#
...junior year. (sorry)
I began using marijuana at college, and right now I find it to be
the the only drug I am really comfortable putting in my system.
Alchohol and cigarettes can lead to physical dependence, and the
standard amphetamine derivatives (Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta) are
out of the question because of my tic disorder.
I happened to know for a fact that pot is by far the *easiest* drug
for middle and high school students to get. I don't need to explain
it to anyone here. Instead of wasting my time smoking pot I wasted
it in front of a computer reading message boards. My best friend
was in the pretty much the same position as me in terms of school,
except he had a car and a social life in high school. He barely
gaduated high school and had serious problems with polydrug
abuse.
|6.9.05 @ 1:25AM|#
all right, i sent in two comments. Used my real email address.
Both were essentially to the effect that we'll never forget who
fucked us in regard to states' rights. I encourage everyone to
write in.
Personally, IMO this has shit to do with drugs, and EVERYTHING to
do with the nonstop proliferation of the fucking Federal Pre
Emption Power, which at the moment, ranks among the most insidious
forces with the potential for Evil on the planet.
Ron Hardin|6.9.05 @ 2:34AM|#
The minor third (E&G in the key of C) so successful in every sung playground taunt is also used to start national anthems, eg. ``O-o [say can you see]'' and ``O Ca[nada].'' There may be a connection.
|6.9.05 @ 2:37AM|#
Actually, as I think about it, if I were a cop in California I'd
arrest as many medical marijuana patients as possible.
Since California law doesn't have any penalties for medicinal use
of marijuana, there would be no way to charge them under California
law. So I wouldn't bother taking them to the local
courthouse.
Instead, I'd take them to the feds:
"Hey, Mr. FBI agent. I have some cancer patients that I caught
using pot."
"What, take them to my jail? Oh, sorry, can't do that. California
law doesn't have any statutes that we can charge them under. But
they violated federal law, and I knew you'd want to make sure the
federal laws were enforced."
"So, here they are. Now, the colon cancer patient needs his
colostomy bag changed regularly. The lung cancer patient tends to
cough up some pretty nasty stuff, so you might want to keep a towel
on hand."
"Oh, and the people on chemo tend to vomit a lot, so make sure you
get some buckets."
"One more thing: One of the gentlemen with AIDS has an open sore
oozing blood. So, be careful."
"What? You want me to take them away? Oh, no, that wouldn't be
right. They broke the law and need to be punished in the proper
venue."
"So, have fun!"
|6.9.05 @ 3:39AM|#
Sorry, I commented as I read through the pages above. Last one. I am not nearly as optimistic as some of you that justice will prevail in the American people. Perhaps I am just jaded and cynical, but I do not see the American people awakening from their stupor and retaking the country in the name of liberty. Quite frankly, they seem fairly stupid/delusional and in line with the proles from 1984. I post this here because I hope that the old "love it or leave it" cry will be mustered. Thank you and good night.
|6.9.05 @ 3:40AM|#
"What? You want me to take them away? Oh, no, that wouldn't
be right. They broke the law and need to be punished in the proper
venue."
Thoreau, the fucked-up thing is that they'd happily take
them.
Fuckers.
tros|6.9.05 @ 5:05AM|#
Personally, IMO this has shit to do with drugs, and
EVERYTHING to do with the nonstop proliferation of the fucking
Federal Pre Emption Power, which at the moment, ranks among the
most insidious forces with the potential for Evil on the
planet.
http://www.mpp.org/states/site/quicknews.cgi?key=2363
I agree completely. State gov
tros|6.9.05 @ 5:08AM|#
GAWD DAMMIT! I can't even post about this anymore. Fox News has done too much bitching about "Judicial Tyrrany" for this to work. They're fucked.
|6.9.05 @ 8:04AM|#
If I was terminal and living in a state that permitted the use
of medical MJ, I would seriously consider arming myself to the
teeth, grow the allowed amount of plants openly, and then hold off
as long as I could when the jackboots and the tanks show up.
Death would be coming anyway. It might as well be for freedom.
|6.9.05 @ 11:36AM|#
And now this.
Of course it's marijuana's fault that a cop got shot and some poor
bastard thought he had to do it, then killed himself before facing
the consequences, not the messed up drug laws.
I don't have all the facts, perhaps the "suspect" was a bad person,
with priors for things that everyone is against, like murder, but
for the cops to get into a shootout with him just because they saw
him buying some weed is insane.
FatAssChick - in a lot of ways I think you're right on. It almost
has to be something like that for the insanity to have prevailed
for so long.
But what to do, what to do? Actually, I like Last Angry Man's
idea.
Watch out if I ever contract cancer, AIDS, or some other fatal
disease!
|6.9.05 @ 12:46PM|#
Eric quoting Thoreau wrote:
"What? You want me to take them away? Oh, no, that wouldn't be
right. They broke the law and need to be punished in the proper
venue."
Thoreau, the fucked-up thing is that they'd happily take
them.
Fuckers.
Actually I think they would not take them. They only like to arrest
people in there homes because then they can try to steal there
homes and assets as well under the civil forfeiture laws because
they found one plant growing.
The civil forfeiture laws are one of the most insidious parts of
the war on non-corporate drugs.
|6.9.05 @ 12:48PM|#
If San Francisco passed an ordinance defining posession of mj as a civil infraction punishable by a one cent fine, could a municipal judge issue a habeus corpus writ for everyone the feds arrested, accept his guilty plea, and thereby make any federal prosecution illegitimate Double Jeopardy?
|6.9.05 @ 12:54PM|#
If the ordinance, and each municipal indictment, copied exactly the language of all applicable federal statutes, so there wouldn't be any worming around Double Jeopardy by bringing up conspiracy or school zone charges?
|6.9.05 @ 1:10PM|#
The double jeopardy prohibition in the constitution does not
prevent the Federal Government from prosecuting on the same set of
facts as a state authority. The Supreme Court has ruled that both
can prosecute.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=260&invol=377
This is a prohibition era case that rules that the feds and the
state could both prosecute on a alcohol related offense.
|6.9.05 @ 1:12PM|#
Joe-
I like your idea, but as I think about it I'll bet it wouldn't
work. After all, if the Supremes can decide that growing and
smoking your own pot falls under the commerce clause, then I'm sure
they can somehow conclude that it also takes away people's civil
rights (think of the children, think of my right to live in a
drug-free society, think of whatever it takes to make you stop
thinking rationally), and so after you paid your one-cent fine to
San Francisco the Feds would try you for civil rights
violations.
|6.9.05 @ 1:15PM|#
Relevant quote from US v. Lanza 260 U.S. 377 (1922):
If a state were to punish the manufacture, transportation and sale
of intoxicating liquor by small or nominal fines, the race of
offenders to the courts of that state to plead guilty and secure
immunity from federal prosecution for such acts would not make for
respect for the federal statute or for its deterrent effect. But it
is not for us to discuss the wisdom of legislation; it is enough
for us to hold that in the absence of special provision by
Congress, conviction and punishment in a state court under a state
law for making, transporting and selling intoxicating liquors is
not a bar to a prosecution in a court of the United States under
the federal law for the same acts.
|6.9.05 @ 1:19PM|#
So i sent two comments last night, one critcizing the ruling and
their support, and another criticizing their closed format "blog"
as being tantamount to admitting the other side has moral and
logical superiority.
I got a response from them at 1030 saying "we take in your
comments, thank you" typical crap.
Then at 1230, I get one from my school/email server saying that my
email adress has been suspended (in the title line) and the email
only containing an attachment and a line about "important info
attached", which my server automatically deletes.
Fishy, considering there would be no reason for my email to be
suspended. I didn't threaten anyone with my letters, I just pointed
out a few things.
I'm asking my school's help desk what's up, but I figured i'd pass
it on.
|6.9.05 @ 2:22PM|#
Then at 1230, I get one from my school/email server saying that my email adress has been suspended (in the title line) and the email only containing an attachment and a line about "important info attached", which my server automatically deletes.
This sounds like one of the many MYTOB virus variants that are
floating around the net these days, not a Federal attack.
|6.9.05 @ 4:26PM|#
If this were just a case of the Supremes overriding state laws
allowing people to smoke pot for the fun of it, this wouldn't be so
bad. But sick people. . . I remember reading somewhere that all
societies have evil people in them, but the society itself can only
be called 'evil' if the evil people are the ones in power.
If we are not yet an entirely evil society, we're certainly heading
that way, fast.
|6.10.05 @ 4:19PM|#
If we are not yet an entirely evil society, we're certainly
heading that way, fast.
...
No, I've got nothin' in the way of counter-arguments, sorry.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245