For Whom the Bong Chongs

Hey man, Tommy Chong, way late of Cheech & Chong and currently of That '70s Show, has pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell drug paraphernalia.

The arrest came as part of a federal sting operation aimed at the dread threat of bongs and the like:

Chong's plea came after federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents purchased his paraphernalia and had them shipped to an undercover business. Agents also confiscated his company's paraphernalia during raids of "head shops" in numerous states and confiscated "thousands of marijuana bongs and pipes" in a raid of his Gardena, Calif., business.

The raids were part of a series by the DEA in which at least 55 people were charged with trafficking in illegal drug paraphernalia. Officials said the investigation targeted the nation's biggest Internet distributors of paraphernalia.

Chong is the first person to plead guilty in the raids, said U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.

Chong, 64, was released on recognizance bail, but must undergo drug testing and remain in the U.S. District Court jurisdiction of his Pacific Palisades home except to travel for work and court appearances.

He faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a $250,000 fine when he is sentenced Sept. 11. Federal guidelines call for six months to one year incarceration, though Buchanan said the government would not make a recommendation to U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

To put it mildly, this is an astounding waste of taxpaper money and law enforcement resources.

Read all about it the Orlando Sentinel

[Link courtesy of reader Chris Howell]

Comments

[Steve in CO]

Out-fucking-ragious!!

I suppose I'll have to turn in my toilet paper rolls, and soda cans, because after all, they can become "paraphernalia," as well.

This is so utterly rediculous. I bet Ashcroft used the 'excuse,' that the Internet has allowed these 'illegal sellers,' to enter our homes! Just another slippery slope among many!

Where's the outrage? Hello?

🙁

[James Merritt]

As I wrote to Chong on his own website (www.tommychong.com), if everyone who ever lit up, ate a magic brownie, or laughed at a Cheech and Chong movie or recording would register to vote and descend en masse to oust the drug warriors on election day, the federales wouldn't know what hit them.

Haven't enough people suffered and died from an out-of-control governnment to get the vast majority of people who know better to get up off the couch and go down to vote the drug warrior bastards out? It's vitally important that people who NEVER vote -- the truly "silent majority" -- get out there and prove to the Drug Warriors that theirs is not only a lost cause, it is massively UNpopular and must be ended now.

Some people say that the elections don't count, that they are fixed, even, and that this is a reason to stay home. But massive crowds at polling place after polling place will not be ignored. The word will get out, one way or the other. Whatever the officially reported results, the drug warriors will know that their days are numbered and that they should start packing.

Let's try it: go to the polls next time and vote for anyone BUT any incumbent who supported the drug war, or any challenger who wants to keep it going. If we can do this for one election, it will be noteworthy. If we can do this for more than one election, we will cause a sea change: the tsunami will wash the Drug Warriors away.

The act will cost you a little time out of your day. Isn't it worth it to get your freedom and your country back?

[PLC]

James:

You're living in a fantasy world. First you're going to have to convince any significant portion of the population that this is something they should care about...

[Root]

James - who are these anti drug war candidates? And do any of them support real wars - like those on terrorists and terrorist-linked butchers?
I think you'll find a lot of people ready to support legalizing drugs, but not if it means a foreign policy of hear no evil, see no evil.

[Harry Tuttle]

That's a good idea James. But come election day, it'll probably seem like a better idea to just stay home and get stoned.

[Anonymous]

"go to the polls next time and vote for anyone BUT any incumbent who supported the drug war, or any challenger who wants to keep it going."

In the last election I wouldn't have been able to vote for Gore nor Bush, and probably not for Nader (but maybe). I wouldn't have been able to cast a vote for senator nor for house rep, and since it's a federal issue the local elections don't matter to the subject (though the drug war support is usually there because federal bucks are funnelled based on compliance). I'd have a blank ballot. May as well stay home...

The Drug War is essentially a drug tax, a nice convenient way for the feds to make money on drugs without having to admit they don't care. There's no money in freedom, no public money anyway.

[James Merritt]

PLC says that I am "living in a fantasy world."

Au contraire. I don't live here, I merely visit here to post from time to time. 🙂

If you don't believe in the principles of liberty, PLC, why are you here? To bait the bears? To scope out and demoralize the opposition? On the other hand, if you do believe in the principles, why am I going to have to do all of the heavy lifting of persuasion? Won't you kick down some time and effort, too?

I'll make you a deal, PLC. If you are as yet unconvinced of the need to care in this case, and I or others here are successful in convincing you, then please honor our effort by going out and convince someone else, will you, asking the same of them?

Personally, I think the affection that the public has for Cheech and Chong may actually, finally generate the level of outrage that this issue has been needing. By pleading guilty, and offering himself up for punishment on a bogus charge, Chong has engaged in classic, nonviolent civil disobedience. The other shoe that must drop is, of course, for the public to act on the realization that the law is completely unfair and arbitrary. There is historical precedent for this kind of reaction to occur, so it isn't as much of a fantasy as some might claim. But it isn't a slam dunk, either, by any stretch.

[James Merritt]

Root and the contributor I will call "Mr No Name" bring up the valid question of "where to find candidates?"

I myself would start looking in the ranks of the Libertarians and independent candidates. I don't think there is a "one stop shopping source" in this case. Some Libertarian candidates, for instance, aren't serious, and others hold positions, such as being against even truly defensive war -- which some here could not abide. Other candidates are very serious, albeit longshots, and qualified for the offices they seek. Many of them get elected to minor office with each election season, and if that trend continues (and if the GOP or Demos don't poach the likeliest "breakout" candidates), we will see Libertarians in major state and national offices without having to wait too much longer.

I caution Root and others to engage in too much "linkage." For instance, refusing to vote for an anti drug-war candidate because he or she is also against pre-emptive war or war in general (or because he or she advocates the legalization of prostitution, or the end of social security, or whatever position turns you off) is a sure way to convince yourself that staying home is the better option.

It is clear that our modern day problems and situations are complex, and this is often given as an argument to avoid "litmus tests" and "single issue voting." But sometimes, the only way you get anything done is to focus. The Drug War is such an all-pervasive "uber-issue," that it strikes me as being OK to, for an election or three, at least, use it as the guiding principle in making one's voting decisions -- or as the single reason for voting AT ALL. The question should be, not who is the least of all evils on my ballot, but who will deliver the most true good? Nobody's perfect: all of our greatest statesmen (whom I have ever studied, anyway) have been shown to have feet of clay in various circumstances, or to have made unfortunate decisions or taken unfortunate positions. Mostly, however, we attempt to remember them for the good they did.

It would be EXTREMELY good to end drug prohibition: many benefits would flow from that single change. The problems caused by the change (or that would remain), would be far less harmful than those we face now, and they would be amenable to solution by other than government agents and authoritarian means. Since every anti-prohibitionist will have a different mix of "other" items on his or her agenda from every other anti-prohibitionist, I would be willing to put my faith in the checks-and-balances of our system to mitigate or cancel out the most egregious failings of a "single issue" vote strategy.

[Warren]

Ashcroft is a neo-nazi. The Bush regime's ongoing practice of extra-constitutional oppression is the biggest disgrace since FDR (internment e.g.), but nobody can be bothered to care.
Even the opposition to US imperialism in Iraq is just more of us vs. them politics. If people can't be bothered to get outraged over unbridled colonialism, who can expect anyone to get upset over the suffering of the terminally ill (medical marijuana), or this brazen, restriction of trade example of, stiff-arming the constitution.

[PLC]

James - I never said that you had to convince me that the drug war is a bad idea. What I said was that you have to convince a large sample of voters that it is something they should really be worked up about.

Personally, I think there are a ton of more important concerns having to do with freedom. The drug war is expensive and perhaps stupid, but focus on legalizing pot is just going to hurt the libetarian movement.

If you really love freedom, you won't mention legalization again.

[joe]

"Haven't enough people suffered and died from an out-of-control governnment to get the vast majority of people who know better to get up off the couch and go down to vote the drug warrior bastards out?" The people doing most of the suffering and dying are from communities and demographic groups that our political system doesn't give a damn about. And even when an upper middle class white suburbanite gets pinched, the act of being arrested makes him an honorary member of "those people."

[James Merritt]

Warren says, "If people can?t be bothered to get outraged over unbridled colonialism, who can expect anyone to get upset over the suffering of the terminally ill (medical marijuana), or this brazen, restriction of trade example of, stiff-arming the constitution."

Well, the point is that the Cheech & Chong crowd AREN'T all that political. They DON'T tend to register and vote. But they know Tommy Chong, they know the charge is bogus, and the thought that Chong will have to pay a fine or do some time may be sufficient motivation for them to come off the sidelines and make something good happen, especially if Chong presses the point, as he promises to do in his standup act and in forthcoming movies.

Chong has a large reservoir of public goodwill and a pretty big megaphone. If he's going to step into this whole issue by way of civil disobedience (one could say that Ashcroft dragged him), he just may move people into action who couldn't see any point in voting before. I'll be interested to see how things play out.

Finally, speaking of respecting the constitution, I think Missouri Democrats have gotten what they deserved in Atty. General Ashcroft, and I'm only sorry that their folly must be visited upon ALL of us. If they had simply accepted Ashcroft as Senator when the Democratic opponent died prior to the election, rather than ignore the constitution's clear requirement that someone elected to the Senate must be a resident of the state that elects him when he is elected (presumably dead guys can't be residents), Ashcroft might not have been free to accept the Atty-General position. He would have been merely 1% of the Senate's voice. But no, the DNC and Missouri Democrats had to let a dead guy run and win, and go extra-constitutional to deal with the problem that caused, and so here we are. I hope having one extra Demo Senator was worth getting the Atty-General from hell.

You know, there really is some wisdom in the constitution; were we to follow it more often, I suspect we might not end up in so many bad situations.

[Root]

Warren - please go to the library with your school bag and write a report on everything you find out about the terms "nazi" and "unbridled colonialism." Maybe then you'll be a little more prepared for adult conversation.

[James Merritt]

PLC says, "If you really love freedom, you won't mention legalization again."

I think you are being illogical here. If you disagree, I think you will need to substantiate your point better than you have so far. I think that if you really love freedom, you simply can't abide prohibition; to establish my point, I need only refer to previous failed prohibition exercises, and compare them to our own, ongoing prohibition. When the earlier prohibitions ended, the people were clearly more free, and the society was, on the whole, healthier and better off. It took at least a generation of people forgetting what the previous prohibition had been like, to get them to accept new prohibition.

If you think there are more important concerns, having to do with freedom, then what are they? My interest in ending prohibition is because it reduces freedom in so many different ways, both in this country and around the world. It is also something that voters can act, fairly simply and straightforwardly, to fix. Offer some better suggestions for how people can have an equal or larger impact on the net level of freedom and maybe we'll have something to discuss (but in this thread, only at risk of topic drift 😉

[Anonymous]

>>Ashcroft is a neo-nazi.

[Russ]

"If people can?t be bothered to get outraged over unbridled colonialism..."

Regarding the spirit of this if not the terms temselves... There were plenty of anti-war protests, met with less vocal but just as opinionated pro-war camps. To claim that people don't act upon issues they are most passionate about is not rooted in fact.

[Jon B.]

We can't even get 51% of the population excited about keeping Big Brother from auditing the books you buy or check out from the library. And there is simply NO candidate from NORML on the ballot.. And if there was, did you notice the railroading Nader got in the last election?

What Michael Moore heard at the Oscars wasn't booing, it was mooing.

No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up! -Lilly Tomlin

[Warren]

Root,
Already have done. I've been seated at the "big table" from the time I actually carried a school bag.

Dictionary.com provides the following definitions.

Fascism:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Colonialism:
A policy by which a nation maintains or extends its control over foreign dependencies.

That's close enough to the Bush/Ashcroft regime for me. I'll concede 'unbridled' isn't the best adjective. Please substitute 'transparent'.

It is true that the nazi label is thrown around far too casually and for rather petty offences. Its over use has cheapened it and taken away the sting for truly disgusting abusers of authority such as we have here. So shame of me for trotting out the war-horse. I just wanted to express the thought that the guy deserves to be stood up in front of a firing squad.

[jane doe]

>>That?s close enough to the Bush/Ashcroft regime for me.

You spoiled brat. Go live in a REAL dictatorship before you belch out your chicken-little bullshit. you only make yourself and your positions look dumb with this garbage.

>> I just wanted to express the thought that the guy deserves to be stood up in front of a firing squad.

This has GOT to be a troll. BTW- political assination, which you seem to advocate, is an old Nazi tactic.

[PLC]

Read this thread and wonder why libertarians never get elected.....

[Root]

Sorry, Warren, but I still say that it takes an extreme ignorance of the history of colonialism, fascism and naziism to apply them to the present US govt. (with a bit of moral relativism and indifference to past suffering and atrocities to boot).
That does not mean that there is not much to criticize about Ashcroft, Bush, etc. Just that continuing the loony hyperbole of the radical left and right in your arguments will only turn off reasonable people.

[Warren]

OK, let me back-pedal a little. Obviously the life in the US today is nowhere near as scary as say life in Nazi Germany. However, it IS scary, and it's the guys in the White House that scare me most. Things haven't gone Khmer Rouge around here yet, but I don't see any line in the sand that these self-righteous, power-mad, chest-thumpers are willing to even pause at before driving a tank over it. Sure, every administration has chipped away at my precious liberty, (as well as every Congress, and every Supreme Court) but these guys are real "only the guilty have to anything to fear" types. They have no respect for life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, only the unwavering conviction of their own righteousness and have shown a repeated willingness to deny any limitation of their authority. Arresting Tommy Chong may seem a relatively inconsequential news item, but I think it is poignantly symptomatic of how far they are willing to go in exceeding their authority and persecuting those whom they deem 'unfit'.

BTW- I do not advocate political assassination. A firing squad can also be used to carry out sentence after a fair and speedy jury trial. And yes, at the (final?) risk of further charges of hyperbole, I actually do think there is enough evidence against Ashcroft to warrant execution.

[PLC]

Hmmm... apparently, "Warren" is utterly mad.

[mojo jojo]

The article doesn't go into enough detail. I would like to know exactly why he would plead guilty. Did they threaten him with 25 years or something and he pled for a lesser sentence. How could selling pieces of glass even be illegal? He could just say they were sculpture or knick knacks.

[mojo jojo]

BTW did anyone notice the date of his sentencing? September 11, coincidence?

[Rick Barton]

These laws seem laughable until you read about one of them wrecking someone's life.

[Jason Bergman]

So I guess I'm a bit outta the loop on current drug laws, but I fail to understand how I can walk into a head shop in any US city and come out with a huge load (no pun intended) of bongs, pipes and home-growing guides, yet ol' Tommy Chong is getting arressted for selling them... I thought paraphenalia was legal...? What gives?

[dude]

I guess they must be legal to own or buy, but not sell?

Also, you sell some pipes (and just some pipes) and the govt can mandate drug tests, restrict your freedom of movement and, ultimately, send you to jail for up to 3 years? Lunacy.

[Rick Barton]

PLC wrote:
"The drug war is expensive and perhaps stupid, but focus on legalizing pot is just going to hurt the libertarian movement."

Its not pot; Its individual choice that's important here and it should be advocated in all areas of human action. Prohibition limits liberty just as taxes, (the higher, the worse) trade restrictions, etc, etc, do. The libertarian movement will not benefit from being inconsistent.
Its adherence to principle is one of the things that differentiates it from more statist politics and no doubt wins it converts. But, there are a lot areas where freedom needs to be advanced, so you can choose to focus on a myriad of concerns.

[r----bird]

there are two species of humans,the givers and the takers divided evenly, thus eternal conflict, the takers only want two things, slavery and total war. History proves this two be true.

[Bud]

I heard that it was illegal because they were NOT sold as tobacco pipes. If u label it, "For Tobacco Only", its legal.

either way it's pretty damn retarded

[HAMPTON]

COME DOWN AND SUPPORT TOMMY!!!!!!!!!!
THIS SATURDAY NIGHT

I HAVE PUT TOGETHER A SHOW OF SUPPORT/PETITION SIGNING SHOW FOR TOMMY CHONG WITH FOUR POPULAR LOCAL BANDS IN WEST LOS ANGELES. IT IN YOUR HERE ARE THE DETAILS
CHONGSTOCK 2003
@
THE CINEMA BAR
3967 SEPULVEDA BLVD
CULVER CITY CA
DECEMBER 13TH 2003
8PM-1;AM

BANDS INCLUDE;
RANDOM JOE CITIZEN
DALE PETERSON
MIKE STINSON
MULE

THANKS FOR YOUR TIME!
FREE TOMMY / JAIL ASSCRAP

HAMPTON
(DRUMMER/MULE)

[Frodo]

I feel that Mr Tommy Chong took this blow as a martyr. He knows that the private personnal use of marijuanna will not be criminal for much longer, and in years to come his persecution on this matter will show to be ridiculous. Gradually states are allowing medical marijuanna use and decriminalizing posession. It is only a matter of time before one can legally consume marijuanna in their own private settings, purchased and of course heavily from the United States Government. I mean, of course, without all that heavy tax, how could we possibly support all those homeless people in other countries, as well as our military forces. Just another dumb fvck-up by the greatest government the world has ever seen.

[scott]

that is so lame man the judge probably has a few bongs he uses ha ha. free tommy chong FREE TOMMY CHONG