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....

Comments

Julian Sanchez | June 8, 2005, 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".

friendofliberty | June 8, 2005, 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.

Lowdog | June 8, 2005, 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.

mediageek | June 8, 2005, 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 | June 8, 2005, 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 | June 8, 2005, 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 | June 8, 2005, 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.

Captain Awesome | June 8, 2005, 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.

SPD | June 8, 2005, 7:32pm | #

Suggested comment:

Hey Assholes,

Nice "website." Lot's of "useful" "information."

Have a "nice" day...

Jennifer | June 8, 2005, 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?

Steve | June 8, 2005, 7:40pm | #

Jennifer, Mark Winger,

I find wishing rectal cancer upon people particularly theraputic.

SPD | June 8, 2005, 7:43pm | #

Steve,

Sure, but I find that taking the initiative and running them down with my car is incredibly more satisfying.

Randolph Carter | June 8, 2005, 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?

thoreau | June 8, 2005, 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.

thoreau | June 8, 2005, 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.

Shawn Smith | June 8, 2005, 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.

Lowdog | June 8, 2005, 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.

Madame Jennifer | June 8, 2005, 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.

Captian Awesome | June 8, 2005, 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.

Shawn Smith | June 8, 2005, 9:07pm | #

Golly, sometimes I'm so dense. Maybe I should get a job at the ONDCP.

thoreau | June 8, 2005, 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.

thoreau | June 8, 2005, 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.

Ken Shultz | June 8, 2005, 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?

Jim Walsh | June 8, 2005, 9:44pm | #

I think drug reform will have to come from Republicans...

Sorta like that ancient Vulcan proverb: only Nixon can go to China...

Josh | June 8, 2005, 9:45pm | #

I can't even read two posts in that blog without choking back bile.

tros | June 8, 2005, 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

Sandy | June 8, 2005, 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."

Number 6 | June 8, 2005, 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.

6Gun | June 8, 2005, 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 | June 8, 2005, 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."

Ken Shultz | June 9, 2005, 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 | June 9, 2005, 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 | June 9, 2005, 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

FatAssChick | June 9, 2005, 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.

thoreau | June 9, 2005, 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 | June 9, 2005, 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 | June 9, 2005, 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.

independent worm | June 9, 2005, 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 | June 9, 2005, 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.

thoreau | June 9, 2005, 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!"

AP | June 9, 2005, 3:08am | #

I love this place.

AP | June 9, 2005, 3:27am | #

Hm... George Orwell knew his stuff.

AP | June 9, 2005, 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.

Eric the .5b | June 9, 2005, 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 | June 9, 2005, 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 | June 9, 2005, 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.

Last Angry Man | June 9, 2005, 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.

Lowdog | June 9, 2005, 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!

friendofliberty | June 9, 2005, 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.

joe | June 9, 2005, 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?

Jennifer | June 9, 2005, 12:50pm | #

Oooooh, I like Joe's idea. Any lawyers know if it would work?

joe | June 9, 2005, 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?

friendofliberty | June 9, 2005, 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.

Jennifer | June 9, 2005, 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.

Jennifer | June 9, 2005, 1:13pm | #

I didn't notice Friend of Liberty's post before making my last one.

friendofliberty | June 9, 2005, 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.

Jared | June 9, 2005, 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.

FatAssChick | June 9, 2005, 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.

Jennifer | June 9, 2005, 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.

Eric the .5b | June 10, 2005, 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.