Tom Ramcigam (magicmarmot) wrote,
Tom Ramcigam
magicmarmot

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Tax dollars at work


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59508-2003Feb24.html
This just frosts my cookies. I took a look at the sites mentioned in the article, and they aren't selling anything you couldn't find at the Fetus or Clown Glass or Down in the Valley. And not in one place could I find a mention of the items being sold as drug paraphernalia. Yeah, yeah-- fine distinction, but an important one. Consider the statement that federal law makes it illegal to sell products mainly for the use of illegal drugs "including such things as bongs, marijuana pipes, "roach" clips, miniature spoons and scales". The distinction is important because of intent. If the DEA can make the assumption that anybody selling any of these products can be subject to federal prosecution, then we start having problems with shops like Walgreens, The Kitchen Window, any tobacco shop, Radio Shack and Home Depot. And dude, you can buy scales at the post office.

"People selling drug paraphernalia are in essence no different than drug dealers," said John Brown, acting DEA chief. "They are as much a part of drug trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide."

What utter crap. This statement is purely meant to be a psychological branding of drug use & trafficking with homicide, and is pure bald-faced propoganda.

My big question is how the federal government can assert the authority to render this a federal crime? What threat does selling bongs have to our national security? Are we at the point where we're gonna start seeing TV ads depicting that "every toke is a dollar in Saddam's pocket"?

Oops. Sorry. "As if to underscore the point, the drug enforcement czar met with Canadian officials to lobby against any effort at liberalizing drug laws. His agency and the office of homeland security have beefed up efforts at the U.S.-Canada border.

“American drug users are contributors to terrorism,” Walters said, citing the funneling of drug profits to violent groups in Mexico and Colombia. "

Have we not heard of the
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] amendment?<a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<lj-cut text="I rarely get political">
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59508-2003Feb24.html
This just frosts my cookies. I took a look at the sites mentioned in the article, and they aren't selling anything you couldn't find at the Fetus or Clown Glass or Down in the Valley. And not in one place could I find a mention of the items being sold as drug paraphernalia. Yeah, yeah-- fine distinction, but an important one. Consider the statement that federal law makes it illegal to sell products mainly for the use of illegal drugs "including such things as bongs, marijuana pipes, "roach" clips, miniature spoons and scales". The distinction is important because of intent. If the DEA can make the assumption that anybody selling any of these products can be subject to federal prosecution, then we start having problems with shops like Walgreens, The Kitchen Window, any tobacco shop, Radio Shack and Home Depot. And dude, you can buy scales at the post office.

"People selling drug paraphernalia are in essence no different than drug dealers," said John Brown, acting DEA chief. "They are as much a part of drug trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide."

What utter crap. This statement is purely meant to be a psychological branding of drug use & trafficking with homicide, and is pure bald-faced propoganda.

My big question is how the federal government can assert the authority to render this a federal crime? What threat does selling bongs have to our national security? Are we at the point where we're gonna start seeing TV ads depicting that "every toke is a dollar in Saddam's pocket"?

Oops. Sorry. "As if to underscore the point, the drug enforcement czar met with Canadian officials to lobby against any effort at liberalizing drug laws. His agency and the office of homeland security have beefed up efforts at the U.S.-Canada border.

“American drug users are contributors to terrorism,” Walters said, citing the funneling of drug profits to violent groups in Mexico and Colombia. "

Have we not heard of the <a href="http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/10amend.html>"Tenth Amendment?<a>

The DEA already weilds too much power, in my opinion an unconstitutional amount. Check out:

http://www.fear.org/menuidx2.html Great information on forfeiture laws. "The fact that a government official makes an unsubstantiated assertion that a piece of property was somehow involved in illicit activity effectively transfers the ownership of that property to the government."

I also particularly love the passage "Deputies routinely said bills in denominations of $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 were suspicious because they are typical of what dealers carry."

http://www.erowid.org/freedom/forfeiture/forfeiture_info2.shtml The forfeiture manual.

http://www.ida.net/users/donovan/property/assetforfeiture.htm Your car is guilty!

http://www.ndsn.org/DEC95/MEDMARIJ.html Specific DEA unconstitutionality ruling.

http://www.cipherwar.com/news/01/aclu_raves_2.htm Glow sticks baaaad...

http://www.canorml.org/news/fedstargetpatients.html Medicinam marijuana is legal in California. DEA says no.

"State Attorney General Bill Lockyer protested the DEA’s action in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft and DEA chief Asa Hutchinson. Lockyer called the raids "wasteful, unwise, and surprisingly insensitive," and asked to meet to discuss reasonable alternatives. He also questioned the ethical basis for conducting raids without apparent regard for success of prosecution.

Hutchinson replied firmly that any distribution of marijuana violates federal law, and that the DEA is legally mandated to seize it, regardless of whether prosecution results. In a phone conversation with Lockyer, Hutchinson suggested that a meeting would be fruitless."

Canada has been discussing legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Over 50% of canadian citizens polled would vote for legalization, and over 70% would vote for decriminalization. However, John Waters (our current drug czar) has stated that if Canada were to make such a bold step that the US would have no choice but to implement much more restrictive border-crossing controls, thus disrupting the easy trade betwen the countries.

Don't we have more important things to deal with?

<lj-cut>

Sorry, I just went off on a rant. Too much time on my hands I suppose.

Small projects today. Small accomplishments. More job contacts, updated resume, fixed bathroom door, working on improvements to the video slate. Also read a book.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments