Recent Marijauna Raids

[Baggle]

Feds raid Tommy Chong's business and home:
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2000259/detail.html

Feds raid internet pipe retailers:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/02/24/drug.paraphernalia.ap/index.html


Wow...What the hell is going on here? Do I just not understand the links, not have all of the information I need, or is John Ashcroft REALLY making a HUGE step over his boundaries here? I followed most of the links from a seperate link I had(and lost...I'm a clutz, I know) and found no mention at all of marijuana use in the context of any of their smoking products. How can these raids be justified? Will we see cigar shops selling wooden pipes being raided, too? Or are only brightly colored pipes against the rules now?

Does anybody have more information on this than I do? This seems like a HUGE overstepping of boundaries by Ashcroft and I have seen very, very little coverage of it. It's not every day that people who have absolutely nothing to do with illegal substances are jailed for that crime. Maybe we should send a letter to Bic advising them to halt all production of lighters and get rid of their current stock, as they have about as much to do with the drug trade as these people seem to. I must say, though, the biggest single flaw I can see in Ashcroft's strategy is to go after such high profile people so early on in this ridiculous attack. Tommy Chong? I expect to see this in the media once his court date approaches.

Any information at all about this would be excellent, especially the justification Ashcroft is using for these raids. Unless they find marijuana residue in the bowls of a signifigant amount of these pipes, what the hell do they think they can be considered paraphernalia for? :confused: :eek:

-Baggle

[Baggle]

Found the link I was looking for...
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Primetime/drug_paraphernalia_bust030224.html

"People selling drug paraphernalia are in essence no different than drug dealers," said John Brown, acting DEA chief.

Wow...this is nuts. My brain cannot wrap itself around the implications that this has. What sort of precedent is this? I cannot remember seeing any legislation from the federal gov. that struck me as this insane for....never. There are bad decisions, and then there are BAD decisions. Wow.

edit: another gem, "Ashcroft said the sale of drug paraphernalia has exploded on the Internet, making it easier for teenagers and young adults to buy it."

God forbid adults be able to buy whatever the hell LEGAL product they desire, for decoration, smoking use(tobacco, as far as Ashcroft knows), or using it for anything else they want. They are YOUNG adults, after all, so all of their rights do not apply, right....?? As far as teenagers go, I remember being in high school, and I could not afford a damn thing when it came to marijuana smoking utensils. My friends and I routinely came up with ingenius(well, actually pretty crappy) methods of smoking what we pleased, tobacco or *cough* otherwise. And hey! Rolling papers were/are cheap, so this is the solution used most often by high schoolers(from my anecdotal experiences). I can just tell you one thing, though, when I was in high school I did NOT have a credit card and I did NOT have $50-$300 to buy a pipe with even if I DID have the credit card.

-Baggle

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Baggle
Found the link I was looking for...
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Primetime/drug_paraphernalia_bust030224.html

"People selling drug paraphernalia are in essence no different than drug dealers," said John Brown, acting DEA chief.

Wow...this is nuts. My brain cannot wrap itself around the implications that this has. What sort of precedent is this? I cannot remember seeing any legislation from the federal gov. that struck me as this insane for....never. There are bad decisions, and then there are BAD decisions. Wow.

edit: another gem, "Ashcroft said the sale of drug paraphernalia has exploded on the Internet, making it easier for teenagers and young adults to buy it."

God forbid adults be able to buy whatever the hell LEGAL product they desire, for decoration, smoking use(tobacco, as far as Ashcroft knows), or using it for anything else they want. They are YOUNG adults, after all, so all of their rights do not apply, right....?? As far as teenagers go, I remember being in high school, and I could not afford a damn thing when it came to marijuana smoking utensils. My friends and I routinely came up with ingenius(well, actually pretty crappy) methods of smoking what we pleased, tobacco or *cough* otherwise. And hey! Rolling papers were/are cheap, so this is the solution used most often by high schoolers(from my anecdotal experiences). I can just tell you one thing, though, when I was in high school I did NOT have a credit card and I did NOT have $50-$300 to buy a pipe with even if I DID have the credit card.

-Baggle When I was still smoking (and Ed knows I miss it like hell) I used to roll my own, but paid cash when I bought the papers. You never know ... :p

[Baggle]

Ya, sorry if my post wasn't clear. I meant to imply that high schoolers will go down to Vinnie's Liquor and buy a pack of ZigZags wayyyy before they get online and order a $50 pipe. What 16 year old has 50 spare bucks to blow?

Found another gem of quote, too....
"No one would possibly use these items for smoking tobacco," [US atty in Pittsburgh, Mary Beth] Buchanan said at a Justice Department news conference.

Thanks for deciding for me what I will or will not smoke tobacco out of....geeze.

-Baggle

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Baggle
Found another gem of quote, too....
"No one would possibly use these items for smoking tobacco," Baggle Subgenius has changed his avatar from one guy smoking a pipe to another one smoking a pipe - I guess we 'all know' what he is up to!

Wow, I remember times in Asia when rolling a cigarette would turn five hundred heads - all of them backpackers from Europe and the US looking for a joint ... :p

Edited to add:

How the hell can one prohibit owning a pipe?

[Baggle]

I have another question of my own that I saw posted on another forum; why the hell is the Secret Service involved in this? Were these pieces of glass a threat to national security or the president?

Also, from reports I've seen trickling in from other forums, the raids were not only conducted on internet retailers, but also local pipe shops. A glass blower that inscribed, "For tobacco use only" INTO THE GLASS of his pipes was arrested and his glass blowing equipment and merchandise collected. The pipes were not the only things taken, however. Eye witnesses report books, stickers, t-shirts, skateboards, and just about everything else being taken as well. The sources include how many millions(billions?) of dollars these legitimate businesses pump into the economy each year. These businesses are legitimate e.g. they pay taxes, and lots of them. I'll let you draw your own conclusions on this aspect of it.

Okay....another question, although a bit rhetorical. If a presidentially appointed public official can be forced to resign because she recommends masturbation over sex for teens, how is Ashcroft not SCREAMING to be relieved of duty if(when...) this is all overturned, which I cannot imagine not happening?

-Baggle

[Questioninggeller]

Just when the government can't get any more dumber: THE DRUG WAR.

[Bjorn]

... and this country has had presidents using ...

Some years ago, in New Orleans, I saw a 'button' with the text:

I inhaled, and I'm proud of it!

I tried some drugs like most of us, but it's not my thing. However, the 'war on drugs' is a strange one indeed. :(

[Baggle]

I am waiting for somebody to rationalize this for me in some logical way. I really want to hear the opposing viewpoint so that I may better center and examine my stance on this issue. I just cannot see anybody bringing about a rational and also legally binding argument for this incident. Anybody care to play devil's advocate and do me that favor? I do not mean a, "It's obvious nobody would use them for tobacco; they're brightly colored!" argument, either. I mean a logical, thought out, rational explanation of how this happened. I've heard there are two sides to every story, but I am struggling to see the other side in this one being legally justified at all.

-Baggle

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Baggle
I've heard there are two sides to every story, but I am struggling to see the other side in this one being legally justified at all.

-Baggle .... maybe you're right, and that's why nobody's disagreeing with you? :p

I certainly can't help you if you're looking for reasons to prohibit those nasty pipe-looking things, even if they have colours. Subgenious? Are you here? :confused:

[Smalso]

Isn't this the same guy who objected to the statue of Justice because the breasts were bare?

Can anyone show any evidence whatever that the war on drugs has reduced illegal drug usage in this country by as much as one kilogram? I think the only effect it has is to raise the price. There's still plenty out there and it's not really hard to find. I don't even use the ****, pot or anything else, and I could get it in fifteen minutes if I wanted it.

A really big bust would be the publishers of telephone directories. The pages are used quite a bit, especially by the homeless, for rolling purposes.

[subgenius]

Its sad and disgusting beyond belief. Nothing that this junta pulls should surprise anyone.
Here's a disturbing quote from the link.
"They are as much a part of drug trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide."
Anyone see a problem with this kind of analogy and thinking?
And for the record, unfortunately the only drugs I am currently using are the most deadly and most available: alcohol and tobacco.
Everyone in jail for any drug offense is a political prisoner.

[scotth]

I graduated high school in 1987.

The current drug prices are lower on everything that I am aware of (I'm not aware of all of them, but enough). Inflation alone should have raised the prices some.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Baggle
Feds raid Tommy Chong's business and home:
http://www.nbc4.tv/news/2000259/detail.html


"Open up, it's the Police!"

"Hey man, the police ain't here right now."

"No, we're the Police!"

"I told ya man, they ain't here. Come back later."

"Dammit, we're not asking for the Police. We are the Police!"

"They ain't here man. I think Sting went out to buy some smokes or something."

Just writes itself, doesn't it?:)

[Baggle]

Does nobody else really have any information on this, legal or otherwise? I cannot believe that it seems like nobody really cares about what happened here. Legitimatel businesses who pay taxes and keep their noses clean were raided, all of their money in all of their bank accounts stolen, and all of their merchandise taken as well. Their employees were laid off and the bosses were hauled to federal prison...because they make pipes that happen to be brightly colored. Absolutely no actual drug residue was found, or else I'm sure Ashcroft would be shouting it from the mountain tops about how these people are also "drug addicts." This is outrageous, and I cannot imagine a time that this has ever happened before this event. This sounds like something that would happen in a mock-America with lesser personal freedoms, not in America, no matter HOW zealous/stupid our government may be about this issue. It really shakes me down to the core about what our government can/will do any more, and changes my opinion greatly.

Anybody? Shanek? What the hell is going on? How is this POSSIBLY legal?

-Baggle

[subgenius]

We lost a great amount of freedom when forfeiture was held constitutional.
This allows the state to seize property allegedly related to drugs, prostitution, etc., before and without a hearing on the issue of whether it actually was, or whether the owner was guilty of any crime. This makes the police thieves, and they have become addicted to the money and power.
This is in direct contravention of the 5th Amendment where supposedly you can't be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law.
This slipped by the public and its been a slippery slope since then. Its because people are willing to let others be victims as long as its not them. Drug laws won't change until everyone stops allowing others to go to jail for them.
Nothing will change as long as the Republican party is in control of all three branches of government.
Hold on to your ass its gonna be a bumpy ride. Its time to seriously consider getting out while the gettings good.

[corplinx]

If you need a devil's advocate, I'll play the part. It seems to me that if they obtained evidence that the utensils were _intended_ to be used in an illegal way, then the people producing or selling them are basically accomplices to a crime.

Haven't you ever found it funny that even though drugs are illegal you can buy zig-zag papers, bongs, pipes no tobacco user would ever use (i should know since i smoke pipes), dugouts, and other utensils at your local head shop? I mean come on, we have about 3 head shops in my town alone. They make their money helping people do something illegal. I always considered it so ironic that something this illegal could be so obviously aided and comforted by a commercial business.

Again, this hinges on the fact that evidence was obtained that showed these products were intended to be used in an illegal act.
Whether or not you agree with the "war on drugs", we are talking about something that is currently illegal and is not a blue law.

[subgenius]

"Ashcroft went out of this way to praise the DEA, which was criticized earlier this year in a White House budget office assessment of government performance as being "unable to demonstrate its progress" in the war on illegal drugs. "

This is all that its about. A political publicity stunt, picking on harmless defenseless people, to score points pretending to do something about a pretend problem, ruining lives in the meantime.

[Bentspoon]

Federal law makes it a crime to sell products mainly intended for the use of illegal drugs, including such things as bongs, marijuana pipes, "roach" clips, ..........

I used to use those little alligator clips for a roach clip. din't need a headshop

Look out Radio Shack

Bentspoon

[Baggle]

Hi, corp.

Thanks for the devil's advocate response. What you said is absolutely true. If a person distributes his products to somebody who is going to use that product in a crime(illegal drugs), then that person has also committed a crime and the floodgates will swing open. However, I went to the websites listed as being raided by the DEA/etc and found absolutely no evidence at all that any of them advocated using their products to smoke illegal substances in. There are a few of those sites listed in the ABC News article, if you wish to take a look for yourself. In light of this, how are these arrests and seizures then justified?

As far as head shops go, here is a fun thing to do; go into any random head shop and ask for a marijuana pipe. They'll freak out and probably kick you out of the store, or ask you to not use drug related phrases in the store. That is how serious most of those shops are about keeping drug related things away from their businesses. They know the law, and they know that if they don't obey it, they won't be making money for long. The only possible way that I can see the feds justifying these raids are if they had some sort of communication with the businesses, by email or otherwise, and asked questions like, "I want to buy a pipe to smoke marijuana out of from you! How much is it?!" Even if this is the case, can they really seize every single item and dollar the person has? Otherwise, I don't care what you think about brightly colored glass pipes as opposed to wooden pipes for smoking tobacco. You don't prefer them; so what?

My grandfather rolled his own cigarettes with cigarette rolling papers, the same used for joints, until the day he quit(which was shortly before he died), and I've seen numerous other random people do the same. "If they want to smoke tobacco, they'll buy cigarettes; only stoners use papers!," is just not a valid argument. How I smoke my tobacco or onion or tomato or freaking Windex is MY business. If you think it's the worst way to smoke in the world, and nobody should use any given method, deal with it, as it's not your place to regulate the quality of utensils I use for whatever task. This is not directed at your personally coprlinx. I just mean these things in general and using "you" is only for the effect and sake of simplicity.

So let's say that these shops never knew what their pipes would be used for. Let's say that they blew glass into the shape of pipes, put it on the internet and sold it. How then would the feds justify this operation? Or will they? The minute I see evidence pointing to the fact that these websites sold products to undercover gov't agents on the condition that they were going to be used for illegal substances, I can see the justification, even if I disagree with it. However, for the time being, the "Nobody would use that to smoke tobacco out of!" argument is absurd.

Also, does anybody have any inkling as to why the Secret Service was involved in this operation? Is it standard operating procedure for the SS to be involved in DEA matters when terrorists or money counterfitting is not involved? Or did the Justice Dep't really go with the assertion that drugs=terrorism eg pipe sellers=terrorism and use that as justification? I cannot imagine this ever truly happening, but within this set of circumstances, who knows.

-Baggle

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Baggle
As far as head shops go, here is a fun thing to do; go into any random head shop and ask for a marijuana pipe. They'll freak out and probably kick you out of the store, or ask you to not use drug related phrases in the store.

Yes. The ones I have been in had signs posted saying they would. As far as it being fun, I guess getting kicked out of a place that sells crack pipes _might_ be fun.

[Baggle]

I think you missed the point. The funny part was that the person behind the counter would completely wig out because they thought you were a federal agent. This is the fear that these businesses have, and the act I mentioned was a way to illustrate this fear. That is why it is funny and interesting.

But I guess it's not so funny any more when you have to explain the joke/social experiment.

-Baggle

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Baggle
But I guess it's not so funny any more when you have to explain the joke/social experiment.

-Baggle

No, I understand why its funny. There is nothing like the guy behind the counter who smells just like willie nelson's jacket wigging out because you mention pot. His VW out in the parking lot has a "legalize it" bumper sticker. And there is this guy pretending his best to be offended by you mentioning marijauna in his "tobacco accessories" store.

I was just being a butt.

[Baggle]

I was just being a butt, too:)

The thing is, though, he is not pretended to be offended by anything....is he actually SCARED when you mention pot. That's the funniest part of all. If you got a guy who is relaxed enough to play it off like he's offended, then that is rare and also not as much fun. Much more fun when that stoner is truly scared and wigs out because he thinks you're trying to bust him for saying the wrong thing. He's going to be too damn scared of getting shut down and/or arrested to act offended most of the time...

-Baggle

[shanek]

Originally posted by Baggle
Legitimatel businesses who pay taxes and keep their noses clean were raided, all of their money in all of their bank accounts stolen, and all of their merchandise taken as well.

It's not as if it's the first time. Look at what happened to Steve Kubby, whose only crime was to take marijuana on his doctor's recommendation to save his life.

Peter McWilliams, whose condition was improving until the Feds raided his home, and threatened to take not only his home, but his mother's and brother's homes as well. He didn't want his family to lose their homes, so he stopped taking the marijuana. He was dead in a year.

Debbie Vineyard never took drugs in her life. Unfortunately, she happened to lend her car to a friend who was arrested for dealing drugs. Even though she had nothing to do with it, she was arrested and convicted, and had her baby while she was in shackles.

Mario Paz was killed in a drug raid even though he had no drugs. The police said he was reaching for a gun, but no such weapon was ever found.

Lonnie Lundy is currently serving a sentence of life without parole when a former employee of his (whom he fired when he failed a drug test) fingered him as a drug kingpin to get his sentence reduced. Lundy was sentenced to life without parole based solely on that testimony; no other corroborating evidence was found. The drug dealer has since recanted, but Lundy remains in jail.

Suzan Penkwitz drove her friend Jenny to Tijuana to retrieve her car. Turns out the car had drugs in it. Jenny was arrested for drug smuggling and she confessed to the crime, and told the police that Suzan had nothing to do with it. But after being interrogated for several hours (after denying her right of counsel), Jenny agreed to finger Suzan in exchange for leniency. Suzan was arrested and thrown in "the hole," where she stayed without bail for several weeks while she was sexually harassed, chained, and roughed up regularly. At the trial, both the police and the US Attorney admitted that Suzan had no idea there was heroin in Jenny's car, but she was convicted anyway.

You can read about these and other POWs of the War on Drugs at www.november.org.

This sounds like something that would happen in a mock-America with lesser personal freedoms,

Welcome. Check your individuality and your liberty at the door, please.

Anybody? Shanek? What the hell is going on? How is this POSSIBLY legal?

Because people have allowed the government to usurp that much power. This is what you get.

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
We lost a great amount of freedom when forfeiture was held constitutional.
This allows the state to seize property allegedly related to drugs, prostitution, etc., before and without a hearing on the issue of whether it actually was, or whether the owner was guilty of any crime. This makes the police thieves, and they have become addicted to the money and power.

I want someone to explain to me how this isn't a form of pillaging.

[Baggle]

shanek, I believe you know my stance on the war on drugs. If anybody else does not, I adamantly believe this "war" is anything but a good thing. I've written pages and pages about it on this board. It is my personal opinion that the 'war on drugs' needs to be immediately discontinued.

HOWEVER...this is COMPLETELY different. I sympathize with those who are arrested for unfair laws, and the 600,000 people who were in jail and/or prison last year because they used marijuana, but those who were arrested in this operation violated no laws! There was no drug residue found anywhere(none that has been reported, and as I've said, I'm sure if it was found, it'd be reported), and the pipes were sold legitimately. So where's the beef? Where is the violation of federal law? The "Nobody would smoke tobacco out of one of these!" argument does NOT hold water. Who the hell would smoke tobacco out of a hookah? Besides the fact that it's none of their damn business, the whole of the middle eastern world would! Where is the violation of federal law? I rarely see anybody besides pot smoking hippies wearing tie-dyed shirts, so let's arrest those who make tie-dyed shirts as well. Who wears hemp bracelets besides pot smokers? Let's make those illegal as well. I realize that they are not the same thing, but they are both just as ridiculous as one another.

Is there any argument that holds water here for the side of the prosecution/persecution or not? If not, how the hell did they get indictments from multiple grand juries and multiple search warrants? Did they honestly use the, "But they are brightly colored!" argument with a judge, who then granted them a search warrant? Or with a grand jury? I really cannot comprehend how this is happening and not making huge waves. The "liberal" news outlets even claim the items are drug paraphenelia, not even "alleged." And there has been no mention at all of the MAJOR precedent that this violates.

And what the hell is the Secret Service doing getting involved in publicity stunt, errr, an investigation such as this?

-Baggle

[HarryKeogh]

if someone believes marijuana should be illegal wouldnt they also believe alcohol should be illegal as well.

i cant think of one negative effect of pot that alcohol doesnt share.(or at least pretty darn similar) i love people who are against pot but love a cocktail when they get home to "unwind" (i.e. alter your mood chemically, no wait, that sounds dirty)

war on drugs...now there's a war to protest.

[shanek]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
if someone believes marijuana should be illegal wouldnt they also believe alcohol should be illegal as well.

Don't look for consistency in politics.

war on drugs...now there's a war to protest.

Agreed.