Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

LOCAL News :: [none]

drug war still going full blast

I was there for another bust
Santa Cruz still has a long way to go although a
pioneering city for medical marijuana-
I was there while a local dealer got 'stormtrooped'

While we are distracted with orange terror alerts
and a stumbling world economy, one faction of the
police dept. knows exactly how to get more $$...
by busting soft drug dealers! While most
of America uses drugs that might have
'certain sexual side effects' you best stay away
from chosen medicinal herbal plants that happen to
grow like weeds.

Even if my friend keeps his freedom, the cops get
to keep all of the money and dope.

Beware, Santa Cruz might give the illusion of legality,
but there are definitely sharks in the water here.
 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Comments

Any details of the bust?

Ian: When was this bust? How many cops were involved (sheriff's deputies or SCPD)? Did your friend have a letter from his doctor or a medical marijuana card from any jurisdiction? I ask these questions because I think the specifics are important to expose the real medical marijuana-hostile posture of our local government agencies, whatever their blather about opposing the feds.
I'd welcome you to give me a call and come on my show to talk about it (Thursdays 6-8 PM, Sundays 9:30 AM to 1 PM at 96.3 FM on-air line: 427-3772, off-air line: 423-4833).
 

critical emergency services?

This must be part one of those critical emergency services that the SCPD claims we'll all lose if their precious budget is scratched by the city council.

I feel so much safer, now that the local Morality Police have protected me from this evil menace to society. Who does he think he is, minding his own business like that - the nerve!

*sigh*

People smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, drink coffee, consume sugar-coated junk food.. we have recreational drug use all around us, and everyone recognizes that it's more or less a personal choice.

Yet swap that tobacco leaf for a marijuana leaf (which aint half as potent as two shots of hot sake' down at the sushi bar!), and suddenly the Morality Police are dragging you off.

And no one really cares.

If someone were openly and honestly arrested for their choice of words, or their choice of dress, or their choice of religion, there'd be a riot!

Yet this poor guy is arrested for his smoking preference, and most people just avert their eyes and walk away. No outrage. No riots. Just a few people grumbling, while most of America ignores it.

Some day, our very own cops will be arresting people just as casually for their choice of words, or dress, or religion, and it'll be just like this... nothing but a few people grumbling. No outrage. No riots.

How did America become so disgustingly apathetic, and its police so casually EVIL?

We aren't citizens anymore. This isn't a free country anymore. It's a goddamned ranch, with cops as ranch hands, and you and I as fucking cattle to be herded and fenced, milked and sheered and slaughtered as the ranchers see fit.

WHERE IS THE MORAL OUTRAGE?! WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE, THE WALKING DEAD?!

A woman is being raped on Pacific Ave in broad daylight. You'd do something, right?

A homeless guy is getting kicked in the stomach by some ruffian as he lies on the sidewalk. You'd say something, right?

Some nutcase is chasing a muslim woman, shouting "Terrorist!" and throwing empty bottles at her while she tries to run away from him, and you're in your car. You'd try to give her a ride, right?

I know the cops are too numerous and too well armed for anybody to reasonably fight. As soon as that poor guy was caught for his supposedly evil smoking preference, there's nothing you or I alone can do to save him.

But jesus fucking christ, when you see these assholes attacking yet another innocent victim like that, right before your eyes, do you have to be so PASSIVE?

Yell at him! TELL HIM he's an asshole who's just victimizing helpless and innocent people for kicks and a paycheck! Chew him out! Read him the riot act! Force people to look, and hear, and see, and understand!

Oh, Im sorry... that might be embarrassing, huh? It's not "normal".. not what all the other sheeple do. The other sheeple might laugh at you. They might call you crazy. They might make jokes about you the next day at the grocery store. They might call you an extremist, or a wingnut.

They might lump you in the same category as the Robert Norses and Becky Johnsons.. unpopular, joked about, assumed half crazy, called "annoying", opinions disregarded in conversation just out of hand because you're "too radical" for most people.

Fucking cowards, that's what 99% of you are. YOU, reading this right now!

And THAT is what's wrong with America today.

There will always evil people drawn to positions of power, whether they're in uniform bashing heads and taking hostages on the front lines, or holding office and conspiring with the other politicians and lawyers to keep the paychecks printing, the cop cars running, the "fines" being collected, and the prison gates slamming.

The real problem today is that we don't care enough to stand up for one another. Not when and where it counts, when the guy right in front of you or across the street is getting arrested by the morality police right before your eyes *for his smoking preference* of all things.

Voting doesn't work! Begging helplessly for mercy from the king in his court, or to some selfish and soul-less "representative" in office is a joke. "The system" is owned and operated by the same people DOING THIS SHIT TO US. It's just a diversion!

An angry mob, that's the only thing they'll listen to anymore.

And if you can't even feel angry when you see this shit happen right before your eyes in your own home town, something's very wrong with you.

The same thing that's wrong with all of America. The very thing that allows this to happen.

You've been broken.

-Van
 

Mobs won't find greener grass

Van says, "Voting doesn't work! Begging helplessly for mercy from the king in his court, or to some selfish and soul-less "representative" in office is a joke. 'The system' is owned and operated by the same people DOING THIS SHIT TO US. It's just a diversion! An angry mob, that's the only thing they'll listen to anymore."

Of course, even the big mobs represented by recent antiwar protests are not listened to by Mr. Bush, who has kindly acknowledged their right to an opinion contrary to his, even as he asserts his authority to ignore those millions who disagree.

People need to decide that rule of law is a good thing. They need to read and understand the US constitution and as much of the state constitution as they can wade through. They need to elect representatives whom they believe will uphold rule of law and honor the applicable constitutions. They need to recall or not re-elect representatives who fail in those tasks. They need to defeat initiative legislation that conflicts with or undermines the constitution.

Anyone who is too busy, too lazy, too afraid, too ignorant, or too stupid to do the above will contribute to the downfall of this country as Van describes. On the other hand, if we try all of those prescriptions and still cannot get satisfaction within the system, there is plenty of time for the angry mob to storm the castle. We haven't exhausted our options yet, and until we do, it seems irresponsible to give in to mob mentality.

WAMM and the County are suing the government. Ed Rosenthal is appealing his recent kangaroo-court conviction. Either case has the potential to go all the way to the Supreme Court, where the unconstitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act, or at least the primacy of state law for INTRAstate commerce, can be demonstrated.

In the meantime, Sam Farr is trying to enact into law a state medical marijuana law exception to the Controlled Substances Act.

And the voters, if they wanted, could go even further than endorsing medical marijuana: they could declare via initiative that marijuana and/or other federally controlled substances are completely legal in California. They could demand that the Governor and State Attorney General do their constitutional duty to uphold state law even in the face of federal challenge, and in fact to defend state law by mounting a direct court challenge to conflicting federal law.

In my opinion, there's a lot more to be tried before we give up and go ballistic.
 

reply to Jack

> Of course, even the big mobs represented by recent
> antiwar protests are not listened to by Mr. Bush

But those mobs made the same mistake. They didn't confront the act or the actors directly, which is what I advocate.

First problem - the threat of war is against Iraq. Iraq is not on Market St in San Francisco.

Second problem - the threat of war is from Washington. Washington is not on Market St in San Francisco.

Do you see what I'm saying? Without *direct* confrontation of the enemy, you make it very easy for him to ignore you.

Even the protests in Washington DC - did they go to the Pentagon? To the White House?

Oh, they weren't allowed to? Well why do you suppose that is?

To keep angry mobs from blockading these buildings, storming the front doors, breaking windows, and generally bringing the war to the warmongers front door.

> People need to decide that rule of law is a good thing.

Rule of law is only as good as the laws themselves. Bad laws make rule of law horrible. Thus the "rule of law" standard is a dangerous one. "Rule of law" does not guarantee justice, only job stability for the ruling class.

> They need to read and understand the US constitution and
> as much of the state constitution as they can wade
> through.

Agreed, to the extent that it demonstrates how far our own govt at every level has strayed from its own charter and into criminal hypocrasy.

But even the Constitution is nothing but a useless piece of paper if only the weak respect it. What good are the best rules if they are not obeyed by the rulers?

> They need to elect representatives whom they believe will
> uphold rule of law and honor the applicable
> constitutions.

They have needed to do this for decades, and have failed with such astounding regularity that any further calls for the election of political reformers is a sad joke. Those who do not learn from history, including the history of elections in America, are doomed to repeat it.

At this point, what people need to do is wake up to the fact that there is nothing sacred or holy about the dictates of elected officials. Bad politicians, like bad laws, should be resisted tooth and nail - in the streets themselves, if necessary.

To its credit, even the US Constitution expresses this same idea - that any law which violates the US Con is automatically null-and-void.

But this is a lost concept on most people. They'd rather jump through endless legal hoops like trained circus bears, because this is the only form of so-called resistance which the stormtroopers will allow.

As a wise man once said, "If voting were effective, it would be illegal."

> We haven't exhausted our options yet

No, but we've exhausted our good options. Before how many different copycat levels of judicial bureacracy must you beg for mercy before you realize what a ruse it all is?

Contrary to my better judgement, I've even tried your road. I've personally attempted to make arguments of US Constitutionality before a judge. Guess what happened? I was immediately *interrupted* by the judge. He refused to even hear the argument.

By your logic, I should have appealed... and appealed again.. and again.. like some trained circus bear performing stunts to amuse his master.

You can't play ball against the ref. To even try, is folly.

> WAMM and the County are suing the government. Ed
> Rosenthal is appealing his recent kangaroo-court
> conviction.

The same courts and same govt that screwed them both in the first place. A pointless waste of precious time, money, and energy.

> Either case has the potential to go all the way to the
> Supreme Court, where the unconstitutionality of the
> Controlled Substances Act, or at least the primacy of
> state law for INTRAstate commerce, can be demonstrated.

Or the Supreme court will simply issue one of their refusals to hear the matter (they do that, you know) and it dies there.. or if really forced into a corner, they'll issue a very carefully crafted ruling that applies only to the specific plaintiff and leaves all the lower courts open to continue committing the same crimes as before.

They might even time it to get buried in the press behind some other more headline-grabbing event, to further reduce the public's exposure to the ruling.

Trying to beat them at their own game seems very daring and noble, but please - this bullshit "war on drugs" has been going on for TWENTY YEARS. Do you honestly think we're the first generation to try fighting it? Activists for 2 decades have tried and tried and tried, and yet here we are today with the "war on drugs" still in full force.

"Insanity" is repeating the same action and expecting a different result.

An enemy, once he has you, doesn't need to outmaneuver you anymore. He just has to keep you where you are and wear you down.

>In the meantime, Sam Farr is trying to enact into law a
> state medical marijuana law exception to the Controlled
> Substances Act.

Why? So that Washington can ignore or slime its way around yet another inconvenient federal law? What's the point? They only enforce what they WANT TO anymore. Legislature and justice in America today are the worst pit of slithering snakes there ever was!

We already have the US Constitution, which is very clear on the matter of state sovereignty - so clear that any person can read and understand it. To engage in word games with Washington lawyers, only legitimizes their arbitrary results.

If Washington won't respect their own US Constitution, the time for conversation with them is already over.

> And the voters, if they wanted, could go even further
> than endorsing medical marijuana: they could declare via
> initiative that marijuana and/or other federally
> controlled substances are completely legal in California.

They already DID THAT for medical marijuana at the state level, which the US Constitution says that Washington must respect. THE FEDS IGNORED IT!

> In my opinion, there's a lot more to be tried before we
> give up and go ballistic.

I admire your idealistic determination, but I think you're ignoring the bulk of American history this decade. We aren't even close to being the first ones to fight this crap. Countless have come and gone before us, and failed to stop the endless flow of victims.

Remind me again what our current prison population is now, and how many are there on victimless drug charges, and how many $billions were stolen last year alone via the "civil asset forfeiture" govt-run theft racket?

"The system" has failed too consistently for too long. Anyone who still believes in it, is kidding themselves. The safe road is not effective. The only effective road is, I fear, very unsafe. But we need to face that.

-Van
 

follow-up to Van

Some points to consider:

1. When you tried constitutional arguments, were you in appeals court? I agree that an individual defendant is not likely to be successful, arguing constitutional issues in lower court. To (ultimately) succeed going down that road, you need to use proper legal procedure to raise the constitutional issues as early in the process as possible, so you can legitimately raise them in appeal. But it is unrealistic to think that a first-level judge will decide any case on constitutional grounds.

2. I also agree that the courts have many slimy ways to refuse to decide key issues. Outright repeal of the Controlled Substances Act would probably be the most expedient way to address the issue, assuming the voters could put the fear of the electorate into their congress representatives. Mere repeal, however, would leave the way clear for congress to pass some other prohibition-lite laws to replace the Act. Assuming a case can be found that actually turns on the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act (which the two cases I mentioned have potential to do), a high court decision to strike the Act would effectively prevent the enactment of similar legislation later.

3. I am actually even more hopeful and idealistic than you think, since the Drug War has gone on not for the twenty years you said, but for OVER THIRTY YEARS (the Controlled Substances Act was passed in the middle of Richard Nixon's first term). It is amazing to me that no on-point court challenge has been decided in the courts in all that time, or that voters have not been able to spook their representatives well enough to inspire repeal of the Act. I do think that the several state votes in favor of medical marijuana in recent years are the foreshock rumblings of a political earthquake. The seismic event could be expressed as a voter revolt, sweeping away the current group of congressional cronies and the current occupants of the White House, or it could be expressed as rioting in the streets. Farr's attempt to bleed off some of the pressure with his medical pot defense bill seems a calculated ploy to avoid the riot scenario, to buy more time before the whole thing blows. If he were a real patriot, he'd do the honest and courageous thing, and propose to repeal the Controlled Substances Act, using arguments of its unconstitutionality to encourage his colleagues to vote for repeal. I don't hold out much hope for that, of course: do the medical journals contain any cases of congressmen spontaneously growing a pair of cojones? We'd need that kind of medical miracle. Texas congressman Ron Paul might be persuaded to introduce the necessary legislation, however. If that ever happened, we constituents could probably pressure Farr to support it, either as co-sponsor or whenever he got a chance to vote on it in committee or the floor. Could we find a Senator to introduce companion legislation on that side of the Hill?
 

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software