Right now I'm watching closely a drug-law reform movement in Washington state; it's an interestingly bland approach, but a step in an okay direction.
But I can at least preface the current topic with a note about local law and "head shops". As the law stands in Seattle, Washington, city police officers have an interesting power. They can observe you coming from a tobacconist, stop and search you, and decide for you what you are going to do with your purchases. Upon determining that you have purchased an item for illegal use, they can then fine the store a large sum, and even close it. The only "probable cause" justifying this search is that you have exited a store. On this note, I would like to join the academy, get my badge, and park the paddy wagon outside the local Safeway. Any parents who did their family grocery shopping in the presence of their children, I would search for alcohol. Upon determining that this person bought alcohol while in the presence of their children, I will fine the Safeway for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. That is, essentially, what is taking place.
The link below regards recent actions taken against smoke shops in Iowa. I think it's hilarious that, as the article notes, one can be charged under RICO for selling bongs. After all, I work for an insurance company, which has little or no obligation to represent itself properly, or even conduct its business according to any real standards. I mean, government regulation aside .... Well, consider that my company will send lobbyists to argue, say, for mandatory insurance. When that law is passed, the companies must include as many people as possible, which sends underwriting discipline to hell; suddenly, you're loaded up with bad risks. So you appeal to the state to let you raise your rates. What is the justification? That you, as the company, are required to cover these people.
It's the same degree of snow job, at least. Here we're talking about spending 10 to 12 years in prison for the federal crime of selling an ornate glass tube that one can suck smoke through. Come on! At my company, the #1 danger to your home is included on your policy, but the #2 is ommitted. (Fire is covered; in California, you have to buy extra insurance against earthquakes; in Florida, Georgia, and other storm-prone localities, your hurricane coverage is extra--and, in those jurisdictions, a tornado isn't a hurricane, and thus isn't covered unless you get a broad, expensive, natural-disaster policy.
What I'm getting at is that even in a service department of an insurance company, I would have to plead guilty to Accessory to Fraud, should the government ever become so levelheaded.
* Why is selling a bong illegal?
* Why do legal standards exist in the drug war that exist nowhere else?
* Why do perceptual standards exist regarding the drug war that are so wholly unique? Why does "common-sense" as regards much of American law not manifest itself within the drug war?
* What interest has the fed in a business that the local community finds acceptable?
Simply, I find the fed's actions inappropriate. Remember that for the next 10 to 12 years, there might be two people taking up bedspace that should go to the next Sammy Gravano or John Gotti. Remember folks that this drug war is what we're paying our taxes for. And that $1.3 billion package to Colombia sounds like a really good idea, too, doesn't it? (Since the Peruvian operations are, predictably, stepping up nicely.)
Wow ... I'm a federal criminal.
I believe it is time to go home and strike up some civil disobedience.
... with Liberty and Justice for all ...
--Tiassa
But I can at least preface the current topic with a note about local law and "head shops". As the law stands in Seattle, Washington, city police officers have an interesting power. They can observe you coming from a tobacconist, stop and search you, and decide for you what you are going to do with your purchases. Upon determining that you have purchased an item for illegal use, they can then fine the store a large sum, and even close it. The only "probable cause" justifying this search is that you have exited a store. On this note, I would like to join the academy, get my badge, and park the paddy wagon outside the local Safeway. Any parents who did their family grocery shopping in the presence of their children, I would search for alcohol. Upon determining that this person bought alcohol while in the presence of their children, I will fine the Safeway for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. That is, essentially, what is taking place.
The link below regards recent actions taken against smoke shops in Iowa. I think it's hilarious that, as the article notes, one can be charged under RICO for selling bongs. After all, I work for an insurance company, which has little or no obligation to represent itself properly, or even conduct its business according to any real standards. I mean, government regulation aside .... Well, consider that my company will send lobbyists to argue, say, for mandatory insurance. When that law is passed, the companies must include as many people as possible, which sends underwriting discipline to hell; suddenly, you're loaded up with bad risks. So you appeal to the state to let you raise your rates. What is the justification? That you, as the company, are required to cover these people.
It's the same degree of snow job, at least. Here we're talking about spending 10 to 12 years in prison for the federal crime of selling an ornate glass tube that one can suck smoke through. Come on! At my company, the #1 danger to your home is included on your policy, but the #2 is ommitted. (Fire is covered; in California, you have to buy extra insurance against earthquakes; in Florida, Georgia, and other storm-prone localities, your hurricane coverage is extra--and, in those jurisdictions, a tornado isn't a hurricane, and thus isn't covered unless you get a broad, expensive, natural-disaster policy.
What I'm getting at is that even in a service department of an insurance company, I would have to plead guilty to Accessory to Fraud, should the government ever become so levelheaded.
* Why is selling a bong illegal?
* Why do legal standards exist in the drug war that exist nowhere else?
* Why do perceptual standards exist regarding the drug war that are so wholly unique? Why does "common-sense" as regards much of American law not manifest itself within the drug war?
* What interest has the fed in a business that the local community finds acceptable?
Simply, I find the fed's actions inappropriate. Remember that for the next 10 to 12 years, there might be two people taking up bedspace that should go to the next Sammy Gravano or John Gotti. Remember folks that this drug war is what we're paying our taxes for. And that $1.3 billion package to Colombia sounds like a really good idea, too, doesn't it? (Since the Peruvian operations are, predictably, stepping up nicely.)
Unlike many state and local paraphernalia statutes, which allow for a subjective, contextual interpretation of whether a given object is indeed drug paraphernalia -- sometimes a spoon is only a spoon -- federal law is black and white: Possession of a bong is a federal offense, and so, of course, is sale or manufacture of a bong, or conspiracy to do so. It can get you three years in federal prison. And it doesn't matter if the bong has never been used or if it is a jewel-encrusted work of art; a bong is a crime.
Wow ... I'm a federal criminal.
I believe it is time to go home and strike up some civil disobedience.
... with Liberty and Justice for all ...
--Tiassa