cannabisnews.com: DEA Continues to Dismantle Democracy





DEA Continues to Dismantle Democracy
Posted by CN Staff on September 05, 2002 at 22:36:54 PT
By Meme Sous Rature
Source: Center for Cognitive Liberty
Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz earlier this morning. WAMM Director Valerie Corral and Mike Corral have been handcuffed, and the DEA is obliterating the marijuana crop they have grown for use by Californian medical marijuana patients. In June of this year, WAMM requested that the DEA cease and desist from persecuting their organization and clients, noting that the federal enforcement was adding dangerous levels of stress to persons already living with painful and life-threatening illnesses.
American democracy is dying rapidly. Although Californians voted in the majority for medical marijuana in their state in 1996's Proposition 215, the federal government refuses to recognize their will, and is using its DEA agents to counter the progressive wishes of Californians by repeatedly harassing and dismantling legitimate medical marijuana distribution organizations. The federal government has completely forgotten one of the most important and relevant events in its history: the Boston Tea Party.In December 1773, a group of Bostonians angry at British oppression ("taxation without representation") and instigated by the American patriot Samuel Adams decided to take action. Many of them disguised themselves as Native Americans, and boarded British ships and dumped their cargos of tea into Boston Harbor. This event acted as a key catalyst in the move towards American Independence. Independence was desirable and necessary because a despotic government was imposing its will on its subjects, and ignoring their wishes. We now witness the federal government ignoring the will of the population of an entire state. The decision by Californians to permit medical use of marijuana within California does not affect other states, and therefore should not be considered problematic by the federal government. However, because the government is not interested in the resolve of Californians, it continues to ignore them, imposing and enforcing laws upon them that are clearly against their will.Not only is this an affront to all Californians, but it is yet another example of the federal government denying Americans their freedom and personal autonomy. Without cognitive liberty -- freedom of thought -- the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and religion are meaningless. The federal government is more interested in policing the brain chemistry and minds of its subjects than protecting democracy.Complicit in all of this anti-American activity is Bill Lockyer, California's Attorney General. According to the California Constitution, Article V, Section 13, Lockyer was elected statewide to serve as the chief law officer of California, and "it is the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced." By standing back and allowing the federal DEA agents to terrorize Californian citizens, he is failing to see the uniform and adequate enforcement of the laws he is employed to ensure. In the Tea Party analogy, the federal government plays the imperial British oppressors, the DEA is their armed forces, Californians are the patriotic citizens yearning for democracy, and Lockyer is the chief law enforcer of the colony, supposedly working in the interests of the citizens, but tuning a blind eye to their needs.Given that Lockyer is failing to fulfill his duties, Californians ought to be outraged. The WAMM raid is not the first DEA offensive carried out against medical marijuana organizations in California. Numerous raids were carried out earlier this year and 2001, effectively shutting down organizations desperately needed by sufferers of chronic pain.Federal raids infringe upon the sovereignty of California and its citizens, who should rally to defend their own laws. State laws are meaningless if they are not protected by the state. If Californians, and those elected to protect them, fail to assert their democratic rights, the spirit of American democracy has gasped its final breath, given up hope, and died.Meme Sous Rature is the 2002 Summer Fellow for the California-based Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics.Note: Federal Agents Bust Santa Cruz Medical Marijuana Group, Violating Californians' Rights.Source: Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics (CA)Author: Meme Sous RaturePublished: September 5, 2002Copyright Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics 2000-2002Contact: info cognitiveliberty.orgWebsite: http://www.alchemind.org/Related Articles & Web Site:WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/Drug Agents Raid Calif. Medicinal Marijuana Farm http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14011.shtmlDEA Raids California Medical Marijuana Farm http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14005.shtmlThe Secret Garden - Metro Activehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12358.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #14 posted by The GCW on September 06, 2002 at 19:46:56 PT
not so fast - bush breath...
Why can't we grow this
crop in the USA? http://www.kentuckyhemp.com/library/why.htmlThe reason is simple, actually. The DEA and American law enforcement say we can't. End of discussion. Period.cont...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by The GCW on September 06, 2002 at 19:17:19 PT
Grandparents gotta be hip, at least non Americans.
This is from 1998 and it still pertains... Why banning drugs makes the problem even worse, Paul Flynn
 
http://www.theawayteam.com/Banningdrugs.htmlHeroin will continue to spread to children as young as 10 as long as we imitate the anti-drug policies of America -- Both Britain and America believe the solution lies in prohibition of drugs. Yet 30 years of prohibition has made the US the drug sink of the world. And Britain has the worst problems in Europe. It's not working, so why don't we fix it.But why imitate failure when we can repeat success? When will the Government realize that prohibition increases drugs use and that intelligent policies reduce drugs harm? Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, vice-chairman of the parliamentary all party drugs misuse group.August 5, 1998...continued...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by karkulus on September 06, 2002 at 19:12:14 PT
the Joyce story...
She took her kids to see KISS and the blood vomiting demonic 2nd -rate musicians didn't bother her but the pot smoking around her did?! What an ASSHOLE!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by schmeff on September 06, 2002 at 16:31:16 PT
It's gone on for sooooo long....
...that as Dankhank reminds us, even a lot of the grandparents are hip to the big scam. (I myself am a grandparent.)It's ironic if you think about it: the 'good ol' days' that Narkolepka waxes poetic about - the days when you didn't have to lock your doors - wasn't, as she suggests, "before drugs became widespread." Opiates, narcotics and cannabis preparations were available from the pharmacist without prescription.These good ol'days were before drug prohibition became widespread.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Dankhank on September 06, 2002 at 14:04:12 PT:
Grandparents ...
Who da thunk it would come so fast ...I graduated HS in 1968.Been a grandfather for 8 years ...Joyce won't convince 'em all :-)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on September 06, 2002 at 13:56:54 PT
Lehder 
I just wanted to take a minute and say it is nice seeing you again. Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Lehder on September 06, 2002 at 13:40:14 PT
Articles
"The Articles could have stood on their own, and we would have been better for it--except
   that I would like to have seen the first ten amendments from the Constitution added to the
   Articles...."That sounds better than what we have, but again presumes more of a central government than the Articles provide. I'd like to see 51 state constitutions screaming freedom and democracy and competing for citizens. Under the Articles all state citizens, excepting "paupers, vagabonds and fugitives," are free to move among the states.A different question, albeit an important one to consider, I think, is how did we, under the
   Constitution, go from promoting a government that protects the rights and freedoms of the
   states and of the people to being a government that uses the excuse of protecting the
   people from themselves as an excuse to diminish everyone's rights and freedoms? That's something I hope to find out by studying the federalist debates of the 1780's; beyond whatever is to be found there, I think the trouble has to do with the endowment of corporations with the rights of citizens. Einstein had an opinion here - under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or
          indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is
          thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the
          individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent
          use of his political rights. A recent book http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/sep2002/eins-s03.shtmldescribes how Einstein, beginning even before his emigration, was hassled by federal investigators as a threat to society because of these opinions. ( You once wrote a fiery and memorable comment about the difference between a threat and an opinion, as I recall.)Anyway, with a few more medical raids and a few more years of indecent and self-serving federal arrogance, I think people will begin to realize that the feds serve only themselves and their corporations, that they have nothing but abuse for the people. People are tumbling to the truth about George Bush already and may realize that they really do not want or need a federal government beyond what the Articles provide. I bought a back copy of Richard Maybury's Early Warning Report ( search on "Chaostan" ) that predicts that the nuclear obliteration of Washington DC by terrorists would lead to the adoption of the Articles and a confederation as we once were. Adding to that, I would predict an ensuing golden age. A global golden age is certainly within our grasp, but I doubt that people will pursue it without further repression and waste of their own lives and resources that culminate in some cataclysmic event. If the 'shadow government' is hunkered in the shafts and caves of VA and PA on the opposite side of the globe from bin Laden's shafts and caves when it occurs, then I say roll a big rock over the mouth of his bunker and let George dig for oil from there. Thewar on drugs may well have a nuclear end. I wish it were otherwise - I'd like to see it end today, but I ain't countin' on it.Happy New Year
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on September 06, 2002 at 10:20:47 PT
My LTE re: Joyce's blathering
Sirs,  Joyce Nalepka is the president of "drug-free kids" and has been a professional anti-drug crusader for many years. She has a vested interest in continuing the drug war - without it, she's out of a job.  She writes that NORML "led the march through 11 state legislatures pressuring uninformed and understaffed lawmakers to decriminalize marijuana", but fails to mention that the legislature was much more uninformed when prohibition was first proposed.  A group of Canadian senators has recently taken it upon themselves to become as informed as possible in this issue. They visited the USA to see how our policies have been working, and they visited European countries with different policies. At last, an informed group of lawmakers. And what was their reccomendation? That the war against marijuana is causing much more harm than marijuana itself could. They reccomend that marijuana be sold over the counter to anyone over the age of sixteen.  Kids should be asking their grandparents which they preferred, the 18th Amendment or the 21st.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by schmeff on September 06, 2002 at 08:27:57 PT
Calling the ignorant to arms
Joyce's LTE is aimed at 'grandparents' for good cause. Demographically, they are a voting block LEAST likely to have any experience with recreational use of cannabis. I don't wish to use a broad brush and label seniors as ignorant, but they, more than any generation living, are most likely to have formed their opinions of drug use based on government propaganda rather than personal experience.Thus, their opinions on drug policy are mostly hearsay. I respect the wisdom and life experince of seniors, but I must also point out that as a group, their opinions about recreational drugs are formed by the demonization experts like Joyce. On drug issues, most of them don't have a clue.The only way the prohibitionists can hold the line is to appeal to the ignorant to get out the vote.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dan B on September 06, 2002 at 07:49:03 PT:
Re: Articles of Confederation
I'm glad to know now why you are interested in studying the Articles of Confederation. Certainly, they provide a system that is more grounded in democracy and more friendly to freedom than does the Constitution--although the first ten amendments to that document should have hamstrung most of the anti-freedom policies that we live under today as well. I think you are onto something important when you pinpoint the centralized federal government created by the Constitution as the root of most of this country's problems. Perhaps, then, the main problem with the Articles was that they left open the opportunity for federalists to come in and change everything. When I first learned about the Articles of Confederation in junior high and high school, I was taught that the Articles were intended to provide a temporary government until such a time as a "more formal document" could be created and ratified--which was the Constitution. I can see now that this teaching was, in all likelihood, a line of bull. The Articles could have stood on their own, and we would have been better for it--except that I would like to have seen the first ten amendments from the Constitution added to the Articles, as well as the provisions for all people, regardless, of gender, ethnicity or cultural background, to have equal rights, including the right to vote and be counted as equals. A different question, albeit an important one to consider, I think, is how did we, under the Constitution, go from promoting a government that protects the rights and freedoms of the states and of the people to being a government that uses the excuse of protecting the people from themselves as an excuse to diminish everyone's rights and freedoms? I think this question is an important corrolary to Lehder's comment because the change was in large part due to the will of federalists to strengthen the power of the federal government over the states and the people. A little federalism, it seems, goes a long way, and in this case it seems to have poisoned the whole country.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Lehder on September 06, 2002 at 06:08:23 PT
Articles of Confederation
"The United States" was formed not by the Constitution but by the The Articles of Confederation in 1781. I know only a little about this document but plan to study its particulars and its historical circumstances during a respite that I am taking from the drug wars for personal and family reasons only.The US Constitution was dreamed up by Federalists and was opposed by many of the Founding Fathers content with the original Articles. Many presciently regarded the construction of a powerful central government as foolhardy and dangerous to liberty. Under the term "federalists" today I would include Republicans, Democrats and others who oppose democracy in favor of central control.In the likely event that the federal government should be defeated in its war with terrorists, a reversion to rule under the Articles, which provide for term-limited representation for each state by a minimum of three and a maximum of seven unpaid representatives, might be an attractive and ready-made form of future government for North America. In fact, unlike the Constitution that has been wholly rejected by the federal government itself, states were confederated under the Articles into a "perpetual union" that may not be dissolved.We must seriously consider that an entity that has, through nearly two hundred wars and genocidal interventions over the last century, earned itself hundreds of millions of enemies, and that in January of this year declared an indefinite war against the entire world, may very well be defeated. We ought to be prepared for that defeat, and familiarize ourselves with the form of government that will remain after the disappearance of our present federal system and the Constitution.Article XI should be of special interest to Canadians. It admits Canada into the confederation with rights and benefits equal to those of the other states. Presently, the destiny of Canadians is determined by their supreme authority in the person of US General Ralph Eberhart of the Northern Command, charged by President Bush with the protection of Canada and all her fish.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by dddd on September 06, 2002 at 05:50:47 PT
...Thanx GCW...
..It's somehow morbidly facinating to know that the JoyceSter is still ranting forth with her down-home style of frenetic lunatic blather!....I sometimes imagine how it would be if she were on our side.(?)...heck,,she'd probably have made some law that required every high school student be enrolled in a mandatory Marijuana Education class,,("Pot Ed"),,and all students would be issued a bong!,,(but their parents would have to pay for it,,,kinda like those 'Flutafone' things that were part of early music classes...
 
 
..[?..am I the only one who remembers flutifones?,,you know,,those little white plastic fake clarinet type whistle/flutes???]]
 
 
.................dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by The GCW on September 06, 2002 at 05:26:56 PT
This note is important enough to be included!!!
Note: The author's claims to be president of something changes with each 
LTE published. See http://www.mapinc.org/author/Joyce+Nalepkahttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1663/a06.html?397
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by The GCW on September 06, 2002 at 05:25:08 PT
DEA is not alone! They have Joyce!
They could not do it alone, they have the help of folks like Joyce.Ohl, buddy, ohl pal, Joyce.US NV: LTE: Ask Them
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1663/a06.html?397Ask Them To the editor: Tony Batt's Aug. 31 article, "Young Nevadans using marijuana," should be read carefully by grandparents. Grandparents don't need a Ph.D to tell them what happened to marijuana use in the '60s and '70s. They watched as marijuana use started in a few colleges, led by professors Norman Zinberg and Timothy Leary, and spread rapidly to high school students and currently to junior high schools. They watched as pro-drug groups such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws ( NORML ) led the march through 11 state legislatures pressuring uninformed and understaffed lawmakers to decriminalize marijuana. Keith Stroup, founder of NORML is considered by parents to be the "Father of the Marijuana Epidemic in America." Billy Rogers who is leading the legalization effort in Nevada is on loan from the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, another part of the legalizing network. Don't let them fool you or your grandchildren. Grandparents watched as marijuana use reached its highest levels because kids interpreted "decriminalization" as a message that marijuana use is OK. Kids began dropping out of school, becoming alienated from family and involved in crimes to support their drug use. For those who don't believe legalizing three ounces of marijuana will harm Nevada's children, ask your grandparents. And for grandparents: Don't just watch. Get out of those rocking chairs and go rock the vote. You can protect your grandchildren. You remember what America was like before drugs became widespread. You likely remember a time when locking your doors was not necessary. Send the legalizers packing. JOYCE NALEPKA SILVER SPRING, MD. The writer is president of Drug-Free Kids. and was president of Nancy Reagan's National Federation of Parents. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment