cannabisnews.com: Officials Bummed Out, But Pro-Pot Show Goes On





Officials Bummed Out, But Pro-Pot Show Goes On
Posted by FoM on September 15, 2000 at 08:15:28 PT
By M. Scot Skinner 
Source: Arizona Daily Star
Pima County officials will allow a 12-hour, pro-marijuana concert to proceed at the fairgrounds tomorrow night, just weeks after they scuttled a "rave" dance because they didn't want to sanction illegal drug use. Why is a weed-themed extravaganza called "Grass Roots Affair" acceptable on county property while rave concerts are not? "That's a good question," said Ralph Wong, a consultant for the Southwest Fair Commission, which operates the fairgrounds on behalf of Pima County. 
"We weren't concerned with this concert because it's not a rave," said Wong, the former director of the commission. "When I was briefed by the Sheriff's Department, I was told that they don't serve alcohol at raves, and at this event, beer will be served." Since beer will be sold, that means the concert will attract an older crowd than a rave, said Kate O'Rielly, the county's community resources director. Asked why the county would sanction an event promoting the legalization of marijuana, O'Rielly said: "It has something to do with First Amendment rights." She declined to comment about whether a rave would be OK on county property if producers described it as a political rally calling for the legalization of the drug Ecstasy. O'Rielly's boss, County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, said yesterday that he's against the concert, no matter what it's called. "Call it a rave, call it this or that, call it an Avon party - our concern remains the same," he said. "Parents might get the impression that the county is sponsoring it, and we absolutely are not." In fact, Huckelberry sent a letter to the fair commission on Aug. 14 asking it to cancel the rave and "Grass Affair." On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, he requested the commission do "whatever is necessary to cancel these events." The commission allowed Grass Roots Affair to proceed after the producer argued that it wasn't a rave. The promotional fliers for tomorrow's show are loaded with drug references, all set against a green, leafy background. The 20-year-old producer of the concert is Ariel Farah, owner of a local head shop called Hazy Days. He said proceeds will go toward an industrial hemp initiative he wants to get on the Arizona ballot in 2002. Proceeds also will benefit a group called Artists Helping End Marijuana Prohibition, he said. The Sheriff's Department will not allow its deputies to work off-duty at the concert, said Assistant Chief Martha Cramer. "I spoke out personally against raves because I didn't think it was something we should sanction, and you will notice that we won't be there at this weekend's event," Cramer said. "We're no longer doing off-duty work at the fairgrounds." Tomorrow night's event "sounds a bit questionable," she added. "I would be surprised if there were no drug use there." The producer didn't deny that some concert-goers might be tempted to inhale. "But it was not our intention to put on a big pot-smoking party," Farah said. "I've been working with the county for the last four or five months, and I definitely didn't catch the same flak that went on with that rave." The show, sponsored in part by High Times magazine, will feature live performances by reggae and hip-hop artists, from Shinehead and Lee "Scratch" Perry to Slick Rick and the Souls of Mischief. Several techno, house and trance DJs also will perform in the early morning hours, including DJ Moda from San Francisco, DJ Lego from Chicago, and a duo known as the H Foundation. A crowd of 7,500 to 10,000 is expected, Farah said. "The fairgrounds stands to make good money because of the alcohol sales," he said. "We are not getting a cut of that." Potheads the world over recognize 4:20 as a code meaning it's time to fire up a joint. Naturally, tomorrow night's extravaganza will begin at 4:20 p.m. and end at 4:20 a.m. Sunday. Contact M. Scot Skinner at 573-4240 or skinner azstarnet.comPublished: Friday, 15 September 2000 Source: Arizona Daily Star (AZ)Copyright: 2000 Pulitzer Publishing Co.Contact: letters azstarnet.comWebsite: http://www.azstarnet.com/Related Web Sites:Hihg Times Magazinehttp://www.hightimes.com/Welcome to A. H.E.M.Phttp://www.ahemp.org/
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by freedom fighter on September 15, 2000 at 17:09:50 PT
hey 
schmeff and observer;We need more people like you. You guys did good. By the way, the rave that was cancelled/forbidden was held somewhere in that county anyway. The Law just did not know where. Too bad!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Schmeff on September 15, 2000 at 09:23:51 PT
Ya gotta wonder...
...how people (usually spineless gvmt. bureaucrats), intent on bending over backwards to stick their heads up their asses in an effort to be politically correct, equate providing access to public facilities to some group or another as "sanctioning" the views of that particular group.No one with the least bit of common sense believes that because a library has a copy of Das Kapital on its shelves, the local gvmt. sanctions the views of Karl Marx. No one with an ounce of functional brain cells thinks that because a jet airliner crashes on BLM land, the government sanctions jet crashes. Only an imbecile could believe that because Philadelphia played host to a political convention, the city of Philadelphia sanctions THAT political party. Just because the KKK marches through a city's streets does not imply that the city sanctions the beliefs of the KKK.Yet it is this totally distorted and befuddled progression of illogical thought that serves as a foundational underpinning for the "gotta save the children" aspect of the WOD. This complete fallacy goes like this: "If we remove criminal penalties for drug use, we send a message to our (idiot) children that the government believes drugs are good." The illogic of this position is evident on its face: there are no criminal penalties for the possession of rat poison, therefore the government believes taking rat poison is good. (Feel free to make up your own fun governmental policy; be creative, the list is endless: there are no criminal penalties for being brain-dead and running for Congress...it's a good thing. There are no criminal penalties for well financed special interests giving billions of dollars in soft money to political parties to corrupt our democratic process, therefore the gvmt. thinks it's a good thing...hey,...wait a minute...)Still, the argument that if it ain't agin the law, yer almighty gummint (those friendly public servants we all look to as pillars of good, decent, moral role models) thinks it's good, is used again and again by those who would infinitely increase governmental control over our lives. Here in OR, the latest anti-gay initiative goes like this: Our (public) schools are not to promote homosexuality (i.e. mention, talk about, have gay teachers or books in the library about homosexuality), as this would indicate that the government thinks homosexuality is GOOD!Let's not, through our silence, let the prohibitionists rewrite the rules of logic. I understand they are already drafting laws against gravity, in a final effort to get everyone behind bars. Come to think of it, this might be a great campaign slogan: "A chicken in every pot, and a cop in every house." After all, Gore has pledged to hire 50,000 more police officers. This in spite of the fact that crime has been down in the past few years. Sounds like open season on unarmed civilians.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by observer on September 15, 2000 at 09:07:10 PT
Something to do with First Amendment rights
Asked why the county would sanction an event promoting the legalization of marijuana, [county's community resources director] O'Rielly said: "It has something to do with First Amendment rights." Goodness! She actually mentioned the Bill of Rights! (If only to disparage it.) That is a rarity. Maybe they were afraid of losing a lawsuit if they denied permission to this one group?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; orthe right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Imprisoning adults for using cannabis violates much of the 1st amendment; preventing and/or punishing adults for merely gathering to protest this abuse of adults who use cannabis violates the remaning clauses of the 1st amendment. That the War on Drugs trashes the Bill of Rights is little surprise, after all, that's one of the real reasons for this "war." 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: