Pot icon Tommy Chong makes movie of his imprisonment

reuters.com ^ | 9 10 05 | Cameron French

[freepatriot32]

TORONTO (Reuters) - Comedian Tommy Chong has spent almost three decades wringing laughs from cigar-sized joints and smoke-filled vans but now a nine-month jail term has turned him serious and revitalized his flagging career.

Promoting his documentary "a/k/a Tommy Chong" at the Toronto International Film Festival, he hopes the film will expose what he says is the U.S. government's heavy-handed dealing with marijuana offenders in the post-September 11 era.

"The United States is under martial law, it's under dictatorship," the 67-year-old father of four said in an interview.

The film chronicles the Canadian-born comedian's 2003 arrest and imprisonment for selling drug paraphernalia online to an undercover U.S. drug enforcement agent.

The bust was part of a sting operation known as "Operation Pipe Dreams," which the film likens to a witch hunt by former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft following claims that drug trafficking financed terrorist activities.

The film's producers say the federal government spent $12 million pursuing Chong and compare that to the $25 million bounty for the capture of Osama bin Laden.

Chong has been an outspoken marijuana advocate since his days in the Cheech and Chong comedy team, which rode pot culture to fame in the 1970s with films like "Up in Smoke" and "Still Smokin."

The documentary suggests the government's motive was not to rid the Internet of a mail-order pipe-and-bong business but to send a message about Chong's three decades of movies and stand-up routines celebrating marijuana use.

"DEA AFRAID"

"The DEA was afraid that 'Up in Smoke' (the 1978 movie that made Cheech and Chong a household name) was going to be around forever and ever subverting young kids," Chong said. "Now, we've got this documentary that's going to be around forever."

Faced with the prospect of seeing his wife and son -- who was running the pipe business -- being prosecuted, Chong said he made a deal to serve nine months in a minimum-security prison

"It was easier for me to go to jail and do the time than it would be to fight," he said.

Since his release in 2004, Chong has worked the ordeal into his comedy routines and has been enjoying a larger stage than in his recent past.

"Jay Leno is a good example," he said. "He had me on the 'Tonight Show' before but just for little peripheral things, never on the couch, and when this happened, now I've been on the couch twice now."

"It's like the weed culture. You just wait, it'll change. Everything changes. Bush won't be in power forever, Ashcroft is already gone. There's going to be another cycle and it's going to go the other way."

[A CA Guy]

You were asking about anthing not wrapped in a burrito a bad way.
Didn't catch the part where you wanted a differen't form of government.
I think the one we have is considered the most functional in the world.

[lugsoul]

I think Joe Friday's answer would be something about people all whacked out on reefer leaving their baby in the bathtub to drown.

That's a classic ep.

[68 grunt]

... I agree, and that is why we have lots of laws prohibiting smoking in public now.

Not surprised that you favor the smoking nazis. True to character.

[A CA Guy]

True, they could be further confined in public.

You can't shoot your gun for any reason in YMCA!

You can't legally play incredibly loud music from even your Pinto in too many cities anymore without getting a $400 fine.

You can't legally jump up and down on the dinner table of another guest at a restaurant they are eating at.

You can't legally take a dump at the register of the local grocery store in the name of the Constitution either.

Laws written since then by our voters or their voted-in legal representation in this Democratic Republic have legally restricted anarchy by law.

Covers your illegal recreational drugs the same way.

[jmc813]

I meant firearms ownership. Do you agree with your governor that civilians should not be allowed to own long-range assault rifles such as the .50 caliber and that bulletproof jacket piercing ammunition should be banned?

[Ken H]

The position I have posted was Congress's statement on the matter. They stated that rather than Ammend the hell out of the Constitution (thereby making it meaningless), they in every generation re-interpret it to meet the needs of the current generation. If they would add Ammendments to it for every need, the Constitution would become a document without meaning. Without a ton of Ammendments, most of the Spirit remains intact. That is the Congressional view.

Who said this?

[tacticalogic]

You were asking about anthing not wrapped in a burrito a bad way.

Does that mean you don't have anything in a political context that doesn't come wrapped in a scumbag burrito?

[A CA Guy]

People who smoke in Los Angeles have not been mistaken for being well mannered at all.
The vast majority of non-smokers didn't enjoy the bad health and asthma attacks their smoke caused the general public.
Again, being so crowded in population, you could no longer could avoid smoke indoors in public and the disgusting cancer causing behavior was limited.

You can smoke on CA outside, in your home and so forth.

[68 grunt]

I completely understand what a fool I made of the Drug Warriors tonight.

You can't argue with these nationalist socialists, they depend upon themselves for their own judgments and self congratulations. They are particularly despicable when they dog pile someone.

[Know your rights]

True, they could be further confined in public.

That's not what I meant. I meant that those actions in their nature extend beyond my home even if they originate there. This is not the case for drug use (unless one's pot smoke goes through one's neighbors windows, which I agree should be restricted by law).

[A CA Guy]

Depends, I can't say I am thrilled that it could be legal for a long distance sniper rifle with armor piercing bullets to be able to kill fireman, police or even you from blocks away despite wearing a vest.

We all know close up that most bullets will penetrate a vest, so we don't stop everything out of some stupid panic.

Do I think there are to be limits on some of this? Sure!

[Know your rights]

you could no longer could avoid smoke indoors in public

Again with this ridiculous claim that you can't avoid going to restaurants.

[A CA Guy]

Wrong again, see my partial list in #249.

Society is made to decay and suffer from their children on up with all this recreational drug lust.

Maybe give it up and take up BINGO!

[A CA Guy]

True, non smokers could all stop working or going out and remain home and could then easily avoid the disgusting smoke.
Good point, you are correct.

I think that would far worsen the economy compared to restricting only the smokers though.

[Know your rights]

I think that would far worsen the economy compared to restricting only the smokers though.

That doesn't make it government's business. If restaurants and employers lose money from allowing smoking, they'll ban it voluntarily.

[A CA Guy]

Yes, as my explanation of the way the Constitution is handled IMO today.

You could handle all the issues of a high population society by adding either 35,000 amendments to the Constitution (which at one point the Congress website said would then make the Constitution just a nice old historic paper) or they do what they do now, which is to reinterpret.

I find it a problem personally, you can take your choice though, whether it be judicial interpretation or 35,000 amendments... YOU STILL WON'T GET YOUR RECREATIONAL DRUGS.

[A CA Guy]

It's the people's voted in representatives that made this law, and it has been a great law.

A non-smoker can breath indoors in public now and that isn't bad. All a smoker has to do is step outside to smoke where there is ventilation and that is no big deal. I do feel sorry to put them out if they already have their lung cancers and have to exert themselves like that though.

[Know your rights]

* Their immediate family hell on earth.
* Probably often endanger their children with their irresponsible behavior.
* Cause massive health costs to our public coffers.
* Cause lots of extra liability to the employers through civil suits and probable cause auto manufacturing to move out due to all the drug addictions found on the production lines.
* Probably have a bunch on welfare eating our tax dollars.

All true of alcohol, which you hypocritically don't support a general ban on. And the third and fifth are problems WE cause by voting for government health care and welfare ... while the third falsely assumes that someone has a "right" to a pool of productive employees.

[jmc813]

Do I think there are to be limits on some of this? Sure!

I disagree with you. Read up on the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

[Know your rights]

It's the people's voted in representatives that made this law

That's right, you support tyranny of the majority and reject the Founders' ideal of limited government. At least have the minimal decency to stop pretending to be a conservative.