[JTN]

Apparently, there is no limit to government thuggery when it comes to the war on drugs.

[JTN]

Libertarian Ping

[Appalled but Not Surprised]

Yeah, life's a bitch when you commit a major felony and then flee the United States to avoid paying for your massively criminal behavior--behavior that contributes to the death or stupidification (through the well-known 'burn-out' syndrome) of your customers.

There is no medical use of mary j. There are only crooks with a publicity firm.

[sit-rep]

I for one would like to see MJ leagalized for recreational use, but the article you posted, is no poster child for the cause... This guy fled and they caught up with him. If anything, this goes against what your trying to do...

[DB]

If he really believed he was within the law he wouldn't have left the country. Be running he made things far worse. Now he gets to pay the price.

[armydawg1]

Theme song here: I fought the law and the law won!

Too bad, try a legal drug next time.

[Gay State Conservative]

Although Tuck is a California state-registered medi-pot patient–meaning he's authorized under state law to possess and grow marijuana for medical purposes–he was also growing for others.

In other words,he was a dealer.And,under Federal law,that "state registration" thing isn't worth a thing.

The minute the word "dealer" is injected into the discussion,any sympathy I might have had flies out the window!

[Sam Cree]

It's Interstate Commerce. The founding fathers put that in the Constitution so that the government could have nearly unlimited power when needed.

[robertpaulsen]

Posted here already and here.

[The Raven]

As a Libetarian, I still wrestle with the drug position.

I have no problem disagreeing with the way the Federal government danced around the Constituion to create drug laws, but I also have no problem banning hard drugs.

In a perfect world without statism - my freedoms are still limited (I can't murder my boss) and I can't force others to do my bidding and visa versa.

The individual's freedom is sacrificed by the drug user when he drives a car or requires public funds for survival or treatment.

I can therefore justify drug laws by putting them into the crime category - in other words.....if you use drugs - OK - but if you step on the toes of others - it's a crime. How's that for a compromise?

"A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Is the power of society limited or unlimited?

"Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.

"Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes."

-- Ayn Rand, Textbook of Americanism"

[dljordan]

"Apparently, there is no limit to government thuggery when it comes to the war on drugs."

There's no limit to their thuggery period. The government is armed and dangerous and has an excellent PR department.

[bigsigh]

Another outstanding example that we pay too much tax to the federal government.

[Wuli]

I am convinced that in cases other than the major opiate-based drugs of opium/heroine/morphine - and their pharmacuetical derivatives - there are no fully addictive substances, only addictive-inclined people and addictive behavior. People adopt addictive behaviors sometimes, and the true addiction lies in that behavior and not the "drug", which is only a crutch for the chosen behavior. They could chose alcohol, or any drug with which to act out their addictive behavior. The addiction is an escape mechanism, avoiding dealing with emotional and psychological issues from which the person escapes into an addiction. The drug is not the addiction.

I see this from my own experience as a former cigarette smoker (after 40 years I quit cold turkey), from people who I have known who were either alcoholics or constant pot-smokers, and from people who have indulged in the weaker substances like pot from time to time and never developed any chronic addiction or even chronic use; and from reading books, like: "Addiction is a Choice by Dr. Jeffrey Schaler.

The pendulum has begun its swing backcould it be that drug and alcohol addictions are not diseases after all, but bad personal choices? Can addiction be overcome by mustering the strength of character to turn away from such choices? Psychologist Schaler (Justice, Law, and Society/American Univ.; Smoking, Who Has the Right?, not reviewed)- argues convincingly that society has erred in giving in completely to the AA vision that addiction is a disease, that addicts can't help themselves, and that they need a higher power to be saved. Addiction (which at one time meant only devotion or dedication) has come to mean ``any activity which individuals engage in, deliberately and consciously, and are physically unable to stop themselves from pursuing. Rejecting such a definition out of hand, Schaler maintains that ``people are responsible for their deliberate and conscious behavior. He is sympathetic for those struggling with addiction; he doesn't oversimplify his own or his opponents arguments; and he readily acknowledges his philosophical forefathers (Thomas Szasz, for one, from the last time the pendulum was at this end of its arc). His reading of the results of research into addiction [he has researched dozens of major addiction programs and dozens of addiction research projects] that it fails to support the disease models convincing. And his resulting suggestions for changes in public policy and for individual change demand consideration. If not a new model for viewing addiction, at least a provocative update of an old one. -- Copyright ©2000, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.--This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Comment by Joseph Gerstein, M.D. F.A.C.P., Harvard Medical School - Schaler drives a stake into the heart of the 'disease' concept of addictions. Millions of people have stopped smoking, abusing mind-altering drugs, and drinking addictively on their own, without the intervention of counselors or doctors or programs. And millions have engaged in such substances in limited ways and never developed addictions. Dr. Schaler explains persuasively why and how this happens [addiction is a choice], despite all the genetic and hormonal predispositions.

Schaler essentially argues that when we know what is happening, when we decide that we want to change what is happening and when we chose to commit to that change, we can make it happen - even quitting an addiction.

I believe Schaler is right and, on that basis, much of the war on drugs is wasted, attacking one crutch that would simply be, and often is, substituted for another crutch until the addict changes their behavior.

Like a gun, it is not the gun that kills, it's who uses the gun in a bad way that kills with it. It's not the Mary Jane, it's those who make an addiction of it and those who use it for relief of chronic pain. It does not need to be "legalized" but it should be de-criminalized (Wm F Buckley agrees). They could start by ending most prosecutions for mere possession and instead offer the addict support for treatment, if they turn in their source.

Meanwhile, if it is truly a war on drugs (which it isn't) then the poppy fields in Columbia and Afghanistan should be napalmed, constantly. Oh, we can't do that; lets go arrest some more addicts and let every one stay in business.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Apparently, there is no limit to government thuggery when it comes to the war on drugs.

 

I suspect there is quite a bit more to this story than is being reported. Humboldt County is the weed growing capital of Calif! I have known "growers" in my younger days from Humboldt, and they were selling the stuff for as much as $3,000 a lb! Chances are this guy is one of them. Not only is he growing pot for himself but is more than likely making 50 to 60 grand a year in the process. Trust me there are no other jobs in this area. The economy of the whole place is based on pot. It is capitalism at its best. The competition is tremendous, and most haven't paid any income taxes in 10 to 15 years. Last time I was there, about 20 years ago, they were smoking weed in the post office! I think the Feds are more pissed about the revenue they are being cheated out of than they are the weed.

[goldstategop]

I hope the federal narcs prosecute him. They're arguing a sick man deserves prison for breaking the law to ease his suffering. I'd vote for nullification in a heartbeat.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[panaxanax]

Here's an intersting site to visit.

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread1444.shtml

[ovrtaxt]

Pharmaceutical companies can't make any money on pot. It's too easy to grow.

This guy was treating his own pain without big brother's help. We can't have that now.

[Ed_in_NJ]

As a sponsor of the WoD, I do not approve of the way the Feds are spending my money.

[JCEccles]

I thought Canada liked druggies.

[meema]

I agree with you!
This is disgusting! Why don't they arrest some border jumpers?