The War on Drugs is Perfectly NORML (C) 1993 by Jim Hogshire When they came for the Fourth Amendment I didn't say anything because I had nothing to hide. When they came for the Second Amendment I didn't say anything because I wasn't a gun owner. When they came for the Fifth and Sixth Amendments I didn't say anything because I had committed no crimes. When they came for the First Amendment I couldn't say anything. * * * * * * * * When we bemoan the horrors of the War on Drugs we always speak of how the Constitution "is being ripped to shreds." But even as we say these words we don't seem to comprehend just what this means. We just say it, and then, having said it (among friends of course) we go back to demanding our cable TV rates be lowered. The truth is, our rights are not being "eroded." Most have already been eliminated. And just like the above epigram suggests, your right to say so will be the last thing to go. When they start telling you what to say and how to think, you'll know it's all over. Sadly, that is what's happening now. The ever-powerful police state has modified its laws to the point where it is downright profitable to go hunting citizen/suspects -- someone who is growing even one marijuana plant, "loitering" too long in a single area, selling "paraphenalia," or saying the wrong things. The general acceptance of the police state has paved the way for the "War on Drugs" to expand -- to porno dealers, religious groups, gun owners, foreigners, and "troublemakers" of every stripe. This could never have happened without a stunning lack of resistance by the people -- especially those who consider themselves at the forefront of the Drug War Resistance. We "resisters" have allowed ourselves to be stratified and fragmented to the point where nearly everyone -- no matter how supposedly radical -- agrees with at least some of the government's oppression. Pro-hemp people are among the worst offenders with their explicit pleas to allow the government to "regulate and tax" hemp. Faux pro-drug luminaries like Terrence McKenna (_Food of the Gods_, etc.) go a little further in advocating more use of psychedelic drugs, but would still outlaw opiates and cocaine -- since theses are "hard drugs." It might also be that these folks don't happen to like coke or smack too much and are thus willing to send their fellow man to jail in the hope that _their_ particular drug will get the government's nod. But the government only reluctantly gives the slightest of nods to MDs and others with the proper credentials. So far we have managed to believe that the various outrages (warrantless searches, asset forfeiture, preventive detention, military troops enforcing civilian laws, etc. ad nauseum) are temporary aberrations. Somehow we make ourselves believe reason will overcome this madness before it goes too far. Or maybe we each think it would never get around to us -- after all, _I'm not doing any harm_. How could the police possibly be interested in me? Well, they are interested in you -- and have demonstrated this time and again by compiling huge databases made up of information on nearly every citizen who owns a telephone. The War on Drugs was never meant to alter anyone's drug use -- it was a money and power scam from the start. "Fighting drugs" has given our government just the excuse they need to send troops to foreign countries and to police our borders and even our cities. The litany of atrocities is long and runs the gamut from wholesale human sacrifices overseas, to the theft of a few hundred dollars from a guy in an airport who can't immediately prove it wasn't earned illegally. And now they have come for the First Amendment. A gardening supply shop just handed over $100,000 to the government rather than prove it was not involved in a conspiracy to grow marijuana because it had placed ads for grow lights in two magazines. A famous author is forced to use a pen name on his latest books because his real name is too associated with drugs and book dealers often refuse to carry any book that can bee construed as promoting drug use. Even the word "marijuana" has caused a gardening book to be taken off the shelves in fear of cops raiding, then seizing the whole store. When cops in Indiana ran out of names gleaned from confiscated garden supply store customer lists and busted every hydroponic gardener they could, they set up their own hydroponics equipment stores, charged low prices, then calmly talked with customers while copying down names and license plate numbers. The monetary gains from this operation were measly, but the number of people going to prison and the fear injected into the community as a whole must have been worth it. The War on Drugs has been highly successful in cowing the population, and increases its control every day. Once again, what is most disturbing is the complicity of the people. From turn-in-your-parents campaigns to NORML's obsequious "legalize, then tax and regulate!" proposals, to the idea that even marijuana should be illegal if it exceeds a certain arbitrary quantity, even "libertarian" types are tripping over themselves to help the cops. When we are not busy validating portions of the government's propaganda in the vain hope that we will be spared a pitiful ounce of weed, the rest of us are silent. Today we live in a culture of fear and distrust, a culture that has taken fewer than ten years to create. The use of asset forfeiture laws was not very commonplace until after 1985. And the assault on speech only began in the last four years or so. First, there is operation Green Merchant (it still continues, after collecting billions of dollars and destroying countless lives). In 1987, Ed Rosenthal first wrote with awe of some of America's pioneer indoor pot farms. Yet, he may not have realized that even though he and his fellow pot smokers had moved indoors, they were still in harm's way. After all, at that time the courts still recognized some modicum of privacy rights (helicopters were not allowed to hover just above a person's house taking infra-red pictures without a warrant, for instance). But by the end of 1988, nearly every state had mimicked federal statutes that not only relaxed the standards for probably cause but also increased the powers of search and seizure. These last laws have come to be known under the heading of "asset forfeiture" and although they have been used vigorously in every state for at least the last five years many people still express shock that such a thing is legal. What is asset forfeiture? Basically it's this: The state seizes property under what they term "probably cause" and then keeps it, claiming it now belongs to the state because of a legal doctrine known as "relation back." Relation back says that once any thing, be it cash, car, or bass boat is used in an illegal way, it belongs to the state from that moment on. Thus if you lend your car to someone who uses it to bring drugs to a friend, the car is no longer yours. This is true even if the crime goes undetected for some time afterward. That car belongs to the state and if it ever alleges that a crime took place in it, it can take possession of it. This legal doctrine is not new; it harkens back to the Inquisition when those accused of heresy by the Church lost their property -- half to the Church, half to the local secular official. Normally, especially if the case is weak, the authorities will tell you to kiss your property goodbye or face prosecution. With the maximum penalties we have all voted for (or at least kept silent about) who wants to go to court? Most people just grind their teeth and let the government keep everything. One wonders what sort of marijuana tax could possibly compete with this as a source of revenue? You _can_ get your property back. You merely have to prove to a civil court by "a preponderance of evidence" that the state is wrong in its suspicion that the property was used in a crime. Now the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant, and it is a difficult burden to boot. Preponderance of evidence constitutes 51% or more (in the judge's opinion) of the evidence. Probable cause requires only suspicion. Thus, the state takes by probable cause, then requires a higher standard of proof from you, the ex-owner, to get it back. Yes, this is the exact reverse of the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty." But they get away with it because no human is charged with any crime. The case is against the confiscated property. That's why you see such cases as The State of California vs. $5,000 cash. You see, property doesn't have as many rights as people. Even if you are acquitted of any crime, your car, cash or bass boat will still have to prove its innocence. By the way, this is nothing new either. This legal fiction harkens back to at least the 12th century when a kettle was once tried for murder after it fell off a shelf on someone's head and killed him. Obviously, this has made for some easy pickin's for state cops who often get into humorous court battles with each other over which jurisdiction gets how much seized property and bank accounts. It also invites the government to play even faster and looser with and "rights" Joe Citizen might have left. Thus, we have "paraphenalia laws" that are sporadically enforced to scare off certain people or to drum up some quick money. Paraphenalia laws spawned still other that make it illegal to even talk about drugs in such a way as could be construed as "promoting their use and/or manufacture." The Analog Substance Act has even made vertain compounds illegal that haven't yet been made or used by anyone. Indeed, these drugs exist only in theory. This last bit is truly a new twist on legal reality. Even the harshest medieval minds concerned themselves only with things generally recognized as real and did not make that which did not exist illegal. Now, search warrants issued on phoned-in "anonymous tips," "pre-trial detention" based on a prosecuteor's allegation, probable cause based on "profiles" that include several million people, are all commonplace. Things that didn't used to be illegal are now felonies. In some states it is a crime to have prescription drugs stored in anything but their original container. At least one dissenting judge noted this made a pill illegal for the time it took to remove it from the bottle and swallow it. The War on Drugs brought us our first true thought crime when it introduced the idea of a _conspiracy of just one person_. Unlike any other federal conspiracy charge, the War on Drugs does not require you to do a single thing in furtherance of your conspiracy. In other words, if you consider selling drugs -- that is itself a crimew. For any other crime you have to _do something_. Today we are seeing the first cases where speech -- the transfer of information -- has become illegal. If someone asks you how to grow marijuana, you will be guilty of a crime if you tell him. Good thing for me I don't smoke pot, huh? Hope nodoby asks me how to forge a prescription. Or decided ephedrine is an analogue of speed. Or decides a novel I write inspires thoughts contrary to the State's interests. This is the application of "thought crime" and nothing less. To police our thoughts, the cops keep extensive files on anybody, and everybody. In some states, each and every prescription filled is noted by a computer and kept in an enormous database. When, in the computer's estimation, something appears "suspicious," the cops are dispatched to investigate -- if not make an arrest. In Ohio, cops don't leave such crucial decisions up to a computer. There, the police have free access to any pharmacy's records and are allowed to even store this information at various police stations. And urine testing has subjected the majority of Americans to lifestyle investigations by almost anyone. Scrutinizing pee yields all kinds of information about a person besides "drug use." Each and every person traveling on an airplane is now noted by law enforcement agencies, and even small bank transactions are reported to the government. Police databases now make available extensize information on any citizen. So far, our attempts at solutions to this problem have been utter failures. I think that's because they rest on asking the system to change itself in a way that is clearly not in the interest of the system at all. All this is due to our silence and bleating for mercy. And Big Brother loves bleating sheep. He loves the sheep who agree there is such a thing as a "hate crime," the sheep who believe there are such things as "hard drugs" or drugs that "really should be controlled" or that certain religious outlooks aren't "real churches." And of course he loves the majority of sheep who are willing to part with "some of their rights" and convince themselves they won't regret it. The pro-hemp sheep are perhaps the worst of all. They have even been suckered into arguing for marijuana legalization on the basis of its value as an agricultural crop! About the only use for marijuana _not_ mentioned by pro-hempists these days is that you can get high from it! Pro-hemp sheep love to tell stories about how the Founding Fathers wrote our Declaration of Independence on hemp paper. Some even go so far as to say that hemp can _save the world_. Please master, if you let use have our hemp, we'll back up the rest of your oppression. Here, you can even tax it, if you want. But could the government ever expect to make as much money off taxation as it already does with asset forfeiture? In a world where a police dog "alerting" on a stack of cash results in a jackpot, or possession of any amount of drugs costs you your house, is this supposed to lure them into legalizing pot -- the chance to regulate at a lower profit than which they already regulate? I know this is counter-culture heresy, but the fact is, no group has been more complacent about the War on Drugs than the pro-marijuana smokers. For all their self-righteous jabbering about freedom, they do little to secure it. They buy 90% of the government's anti-drug line and heartily condemn users of any other drugs. _High Times_ now "hates heroin, alcohol, speed and cocaine" according to a _USA Today_ interview with _High Times_ editor Steve Hager. "Now the only articles about heroin or cocaine you'll find in _High Times_ will tell you where to get treatment," he says. Once a million circulation magazine devoted to all types of drug exploration, the magazine now essentially agrees with the Drug Warriors that coke and "crack" are scourges. In return, _High Times_ has suffered a concerted and sustained program of harassment by the DEA, which systematically drives away its advertisers and subjects it to threats of prosecution. But its hypocrisy remains transparent -- some of their largest advertisers are companies that sell ephedrine and caffeine pills as fake speed. Both of these drugs, especially ephedrine, can be fatal in relatively small doses. Some articles suggest _High Times_ has come completely under DEA control when they run articles that teach growers to do their best to grow as little as possible so, if busted, they won't be charged with dealing and face stiffer penalties. "If you grow, make sure you know the rules of the game," one article ends, "and play the games accordingly." Is this the magazine that published _The Encyclopedia of Recreational Drugs_? Advise on how to "play the game?" Al Capone would be ashamed. At least the coke dealers resist. They shoot back at governments that shoot at them. They put prices on judges' heads, they blow away cops and spring their pals from prison. In our country, no one fears a sheep with a grow light and a marijuana seedling. What is feared is physical abuse and death. This has been the punishment for people with nothing to confiscate for years. As a result, in areas where the punishment is not asset forfeiture, but incarceration, the Drug War really is fought with guns. Mostly this is in the inner city and on a few rural pot plantations. The propaganda has so far been able to hornswoggle us with the lies of "instantly addicting crack," PCP giving someone the strength of ten men, and the general fear of colored people at home and abroad. The fear of the "Other" has led us to seriously limit firearms (semi- automatic weapons are supposedly favored by drug dealers when, in fact, they are most-favored by police departments), endorse pre-trial detention and the U.S. Army enforcing civilian laws (when will we have forced billeting of soldiers?). Oh, save us from those dark-skinned foreign druglords! We have now allowed our governemt to adopt truly fantastic "crime packages" that include the death penalty for destruction of government property, mandatory life sentences for small amounts of this or that substance and general mistreatment for anyone deemed a "kingpin" -- an elastic definition which seems to mean "anyone accused of having drugs." Before it's completely illegal, I would like to remind everyone that tyrants don't get disposed of by rational arguments or deal-making. In the end, it must become unprofitable and uncomfortable for The Establishment to continue to wage their Drug War. To this end it is obvious that mere talk is not enough (but, by all means SPEAK OUT -- without that all is lost) but action is required. The simplest means of action is to turn the monster on its creators. As the drug warriors become increasingly rapacious, as their SWAT teams blow away more and more innocent people, the public's perception of them is going to sour. So one of the best ways to fight the oppression is to bring the war home to those who love it so much. Why not report your kindly family doctor for drug dealing? Without much proddiing you can get the police to tear his place apart, and perhaps ruin his practice. The doc will see he has more to fear from his government than anyone else, and so will all his friends. Why not go ahead and help the cops with their turn-in-your-neighbor programs? Just make sure the neighbors you turn in are those with the smuggest attitudes and the juiciest assets. If those guys believe so heartily in the fairness of our criminal justice system, why not plant a little coke in their cars, then call the cops? Throw pot seeds on a politician's lawn. As the richer-and-more-powerful discover the joys of dealing with the man in blue they may come to listen to your logical arguments. But as long as they think they can escape the consequences of their own police state, they will continue to back it. Take a tip from the IRS -- terrorize just a few percent of the insulated middle class and the rest will readily do what it takes to escape the same treatment. After a slew of millionaires lose their houses, and some regular folks lose their bass boats and enough regular white folks see their children off to ten-year stretches in prison for non-crimes, the Drug War will cease. But not before. Otherwise, never miss a chance to expose the Drug War for what it is. If you have children, encourage them to challenge their teachers whenever anti-drug messages come up. Teach them to teach their classmates that the teachers are lying. You don't have to promote drug use to promote your Constitution. All you have to do is promote freedom.