Latest

Reading about the rhetorical gymnastics of the Supremes on the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case gives insight into the prohibitionist mindset. As I see it, the fact that the case is being heard at all is a joke. The facts, as I understand them, are clear cut. To sum up: Frederick was, at the time of the 'event' an adult under Alaska law. He was not on school property. The event was not a school sponsored event, merely one for which school had been dismissed. In other words, school was closed. The meaning of the message he displayed is unclear, though obviously provocative. Here is my take on what happened: The principal, seeing the banner, felt embarassed, failed to maintain her composure, allowed herself to become angry, and lashed out. Upon regaining composure, she realized her error, but by then the 'event' had transpired, so she looked for any excuse for her lapse, cited the 'drug message' as contrary to school policy, and suspended Frederick for 5 days. When he dared to question this, the penalty was doubled. This administrator displayed a dismaying lack of self discipline, and obviously DID restrict the rights of free speech of another adult. She should be fired, not promoted. If you doubt this position, consider this question: What would the principal have done had one of the adult homeowners across the street from the school unfurled such a banner in front of their own home? What if it had been the son or daughter of such homeowner, standing on their own front lawn, across from the school, with such a banner? Would she have been within her rights to tear that banner down? Of course not. So what difference would it make if they took a few steps forward onto public property? Would that change things? Of course not. What difference does it make if it is a homeowner standing on the public sidewalk adjacent to his property, or another member of the public? Of course, it should not make any difference at all. As to the discussions between the Supremes, the fact that they are discussing the displaying of signs inside a classroom during class, as if it were a parallel situation when it obviously is not, demonstrates that they are trying to find some pretzel logic way to find in favour of the school. Pity they have allowed themselves to be co-opted by the prohibitionists in power, rather than thinking for themselves. I fully expect them to find in favour of the school, and then watch the free speech limitations increase incrementally.

I found two different stories this month about law-enforcement insiders tipping off friends prior to a drug raid. It certainly is revealing to see folks become suddenly concerned when the drug war targets someone they know.

This one involves a dispatcher who warned friends of an upcoming raid on another friend's home. Officers became suspicious after finding nothing during the search.

Another involves a prosecutor who tipped off a relative about an upcoming raid, then turned himself in and resigned after realizing the severity of his actions.

Basically, this guy put people in jail for a living, only to freak out and destroy his own career the moment the drug war touched his family. It's a startling change of heart, but I suspect many drug war participants would do the same. The callousness and brutality of the war on drugs becomes vivid and sickening once you're forced to confront the humanity of its victims.

Oddly, both incidents prompted accusations of endangering police:

Joliet Police Chief Fred Hayes said calling off the operation averted a potential disaster. The prosecutor's relative was "an associate" of the target of the operation, and the target learned of it, Hayes said.

"I think the state's attorney's office handled it very professionally and expeditiously," Hayes added, saying the supervisor's quick action might have prevented officers from being placed in serious jeopardy.

One must scrupulously avoid rational thinking in order to reach this conclusion so effortlessly. Does anyone really think the suspect would wait around and try to fight the police? If anything, the tip makes the raid safer because (1) the suspect will have removed all evidence and has no cause for desperation, and (2) the suspect knows it's a raid rather than an armed robbery.

The average drug dealer ain't Tony Montana jacked on blow ready to take on the world with an M-16. Anyone homicidal/suicidal enough to choose an optional fight with the SWAT team is probably already up in the proverbial bell-tower. Nobody would risk their career to warn someone like that anyway.

Yeah, I know it's the drug war, but can we stop to think for just one minute? I'll count to 60. Let me know what you come up with.

THE END OF HYPOCRISY IS COMING NEARER Trekt Uw Plant (Draw Up Your Plant) counts on being acquitted in cannabis trial on 28 March 2007 The end of hypocrite cannabis policy in Belgium (possession and use are allowed for adults, production and distribution is prohibited) is coming nearer. On Wednesday 28 March at 9 am in Antwerpen (Belgium), a court case starts against the association Trekt Uw Plant and 5 of its members.