We have 100-150 paramilitary raids of American homes every DAY, mostly in the name of the War on Drugs, when most drug users are neither armed nor violent. (Missoula Independent)

The following rant was transcribed from Toker Talk Radio, M-F at 2:00 pm Pacific Time at http://live.norml.org.  I posted a story a yesterday about a man in New York who was needlessly killed during a marijuana bust.  Russ Belville does his usual excellent work of tearing this apart and supporting the story with facts and figures.  Gee, I love this kinda talk.

Can we stop the killing, can we stop the SWAT raids?  Can we stop using excessive police force to enforce these drug laws?  If we have to accept that they’re going to be around for awhile and it’s politically difficult to change them, if that’s the case, fine, but please change the tactics we use to enforce those laws.

There’s no reason that we have to have a fully armed SWAT raid to bring down someone who’s violating a marijuana law.  According to the latest FBI statistics of officers who were killed by suspects while enforcing the law, there were 48 deaths of officers last year and of those 48 law enforcement deaths, none of them had to do with enforcing drug laws*.   And certainly none of them killed enforcing marijuana laws!

When we look at the statistics over the years of police officers involved  in shootings, we find that that the risk of a police officer being shot, not killed, just shot, while enforcing a drug law is 1 in 350,000.  That is the statistic that qualifies them to come in with the body armor and flash bang grenades, the tear gas and automatic weapons pointed at 13 year old girls, shooting dogs and hand cuffing people and having them sit in their dog’s blood while they interrogate them and tear up their house.  All because there is a 1 in 350,000 chance that they are going to be shot at**.

There’s no reason why these laws can’t be enforced by knocking on these doors during daylight hours or waiting for people to leave their house so they can be apprehended outside the home.  Serving warrants in a SWAT-style fashion should only be reserved for those who pose a threat to themselves and to others.  It must be a case where you need to go in with guns blazing or it will mean a greater harm to our society and you cannot justify that greater harm to society by pointing to some guy growing pot plants under a light in his closet.

*Editor’s Note:  One death did occur from a Dallas police officer serving an arrest warrant when the suspect opened fire as the door was breached.  However, the FBI did not classify that as a warrant served over a drug-related matter.  Aside from 8 officers killed in drug-related arrests in 2001, no year in the 21st Century has seen more than 3 officers killed and in ’04, ’05, and ’09, there were no deaths serving drug arrest warrants.

I suppose drug prohibitionists would say that’s because we serve warrants SWAT-style.  But that doesn’t hold water.  From 2000-2009, there have been 19 officer deaths attributed to drug arrests (out of 536 total deaths, or 3.5%), while there have been 29 deaths attributed to “Tactical situation (barricaded offender, hostage taking, high-risk entry, etc.)”, exactly the situation SWAT was meant for, and 52 deaths responding to “robberies / burglaries in progress”.  Cops who are killed are most likely to die in a traffic stop (18.8%).

**Not exactly accurate.  There is a 1 officer killed for every 350,000 drug arrests.  More than that may be shot at.  Sorry about the error – I was reciting from memory. –”R”R

Here is an example reported by the local community newspaper in Clawson, MI, where law enforcement don’t even consider the possibility that a man may be protected under state law.

A 32-year -old Oak Park man will see if his explanation of having marijuana for medical reasons holds up in court.

Clawson police found the marijuana in his back pocket. They had been called to Kenilworth and Dreon Drive at 11:15 p.m. April 17 on reports of yelling and found the man staggering as he walked.

An officer asked if he had been arguing or screaming and he denied it. He said he had just arrived.

When asked about slurred speech and trouble walking, he said it was “because I’m handicap.”

“It’s for medical purposes,” he said about the marijuana found in his back pocket.

Also found was a gray cylinder container which he said was “to grind my cigarettes.”

The items were confiscated. The man was cited for possession of marijuana and given a court date of May 6 in 52-4 District Court in Troy.

It seems as though to me that if police found a man who had medicine in his pocket, they would ask for documentation to justify the possession.  In this particular case, it would seem to suffice that if the man was obviously handicapped they would err on the side of caution.  Instead, we know to be ‘truth’ in this article is that a man who is claiming to be handicapped and on medication is being sent to jail simply for being in possession of said medication.  This is a great example of American Heavy Handed Law Enforcement Hard at Work at Oppression (not doing much protection or policing here).

Let’s hypothetically examine what may happen to him if he is found guilty and sent to prison.  For smoking marijuana, he will likely be placed in the general population.  After being identified as being a prison bitch and raped repeatedly, day after day, he will likely be beat to within inches of his life several times, a month.  If he survives a year in prison, he will never be the same.

Law enforcement would content that he DESERVES it.  After all, he was medicating without having his recommendation in his pocket.  [The dirty little secret of law enforcement; they know how bad our prisons are and don't consider that reality when arresting people.]

In Michigan, sixty-three percent of voters approved Proposal 1 on November 4, 2008; the law took effect on December 4, 2008. Specifically, it removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who possess written documentation from their physicians authorizing the medical use of marijuana.

(CBS) So far, there hasn’t been much negative reaction to the photo showing Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelps smoking what appeared to be marijuana. 

A few years ago, it might have ruined his career, but so far it hasn’t — perhaps a sign of changing attitudes.

The seeming lack of outrage… may reflect America’s changing attitudes towards marijuana – an estimated $30 billion dollar industry in the United States alone.

While a majority of Americans still oppose the legalization of marijuana use, a new CBS News poll shows a big swing in opinion in recent years.

Twenty-seven percent supported legalization in 1979; 41 percent support it today.

Understand that when you get “41% support legalization”, that’s over 2 out of 5 people when asked, “Should marijuana be legalized” who will say “yes.”  That’s without any explanation of how, where, when, or for whom it will be legalized, so that includes the spectrum from “fine-only possession, jail for sales, cultivation, and trafficking” to “pre-rolled joints at the convenience store”.

When you change the question to actually define what you mean by “legalization”, the numbers rise.  In a 2001 Zogby poll, ten weeks after 9/11, we found:

In light of the tragic events of Sept. 11th and the increased attention to the threat of terrorism, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose arresting and jailing nonviolent marijuana smokers?

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the use of federal law enforcement agencies to close patient cooperatives in California and other states where medical marijuana is legal under state law?

Then in 2002, CNN/TIME Magazine commissioned a poll to look at marijuana issues:

Do you favor or oppose the legalization of marijuana?

Do you favor or oppose the legalization of marijuana? What about in small amounts, for example three ounces or less? Do you favor or oppose the legalization of marijuana in small amounts?

Assuming marijuana is not legalized, do you think people arrested for possession of small amounts of mairjuana should be put in jail, or just have to pay a fine but without serving any jail time?

Do you think adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor prescribes it or do you think that marijuana shouldremain illegal even for medical purposes?

When you start throwing in the idea of controlling cannabis sales through taxation and regulation like liquor stores, the legalization idea gets better support.  Zogby asked in 2003 and in 2006:

Do you support amending federal law to let states legally regulate and tax marijuana the way they do liquor and gambling?

In 2003, nationwide support for tax & regulate was only 41%, by 2006 it had risen five points to 46%. On the coasts, majorities favor taxing and regulating marijuana similar to hard liquor (53% East Coast, 55% West Coast).

Finally, when we look at medical use of marijuana, state by state, we find no state below 60% in their support for medical marijuana:

So, is Michael Phelps “getting off easy” because he is a superstar athlete or because most Americans don’t consider marijuana use to be taboo and detrimental anymore?

Download the NORML Daily Audio Stash for 2009-02-02

Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2009-02-02.mp3)

Well, wasn’t THAT one hell of a Super Bowl?  I was pulling for the Cards and thought my 23-21 Steelers-miss-last-second-FG prediction was going to be pretty darn close.  But what do you know, a stoner goes and catches the game winning last minute touchdown and is voted MVP.

Well, wasn’t THAT one hell of a Super Bong?  Michael Phelps was pulling from a big ol’ piece of glass without remembering that cell phone cameras exist now and he is the most famous Olympian on the planet.  But what do you know, a stoner went off to Beijing and became the only human to win eight gold in one Games.

Well, wasnt’t THAT one hell of a Super Bhang?  George Obama was pulled out of a Nairobi slum and was headed to the slammer for possession of marijuana and resisting arrest.  But what do you know, a stoner gets released from jail with charges dropped because his half-brother (a stoner) went and got elected President of the United States.

(It’s Groundhog Day.  Sonny & Cher keep playing on my radio.)

On today’s Stash, Allen St. Pierre drops by to give his take on the toker trifecta we hit this Super Bowl weekend, and Kelly Maddy from Jopin NORML is here to discuss medical marijuana legislation in Missouri.

“You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Letter from a Birmingham Jail
April 16, 1963

Today our nation honors what would’ve been this week the eightieth birthday of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., on the eve of the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th president of these United States.  I was sixty-four days old when an assassin’s bullet cut down Dr. King in the prime of his life.  Today I am six-hundred forty days older than Dr. King when he was killed.  Tomorrow I will see something few people my age and older thought we’d ever see, yet something Dr. King had dreamed from the start.

There remains a grave injustice to be battled, the most unjust of laws to be disobeyed, a law that by its definition is not rooted in eternal law and natural law: the man made code that declares nature itself to be illegal, the prohibition on cannabis.  Yet when I mention marijuana law reform in the context of the great civil rights struggles in America, so many are quick to dismiss me with snickers of derision.  ”You just want pot legal so you can get high!” is a common refrain.

Marijuana law reform is a civil rights struggle.  I will not attempt to equate this struggle to those of minorities, women, or gays and lesbians; however, there are some parallels among our fight and theirs and, indeed, some threads of drug law injustice are woven directly into the struggles of these groups.  The prohibition of drugs was one of the tools of oppression – the “Negroes” for their cocaine, the “Chinamen” for their opium, and the Mexicans for their marihuana.  It remains so today – while people use drugs at about the same rate regardless of race, African-Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and serve longer sentences for drug use than white people.

Aside from the racist nature of the origins and applications, cannabis prohibition itself is an unjust law.  First consider that it isn’t merely against the law to possess, cultivate, traffic, buy, and consume marijuana – it is against the law to be marijuana.  Federal and state law enforcement spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours flying helicopters attempting to spot cannabis growing out in the wild.  Ninety-eight percent of what is seized is known as “feral hemp”, which is wild ditchweed with unsmokably-low levels of THC.  Officials rip up and destroy every plant they see whether it is owned or tended by any human, whether or not it could possibly intoxicate any human.   Logically, then, the ultimate goal of marijuana prohibition is not to simply stop humans from using it for intoxication, but to eradicate the species cannabis sativa L. from the earth!

Think of that: our official policy is the extinction of a species of life.  Certainly that’s not entirely new.  We’re dedicated to the extinction of all manner of microscopic life, after all, but that is a justifiable policy for self-preservation – we kill bugs that kill us.  I cannot think of another plant or animal we treat like cannabis.  Deadly plants like nightshade and belladonna are legal, annoying plants like poison ivy and poison oak are legal, even intoxicating plants like coca and poppy are legal when cultivated for prescription medications.  But the cannabis plant, the plant that cannot kill you is completely illegal*.  The plant that can provide the food, clothing, shelter, and medicine humans need to survive is illegal.  Nature itself is illegal.  How much more contrary to eternal law and natural law could this unjust prohibition law be?

The fight against cannabis prohibition, against this unjust law, is a civil rights fight.  This declaration will offend some people who will point to four centuries of slavery and Jim Crow, to lynchings and cross burnings, and to beatings and firehoses and condemn my declaration as making light of the plight of those who were truly oppressed.  I do not make light of those struggles, but I also recognize that civil rights are not a zero sum game and the degree and manner in which one is being oppressed are not what make the fight against oppression a just one.  Dr. King dreamed of a day when children would be judged by not by the color of their skin but the content of their character; I dream of a day when workers are judged not by the metabolites in their urine but the quality of their work.

Later in King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he writes:

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. …

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. …

The unjust law of marijuana prohibition is difference made legal.  The majority compels our minority to forgo our intoxicant, but does not bind itself to forgo their intoxicant.  The majority compels our minority forgo our medicine, but does not bind itself to forgo their medicine.  The majority compels our minority to forgo their religious sacrament, but does not bind itself to forgo their religious sacrament.  The majority compels our minority to forgo our source of food, fuel, and fiber, but does not bind itself to forgo their sources.

The majority may argue that they do not prohibit intoxication, medication, religious sacrament, or food, fuel, and fiber cultivation, so long as it doesn’t involve marijuana.  This to me sounds like the argument against same-sex marriage rights, that gays and lesbians are just as free to marry someone of the opposite sex as everybody else.  If we are given a right, but then proscribed from exercising that right in the manner that benefits us without a valid reason from the majority, it is not really a right.  When intoxication, medication, and sacrament are legal rights, but we are proscribed from using a demonstrably safer intoxicant, medicine, and sacrament, that is difference made legal.

No, we do not face the firehoses and the dogs and the lynchings, nor do we suffer in as great of numbers as did the African Americans Dr. King so graciously led in the years before my birth.  Our oppression is more subtle and codified into laws that restrict our housing, employment, and educational opportunities.  We do not tremble in fear of the midnight ride of white-robed vigilante Klansmen; our terror comes in the form of midnight no-knock raids of body-armored SWAT teams.

Like the civil rights struggles of the past, we work to change laws that oppress people, laws that enjoy support from the majority and are rationalized by tradition, religion, and junk science.  Unlike the civil rights struggles of the past, our constituency is an invisible group defined by lifestyle, not genetics.  That choice to use cannabis should not disqualify our fight to be treated as equals under the law.  After all, the choice to worship the God of your understanding is not genetic, it is a lifestyle choice as well, and our law recognizes that one cannot be discriminated against for that choice.  In fact, it is a bit ironic that one’s choice of God, a belief that cannot be proven by science to beneficial, is a protected right, yet one’s choice of cannabis, a plant that can be proven by science to be beneficial, is a federal crime.

The freedom to worship, of course, is an explicit right recognized by our First Amendment, but its foundation is in the inalienable rights given to us by our Creator, among them being Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.  If that last one – the Pursuit of Happiness – doesn’t give me the right to smoke a joint so long as I don’t affect anyone else’s Life and Liberty, then the Constitution isn’t worth the hemp paper on which it was drafted.

Also from King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he writes:

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

Today’s freedom fighters are the people like Eddy Lepp and Charles Lynch, providing aid and comfort to the sick and dying by growing and supplying them with medicine, only to face the rest of their natural lives behind bars because what they did was “illegal”.

Today’s “whites-only” establishments are the “drug-free” workplaces keep cannabis users confined to low-paying part-time or temp service jobs, while the rest of the workers are allowed all the alcohol, nicotine, and prescription medications they desire.

Today’s lynchings are the Rachel Hoffmans and Jonathan Magbies who are murdered by police negligence, solely over their use of cannabis.  Today’s institutionalized discrimination is the over 20 million in my lifetime whose lives are marked with the scarlet letter of a drug conviction, affecting their child custody, government assistance, college financial aid, employment opportunities, professional licenses, voting rights, and liberty.

The prohibition of cannabis ultimately degrades human personality and is against moral law.  It is an unjust law that cannot stand, and we have a moral responsibility to disobey it.  In doing so, we express the highest respect for the law.  On this day when we recognize the greatness of Dr. Martin Luther King’s Dream, and on tomorrow, when we see part of that dream fulfilled, remember that we don’t fight to “make pot legal so you can get high”; we fight because the Pursuit of Happiness is our right and caging us for our method of pursuit is unjust.

Smoking pot is our civil right!

Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
Martin Luther King, Jr.

* I recognize that marijuana is legally grown at ElSohly’s lab at the University of Mississippi.  But consider that marijuana’s two purposes – to supply five people grandfathered in to the IND program and to provide marijuana for studies to prove how awful marijuana is to justify its prohibition.  In this metaphor it would be akin to saving a few vials of polio virus so you could use them to make vaccines.