DEA's pot raid draws protests

The Sacramento Bee (CA) ^ | December 15, 2005 | Robert D. Dávila

[Know your rights]

[...] Organizers blasted the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for targeting businesses that are legal under Proposition 215, a California law that permits marijuana use for medical treatment. Demonstrators said the action would restrict access to regulated pot shops for seriously ill patients. [...] "They didn't do any arrests, just took drugs and computers," said Paula "Cookey" Brown. "It just seems like a straight armed robbery." [...]

[jmc813]

We shall (cough) overcome, dude.

I'd expect such debating tactics out of Rosc, oops, Mojave, but not you. We're dicussing whether it is ever morally OK to break the law. It has the potential to be an interesting philisophical discussion. Accusing people of "equating" two different issues stifles such debate. You see that a lot amongst the pro-illegal immigration freepers.

Anyhow, we'll have to pick this up tomorrow. I'm about to leave my parents' home in Maryland and head back to dirty Jersey to watch the Jets lose tonight. Hope your Xmas was nice.

[Neville72]

"Dude, you're from Louisiana,"

Not for long. i'm outa this piss pot in less than 2 months.

Yipppeeee!

[Casloy]

Sounds way too much like prohibition.

[R. Scott]

And DEA agents get a big Christmas bonus, once they unload that pot to their buddies on the street.

That reminds me of a well publicized marijuana plantation raid that made the news when I was in Hawaii.
I watched the news clip as 6 foot tall plants - loaded with buds – were chopped down. I watched as they were loaded into police vehicles. I watched as the plants were heaped on a bonfire to dispose of the terrible weed. Not a bud in sight. Somehow the buds (the only part of the plant with commercial value in Hawaii) disappeared between confication and disposal.

[R. Scott]

You're equating racial discrimination with our current drug laws? Please.

There was a time when racial discrimination was the Law of the Land.

[Moonman62]

Under alcohol prohibition, whiskey was available for "medical" purposes. That loophole was abused too.

[Moonman62]

I've been waiting for this to happen. It's interesting that they didn't arrest anyone.

[68 grunt]

Good luck to you.

[Mojave]

[So the local government agency, not Rosa Parks, was violating the law.]

Kindly explain why the driver was not arrested and Parks was.

1. The driver wasn't the local government agency.

2. The 14th Amendment has no penalty clause.

3. Rosa Parks ultimately prevailed.

Your turn.

How can you disparage Rosa Parks by equating her acts with a smoking dope?

[Jigsaw John]

you're from Louisiana, you've got no room to bag on California.

I read that too. Some amazing comments here. What America witnessed in Louisiana after Katrina blew the roof off, was a display immoral criminal corruption and government scandal rarely seen in modern America.

[Know your rights]

Sounds way too much like prohibition.

Different drug, same hamfisted big government ... only back then big-government cheerleaders had the minimal decency to not pretend to be "conservatives."

[don asmussen]

robertpaulsen wrote:

"-- if you, personally, have something against the licensing and registration of certain weapons, you are free to ignore the law. But don't think you're acting in some sort of high-level moral capacity, understandable and acceptable by society in general.

Incredible position when the fact that our 'Law of the Land' on firearms infringements is taken into account. [of course, - you refuse its validity]

Stealing bread to feed your family, "pulling the plug" on a loved one in pain ... these are understandable, albeit illegal, actions. Refusing to register an illegal machine gun ... well, I doubt you'll get much sympathy in a court of law.

Yep, not in our courts as presently constituted. - Seeing that they seem to agree with you that a machine gun can be decreed to be "illegal", despite the clear "not be infringed" wording of the Amendment.

One wonders how these judges can justify ignoring their oaths to support Constitutional Amendments..

How do you do it paulsen? Or don't you support and defend ~any~ parts of the Constitution?

[robertpaulsen]

"There was a time when racial discrimination was the Law of the Land."

Yep. And my question to you is, are you equating those racial discrimination laws with our current drug laws -- do you put them on the same tragic level and scale?

[robertpaulsen]

"We're dicussing whether it is ever morally OK to break the law ... "

And my vote is no. It is morally understandable, but not morally OK.

If a sufficient number of people break a certain law, it then becomes time to re-evaluate the penalty or the law itself -- Prohibition is an excellent example.

[wolfcreek]

And DEA agents get a big Christmas bonus, once they unload that pot to their buddies on the street.

Christmas Bud?

[robertpaulsen]

And Merry Christmas to you, too.

[LIConFem]

"And my vote is no. It is morally understandable, but not morally OK.

If a sufficient number of people break a certain law, it then becomes time to re-evaluate the penalty or the law itself -- Prohibition is an excellent example."

You've just made an excellent argument for why breaking unjust laws is not only OK, but moral.

[R. Scott]

On the same tragic level and scale?

No, except that it was the law and people suffered.

[robertpaulsen]

"You've just made an excellent argument for why breaking unjust laws is not only OK, but moral."

Unjust? Says who? Maybe the law was unpopular, not unjust.

People break the speed limit every day. Is the law unjust?

[robertpaulsen]

I'm sorry. I'm trying to keep a straight face.

People suffering racial discrimination is not even in the same league as dopers having to do without.