First, some background is in order. I was raised a mormon brat, escaped the church when I was 13, and have studiously avoided any sort of religious affiliation since then. However, having experienced my own fair share of religious intolerance in the past, I've always been inclined to give the devoutly religious the benefit of the doubt. So when Bush nominated John Ashcroft for attorney general, I didn't freak out. I figured, okay, he's a pentacostal, but that doesn't mean that he can't be a good attorney general. He took a fair stance on the second amendment, at least, so we won't be seeing another Waco, right?
But then the big attack came, America woke up to the grim fact that there are islamist fundamentalists out there who want to destroy our country... and Ashcroft began a major crackdown on the distribution of marijuana for medical purposes. Regardless of one's beliefs on the harmfulness of marijuana, it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money attempting to address a 'problem' the community doesn't see as a problem. Terrorist attacks or no, if the government has money to combat drug trafficking, wouldn't it make sense to use that money in the states that want help combating drug trafficking? If your thanks for staging a massive drug bust in town is for the city to turn around and hand out marijuana at City Hall in open defiance of the federal government, then maybe you should rethink your funding priorities.
Then Ashcroft announced that he was going after doctors in Oregon who prescribed lethal doses of medicine through the Death With Dignity Act, and that he was using the Controlled Substances Act as his rationale. While I may have qualms about state sanctioned suicide, I felt that Ashcroft was overstepping his bounds by going on the attack with such gusto, and with such flimsy attempts at justifying what appeared to be purely beliefs. But I was still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, due to my own worries over euthanasia.
But now we're facing a 300 billion dollar deficit, congressmen from both sides of the aisle have their panties in a wad over money issues, and the DoJ responds by performing a massive raid of drug accessory retailers. All sorts of common household items will serve to make pipes or bongs for smoking marijuana, and hell, if you can't even get a toilet paper roll and some tinfoil together, you can always empty out a cigarette and stuff that with weed instead. In other words, every single pipe, bong, swinger or bowl in the United States could be destroyed, and people would still be able to get stoned without any effort. You could destroy every smoking implement in the U.S., and outlaw all cigarettes, and folks would just make brownies or tea. The Department of Justice's decision to go after bong sellers makes as much sense as outlawing Waterford crystal during prohibition - neither step will have an affect on consumption levels. It strikes me as a massive misallocation of funds, when we have far more pressing problems with terrorist activity, illegal immigration, child exploitation, gang warfare, and a justice department that has consistently shown that it can't police its own ranks.
Just one more thing - perhaps if I hadn't seen proposals like TIPS, TIA, the Patriot Act, and such, I'd be less worried, but I don't think its unreasonable to assume that the DoJ now has the sales records from each of the businesses that it raided. I'd say 'be on your guard' to any of the folks who've been shopping by credit card. And the next time you buy a pipe, a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook, a dildo, or anything else you would prefer the government didn't explicitly know you have - pay cash.
Let's see. Selling drug paranephelia is illegal. If you purchase it with a credit card, I think you reap what you sow. What if you purchased cocaine with a credit card?
Comparing an illegal activity with the purchasing of sexual aids is disengeneous at best.
The argument that the DOJ should not focus on X because Y is more important is just plain silly. Sounds a lot like the argument that we shouldn't attack Hussein because dealing with AQ or North Korea is more important.
The argument the DOj should not focus on X because home-made alternatives Y and Z are an option is also bizarre.
What a dissappointing "article" on a usually fine site.
Your post is on target. Asset allocation is important, is even vital, and the examples you give are on point, even if I must wonder how much money could be redirected under different leadership. Your subject is a narrow, stupid man of the often wrong never in doubt ilk. He started his job with much power, and now has much more. He will lead the nation to totalitarianism and think he is righteous at every step, and going after bong sellers is the merest scratch on the surface.
Right on! The crusade against drugs costs taxpayers huge amounts of money without having any effect whatsoever on drug use. I'm undecided on legalizing marijuana but at the very least it should be on a level with driving over the speed limit: fine any violators that you can catch but accept that you won't catch most of them.
The federal campaign against "medical marijuana" began long ago and was continued in the Clinton admin so its a bit of an exaggeration to imply it was some new Ashcroft initiative.
Hey, Romario, perhaps you are unaware that there are states in which it is illegal to sell dildos? Sorry, but Celeste's comment was dead on and yours is not. She also might have mentioned the FBI's pre-9/11 investigation of a New Orlean-based prostitution ring, purportedly at Ashcroft's direction, but her point is that Ashcroft's priorities look particularly skewed in a post-9/11, post-budget surplus world.
I was paying some attention during the 2000 election campaign, and I don't recall Geo. Bush telling voters that if he became President he would turn the FBI into a vice squad.
To further the point, Romario, the items in question are only illegal if you call them what they are. State that a glass pipe is intended for smoking tobacco, and it's perfectly legal to sell it. And as some of the other comments have stated - dildos aren't legal everywhere.
Prioritizing your money and efforts is always important. The FBI has a limited amount of money. Heroin, crack cocaine, child prostitution, the FARC, HAMAS, kidnapping, backlogged DNA testing, and our new favorite - terrorism, are all arguably far more harmful, and far more valuable targets than someone who sells a bong instead of a 'water pipe.'
The real kicker here is that new science is beginning to show that drugs do not cause addiction and that what we call addiction is a symptom. Which is why rehab as it is currently plotted is ineffective. You cannot cure symptoms.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/01/20/simon.htm - the politics of pain
It's apparent that John Ashcroft has taken issue with those who smoke marijuana. He's wasting a lot of time and money that would be better spent on more serious crimes. But I have to wonder, how much harsher would he be on cancer patients smoking weed if he didn't have September 11th to think about? Now John Ashcroft has to split his time putting tobacco pipe dealers behind bars and eroding our civil liberties in the name of national security, all at the same time.
I think that given the current situation in this country, George Orwell should re-title his famous book "2003." This year will go down in history as the year of the birth of Big Brother unless we all get organized and active to abort him. When the 2004 elections come around, we should all vote Green, even if we don't agree with everything on their platform. The Green Party is the most popular of the third-parties and the most likely to make a real difference. The Democrats can't or won't help us anymore; to anyone with eyes it should be clear that they are just a slightly softer version of the Republicans. It is time to stop worrying about "wasting your vote" and voting your conscience. We have to crush this 2-party system and voting Green might be our only hope.