Billings, Montana—On May 30, a DEA agent walked into the local Eagles Lodge. The agent informed the hall’s manager that if anyone used illegal drugs at the night’s show, the lodge would be liable for a $250,000 fine, under the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003. The show, a benefit for the Montana State University chapters of the National Organization for… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (23)Page 1 of 1 pagesdoesn’t this law just prevent people from breaking the law? Just because a group thinks a law shouldn’t exist, that doesn’t mean that they could break it. the event didn’t have to be canceled but it was because the organizers of the event couldn’t insure that there would be no drug use/distribution. where’s the problem?
Posted by john on Aug 21, 2003 at 5:28 PM The Eagles Lodge cancelled the event because they were afraid of the feds, not because of anything the organizers of the event did or could do.
That’s what this whole story is about. It shouldn’t matter what the event is about, the law’s the law, right? Then why is the DEA arresting 440-some people at a rave? Because they can. This isn’t going to get any better, it’s already being abused by the DEA’s secret police, and it’s brand new!
Here in California, the entire state got together and decided that it is legal for some people to grow and possess and smoke marijuana.
The feds have been relentless in sending the message that they have nothing but contempt and scorn for the laws we pass. They arrest, sweep and jail sick people for doing what is legal in this state.
That’s only _part_ of the problem, but it is why they had to sneak it into the Amber Alert law which everybody wanted their name on quickly. More government fiat from our unsupportive federal government.
Dump Bush! Elect Dean! Vote for California! Vote NO RECALL!
Posted by Allan on Aug 21, 2003 at 6:16 PM Thanks to In these Times for reporting the truth in times of such manipulation by the media. This story is an outrage. The nazis supporting Bush and the DEA need to realize what is really at stake when things like this are allowed to happen.
Posted by Michael Murray on Aug 22, 2003 at 1:51 AM Not to mention all the money we taxpayers are spending to chase down head shop owners and put them in prison.
Meanwhile senior citizens are starving because they have to choose between eating or taking medicine. Just where the fuck are the priorities anymore?Maybe the reason Ashcroft wanted to cover up the statues is to hide their weeping.
Posted by neil on Aug 22, 2003 at 6:01 AM Greetings,
Another example that BIG CORPORATE BROTHER is taking control of life in _all_ forms. That is their clear and no longer “hidden” agenda. Elsewhere in these pages, an article makes clear that Mexico’s Pres. Fox has fallen in to corporate influence to exterminate the Chiapas Native People, who just want to live without Malls covering ancient sacred places; all this is against a recent treaty. Oil exploration has expanded to all possible points, east to west, north to south. Look at the evidence.Like those in Montana, Native People everywhere are under increasing pressure from corporate domination, via the “how _you should_ live brigades, growing and growing.
I lived in S. Africa for 3 years and witnessed the expansion of Big Brother Corporation influence clearly; the supposed “bright light” of the new S.A. was a blind. The ANC is rife with corruption and has cut new deals with diamond, oil and other mineral corporations from the “north” to extract trillions of $‘s from the nation’s natural “wealth.” ANC officials pocketed most of the money. Mandela may be alive but his principals have evaporated. Winnie is living in a huge _security compound_ in Soweto - lots of armed guards with Kalishniov type guns, “light enough to be carried by a child” (say the ‘gun show’ pamphlets.
Poverty is worse than ever and the ANC has approved _nationalized_ companies contining to supply “rebels” anywhere with Kalishnikov type guns, uniforms and equipment. I knew a guy who was working in this business. he wanted out. Two days later his house burned down with him tied to a chair. This is South Africa, remember….
It doesn’t seem to matter what principles may be involved, in this fait a compli.’
The young man at the end of this story has the right idea. Serious ecology groups saw this years ago an retreated to the wet places over the coast range from Portland Oregon. Activism is best dormant for while. Corporate Masters and their branch of War, the Pentagon, are serious this time. Wisest to get out of their way. Environmental surprises are on the way anyway.
Keep close to those you love. Protect them. Savor what they’ve left us, of Nature, of freedom of thought (Kill the television), of whole food, etc.
Namaste’
Ryokan
Posted by Ryokan on Aug 22, 2003 at 6:06 AM Greetings again,
Looking elsewhere in these pages, its time someone in the evaporating “activist” community generates a list of all the things ‘Dubbya’ “...will not tolerate.” The secrets of total corprate domination are hidden there…. What ever he _won’t tolerate_ is his corporate master’s hidden agenda.Ryokan
Posted by Ryokan on Aug 22, 2003 at 6:16 AM So horribly dissapointed. I mailed congress urging them not to pass this law. I could give two shits about drugs..I’m not even interested in them. But I do love to DJ, its one of the best outlets I have from my manotinous cubicle-based life.
And now that is going to be taken away from me.
Are they going to start arresting people if their neighbors do drugs? Where is the limit?
Posted by Andrew Hinshaw on Aug 22, 2003 at 5:33 PM I’ve heard it said the more Americans are told not to do something, the more they do it. Take Prohibition, for example.
Of course, this was a statement from a show on A&E or TLC, can’t remember.
This will probably have the opposite affect the satan Ashcroft is hoping for.
Posted by neil on Aug 24, 2003 at 7:07 AM neil, you think that if drugs were made legal than the drug use would go down?? not at all, legalization of drugs would make them easier access (to kids especially) and therefore increase use. If we don’t want children to do drugs, what does legalization tell them?
oh and ryokan, you said that dubya won’t tolerate activists. There is a difference between not agreeing with protesters and not tolerating them.
Posted by john on Aug 25, 2003 at 10:10 PM John,
WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU GET THE IDEA I’M FOR LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS?!! Or that my statements were made concerning this?Weed, I want to see legal and regulated, even though I won’t smoke it, but other stuff, I don’t care.
My point is the more that asshole Ashcroft pushes these infringements on our civil liberties, the more likely Americans will push back.
We will not be silenced.
Posted by neil on Aug 26, 2003 at 8:47 AM John,
No, actually this law just holds property owners responsible for any laws that get broken on their property. It’s sort of like holding gun manufacturers responsible for any crimes committed using their guns, or holding car companies liable for any speeding tickets drivers of their vehicles get. How, pray tell, could the owners of the Eagles Lodge “insure that there would be no drug use/distribution” at this event? Have you ever been to a club, bar, or concert? I’ve seen people dealing drugs at concerts that had madatory searches prior to admittance…but according to this law, the venue owners are liable for that.
Posted by Aaron on Aug 26, 2003 at 5:38 PM Shouldn’t agents or agencies with power to enforce laws first understand them before applying them? If the D.E.A really thought drug use would occur at the Eagles Lodge then why wasn’t the event monitored and any offenders busted, rather than stifling freedom of speech and lawful assembly of others thru D.E.A coercion who may share a different view than that of the government? Does holding a different opinion now equate to probable criminal conduct? When will we see the “thought police”? So many questions. Bussinesses shouldn’t suffer because of what might happen, drug use occurs in many places. Perhaps city and state parks should be closed lest someone were to use illegal drugs and expose the munincipality to the penalties of this stupid piece of legislation. The fact that to secure passage of this law reguired it be snuck thru tacked on to another bill just to pass smells less like a law of neccessity and more of political grandstanding to benefit the author of said bill’s persona to his constituents. Crafting laws requires some forethought and should be written in such a fashion that interpretation isn’t an issue. It would seem this law fails on both accounts.
Posted by e sorensen on Aug 27, 2003 at 2:44 PM aaron, the idea of this law is to make sure that drug use does not occur, now I’m not sayign I agree with it, but the law is in place to stop drug use. If a group of people can’t meet without breaking the law then the government says that they shouldn’t be able to meet. This is just a way to stop it.
Posted by john on Aug 28, 2003 at 7:45 PM John:
You write “the idea of this law is to make sure that drug use does not occur” in other words, not to stop a crime, but to pre-emptively punish those who might in the future provide a scene to commit one. Where does this end? They had no proof, no evidence, and no crime being committed. But in this society which seems to place such a high priority on “personal property” the Eagles Club was being threatened with prosecution for using their own building for a competely legal meeting. So in the name of “the drug war” the constitutional right of free speech is trampled. Pick and choose which laws to enforce, and you are living in a lawless society.
You also say, “If a group of people can’t meet without breaking the law then the government says that they shouldn’t be able to meet. This is just a way to stop it.” Which law was it that was being broken again? You, like the Ashcroft Gestapo, love to consider “suspicious” Americans to be guilty until proven innocent. Well, there is already way more public evidence that the current administration is an outlaw regime, willing to break countless laws—the war powers act, international treaties, habeas corpus, COLLABORATING WITH THE ENEMY, in its crusade to crush opposition to their greedy, heartless policies. You want to punish the EvilDoers—Impeach and imprison Bush, Cheny, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. And you better get the last three first, before they run out the revolving door back to their corporate strongholds.
Posted by richard on Aug 28, 2003 at 9:15 PM although slightly off topic, john brought it up. i believe that legalization of all drugs would decrease drug use. for one thing, a lot of people don’t go to recovery groups in fear of being jailed or fined or what have you. it would make finding information about drugs a lot easier as well, which would in turn (and most likely) turn the user or user-to-be off from the drug(s). there would be more rehabilitation centers, thus getting MORE people OFF drugs, there would be LESS crime, we wouldn’t be paying our police officers to go out and arrest people for carrying a couple bags of pot. out jails wouldn’t be so full, thus leaving room for SEX OFFENDERS, who by the way, one lives not too far from my house. Our prison system will let a rapist out of jail before they ever would a cocain or marijuana dealer. all we do anymore is punish people and say “No” but we never teach them how to correct themselves. it saddens me to live here, because we have the power to change this, but there are too many people who think we don’t and therefore take no action and simply go along with it. you are all sheep. being led to the slaughter.
Posted by joel on Aug 28, 2003 at 9:32 PM Right on, Richard from Chicago!!
Go White Sox (I worked with Magglio Ordonez in the minors).
Posted by neil on Aug 29, 2003 at 6:36 AM John,
How is it legal, moral, ethical, or just to punish someone for a crime that someone else committed? The owners of the Eagles Lodge were not aiding and abetting drug use by renting out space for a concert. If, as you say, ìa group of people canít meet without breaking the law,î then punish the group of people, not the poor schmucks who happen to own the place said group chooses to meet. I donít know a single deadhead that hasnít broken at least one drug law, so should we take legal action against every store that sells Grateful Dead albums and every landlord who rents an apartment to them? As near as I can tell, this law is about as unjust as the ones that led our forebears to revolution.
On a small side note, if youíre not saying that you agree with the law, then why are you defending it? If youíre here to play Devilís Advocate, you need to do a lot more than simply explain why it was put in place; you need to justify its legality, morality, and Constitutionality.
Posted by Aaron on Aug 29, 2003 at 1:29 PM Cigarettes are the gateway to all further drugs for young people.
Posted by Frank Brotherton on Sep 1, 2003 at 2:21 PM to John: as for legalizing Drugs, look to the netherlands, Marijuana is legal and home use ( not Tourists) is shrinking…........
wath more to say?
Posted by Mike on Sep 7, 2003 at 1:13 PM According to Barry McCaffrey, the murder rate in Holland is twice that of the US (“That’s drugs!” he sez). Actually it is 440 times lower.
Posted by Owen on Sep 8, 2003 at 6:07 PM Another important thing to remember is that the reason this and other extremely draconian drug prohibition laws are passed is based on “scientific evidence” that these substances are harmful. Please check out http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1037007,00.html and see how the ” ectasy causes permanent brain damage” story pushed by the government as reason for this law is total bullshit! The lab animals in the study were injected with meth instead of ecstasy because the vials were mislabeled! The legitimate science journal that published the original flawed study has since retracted the storey. Was this covered by CNN? Unlikely! Anyway, I have never tried E, but certainly feel that others should have the right to do as they wish. Of course up tight white politicians are going to crush anyone who takes a drug that makes them dance all night. LOL
Posted by Chris on Sep 10, 2003 at 2:47 AM It is sad that our country has moved to the point that it feels that it must control every action of its ppl. First our govt disillusions us to believe we need to raise arms in the world, then what next? Scheduled nationwide bathroom breaks? Why is it that people can’t be free to use drugs? If the the drugs were regulated, it would not be a problem, and would be less of a problem than it is to the country right now. Bullying ppl into doing things b/c you think its right or wrong is not what this country was supposed to be built on, but sadly it has become our way of life.
Posted by Stephanie Dory on Sep 16, 2003 at 12:01 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Steven Wishnia
- Developmentalism in the Big Apple
Cost of living has skyrocketed in New York, but under fatcats Giuliani and Bloomberg, the working man's wage has not - Death of a Tokers Utopia
Michigan's Raindbow Farm a remnant of Hippie Culture - Giuliani: Hero or Race Baiter?
- The Cannabis War
Supreme Court decides one battle, but activists vow to fight on - Coalition Needed For Common Interests
- Raving Mad
New drug law limits gatherings
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
