RTFA: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana1…

Federal agents raided a Culver City medical marijuana dispensary where they spent more than four hours this afternoon, serving a search warrant that resulted in no arrests but left the shop in disarray.

Drug Enforcement Administration agents arrived about noon at Organica Collective in the 13400 block of Washington Boulevard, said Sarah Pullen, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles office of the agency.

“Marijuana remains a controlled substance, and it is illegal under federal law to possess, dispense or cultivate marijuana in any form,” Pullen said of the purpose of the raid.

The federal operation came on the same day an appellate court in San Diego ruled that federal law does not preempt the state’s law allowing the use of medical marijuana — a ruling touted by supporters of California’s medical marijuana law as a significant win.

WHOAH - SLOW DOWN. There are two major problems with this event.

Problem the first: whereas the state-level debate over California’s authority to regulate marijuana takes place in a courtroom, the federal-level response takes the form of militaristic thuggery. I would argue that the proper response to a ruling by this particular appellate court is to challenge the ruling in a higher court.

Problem the second: THE “AGENT” IN THE ABOVE PHOTO ISN’T DEA - HE IS WEARING A BLACKWATER SHIRT!

Get that? He’s a hired mercenary. He’s not even a federal officer. So the courts arrive at a decision, and the feds hire armed mercenaries to “overturn” the ruling? Did you read the part about there being no arrests? According to Pullen’s quote (above), she claims that marijuana is illegal… which is obviously at odds with the ruling of the California courts. They just stole things, and broke everything else.

Wow… Just wow…

EDIT: picture via boingboing

RTFA: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.”

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Of course, this is an astonishing and amazing document. Its aims are rather different than the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but it is clear that nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) conflicts in any serious way with the foundational US documents. Also, because the UDHR was created in 1948, there were ~150 years during which to reflect on the US Constitution, and contemplate relevant updates.

For example, aside from the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, not a great deal is said about individual rights by the founding US documents. In contrast, the UDHR provides for numerous, explicit positive rights for individuals and families, including such ideals as dignity, education, and nationality. Suffice to say, the scope of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is awesome.

The 10th was a celebration of these ideals, but somehow I missed it this year… Instead, I was reading Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”. Ha!

RTFA: http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175732/

So, as the FDA has licensed chemical substitutes for what were once thought to be dangerous drugs, does that mean roughly the same thing as the legalization of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin? Not exactly. Drugs prescribed are usually taken differently than recreational drugs, of course, even if at some level the chemical hit is the same. More broadly, the current program of drug legalization in the United States is closely and explicitly tied to the strange economics of the U.S. health-care industry. The consequence is that how people get their dopamine or other brain chemicals is ever more explicitly, like the rest of medicine, tied to questions of class.

Antidepressants and anxiety treatments aren’t cheap: A fancy drug like Wellbutrin can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $2,400 a year. These drugs also require access to a sympathetic doctor who will issue a prescription. That’s why, generally speaking, the new legalization program is for better-off Americans. As the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports, rich people tend to abuse prescription drugs, while poorer Americans tend to self-medicate with old-fashioned illegal drugs or just get drunk.

The big picture reveals a nation that, let’s face it, likes drugs: Expert Joseph Califano estimates that the United States, representing just 4 percent of the world’s population, consumes nearly two-thirds of the world’s recreational drugs. In pursuit of that habit, the country has, in slow motion, found ways for the better-off parts of society to use drugs without getting near the scary drug laws it promulgated in the 20th century. Our parents and grandparents banned drugs, but the current generation is re-legalizing them. That’s why Rush Limbaugh, as a drug user, is in a sense a symbol of our times. He, like many celebrities, is a recovering addict. But with Limbaugh being somewhat outside of the 1960s drug culture, the medical marijuana movement was not for him. Instead, Limbaugh, the addicted culture warrior, has become the true poster child of the new drug legalization program.

Wow! Great analysis. This serious is really interesting so far.

RTFA: http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175733/

Sometimes a law was passed by another generation with different ideas of right and wrong, but the political will necessary to repeal the law does not exist. Sometimes, as we’ll see with polygamy or obscenity, the issue is too sensitive to discuss in rational terms. And sometimes the law as written is a symbol of some behavior to which we may aspire, which nevertheless remains wholly out of touch with reality. Whatever the reason, when politics fails, institutional tolerance of lawbreaking takes over.

There will, of course, always be some lawbreaking that goes unpunished simply because law enforcement is expensive—not every shoplifter is caught, and it’s not worth expending the resources to catch every kleptomaniac. But the areas we will look at here are different: What’s going on here is that the parties all know the law is being broken, accept it, and—while almost never overtly saying so—both the “criminals” and law enforcement concede that everyone likes it better that way. The law in question thus continues to have a formal existence, and, as we shall see, it may become a kind of zoning ordinance, enforced only against very public or flagrant behavior. But few, except sometimes a vocal minority, actually think we’d be better off if the law were fully enforced.

The importance of understanding why and when we will tolerate lawbreaking cannot be overstated. Lawyers and journalists spend most of their time watching the president, Congress, and the courts as they make law. But tolerance of lawbreaking constitutes one of the nation’s other major—yet most poorly understood—ways of creating social and legal policy. Almost as much as the laws that we enact, the lawbreaking to which we shut our eyes reflects how tolerant U.S. society really is to individual or group difference. It forms a major part of our understanding of how the nation deals with what was once called “vice.” While messy, strange, hypocritical, and in a sense dishonest, widespread tolerance of lawbreaking forms a critical part of the U.S. legal system as it functions.

Interesting meditation on laws and law breaking in the US.

RTFA: http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_7175561?ncli…

ince 2001, the Bush administration and America’s leading telecommunications carriers have been blatantly violating the law and the privacy of millions of Americans. Working together, they have engaged in a comprehensive and insidious warrantless dragnet surveillance program that ignores the careful legal safeguards set forth by Congress. Under this program, the carriers intercept and disclose to the government the telephone and Internet communications of millions of their customers, along with detailed records about customers’ communications.
Since January 2006, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has been litigating Hepting vs. AT&T, a case arising from AT&T’s participation in the illegal surveillance. The case is brought on behalf of all of AT&T’s customers to stop the ongoing conduct and to hold the company responsible in order to compensate the millions of ordinary Americans who have been affected. This should also serve to discourage the telecom giant from agreeing to such illegal schemes in the future.

But if you’ve done nothing wrong, then what do YOU have to worry about? Well, if you are still worried about people committing crimes AGAINST you, then I don’t suppose you need to be concerned by your personal activities, at all. Instead, it’s the actions of others that might concern you. We express such concerns about the behavior of others as LAW, and we extend legal authority to certain individuals in order that they might “stop” people who break the laws.

Although I’ve done nothing wrong (and therefore shouldn’t be concerned that my phone calls are monitored), I am still concerned by this monitoring activity, because such activity is illegal, and I AM concerned about the illegal actions of others. We can debate whether or not this monitoring SHOULD be illegal, but as it stands, we’re just at the point of being concerned about it.

It’s okay to be concerned that the US government is monitoring its citizens. Before this point, it wasn’t obvious that such eavesdropping took place. Prior to 2001, if you were simply AFRAID that the government might be monitoring you, then unless you had proof, you were merely PARANOID. Now it is no longer a matter of paranoia. Now that the issue has been dragged out into the public for all US citizens to consider, what is the consensus?

We must ask ourselves as a nation:

1. are we confident that we can maintain a free society without private communication?
2. when members of our government violate the law we created, can we successfuly seek justice using existing legal structures? Are we free to petition our government for redress of grievances?
3. without transparency in government, can we maintain a free and democratic society?

It’s a little unpleasant to consider, but this is the situation we have been thrust into.