Flutterby™! : Ashcroft blames Internet for drugs

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Ashcroft blames Internet for drugs

2003-02-25 18:09:42.853136+00 by Dan Lyke 12 comments

U.S. raids firms selling items used by pot smokers, Ashcroft blames Internet for paraphernalia. Okay, what can we do to keep these assholes under control and out of our lives? Who elected these fuckers, who still supports them, and how can I keep those people from voting in the next election and buggering up my freedoms still more?

[ related topics: Drugs Politics Net Culture ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment made: 2003-02-25 19:44:17.608584+00 by: FnDragon [edit history]

The logical next step is for them to outlaw lighters! Everyone knows stoners are the only ones who use them...

I wonder, do the same "seizure" laws apply in these raids? Heck, everything can be related to drugs if you try hard enough. I feel like we're undergoing a new "American-branded" inquisition in this country lately.

#Comment made: 2003-02-26 02:00:00.940842+00 by: debrahyde

Sounds a lot like when they raided Adam and Eve many years ago. All to rid the world of porn.

#Comment made: 2003-02-26 13:37:35.95689+00 by: meuon [edit history]

I had a cop at my place a couple of days ago (social visit), he noticed the 2 medical grade hemostats and the older butane torch.. and the soldering iron, solder and heat shrink, next to them (and El-Wire). He laughed, said I was the first person he'd ever met that was NOT using them for drugs..

Quick.. Everyone go to radio shack and get a soldering kit.

#Comment made: 2003-02-26 13:54:44.570904+00 by: ghasty

Quick! Outlaw convenience stores!!! Damn their selection of cheezewhiz products, Slim Jim's and pork rinds for the really, really...uhhh...hungry.

#Comment made: 2003-02-27 04:50:30.016249+00 by: crasch

Well, I've joined the Free State Project. The plan is to get 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people to move to a single state of the U.S., where they will work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government, i.e. privatize schools, eliminate drug laws, etc. Jason Sorens, the project's founder, has also written a essay detailing what 20K activists could accomplish and how it might be done.

#Comment made: 2003-02-27 21:45:26.041139+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger

Don't you guys have Arabic water-pipe shops there on the coast? Are they raiding them, too?

#Comment made: 2003-02-27 21:59:00.253354+00 by: Dan Lyke

crasch, Todd and I have talked about doing similar things at the county level, but the reality is that most of the changes I'd like to see that have the largest impacts on my life are happening at the federal level. Here in California we've got several counties where the local police refuse to help the DEA, but people are still getting arrested by the feds.

Mark, it appears that under the current regime whether it's assumed to be for tobacco or other substances depends on how much the undercover agents who talk to the store clerks think the clerks are hippies or punks.

#Comment made: 2003-03-01 01:47:41.110023+00 by: crasch [edit history]


Yes, I agree, much of the worst stuff is happening at the federal level. That said, a lot can be accomplished at the state level--free all drug-prisoners in state jails/prisons, privatize schools, eliminate licensure and zoning laws, etc.

Counties are too small, and don't have the constitutional autonomy that a state has. The expectation is that successors to the FSP (whose only goal is to concentrate enough libertarians in one spot to have a chance of achieving political power) will attempt to negotiate with the Feds to opt out of most Federal drug laws (among other things). If that doesn't work, then secession may have to be considered.

Of course, there's no guarantees that we'll be sucessful (where success is defined as creating a mostly libertarian state without getting killed/imprisoned) but on the other hand, I don't see libertarians making much progress if they keep doing what they've been doing in the past.

#Comment made: 2003-03-01 16:04:53.286162+00 by: meuon

And I remmeber a digression back in 1993-4-ish when Dan and I talked about creating a country fron an off-shore oil derrick.. but seriously, I agree, unless the county is rural and small ane gets ignored, a county has little power over DEA. It'd take a hard line stance and a LOT of support to keep the Feds under control. I think it;d be easier to take over a small country or island. But then you miss all of the trappings and infrastructure of our society.

#Comment made: 2003-03-01 21:17:29.452134+00 by: crasch [edit history]


Yeah, the FSP considered island nations. The main problems with islands is that most have rather stringent immigration restrictions, in addition to the lack of infrastructure and distance from friends and family. For example, you may have to own land, invest +$50K plus in a local business, marry a local, or live there 15 years before you get citizenship privileges. So it would be difficult to move enough FSPer's to an island to make a difference. It's also difficult to persuade people to make so many changes at once--location, government (possibly under hostile attack), culture, customs, language, people, history.

States on the other hand, have no such immigration restrictions, and for the most part, everything but the government will be familiar to people moving to the state.

In addition, the FSP candidate states already have a government in place that the U.S. government recognizes as legitimate. The U.S. government has invested a great deal of propaganda extolling the legitimacy of democratically elected governments. It would be difficult for the Feds to attack the legitimacy of a democratically elected Libertarian dominated state government, without also undermining it's own claims to authority.

Finally, even if the successors to the FSP project don't achieve all their goals, a state concentrated with libertarians is likely to be a much more free place than a state dominated by socialists. It could also act as a hothouse for growing future projects to increase freedom in the U.S.

#Comment made: 2003-03-01 22:02:18.094712+00 by: Larry Burton

It could also prove whether or not freedom works.

The best scenario I can see of working would be to take over a county or two without making any extreme changes suddenly then start working on the rest of the state. After the state is under your control then challenge the federal government. If you have made things work your 20,000 would have grown to encompase most of the residents of that state.

We've gotten where we are incrementally, the ony way I can see returning is the same way.

#Comment made: 2003-03-02 00:41:54.569212+00 by: crasch


Yes, I agree that the "Free State Coalition" should gradually establish a solid foundation of support before taking on the Feds.

In current discussions, the expectation is that the activists will join local civic groups, become active in local politics, and start building grass roots support among the existing population. It's expected that it will take 5-10 years before a "Free State Coalition" could win the state government.

Consequently, one of the main criteria for selecting the candidate states is their pre-existing "freedom friendliness" (as measured by their lack of gun control laws, low taxes, absence of "blue" laws, etc). For example, Hawaii was eliminated in large part because of the population's general support for a large and interventionist government.