The Strong Arm of the Law

Here’s one more example of the cruelly misplaced priorities of the Bush administration, as detailed by Dan Bernath in AlterNet:

The Federal War on Medical Marijuana Becomes a War on Children

Automatic weapons. Check. Helicopters. Check. Dogs. Check. Bulletproof vests. Check.

You may not buy the government’s characterization of its campaign against medical marijuana patients as a “war on drugs,” but increasingly violent, militaristic tactics in recent months offer a troubling glimpse into the federal law enforcement community’s mentality: To them, this is war.

Raids on medical marijuana dispensaries throughout California on July 17 by federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents, often with local law enforcement officers in tow, seemed designed to send a clear signal that the feds were deliberately escalating their war on medical marijuana patients.

The enemy, then, are people like Ronnie Naulls, a Riverside medical marijuana patient who owned two of the dispensaries raided that day.

A church-going family man who used medical marijuana to ease chronic pain from injuries sustained in a 2001 car accident, Naulls already had two successful businesses — one as an IT consultant and another as a real estate property manager — when he established the Healing Nations Collective to save fellow Corona patients the hours-long drive to Los Angeles for medicine.

By all accounts, Naulls ran his collectives with exemplary scrupulousness. He maintained strict dress codes and professional standards for all employees. He paid state taxes on the dispensaries — amounting to several hundred thousand dollars a year — even when loose tax regulations allowed other dispensary owners to slip through the cracks. Profits from the dispensaries went to local and national cancer organizations.

Nevertheless, at 5:50 a.m., July 17, Naulls’ home and businesses were invaded by DEA agents armed with shotguns, automatic rifles — even helicopters. They seized everything he owned: his businesses, his property, all of his accounts.

But that wasn’t the worst of it. County child protective services came along on the raid and took Naulls’ three daughters, aged 1 to 5, and charged him and his wife with child endangerment. They weren’t even accused of breaking any state laws.

When Naulls spoke to his children in their foster home, the oldest said, “Daddy, we’re ready to come home now. We promise to be good.”

Of course they were too young to understand that they were victims of the strong-arm tactics of drug warriors whose goal was probably to make Naulls regret helping fellow patients receive their medicine in a safe, compassionate environment. Who cares if that means ruining a family financially, imprisoning the parents and traumatizing the children? [full text]

About these ads

3 thoughts on “The Strong Arm of the Law

  1. 1. The gov’t uses helicopters, dogs, and automatic rifles–in other words, excessive force–to shut down a med marijuana facility because the govt refuses to let doctors decide what is sound medicine.

    2. A college professor is fired because what he teaches offends a small minority of people who refuse to allow others to practice their right of free speech, whose beliefs have the backing of the current administration.

    3. A college student has her camera confiscated because she took pictures of a federal building.

    Is it me, or is there a pattern of repression here?

  2. And if additional information is required, check this out.

    link

    The link is to Kevin Drum’s blog, Political Animal, hosted by Washington Monthly. Thanks to Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12, if you take a job with govt agencies, you basically waive all rights to privacy.

    Which means, if you have the wrong opinion, you can be investigated, fired, and probably imprisoned.

    Take this with the examples above. No, this isn’t martial law, but, with a little squinting over the horizon, you can certainly see it from here.

  3. Yes, well, leave it to the feds to question states’ rights and California’s initiative process when it suits their agenda, while fervently citing the sanctity of citizens’ initiatives that resonate with their own bigotry and prejudices. In general, our initiative process is a joke, handing lawmaking powers over to majority rule, popular prejudices, and whomever can hire enough petitioners to stand around in Target parking lots. In this instance, Californians managed to squeak through a progressive curve ball; it remains to be seen whether the state government will fiercely defend it or cave.

Comments are closed.