|
|
||
|
|
The New War on Drugs Excepting their definite lack of timeliness, the Michigan Department of Community Health has so far done a semi-adequate job with their part, except for Director Janet Ozlewski, who during the Proposal 1 campaign and in unison with Governor Granholm, harshly criticized and expressed her displeasure with the proposal. Many believe that Director Ozlewski is intentionally sabotaging the process, given her overt hostility. In what can only be described as a coordinated and devious effort, an array of state and local police agencies, prosecutors, municipal leaders, zoning boards, neighborhood groups and assorted individuals have taken steps in their attempt to thwart the will of the people. They are utilizing every tool at their disposal, regardless of the futility and cost of their efforts. Indeed, a representative from the DEA has also been working behind the scenes with municipal leaders, in trying to pass zoning ordinances designed to impede or restrict the rights of individuals afforded under the new law. Welcome to the War on Drugs. In a blatant disregard for the people they work for and
represent, some of our leaders across the state are “going rogue,”
determined to let their personal displeasure get in the way of good
sense. Others have recognized the potential to reap tax revenue, but
their ideas so far have been in conflict with the current state law, and
show little regard for the patient. It has always been said that we are a nation of laws,
but I would expand on that by saying that we are also a nation of too
many laws. If there was ever a term to illustrate the results of a great
deal of our lawmakers’ efforts, it would have to be “unintended
consequences.” In Michigan, our state Supreme Court ruled that police officers may legally bring drug-sniffing dogs onto one’s property and allow them to sniff under the exterior doors of a residence. Making claim that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy on the exterior of the home, and even though the “search” takes place well within the boundaries of a person’s so-called “private” property, the area in question was considered to be outside the sanctity of the home and thereby accessible to anyone. That property you make payments for, maintain and pay taxes on isn’t really private in the eyes of the court; at least, not according to our current Michigan Supreme Court it isn’t. Remember that come election time. Only a few short years ago did the conservative-leaning Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court rule, in Kyllo v. U.S., on what had previously become yet another customary invasion of privacy. The case revolved around a police officer who while on a stake-out, did what was commonplace, using a thermal imaging camera to randomly “scan” the neighborhood surrounding the home under watch. He discovered that another home in the area showed evidence of “hot spots.” Using that information exclusively, a search warrant was obtained. In conducting the search, a very small, insignificant marijuana grow operation was uncovered, which was claimed by the defendant to have been strictly for personal use. The lower court ruling against Kyllo was overturned, citing privacy concerns and the lack of evidence or suspicion prior to the infrared “search.” The random use of thermal imaging cameras was determined to constitute, in itself, a warrantless search of a residence, and was banned for use without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause. Not only was the reasonable expectation of privacy violated in this man’s case, but in the case of every home in the vicinity. Imagine the possibilities of what else they may have observed by peering through the walls of these private residences. I find the most appalling aspect of the Kyllo case was
the attitude reflected in the minority slip opinion, where that minority
group of supposed “liberal” Justices implied that they saw nothing wrong
with the assumption of guilt prior to having hard evidence in support of
that notion. As indicated by their opinion, it appeared that hardly any
method of gathering evidence against an individual would be considered
off limits to these folks. The mere prospect of such an idea is
bone-chilling. It is assumed by far too many that our youths don’t comprehend that they have been continuously lied to about the dire effects of marijuana. Where honest, fact-based discourse would prove the optimum method of discouraging drug abuse among our young, our leaders have instead chosen to destroy their own credibility, in turn losing the respect of those they attempt to “save,” by feeding them a steady diet of propaganda and falsifications depicted as fact. The kids aren’t the fools in this scenario. Many of them have observed at least one generation prior to their own – their parents, family members, role models and even grandparents - whose marijuana usage was routine and absent the incredibly severe and irrational penalties of today – who mostly succeeded in being good parents, mentors, responsible and respectable citizens, contributing positively to society. Proportionally they are no different than their counterparts who didn’t use marijuana. One of the most familiar and identifiable
extracurricular school programs, DARE, is also famous for something else
rather unexpected. Many of the younger drug users I have had the
opportunity to converse with have told me that they had no interest in
drugs whatsoever until they completed the program. Most have said that
their curiosity about drugs came only after they learned all about them
from the DARE officer presenting the information. Whether due to the
typical inquisitive nature of young people or the “forbidden fruit”
factor, the end result was certainly an unintended consequence of a
less-than-well thought out plan. However, what was surprising is that in the process,
they would act so unprofessionally – and in fact, illegally – in their
fervor. Their campaign was filled with blatant lies and deceptive ads.
One problem is that they were far from being mere “citizens.” In reality, they were government stooges, with documented funding directly from Washington, DC. However, the larger, more significant problem is that their actions were a clear violation of the Michigan Campaign Finance law, which forbids any public official from using his or her office or any public resources to promote or oppose a ballot initiative. This too may have been rationalized as one of the “drug war exceptions” we’ve grown accustomed to hearing about, but more precisely, it points to the fact that some of those tasked with upholding and enforcing the laws here in Michigan simply believe that they are above the law. In spite of their shameless actions and their hollow, dishonest rhetoric, the voters recognized it for what it was and responded with a 63% majority. By leading the opposition, Mr. Schuette (who hadn’t yet announced publicly his future political plan to seek the Republican nomination for state Attorney General in 2010) utilized this opportunity as an all-expenses-paid, pre-campaign tour, providing him with the statewide name recognition he so desired, and turning the anti-Proposal 1 campaign into an avenue for self-promotion. While our roads, bridges and other infrastructure deteriorate and crumble to the point of being hazardous, I have received information from a friend in Lansing showing that the Michigan State Police were awarded close to one half million dollars this past year, to be added to the nearly $80,000 left over from the previous year, to be used for flying around looking for marijuana plants, and eradicating them. They professed that they would spend it all last year, but verification is difficult. So the question begs to be asked: is it wiser to look for pot plants, or educate our kids? Perhaps this is a tough call for some, but I know where I’d put my money if given the choice. Add to that the expense of a new $10 Million State Police headquarters that is nearing completion. Was this really something so desperately needed, to warrant putting it ahead of school funding and other essential programs, when the current headquarters appears to be functioning effectively? Governor Granholm was quick to point out that the
process began under the former Engler administration; a hollow assertion
since it has been constructed almost entirely under her watch. Since it began, Hash Bash has been absent one thing for sure, which is violence. Sometimes sparse while at other times massive, these crowds are made up of generally friendly folks of all ages, from college-age students to the gray, balding and wrinkled. They come together in support of a common interest, to bond, and to enjoy the fellowship of others who share in their conviction. The crowds are dotted with local Ann Arbor City police officers that are typically smiling and indifferent, who observe and listen to the array of speakers and points of view, and occasionally chat with the attendees. Their general concern is with crowd control, but rarely have their services been needed other than to tend to a medical issue. Again, never has there been a recorded violent episode
at this event – that is until a few years ago. On that particular
occasion, Jennifer Granholm, then as state Attorney General and no
friend to marijuana users, felt it necessary to surround the area,
lining the rooftops of adjacent buildings with MSP snipers outfitted in
the typical “ninja” garb, assuming an aggressive stance with their
rifles trained on the crowds below - my daughter and I both included in
their sights. For what would have been considered in most cases, at
minimum, attempted manslaughter, this policeman essentially received a
slap on the hands. There’s no way to justify what happened to this young
man, guilty of nothing more than possessing a mere handful of pot, and
the allegation that he sold a joint or two to undercover officers. If
anyone believes that this is a crime worth killing a kid for, then you
have some serious issues that need addressing. A case from central Michigan is notable as well, where a
licensed patient was charged for the method in which he grew his plants.
Were they in a facility that was “enclosed and locked,” as required? The
answer is yes, but local law enforcement didn’t like the fact that the
plants were visible to the public – a detail not specifically forbidden
by the law. Another noteworthy event – one that involved a friend
and colleague in the reform movement from Southwest Michigan –
highlights the extent that some agencies will go to in their eagerness
to proliferate this insanity. Being an outspoken, enthusiastic advocate
of drug law reform, combined with his position as teacher and licensed
school counselor, was the stimulus behind his local police agency’s
zeal. They wanted to silence him, as well as make an example of him.
Aside from the jail and court expense, his case tied up an entire team
of police officers, so determined to find anything at all to prosecute
him with that they resorted to the use of a high-efficiency vacuum on
his vehicle (a previously-owned one that he had recently purchased)
looking for the evidence that they so far had failed to uncover. Technology has also made access to public information a cinch. Our elected officials and bureaucrats have essentially had the curtain raised on their activities, which can now be scrutinized in a method much closer to real-time than ever before. Under newly-experienced pressure, our officials will either have to comply with our wishes or will soon be caught up in their unethical or illegal attempts to evade the truth, and to avoid our scorn. The people are increasingly fed up and no longer seem afraid to say so. They are awakening from the dream that our leaders always have our best interests in mind and that they will always act fairly and justly on our behalf. A representative of mine once said to me, “You need to just trust me, and give me the gavel for a change.” I’m not willing to a place blind trust in anyone - particularly one who hasn’t earned it - nor will I ever do so. We need to heed the words of Thomas Jefferson, who long ago mused, “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not;” granted, a different issue but the message rings true just the same. Our continued complacency in maintaining control of those we ask to do our bidding will surely be to our detriment. Together we can be a force in identifying the transgressions of those charged with protecting and serving, and we can demand change. It’s up to each and every one of us to do our part by engaging in – not avoiding - the process. Collectively, we can put our leaders at every level of government on notice that their jobs depend on complying with our wishes, and we can restore the ideal of a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Such a notion might sound idealistic and unattainable,
but anything less is unacceptable for those who revere freedom. |
|
|
|
||
|
home |
Out & About |
Dining |
Events |
singles |
classified |
archives |
advertising |
||
