Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP)
Leap.cc WWW
Blogs
Main No Pattern or Rules to DEA Attacks ( 6434 reads) Wednesday, October 17, 2007 (16:20:03)
 
Patients and advocates often ask if there’s any pattern to DEA raids. This a common and understandable question–as human beings we want a predictable and sensible universe. And this natural impulse to seek patterns is exploited by all psychological terror groups in a number of ways. (I include the DEA as a psychological terror group because 1) they are losing the war on medical marijuana and must resort to ever more desperate tactics, and 2) because they are part of the US government which openly condones torture and preemptive warfare–clearly a dangerous and ruthless adversary).

There are two basic ways to exploit this human desire for patterns:

1) Be utterly random–this generates fear and leaves the victim completely without any pattern to rely on–think of random car bombings and how demoralizing that must be, the only protection is to never go out in public or to leave the area.

2) Create the appearance of patterns and then break them. This is good because it leaves the victim eternally vigilant and seeking for and inventing non-existent patterns. In experiments with animals this is called “experimental neurosis.” It is a proven method of driving mammals crazy and leads to fits and frenzies of self-biting, mania, and catatonia. The DEA and the US government are well aware of this dimension of psychological warfare.

They truly believe it is a war and that we are the enemy. They are not interested in debating this issue or in allowing different states to try different approaches. To the DEA, we are evil and must be eradicated–or intimidated into surrender.

Given all that, the DEA does three things:

1) it throws darts at a map (randomness),

2) it looks for maximum propaganda value (what story can they tell to make us look bad?–and those are indeed narrative patterns), and

3) individual offices in the various geographical areas have to justify their existence for continued funding and positive job evaluations (it is after all a job in a bureaucracy–once in a while, you got to do something), this leads to the “low hanging fruit” pattern.

So we have the following patterns:

1) Randomness–to keep us all on our toes, and to keep us fooling our selves with silly stories like, “You only get busted if you . . . (fill in the blank: advertise, don’t advertise, are public, are private, for profit, non-profit–it might make you happy but there are now examples to prove every such “rule” both true AND false–the DEA is very Zen that way).

2) Propaganda Narratives–front for legalization; front for criminal gangs; front for “able-bodied urban youth gangs” (code for young people of color); danger to the environment; “profiteers”; corrupters of youth; gonna getcha daughter; pot stronger than ever; grow houses gone amok; conspiracy; terrorist funders; etc, etc–all basically Reefer Madness Redux. Think of the recent 60 Minutes coverage which fell into this to some extent. Think of any DEA press conference and you will clearly see one of these narratives.

3) Low Hanging Fruit–who would you want to go after: a well-organized 100 million a year crack, heroin and meth distribution network (which can now be found in any part of America, rural or urban or in between, thanks to 30 years of ramped up prohibition)–or a bunch of peaceful medical cannabis advocates, sitting there with no violent inclinations at all and a sign hanging up saying Medical Cannabis–Come and Bust Us, We Will Lie Down on the Ground? Yeah, me too. So when you need to bump up your stats (or you need to justify that useless multi-agency task force’s multi-million dollar budget that aint done jack all year), whip up a “year-long investigation” (what takes a year to figure out that they are selling marijuana in there? duh) and put on the flak jacket, round up the SWAT team and go kick some ass. Oh yeah, and extra bonus points if you can bust a person of color, or a youth, or someone with a record, or someone who’s doing it right and actually balancing the books, generating a surplus and paying all their taxes–then you can use their financial statements against them (ask their CPA politely and s/he’ll print them out for you)–and you can seize their bank accounts and literally pay tribute to your bosses (maybe in the tens or hundreds of thousands–oh, was that why they waited a year? So they could steal your money?), Hi Boss, the task force brought in $200K this morning–and rounded up some dangerous sick people who provide a medical service. Well, it’s a job and the benefits are good–and the potheads NEVER shoot back.

At least, those are the only patterns I see, but maybe I’m missing something. (Oh yeah, and I hear busts usually happen on Wednesdays. Go fishing on Wednesdays.)

And, yes, I’m really sorry that I can’t give you the “rules,” so we never have to worry about being busted. The DEA is not rules-based. It is our enemy–distribute cannabis, and you are fair game for capture, torture, imprisonment, kidnapping, and loss of all property (the only thing left is attainder of blood– where they curse your entire family name for all time to come, but give them a minute to work it out).

Of course you can sweeten the odds: have your city government and neighbors love you, be white, sit in a wheelchair, change your last name to Bush, be extremely lucky, turn around three times counter-clockwise every morning and say the Hail Mary backwards. I wish I could add sincerity to the list, but I’m not quite that naive. Still, it couldn’t hurt, as long as you’re real with yourself about the rest of it.

Here’s my advice, which I give to every potential client at the first meeting: Don’t do it (for all the reasons given above and more). And I totally understand that most of them walk away. That’s a good thing. If they go for it anyway, I call that committed. And that’s a good thing too. But just be real. And be smart.

Anyone who operates a dispensary has an extremely high risk-comfort level, or you could say, is either a hero or a fool.

Share on Facebook Share on stumbleupon digg it Share on reddit Share on del.icio.us
Hide Comments | JamesA's Profile

Comments
Thank you for this excellent essay, Mr. Anthony. Just a note to let you and your readers know that Siobhan Reynolds, president of the Pain Relief Network, has blogged about your post on War on Doctors / Pain Crisis. Text follows:

[marq=right]This essay, by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) blogger James Anthony focuses on raids against state licensed medical marijuana cooperatives, but could just as easily be about raids on medical offices of state licensed physicians who issue legal prescriptions for pain medications to people in pain. said about our doctor busts.

The Pain Relief Network sincerely appreciate the input from this law enforcement officer from LEAP and hope this is the end of all the blaming the victim that has been going on.

When courageous and enlightened law enforcement agents themselves speak the truth about aggressive federal police act
Posted by docalex | Saturday, October 20, 2007 (20:31:51)
I want to share the following with all of you regarding the drug war - email from California Senator Feinstein and my response to her!
Dear Senator Feinstein

Thank you kindly for responding to my letter regarding Mandatory Sentencing under the Controlled Substance Act which has a purpose but is riddled with blinders and allows the Federal Government to lock up innocent tax paying citizens who are either awaiting trial or found guilty by mere association, whether involvement was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt or not, in our already overcrowded jails with violent offenders. Innocent taxpaying citizens who have to learn how to become a criminal during their incarceration to stay alive!

The War on Drugs and the Controlled Substance Act constitutes a Police State, a form of Dictatorship by the FDA and ties the hands of Federal Judges to weigh the evidence and either release the innocent non violent unsuspecting uninvolved individual or be forced to harshly sentence them
Posted by mgmoreno | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 (18:34:04)
based on “amount of controlled substance” confiscated or “planted”.

Meanwhile, the drug lords continue to pour more drugs into this country then ever before (the 1986 War on Drugs Act).
The United States budget dwindles and the Drug Lords Coffers Bulge with Our Tax Dollars! In an effort to stem the tide of controlled substance distribution and abuse, the War on Drugs Act was borne; smacks of Prohibition once again; another dismal failure costing billions of dollars, and taking non violent citizens and locking them up (unable to pay taxes) and placing a tremendous tax burden on the rest of your constituents.
Posted by mgmoreno | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 (18:36:37)
This mandatory sentencing must stop! The cir(edited)stances of each and every case warrants thorough investigation and also when a citizen demands their fourth, sixth, eighth and fourteenth amendment rights, they cannot be denied as is so often the case, and that of my daughter.

Justice must be served, but on the guilty, not on the innocent unaware individual or the non-violent users (addicts) who have a medical problem. These non violent addicts or occasional users must be given a “chance” be it first or second. Cocaine Powder and Crack Cocaine is NOT the issue! S1685 must also address methamphetamine.

This bill introduced only addresses a portion of the unjust mandatory sentencing rampantly abused by the Federal Drug Authorities. Turn their efforts to the drug lords - NOT THE USERS.

Your constituents are screaming for justice – mothers, fathers, children, grandparents – let our innocent children go.

I am humble but strong in my determinat
Posted by mgmoreno | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 (18:37:21)
Thank you for your letter regarding mandatory minimum sentencing. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

Clearly, you have given this topic considerable thought, and I admire your interest in effectively addressing this societal problem. Having served nine years as Mayor of San Francisco, and six years on the California Women's Board of Terms and Paroles, I know that certain and swift punishment can reduce the crime and violence now plaguing so many of our nation's communities. However, while I am in favor of tough sentences for crimes, it is important that there be enough flexibility in sentencing to account for individual situations that may require special consideration.

I recently signed on as an original cosponsor of the "Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act" (S. 1685), which would reduce the mandatory minimum sentences applicable in "crack" cocaine offenses. I also recently spoke of my concerns about the so-called "Ashcroft Memora
Posted by mgmoreno | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 (18:38:38)
"Ashcroft Memorandum" that you reference, at a Judiciary Committee hearing that I chaired to examine the prosecutions of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. I agree that preserving broad prosecutorial discretion is particularly important in the context of charging decisions that may lead to mandatory minimum sentences.

Your request for greater use of commutation powers for nonviolent drug offenders appears to be directed to President Bush -- since that power lies with the President and not with Congress. Nevertheless, please know that I have long been a supporter of the "Second Chance Act," which would give the Bureau of Prisons greater flexibility to transition prisoners to halfway houses or community confinement if justified by their individual cir(edited)stances. It would also expand drug and mental health treatment to prisoners, as well as re-entry services, to reduce the odds that they will commit more crimes and end up in prison again.

Please be assured that as a
Posted by mgmoreno | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 (18:39:45)
Please be assured that as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will keep your comments and concerns in mind should changes to mandatory minimum sentencing be considered during the 110th Congress.

Once again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to keep me informed on issues of importance to you. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Posted by mgmoreno | Tuesday, October 30, 2007 (18:40:18)

Leave a Comment
We're sorry, but you must be a registered user to post comments on this entry

Dedicated to our departed colleagues who courageously spoke out about the destructive policy of Drug Prohibition

Jerry Paradis

Eleanor Schockett

Gil Puder

Whitman Knapp

John Perry

Ralph Salerno

Bob Owens

Eddie Ellison

Martin Haines

The logos and trademarks used on this site are the property of their respective owners
We are not responsible for comments posted by our users, as they are the property of the poster

Interactive software released under GNU GPL, Code Credits, Privacy Policy