Busted by the cops at the burn

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 1:16 pm

> Positive social change does occur when the status quo and existing laws
> are challenged. BM should be a forum for positive social change.

Yes. It should.

If you read back, my objection to the original post has nothing to do with
whether or not I think marijuana laws are valid. It has to do with the
attitude that if a person doesn't like a law, it shouldn't be enforced. Bunk.
If you don't like a law, work to change it. I fully support that. I don't fully
support complaining (and doing nothing else) because you got caught
breaking a law you knew was being enforced.

And my question to you about what you can do at Burning Man that you
can't do in California is perfectly serious.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 1:16 pm

Well, fer instance...

It's probably safe to assume that the various health deptments in whatever county you held the event would to definitely require some soert of staionary water resevoir for every so many port o toilets and the 'requesite' number of PAID health inspectors to check them for a week.

Safe to assume that any camp serving food to more than 10 people would be required to get some sort of costly permit to serve food - after paying to have their facility inspected.

Safe to assume that the county would require inspections of damn near all structures built at the event.

Fire inspection requirements for same inspections.

Adherence Cal OSHA requirements for whatever they deemed appropriate.

NOTE: I can't confirm any of this for the time being but I'd be willing to bet that a good deal more requirements would kick in if a formalized, playa size event were to try to take place in California. It would translate in to exceptional expense I believe.

I think rules and regs vs. laws is probably where this thread should have gone in trying to point out why its not likely that a BM style event could ever take place in CA.

PJ · Post by PJ » Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:00 pm

keepthebeat wrote:...I am a physician and the truth is that there are some true benefits to marijauna use and that the risks are as yet not completely understood. There is evidence both of the negative effects on lungs but no large trials that have conclusively shown an increased incidence of lung or head and neck cancer, emhysema, asthma, heart disease etc. On the other hand, the benefits for glaucoma are well known...

For non-smoking glaucoma patients, could identical benefits be achieved via pills containing THC extracted from marijuana?

keepthebeat · Post by **keepthebeat** » Fri Sep 26, 2003 4:11 pm

This brings up a couple issues. For all medical conditions for which marijauna is prescribed there is a conventional pharmaceutical agent available. Pharmaceuticals are scrutinized for safety and efficacy, something lacking for marijauna. This applies to glaucoma. It is treated quite well with pharmaceuticals. In terms, of THC purified in oral formulation v smoked, this would appear to be safer in terms of lung but not necessarily for heart disease. The efficacy of oral v smoked for the treatment of glaucoma is not clear. I am not aware of a good large trial comparing the two and there is anecdotal patient based info that smoking it is more effective than oral preps such as Marinol. One belief is that there are multiple cannibioids in raw pot which are missing from purified oral preparations. Home oral preps such as Brownies may be an alternative but still you have to prove that heart disease and psychological illness is not increased.

Ultimately, I choose to reframe the argument to this. We have made illegal an agent for social reasons which may have benefit as an alternative to traditional therapies and have justified this by saying it is unhealthy without actually proving it is unhealthy. To assume is to make an ass out of u and me. Let's not moralize and not link marijauna to alcohol and tobacco which are clearly unhealthy when used in excess and not link it to so-called hard drugs like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines. The research is inconclusive for both benefit and harm of marijauna.

Finally, if we find that both the benefit and risk are small, what is wrong with people wanting to get stoned once and awhile even if they don't have a medical reason to use it. Ultimately, we may decide that not feeling high is a medical condition which should be corrected by the one drug that is known to make you high, POT

Jean · Post by **Jean** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 9:24 pm

precipitate wrote:> I think one of the reasons that BMan is now in Nevada might be that the
> "we know what's best for you and must protect you from yourselves"
> laws in CA are too restrictive for it. Just my humble opinion.

Like which ones?

No fireworks? Sure, fireworks are legal in NV, but you can't have them at
Burning Man.

Firearms? Sure, firearm laws are more liberal in NV, but you can't have
them at Burning Man.

Helmet laws? Sure, you can ride your motorcycle without a helmet, but
you can't ride it at all at Burning Man.

Honestly, name one thing <i>other</i> than public nudity and drinking in
public (which are both city-by-city things in CA) that you can do at Burning
Man that you can't do in California? Legally, I mean. Men wearing dresses
doesn't count, that's your social-acceptance radar kicking in, not a
question of legality.

I'm sure there are some, but I'm having a hard time thinking of them.

Badger is probably right that this should be rules and regulations vs. laws. Many of our laws are more restrictive than those in California. We had a helmet law long before CA and fireworks are not legal in many counties here. But I believe that the no firearms and no motorcycles restrictions you mentioned are from BMorg or maybe BLM and are not Nevada law.

I was still pretty hot under the collar from reading "Let California law speak for Burning Man whenever possible." when I posted the reply. That phrase is too similar to one that I hear almost daily at my job and it's a real irritant. There I just smile and say "I'm sorry, but California laws don't apply in Nevada." Here I let my inner grouch speak. Sorry.

Iago · Post by **Iago** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 9:38 pm

But, I like the part about, you can park your car there for a whole week and not get a parking ticket...

nymphgonebad · Post by **nymphgonebad** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 9:45 pm

PJ wrote:
keepthebeat wrote:...I am a physician and the truth is that there are some true benefits to marijauna use and that the risks are as yet not completely understood. There is evidence both of the negative effects on lungs but no large trials that have conclusively shown an increased incidence of lung or head and neck cancer, emhysema, asthma, heart disease etc. On the other hand, the benefits for glaucoma are well known...
For non-smoking glaucoma patients, could identical benefits be achieved via pills containing THC extracted from marijuana?

prolly. i think they already prescribe thc pills for glaucoma; they have them available for cancer and aids patients.

nymphgonebad · Post by **nymphgonebad** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 9:46 pm

i'm sorry i painted the word TWAT on your garage door.

ravenluv · Post by **ravenluv** » Sat Sep 27, 2003 10:22 pm

the overriding question is one of choice: how much choice should the average schmoe have? some say less, others say more. even us schmoes aren't always certain, in the context of the opinions we hear, how much choice we want. there are those who really don't seem to be able to control themselves. for them, a world with fewer temptations is a better one.

i think it'd be funny if it turned out that the powers that make the rules don't really have anything against pot but that they can't change the rules because it would look too radical if not done in response to an expression of popular political will. i see a vision of a go-getter lawmaker just itching to help the harried hippy out, but bitchin' about the hippy cause the hippy's too freakin' stoned to speak up and ask for it.

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:04 am

Do the LEOs write citations for drunken disorderly behavior? Seems to me that's a bigger problem at BM than smoking pot.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Mon Sep 29, 2003 12:22 pm

> Do the LEOs write citations for drunken disorderly behavior?

Theoretically, they could. As far as I know there isn't an easy way to get
full disclosure on all the citations written. I bet you could contact the
law enforcement offices and get a list, but mostly the PR says stuff like,
"102 citations were written. This is great for a city of 30,000!"

JezebelinHell · Post by **JezebelinHell** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:57 am

The LEO's should write tickets for biking under the influence though. It takes a long time for the skin on your shins to grow back after a drunken biker has crashed right into you. I wouldn't be so upset, except I was wearing a fucking headlight, so it's not like I was hard to see or anything.

ubu · Post by **ubu** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 12:52 pm

the LEOs should be kicked out of BM completely, and all infractions that harm or otherwise impinge on others should be dealt with by some kind of mediation or dispute resolution or just outright removal from brc. truly serious cases could be turned over to the folks that play cop 365.

Nice try, ha!

PJ · Post by PJ » Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:24 pm

ubu wrote:the LEOs should be kicked out of BM completely, and all infractions that harm or otherwise impinge on others should be dealt with by some kind of mediation or dispute resolution...

The use of binding arbitration in case of rape is a topic worth debating.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 2:22 pm

JezebelinHell wrote:The LEO's should write tickets for biking under the influence though. It takes a long time for the skin on your shins to grow back after a drunken biker has crashed right into you. I wouldn't be so upset, except I was wearing a fucking headlight, so it's not like I was hard to see or anything.

Same thing happened to me. That's when I LOST it.

Tinkerbell · Post by **Tinkerbell** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 3:29 pm

I am really good friends with a sherriff, and i always ask him about the laws we have. He says and pulled out the law book on us, that it is federally legal to have under an ounce for personnal use. This isn't something i heard on the net, or read somewhere, I heard it straight from him. He says that he will, and most cops will, take your pot away from you. I would like to read the laws that say different, but brain hurts to much to look now. Well i am off.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Tue Sep 30, 2003 4:46 pm

Sorry, you have the wrong information. You can look up the Federal marijuana laws here:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4575

Marijuana is considered a schedule I narcotic , see here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html

Possession of marijuana is punishable by up to one year in jail and a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first conviction. For a second conviction, the penalties increase to a 15-day mandatory minimum sentence with a maximum of two years in prison and a fine of up to $2,500. Subsequent convictions carry a 90-day mandatory minimum sentence and a maximum of up to three years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

People convicted of drug offences make up 54.7% of the federal prison population.

Blackrock Lover · Post by **Blackrock Lover** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:45 pm

Good to see someone knows the law. It is illegal to possess any amt under federal law 21 USC 844.

LEOs dealing with drunks. Good idea...BLM has no good rules on drunken behavior, unless you are creating a hazard to others. That can be difficult to prove in court.

Blackrock Lover · Post by **Blackrock Lover** » Wed Oct 01, 2003 7:07 pm

OK I obviously haven't figured out the quote thing....so here's the quote-

[quote="ubu]

They told me in fact that they request to be assigned to this gig every year. they get a contact high from it!

It would be interesting to challenge the case that involved our campsite, as one of our party was indeed smoking out of a pipe, but smoking a species of sage and not a controlled substance. However, as the fee was low enough, the court will never get to the bottom of this one.
..............
Now, bllover is correct. For the LEO's the money is *not* the thing. All money paid to the central violations bureau goes to rather noble and good causes and does not line the pockets of the LEOs. The point for them is statistics, notches on their belts, experience, show of enforcement. and of course, never admitting that they are wrong, or doing something ridiculous when they are spying on people.

they really paused when we told them that this guy was smoking sage.
but we heard you mention the word marijuana they quickly said. listening equipment anyone? just the word marijuana is enough for them to enter our dome without a warrant? it's enough for me to get raging mad just thinking about these guys waiting at my campsite for a half hour staring at the huge boobs on the girls in my dome. what the hell else were they doing?

I think it's pathetic that all that spying equipment was focused on my little campsite, and that I paid for it with tax money and a bm ticket!

We were rigorously polite and non-stereotyping toward the cops and they were kind of shocked by that in turn. At that point, what were we going to do, lose our cool?

[quote]

.....................................................................................
And a reply-

It's a great event to work, you meet some of the nicest people and see some great art!

"Notches on their belt" that is a rather stereotyping comment. As has been noted before at BM most of the fish jump in the boat. That is to say not much to brag about writing a ticket for dope. You would pretty much have to be asleep not to.

Not sure what spy equipment was focused on your tent. I suspect they saw someone smoking a pipe, heard the word marijuana, and generally when you put those 2 together you have illegal drug use. Which is what was found upon further investigation. It would be an interesting case for court.

I hope they were polite as well. I find the great majority of the folks at BM are great to interact with.

ubu · Post by **ubu** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 11:25 am

Blackrock Lover wrote:Good to see someone knows the law. It is illegal to possess any amt under federal law 21 USC 844.

LEOs dealing with drunks. Good idea...BLM has no good rules on drunken behavior, unless you are creating a hazard to others. That can be difficult to prove in court.

Bad Idea! We are overpoliced in fact at BM currently. I don't see why drunks can't be dealt with by the very people, politely mind you, that are there as a group to begin with.

All due respect to you Brlover. I think BLM rangers do a fine job when they focus on the care of the land and make sure that people are not abusing our natural resources through poaching, littering etc. But I really don't think you'all do a good job when you spy on campsites and wait in the dark. Not when you enter camps without a warrant and search without consent even when no illegal activity has taken place.

Sure you could say that further investigation, if by investigation you mean forced search under threat and intimidation, resulted in finding a few little baggies of a dried weed in some pockets. but you cannot say that the mere mention of a controlled word, marijuana, is probable cause for forced search.

Yes, it is your job that you are doing. But it is my duty to exert polite pressure to foil you if you do attempt to spy on me again in the future.
Absolutely nothing personal about it. I think you should be doing better things with your time.

I don't mean to stereotype you by using a phrase such as notches on your belt or gun or somesuch, I'm only referring to the fact that as you mention yourself re drunks, that you'all are looking for something concrete and quantifiable to do with your time, and writing citations that stick is one of them, that have "evidence." It looks like from your answer that you don't go after drunks because there is no hard evidence involved, nothing to grab onto. fine. leave the stupid drunks alone. I or my friends will politely deal with them as we have for years at BM without your help.

I really don't want or need your help. I've been using public lands for 20 years and never had an unpleasant encounter with the BLM until this past BM. In fact I've found the rangers to be interesting people with a fine sense of aesthetics and an appreciation for the lands that they take care of. But the BLM rangers that you meet in remote places would never think of spying on campsites. That spying is a peculiar artifact of "cop culture" at burning man.

As for the majority of BLM rangers taking care of our public lands to them i say, fabulous. go take care of those millions of acres. go stop the poachers and the land rapers. But stay away from Burning Man.

If I had my druthers I'd kick you out of BM completely and make you stick to policing the perimeter. Nothing personal.

As for politeness and courtesy. That is the minimum that I expect from anyone who is carrying a gun where others have left theirs behind. It is your duty and responsibility to respect people and to be circumspect with the naked power that you have to sieze others' liberty. More than that, I expect you'all to follow the spirit and the letter of the law and that is where your compatriots failed miserably, and that is where law enforcement when it polices this species of victimless crime is failing miserably.

So please forgive me if I don't commend you for having a modicum of politeness. I will do my best not to stereotype what is really a group of individuals who have taken on a difficult job. I am attempting to understand, nonetheless, both what goes through the "mind of a cop" and how the bending of laws and procedures can somehow in this "mind of a cop" be seen as not such a bad thing or the right thing. in the very phrase "mind of a cop" perhaps there is already a stereotype.

Well I'm sorry about that. If I encounter you in a difficult situation or even if you handcuff me, I won't curse you. Why would I waste my energy doing that. I will hold you to the letter of the law, however. And I will continue to study and analyze your actions and the actions of your peers. That will involve the heuristic use of typing. It may look like stereotyping but it only looks that way!

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 12:57 pm

No, you don't want the police to hold you to the "letter of the law". Probable cause is an obvious smell of marijuana drifting from a group, or someone saying "Here, take a hit off of this shit." Nor do you want an officer forcing folks to take a piss test if they are obviously tripping on something. Or checking for underage drinkers at the big raves.

"Victimless crimes" are still crimes regardless of how you feel about it. It's their job to find criminal activity and make arrests, it's what they are paid to do besides "protect the general populous". The cops normally ignore many things where they SHOULD step in and make arrests.

If you can't walk into a police station doing something, than that something is most probably illegal. Do you really think the powers-that-be will allow Burning Man to be unmonitored? Do you think the residents of Neveda should have no control over what happens in their community? The majority that votes doesn't want rampant drug usage and "funny" sex on their lands. Move to Neveda, become a citizen, become active in politics, and get people to vote into the higher political offices those candidates that will let Burning Man have free reign. Then the pressure from higher up will create a condition where more can be ignored.

Good luck on that though, because unless the citizenship has changed drastically from when I lived there, you have a snowballs chance- well- on the playa itself during July.

I have no doubt that blackrocklover is a cop (I recall you stating that on the old Eplaya). The successful cops I know simply state the facts and very rarely take things personal. Comes from dealing with tons of domestic disturbances and screaming people- the good cops don't ever lose their cool.

If you get busted on the playa, 99.9% of the time it's your own stupidity. You know the cops are there. Act like you are at a nieghborhood park and don't be fucking obvious. Chances are if you are taking the effort to hide your usage, cops that notice it by luck might be more inclined to persue other issues.

But for fuck's sake, don't slam on the cops for it- they are just doing their job. Which also includes chasing and apprehending psychotic idiots with guns, bent on hurting others. Or rapists. Or violent felons. Unless you're prepared to take a bullet from some nut with an AK-47. Or the idiot that brings a case of dynamite and starts setting it off at random. Drug charges are NOT their main purpose at Burning Man.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 1:13 pm

> But the BLM rangers that you meet in remote places would never think
> of spying on campsites. That spying is a peculiar artifact of "cop culture"
> at burning man.

Sorry, you're wrong about that. I have been surveilled at multiple
locations in the Mojave via binoculars or just well-hidden patrol vehicles.
Of course, since I'm not doing anything wrong, it generally results in a
tip of the hat and a smile to the officers as I leave the desert.

doc_faustroll · Post by **doc_faustroll** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 3:57 pm

Rob the Wop wrote:
If you can't walk into a police station doing something, than that something is most probably illegal. Do you really think the powers-that-be will allow Burning Man to be unmonitored? Do you think the residents of Neveda should have no control over what happens in their community? The majority that votes doesn't want rampant drug usage and "funny" sex on their lands. Move to Neveda, become a citizen, become active in politics, and get people to vote into the higher political offices those candidates that will let Burning Man have free reign. Then the pressure from higher up will create a condition where more can be ignored.

Rob, you seem a little confused. Ubu is addressing the Bureau of Land Management here, a Federal Agency. This has very little do with Nevada, and that dry lake bed is a part of no community. You seem to be confusing BLM Rangers with inner city cops.

This year in fact, I personally know that Burning Man was visited by state senators from Nevada and the local police were scaled way back from previous years, due in no small part to negotiations with BM. So you are wrong on that point that somehow some vague higher ups from nevada are pressuring the BLM into enforcing zero marijuana tolerance. the State has little or no effect on the BLM. and Nevada likes BM just fine.

As to wether this Ubu was improperly treated and searched without probable cause, he sure makes it sound that way. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that as I've witnessed any number of authorities bend procedure at various times.

And the fact that you saw lots of people openly smoking mj does not remove the possibility that this camp was spyed on and searched with mistaken cause. Doesn't seem that hard to figure.

I think Ubu was saying that he would hold them to the letter of the law as in see them in court if they went so far as to take him away in cuffs.

Kinetic · Post by **Kinetic** » Thu Oct 02, 2003 7:56 pm

You make your own experience......

This while thread is starting to really piss me off. I've sat here and read through discussions of federal drug laws, if the cops like busting people at BM, what methods the cops use, questions about privacy rights, yadda yadda yadda.

IMHO, it all comes down to this. If your going to do shit that is designated as illegal and you do it at BRC, you know there are LEO's there, plan accordingly. Do you really need to light one up on the playa? If you do, you know your running a risk of being busted. When it happens, shut up and take what's coming. You made the choice, you should have evaluated the risk and planned accordingly.

Why not take it back to your theme camp instead? Yeah I read about the camp bust for sage instead of weed. I can understand why the LEO's swooped in, if they were listening in from what I read they had enough probable cause to do what they did. My thoughts are why in the hell were they allowed to get that close to hear the conversation? (Even with the boom mikes, don't make it easy for them. BRC is a noisy place, use that to your advantage!) Was there anything done to prevent this?

This year saw an increase in bike theft and cross cutters, people walking through camps in the middle of the night. Then I read this thread and hear about the LEO's and I'm like there is a way to fix some of this. For 2004, I'm going to do the following.
1: Use Orange safety fencing from Lowe's or Home Borg to establish a camp perimeter.
2: Use rope light or solar lights to mark main passages through the camp.
3: Over the top of my tent, I plan to rig up a tensile shade structure over my tent, and use the rain fly. The point here is I want to block the nighttime visual silhouette, and unless the cops are using IR equipment, a simple bit of creative tarp placement can block the visual surveillance. If they use IR well it's time to switch to an RV or trailer and get more aggressive with the defense.
Back to point 1: The safety fence serves many functions. It marks off the space my camp occupies so late arrivals can setup and not intrude on my space. Next it discourages cross cutting. I can clearly control access points so if a group of LEO's decides to sweep in on me, well I know where the gates are, and a couple of wind chimes or other trip indicators can be creatively made to warn you someone came through.

I could go on but my point is this can mostly be prevented if you put a little bit of prep into security just like you do for your other BM projects.

Sometimes no matter what you do, your going to get fucked. The karma gods will get you regardless of what you do...the LEO might be trying out his new IR camera and he sees you light up. It's just not your day. But if you do a little bit of prep the karma gods seem to smile on that, and your odds of success increas dramatically. Quit bitching about getting busted and put the energy into PREVENTION.

As with any opinion or statement on e-playa, YMMV.

keepthebeat · Post by **keepthebeat** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:09 pm

This is a curious view on the LEOs...build a fortress so that you can participate in illegal activity. It reminds me somewhat of the news prior to 9/11 when there appeared to be a war on the American way of life from within US borders, ie Oklahoma bombing, Waco Texas etc. The Texas group did just what you are talking about. They barricaded themselves in.

This seems counter to the BM experience. In fact, when I describe BM to those who have never and will likely never go, I tell them it is like living in a city but everyone has their walls down, a sort of shared privacy and group fulfillment of fantasy. The point is we should not have to hide.

Smoking pot is not bygamy, terrorism or child abuse. It should not be a criminal act to get high. I know that the police are paid to enforce it as a crime. That is their mistake. Let's not make it ours. Yeah, do hide the bong and don't smoke on the playa. As far as accepting that we must build walls around our camps. I will not accept this. Pot smokers are not criminals and they should not be harassed in their own camps regardless of the soil it is on.

The war on drug law enforcement needs to proceed. It wastes millions of tax dollars and has very little to show for the investment. Responsible use of illegal drugs is a reality and BM is one of those examples.

We had one unfortunate death this year and I don't know whether drugs besides alcohol were even involved. This is a pretty good statistic given the hysteria that has surrounded BM as perpetuated by law enforcement and politicians.

The BM community needs to stand up to antiquated views on the criminal intent of pot smokers.

Bring on the fatty.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:17 pm

> It should not be a criminal act to get high.

<broken-record>
But it is. Deal with it, and don't complain when you're ticketed. You knew it
was illegal.
</broken-record>

> The BM community needs to stand up to antiquated views on the
> criminal intent of pot smokers.

Bullshit.

I fully support the legalization of marijuana. I think it's extremely silly
that you can drink alcohol but not smoke pot.

But don't make Burning Man a tool in your fight for that. Don't politicize
the event. It would be close to a death toll for the event were there to
be any sort of official "we support legalization of marijuana" statement.

Should you expect the Burning Man community, such as it is, to respect
your personal life choices? Yes.

Should you expect the Burning Man community, such as it is, to support
your personal life choices through their own actions? No. They might, but
you shouldn't expect it.

Kinetic · Post by **Kinetic** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:31 pm

It's interesting what happens sometimes when you throw an idea out into the public domain. Sometimes it's well received, sometimes you get a few changes made to it, and other times it gets boomeranged back at you after it's been ripped apart. That's why I love e-playa, you put something out there and it gets some very good responses.

I didn't mean for my idea to come across as building a fortress...in keeping people out. I was looking at this from multiple angles. This year's problems are making me revamp my camp design. I need something that can handle Sunday's dust storm without stress, is easy to setup and tear down, and easy to transport 3600 miles. I also want a bit more privacy so I don't have to deal with theft. I'm just a privacy freak at times...when I sleep I want to make sure I can sleep in peace. So for me I do have a fortress mentality year round.

I also looked at the safety angle of people cross cutting and then tripping on my guy wires and stuff. I had a $600 Sierra Designs tent demolished on my last day in 2002 because of a stupid cross cutter who wasn't paying attention.

I also want privacy so when I find a cute individual on the playa I have a very private place to entertain them in.

I don't want to exclude people but it's a matter of striking a balance. I worked hard to acquire my playa supplies, and I don't want them to vanish, or to see someone get hurt and cost me serious money. Plus they end up in medical and that costs us all. That's the approach I was taking to my earlier statement and hopefully that will clear things up...or as I sometimes do, make it worse.

And I wholeheartedly agree with everything in Precipitate's post too. Very well stated.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:08 pm

keepthebeat wrote: I know that the police are paid to enforce it as a crime. That is their mistake.

Here's a question. What do you call a cop that turns a blind eye towards illegal activity?

<b>A crooked cop.</b>

The mistake isn't the police. It's the laws. I just hate it when people point to cops or the military and say, "It's your fault for enforcing the laws/actions that are handed to you."

You'll find very few cops that join the force to bust people smoking pot. The ones I know/grew up with/are family, joined with a vision of helping protect people from criminals. And, truth be told, for the adrenaline factor. Which you DON'T get from busting a non-violent hippy in the middle of the desert with a joint.

Organgeboy · Post by **Organgeboy** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:19 pm

I'm new here, and at the risk of asking a stupid obvious question....

Do people get busted for drugs at BM other than pot?

III · Post by **III** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:24 pm

not so stupid a question.

and yes, they do.

it should be pointed out that most of the busts are not under the influence busts, but posession, which means you need to somehow draw attention to yourself before you take whatever it is you're going to take.

Busted by the cops at the burn

War on This n That

Drunken disorderly?

Fort Kinetic?