Busted by the cops at the burn

PJ · Post by PJ » Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:52 pm

Rob the Wop wrote: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.

Storming a working meth lab, on the other hand, has a high enough adrenaline factor for an entire SEAL team.

ubu · Post by **ubu** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 3:12 pm

Rob the Wop wrote: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.

....The cops normally ignore many things where they SHOULD step in and make arrests.

So, if they normally ignore things, are they all crooked rob?
of course not. Rob, you say some things that make rational sense such as the old saw that the cops don't make the law, they enforce it etc. Fine with that. Other things you say make no sense at all.

My critique, and it is just that, a critique (not a complaint), points to the fact that citizens have rights and Peace Officers have responsibilities to uphold the law and preserve the rights of those citizens that they are supposed to protect and serve.

If, in the process of serving the law, a peace officer violates those rights, they are making an infraction and could be liable for that infraction. unreasonable search and siezure is a classic example of the violation of rights. It takes reasonable suspicion to enter a domicile and probable cause to search. those are two different things. you have the right to refuse a search should there be no probable cause, ie no evidence of illegal activity. it's that simple.

so for example if a cop enters your tent cause he sees you smoking on a pipe and you show them that the pipe contains tobacco, their reasonable suspicion was an honest mistake but they have no probable cause to search you. you can and should refuse any attempts to search your person or your tent. they should be honest at that point, admit their mistake, apologize for entering your tent and move on. further, they only have probable cause at that point, should the person actually be smoking the evil weed to search the tent and that person, not all the other persons in the tent.

This is the kind of hair splitting I was referring to when i mentioned the letter of the law. Random piss testing without cause, relatively cumbersome and ineffectual by the way, would be a violation of your rights if you were ensconced in your tent. not even the most casual intimidator and violator of rights would go so far as to random piss test people.

Intimidation and violation of rights is endemic to the cop job. that's all.
Sure they should do their jobs, but they should do them well, without violating those rights granted you by the bill of rights of this grand land.
Federal employees should have that document burned into their brains.

This is a very vital point and one that all cops are aware of even as they try to bend it or outright violate it.

I wouldn't waste my time being offended by anyone's post or views here. I welcome any post or any views really. I look forward to brlover's future responses. It does look like some people have at least learned that Marijuana is a schedule 1 controlled substance ( it is not a narcotic in the technical sense).

For those bored with this thread: if the thread is too boring for you, there are so many other threads here on eplaya. Go post on another thread, and leave the boring discussion here.

Blackrock Lover · Post by **Blackrock Lover** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:45 am

Hmm, where should I start.....and does anyone really care??

ubu - Please understand that BLM Rangers have 2 jobs, one to protect the resource and two to protect those that are using it (not necessarily in that order). So when it comes to dealing with drunks it really isn't a bad idea. Each year I have worked at BM I have the unpleasant job of arresting participants that were reported to me by Black Rock Rangers or community members. Why would BRR or others report them you might ask? Because their actions were creating a significant hazard to the community members (assault, extreme DUI, etc...) and when confronted they had become violent. In each case they were drunk, high, or had mental issues. In each case the community members had decided that they no longer wished to deal with these subjects. These are not the stupid drunks of which you speak (I don't deal with those). So I do believe that LE at BM is important for public safety just as it is whereever you live the other 51 weeks of the year.

As for your particular case at your campsite I don't know what the officers saw but I will stand by the previous post which I don't believe necessarily draws a conclusion. If you have an issue with the situation you should take it to court where hopefully the truth is found. I don't know that they failed to follow the spirit or letter of the law. I certainly hope they did not.

Now for spying. I disagree that it is a peculiar artifact of "cop culture" at BM. We use they same techniques to apprehend those failing to abide by drug laws that we use to stop poachers and land rapers. So I guess we should define spying, if it means me observing you when you don't know it then I would be guilty. But that is the case on practically all my contacts. People don't poach animals, rape the land, or smoke dope if they know I'm watching.

I appreciate the fact that you won't curse me. I suspect I will never have any reason to handcuff you. Nor will I curse you (I didn't even curse the guy that hit me this year, he was under the influence of drugs).

Victimless crimes........I won't even touch that (however I felt like a victim when a guy whacked out on drugs hit me, he had already hit others). But I will say that marijuana smuggling and cultivation cause tremendous damage to the Public Lands. Seen it, been there, done that. You can argue that if it wasn't illegal that those wouldn't be issues but it is and they are.

precipitate - My point exactly...now if you had been doing something wrong it would have been a little more exciting. I hate watching people not do anything wrong it's just a waste of time. But I love to catch the resource thieves, dumpers, poachers, and the like. Hope the surviellance doesn't dimish you Public Land experience but it's the only way to catch the bad ones........ (Ok I must digress for a war story here. One night I was in a remote area checking camps. I had just pulled up and was looking at one camp and watching them roast marshmallows. I actually sat there and thought to myself, Jeez I did not drive out here to watch people roast marshmallows. Just then a drunk dope smoker (sorry but he was) ripped off a round from a SKS military style rifle at the next campsite. Now there were campers up and downstream and significant chance of ricochet, and it was dark. The guy couldn't have know if others were walking around or not. So that night it was a little more exciting. As it turns out the suspect was a prohibited person and wasn't supposed to have any firearms. Now back to the BS......)

doc_faustroll - The state of Nevada, and any state where BLM works does have input and BLM listens. I don't know of any pressure one way or the other for inforcing the drug laws at BM. For me it is no different that the other 51 weeks of the year. Except there is more of it.

Kinetic - You really don't have to go to all that trouble. I don't know of any cases based on IR. There are legal issues surrounding useing IR to look at a tent or other structure without a warrant. On the open playa it would be different. But your tent is safe unless you leave the door open, of course IR wouldn't be needed then (plain view).

keepthebeat - No offense but I must disagree. Pot smokers are criminals. You might not like the term but it is used to describe persons who break criminal law.

precipitate - I think it is insane that you can drink alcohol but not smoke pot! However, I think alcohol should be illegal it's cost to society is incredible!

Rob the Wop - You're right no adrenaline factor writing dope tickets at BM. Just a lot of paperwork that keeps me from cruising the streets of BM and conversing with the residents.

ubu - In the process of enforcing the law a peace officer should not violate and rights. Not to nitpick but your posts don't seem to cover all factors that were at work. This last post doesn't mention the LEOs hearing people talk about marijuana. You really have to take each scenario in it's entirety. And I don't know what the entirety of the scenario was, and you probably don't either. I generally do not tell violators each and every piece of information I use when trying to decide if I will contact them or not.

I will STRONGLY disagree that "intimidation and violation of rights is endemic to the cop job". It most certainly is not. I do not try to intimidate Public Land users and certainly do not knowingly violate their rights! I don't know why Federal employees should have the bill of rights burned into their brains I assure you that there are fewer cases of federal employees violating citizens rights than state, city, or county employees. Of course it's fun to pick at the Feds..... My experience has shown that feds are usually much more sensitive to these issues than locals.

Hope there aren't too many errors in this post. It's late and I don't proof read good when I'm not tired.

And now for your responses.........please don't hate me I don't even dislike you......

Kinetic · Post by **Kinetic** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 3:53 am

Hate you? Uhm, last I checked this was the Burning Man e-playa BBS, a very open minded place. We might toast, even outright flame you but many of us will listen regardless. And hate has no place here unless your Joseph Dunphy or a few other undesirables who earned it.

A BLM Ranger? Finally I realize who we're dealing with. I'm glad to see a LEO on e-playa, it offers a nice counterbalance to some of the discussions around here. I hope you show up in other threads, your perspective would be invaluable.

Some quick questions come to mind though and I'll take the shotgun approach and blast 'em out.
1: I wonder if the "sage" bust was carried out by State or county officers?
Each group would handle things differently...I heard about tickets being handed out that basically say: Do you want to pay $250 and make this matter go away? I can't see that happening if the ticket was a Federal one.

2: Not really a question but a statement really. The way I read that last post, it comes down to common sense. Don't give them a reason to do their job. Keep it discrete, take reasonable precautions, and don't make an ass of yourself and draw attention and you should be fine. As for my fortress...I'm building it to block cross cutters and to make things safer for Dragontear who had someone try and sneak into our trailer only to get a faceful of military spec pepper spray and a tazer zap that left him out of commission for a few minutes. And anything I can do to cut down on dust like the Sunday dust storm I'm going to try.

3: I can relate to that SKS incident as some yahoo did the same thing while I was camping in 01 on the Niangua River in Southern MO. It so happened a MO Hwy Patrol officer was doing a routine drive by check of the campgrounds and was at the camp store when one yahoo opened up with a Kalashnikov assault rifle, and another opened up with a sawed off double barrel shotgun. In the Ozarks they have funny ways of dealing with that stuff....by the time the officer got there both suspects were hogtied and surrounded by at least 30 guys, all of us ready to help ID them and have them escorted out. We found out both were drunk, and also wanted on numerous state violations. But that story reminded me of that...I'm glad the LEO was there to take them into custody.

You made some very valid points and I'm enlightened by your post. I don't know how the others will react but I don't think you have much to worry about.

Todd in Seattle · Post by **Todd in Seattle** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 3:33 pm

Blackrock Lover wrote: I think it is insane that you can drink alcohol but not smoke pot! However, I think alcohol should be illegal it's cost to society is incredible!

Blackrock Lover, I have just fallen madly in love with you.

antron · Post by **antron** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 3:42 pm

Blackrock Lover wrote:I don't proof read good when I'm not tired.

me neither
it's after an all-nighter when i do my best proofing

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 12:17 am

ubu wrote:
Rob the Wop wrote: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.

....The cops normally ignore many things where they SHOULD step in and make arrests.
So, if they normally ignore things, are they all crooked rob?

Fine. If you must pick nits. "Cops that ignore a specific group, event, or law." If they ignore EVERY instance of pot smoking in their career, they are crooked. If they ignore the occasional drunk, kid hiding a joint, etc.- and focus instead on crimes more detrimental to society, they are simply using common sense in law enforcement.

You were asking that they ignore "victimless crimes" (ie. ignore anyone toking up), which is wrong. They are there to enforce the law. From talking with my cop buddies and my grandpa (chief of police for 35 years), while they technically SHOULD bust every intoxicated person they see (drunk in public) at a carnival or fair- they won't unless they might pose a danger to others or themselves. Spirit versus letter of the law.

Blackrock Lover · Post by **Blackrock Lover** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:58 pm

Well now,

Kinetic - Well, I ain't God's gift to law enforcement or a prize winning lawyer but for some issues I might be able to offer some insight. If you know of anything that I should check out let me know. I usually just search around looking for the stories about the LE incidents it's always fun to listen to the rumor mill...... That reminds me of another war story and this one from BM. Myself and another ranger had just arrested a guy that was attacking people a couple of years ago and he was naked. Soon after putting him in the truck someone in the crowd, who hadn't witnessed the assaults told one of the other bystanders we had arrested him for being naked! Yeah, like I wanna go grab a sweaty naked guy and put him in my truck - I think not! So things ain't always what they seem.

1. I don't know for sure. However, if they were issued $250 citations that would be the amt. for the federal fine. The federal citations issued at BM for marijuana were $250 and you could take care of it by mail, even use a credit card....so convenient (and bizarre).

2. What I tell people is that BM is just like anyplace else (except for the naked folks and flame throwers) that is to say the search and siezure law is no different. So if you lived next to a police station and knew that cops were walking or driving by would you sit in you front living room with the windows open smoking dope with 2' high bong with a giant marijuana leaf painted on the wall? I suspect not, or at least not for long. Same at BM, the cops will deal with what they can see or make a case with. Sooooo....don't smoke dope in front of the cops. If you can't be sure where the cops are or when they will be walking by then don't smoke dope. There are of course obvious solutions to this issue which I personally witnessed people useing this year (and it just yanks my chain! I know what they're doing but I can't figure a legal way to stop it, which is afterall part of my job). Best of luck beating the dust, you will find it a much more potent adversary than the cops.

3. Jeez I wish I had 30 guys on my side!

Todd in Seattle - I hope to not burst the bubble of love but it was late when I typed that and I may have been less than lucid in my prose. I think they should both be illegal, dope and alcohol. I think the cost to society of any conscious state altering drug is going to be very high. Certainly that has been the case with alcohol. Hopefully your still in love...

antron - I almost died laughing when I read that. I couldn't believe that in the very line of explaining that there would be errors in the post because I was sleep deprived that I screwed it up! So it should have read - I can't proof when I'm tired. Heck, I can barely proof when I'm awake.

keepthebeat · Post by **keepthebeat** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:12 am

If alcohol and pot should be illegal (as it is) then why not guns for the same reason. To outlaw alcohol makes no sense. We already tried that and failed with prohibition. In fact, 1-2 glasses of wine are potentially healthy. Heart disease is reduced. I think marijauna should be legalized because it is not the drug that is the problem it is the criminal culture around it. Alcohol can be abused, pot can be abused, guns can be abused. It seems that the least problematic of the three is the pot but this is the one that is illegal. Go figure.

Life should be about moderation. Excessive alcohol, pot and and guns are the hazard not the agents themselves.

People will continue to use all three regardless of the law. It is just the usually harmless pot smokers who will get busted.

ubu · Post by **ubu** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:20 pm

Blackrock Lover wrote:Hmm, where should I start.....and does anyone really care??

ubu - Please understand that BLM Rangers have 2 jobs, one to protect the resource and two to protect those that are using it (not necessarily in that order). So when it comes to dealing with drunks it really isn't a bad idea. Each year I have worked at BM I have the unpleasant job of arresting participants that were reported to me by Black Rock Rangers or community members. Why would BRR or others report them you might ask? Because their actions were creating a significant hazard to the community members (assault, extreme DUI, etc...) and when confronted they had become violent. In each case they were drunk, high, or had mental issues. In each case the community members had decided that they no longer wished to deal with these subjects. These are not the stupid drunks of which you speak (I don't deal with those). So I do believe that LE at BM is important for public safety just as it is whereever you live the other 51 weeks of the year.

Now for spying. I disagree that it is a peculiar artifact of "cop culture" at BM. We use they same techniques to apprehend those failing to abide by drug laws that we use to stop poachers and land rapers. So I guess we should define spying, if it means me observing you when you don't know it then I would be guilty. But that is the case on practically all my contacts. People don't poach animals, rape the land, or smoke dope if they know I'm watching.

precipitate - My point exactly...now if you had been doing something wrong it would have been a little more exciting. I hate watching people not do anything wrong it's just a waste of time.

precipitate - I think it is insane that you can drink alcohol but not smoke pot! However, I think alcohol should be illegal it's cost to society is incredible!

ubu - In the process of enforcing the law a peace officer should not violate and rights. Not to nitpick but your posts don't seem to cover all factors that were at work. This last post doesn't mention the LEOs hearing people talk about marijuana. You really have to take each scenario in it's entirety. And I don't know what the entirety of the scenario was, and you probably don't either. I generally do not tell violators each and every piece of information I use when trying to decide if I will contact them or not.

I will STRONGLY disagree that "intimidation and violation of rights is endemic to the cop job". It most certainly is not. I do not try to intimidate Public Land users and certainly do not knowingly violate their rights! I don't know why Federal employees should have the bill of rights burned into their brains I assure you that there are fewer cases of federal employees violating citizens rights than state, city, or county employees. Of course it's fun to pick at the Feds..... My experience has shown that feds are usually much more sensitive to these issues than locals.

And now for your responses.........please don't hate me I don't even dislike you......

Brlover. Thank you very much for your very honest responses. Although you and I surely disagree about many things here, I appreciate your position and your point of view. I do care what you think. I would have stopped posting on this thread if you had not made your contribution.

I'm fascinated both by your reasoning and by your language. the use of the word contact to describe your interactions with citizens is new to me and has some intriguing connotations.

I will give you that in general the Feds do have better training and do act on it better when it comes to not violating the rights of citizens. You'all are much more clever and crafty than the locals. You are nonetheless intimidating and from this one experience I did see your fellow rangers use that "things will go easy on you if you just cooperate and tell us where all the drugs are" ploy among others. An old manipulation that so many cops use cause it so often works. not in our case. Your fellow rangers also searched without asking for consent. etc. etc. They also searched everyone, not just the perp. or non-perp since he was smoking sage! Some of these are classic intimidation ploys used by most cops.

I don't think you can just toss it off to my not knowing the totality of what the rangers knew about our situation, nor do I buy this idea that mention of the word marijuana could be a meaningful part of that totality. It struck me as them just trying to cover their asses should we decide to put this before a judge. I personally paid the kids' fines (i have the resources and they don't) for them, so don't be concerned that we will bring this to court. I'm happy to spend time conversing about this on a message board, but I can do my own research better than most lawyers, and I just spend my own time doing it, not ridiculous amounts of money. I can't see springing for a lawyer just to slap some BLM wrists for violating my rights.

It does diminish my experience of public lands to know that I'm being spyed on, and that you get bored when noone breaks the law. (I think some night vision is definitely in order for my next trip to BLM land, not because I intend to break the law, but because I do think I have some right to privacy even on public land, and if I catch some ranger spying at times when we should be granted some privacy, I will have a chat with them or their superiors later.)

I can understand why you would want to be asked to police more, but can you understand why I would want you to police less?

You for example, think that alcohol should be made illegal because of its social cost. Do you know why I think alcohol, even with the great social cost, should never be made illegal? No, it's not because I'm a drunk!
I don't even drink alcohol.

It is because I've read some history. The social, political and economic cost of making it illegal turned out to be greater than the social cost of leaving it legal. Surely you know the story.

Entire countries in south america are being destabilized and destroyed as we converse. I would argue that the social cost of legalizing cocaine would be less than the current total political, social, and economic cost of combatting it. We, the citzens of the US are both the consumers of cocaine and the taxpayers spending billions of dollars to turn Colombia into a war zone.

I won't even address this ridiculous drug marijuana which the philosopher Zizek has called the decaffeinated coffee of drugs to make my point about the greater cost of making any drug illegal versus the social cost of making it legal. It's too easy to argue that marijuana should be legalized. Drugs like heroin and cocaine as illegal drugs have been much more policitally and economically destructive. It would be worth the inevitable social cost, in my opinion, to make them legal.

At any rate, brlover, again I thank your for posting and for illuminating how you see your job. It helps me understand you a little better.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:29 pm

ubu wrote:
Rob the Wop wrote: Random piss testing without cause, relatively cumbersome and ineffectual by the way, would be a violation of your rights if you were ensconced in your tent. not even the most casual intimidator and violator of rights would go so far as to random piss test people.

Unless they are running after school programs for high school kids.

Blackrock Lover · Post by **Blackrock Lover** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:39 pm

ubu-

Yeah, we probably would disagree about many items and each would have our own reasonings, that keeps things interesting. It might be surprising on what things we would agree on!

I did not realize that I was clever and crafty, and I'm not sure that's a compliment

. I will note again that I don't try to be intimidating. In fact the only time I get assertive is when I'm in a possibly hazardous situation. While just making a contact and questioning folks I just try to get the information relative to the case. I should mention that I have people compliment me after writing them citations and once while taking one of their friends to jail, I don't think I would be complimented if I was being intimidating. However, that does not mean that the rangers you interacted with that evening acted in the same way and I won't assume so.

As for searching w/o consent - if they had PC they wouldn't need consent. I would not even try to make that determination w/o being there. As you were you certainly know more about the situation. It would be interesting to talk with them and see what they based their suspicions on.

I don't intend to simply toss off your opinion. It's just that by hearing one side of the story I can't make a decision as to what happened. I have simply tried to offer some insight as to what MIGHT be another side of the issue. Hearing the word marijuana, in my opinion, would be a part of the "totality of the circumstances" with which an officer might base an action. I had a case recently where I included that in my report. It was not the only thing I had seen or heard but it added to the case. I'm not "concerned" that you would bring this to court. I am more concerned that you don't fight issues where you feel wronged. (I can assure you I have spoken to defense attys noting to them that I don't like to have people found guilty that truly believe they aren't. I don't want people to feel that they weren't treated fairly.)

Yes lawyers do charge ridiculous amts of money and some aren't very good. However, I've seen a few that were worth it.

With an average of one ranger per million acres I suspect that the vast majority of your Public Land visits are without surveillance. As far as being bored when no one is breaking the law. The problem is they are breaking the law - somewhere, just not where I'm at. It's a cross between boredom and realizing that I am not doing what I'm paid to do which is catch criminals. When I walk the campground and everything is quiet - that's great. However, when I drive 5 miles down the road and find a load of garbage that was just dumped out while I was checking the quiet campground I realize that I was working in the wrong place and not accomplishing my job of trying to protect the Public Lands and users.

Privacy on Public Land....you do have rights there and I don't intend to violate them. My surveillance is limited to acts commited in public.

I don't know that I want to police more. You should know that I consider the job of LE to be a complete waste of money. If everyone just did what they were supposed to all the money we spend on prisons and LE could be diverted to healthcare(which is probably where I would work, helping others, mom is a nurse and I always admire her dedication and service to others in need) or other worthy causes. Unfortunately I doubt we can get everyone to agree to stop breaking the law.

Yeah, I know the story about alcohol. I also see the huge cost to society in dollars and lives. I suspect that the costs of adding more drugs to society would also be tremendous. The problem is not in the "responsible" use of drugs (alcohol included) but in the fact that a significant portion of society will never be able to accomplish that task and thus will present a great risk to the others (alcohol being the poster child). Just ask the victims of drunk drivers. I do not find the equation where innocent lives are traded for the right of irresponsible people to get drunk something that I will ever find acceptable. I'm not trying to be preachy or attack you, just trying to explain some of my thought processess with which you are free to disagree with.

In my perfect world alcohol and drugs would be illegal, just my viewpoint. To me there are too many detriments to their use and it's the bad side that I see alot. Possibly that's an occupational hazard or comes from my upbringing in a VERY conservative Christian church.

I shouldn't make assumptions but maybe in your perfect world they are legal and used in moderation such that there are no negative consequenses. In a perfect world the result would be the same except people could get high or drunk and would do so without hurting themselves or others.

So now, I am awaiting your response which I find enlightening as well. If I didn't I wouldn't be here and I wouldn't go to BM (remember the paragraph above about how I was raised).

keepthebeat - See my longwinded diatribe above(like anyone cares). Everything in moderation might be the key but again see above. Guns....hmm well I guess I don't have a problem with them because they don't alter peoples thought processess. I'm not a gun nut. The only ones I own are a .22 target pistol I've had for about 20 years and haven't shot more than I would guess 400 rounds in, and a commemerative firearm. They just don't pull my trigger (ok that was bad).

Do you think pot would be the least problematic if it were legal. Or would it result in more DUI-marj deaths, broken families due to addiction, disease related to smoking, lack of ambition, etc..... I don't know. But to add even more misery to me seems bad. Hey it's just my opinion - don't mean its right.

You're right there will always be that segment of society that will use these items and break other laws (murder, rape, theft, you know.....). Which is why we will keep wasting money on LE. If only everyone would obey the golden rule we would do much better as a whole.

So to end on a positive note that is one reason I find BM a pleasant place. Everyone is pretty much on their good behavior to each other. Regardless of what laws they might be breaking they are generally good to each other, and me, and that's always nice to see if only for a week.

judas · Post by **judas** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:52 am

A fine thread...well worth the read. We allowed a stranger with a Turkish bong into our very open dome to have a smoke. A friend and I joined thinking we'd get nice and stoned. Then two cops appeared out of nowhere and would have busted the hell out of the guy if he was in possession. The person said he'd been harassed several times and he was clean and let them see all his stuff. Moral of the story: narcotics are policed heavily at BM.

Several have recommended a Neighborhood Cop Watch program. Wow, at first glance that's a great idea. After thinking it through a bit I could see how it would quickly slide into "us" vs. "them". That would not be a good situation and I would certainly not want to be "them". That's all I really wanted to say...be careful if you decide to go down this path next year.

I wish BM could police itself. I don't feel that BRC needs LE from local, state, or fed LEOs. Oh well, LEOs are firmly part of the burn now. It's not like we're going to re-create Waco.
-J

ubu · Post by **ubu** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:01 am

Nicely said, Brlover.

You are clearly an interesting and thoughtful person, and when I call someone clever, it is always a compliment, even if I should be playing an opposing part. I genuinely appreciate your posts.

You've covered these issues quite well and quite diplomatically, and you show a curiosity and inquisitiveness that recommends you in my book.

Most BLM Rangers would not take the jobs they do if they did not have an appreciation for beauty, and I'm sure you are quite the naturalist. Most of you seem to be real straight arrows as well.

Nonetheless, of course I do have my criticisms, which you've read already ad nauseum, so there is no need to repeat them.

In this post I would only say that I think that even the most socially destructive drugs in this very imperfect world in which we live should be made legal, not because there will be no social cost. No. Granting just how great the social cost will be, the total social, political, and economic cost will be less.

I've come to this conclusion through experience and through reading. I've been to Colombia several times and even have a friend who worked for the State Department in Colombia working on the drug war and he has actually come to same conclusion.

It's not a conclusion that he came to easily. The billions that we have poured into Colombia have only resulted in greater chaos and destruction. It is a genuine crisis and it mirrors the crisis that resulted from the prohibition of alcohol. And the crisis in Colombia is so much more destructive than mere self-abuse or even accidents caused by intoxicated drivers. I am referring to the entire country becoming a war zone.

thanks again for posting here, brlover.

keepthebeat · Post by **keepthebeat** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:46 pm

The Golden Rule is ancient wisdom originally articulated by the Greeks but most often associated with Christianity(do unto others as you would have others do unto you). Too bad we can't all live by it. Some people are incapable ie sociopaths and others just don't want to ie the selfish. It seems though that we more closely adhere to the principle en mass at BM than elsewhere. This too is one reason I return to BM as Black Rock Lover has stated.

How does the Golden Rule apply to drug use? I could get creative with an interpretation but will spare the verbage from this post.

I agree with ubu that the war on drugs does not make economic or social sense and have reiterated this in previous posts. I do have reservations re legalizing cocaine and heroine though. I would like to get more data from the Amsterdam experience. I have read that people there who use drugs continue to use despite drug addiction counselling but that more people don't use them just because of increased tolerance. This makes sense as many people don't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol just because they are legal. One problem identified are the foreigners (non Dutch) who relocate to Amsterdam because of the drug culture. They don't get jobs and use prostitution and theft to continue drug use. I would like to see these statements validated or discredited with good unbiased research before I support decriminalization of "hard"drugs.

However, I think it is possible to be a productive person and also use "hard drugs" not that I do. Sigmund Freud clearly made major contributions to psychiatric literature under the influence of cocaine and William Burroughs radically effected literature while using morphine. However, these were talented insightful people and there are plently of stories of other less talented people and some more talented people (Charlie Parker) who have been destroyed by "hard" drugs.

Ultimately, I believe that people who want to use will do so regardless of the legality. Continuing to populate our prisons with abusers does little to improve the problem and the war on Colombia is deplorable. We need to focus on why people use in the first place and how much can they use without injuring themselves or others. Are drugs a surrogate for love or self treatment of depression, anxiety etc or are they just an attempt to escape boredom for those with very little imagination or are they truly an agent to get closer to God as ancient cultures have believed? Pardon the run-on sentence. All of the above is probably true and hence the dilemma. We are a diverse people.

Addiction is a dangerous thing no doubt, but it does not stop with drugs. Some people are addicted to dangerous activities which may have nothing to do with drugs ie unprotected sex, overeating, high risk sports. If we are going to talk about the cost of drugs, we should also talk about the cost of treating HIV, obesity and orthopedic injuries. McDonalds french fries may have done more to destroy the health of the world than even cigarettes. I don't hear of anyone seriously outlawing fast food.

Black Rock Lover, is there not sufficient precedent for our right to eat, drink, smoke and be merry at our own risk without making us a criminal even if that agent (marijuana) may be harmful?

PJ · Post by PJ » Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:52 pm

judas wrote:...It's not like we're going to re-create Waco.

Why not? We like fire, yes?

doc_faustroll · Post by **doc_faustroll** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:15 pm

Blackrock Lover wrote:Well now,

....if you lived next to a police station and knew that cops were walking or driving by would you sit in you front living room with the windows open smoking dope with 2' high bong with a giant marijuana leaf painted on the wall? I suspect not, or at least not for long. Same at BM, the cops will deal with what they can see or make a case with. Sooooo....don't smoke dope in front of the cops. If you can't be sure where the cops are or when they will be walking by then don't smoke dope.

I don't know, but the very idea of throwing a big anything goes party next to a police station just does not strike me as appealing. don't know what it is that takes the fun away for me, could be the handcuffs.

keepthebeat: medical doctor and criminal

If we went Waco, the FBI psy-ops would have hard time trying to break us with noise and loud music.....

Kinetic II · Post by **Kinetic II** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:00 pm

Do how would the FBI interrogate ravers who are already used to bright lights and loud music? The lights and music seem to be the favored techniques at least the ones that the media picks up on.

keepthebeat · Post by **keepthebeat** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 1:49 pm

For those of you intrigued by the medical marijuana question, check out the web sites of two European companies focusing research on preparations for multiple sclerosis etc.

www.gwpharm.com

www.pharmoscorp.com

They may also be good stock picks with a social/medical mission.

Yours truly, the criminal

Blackrock Lover · Post by **Blackrock Lover** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 5:14 pm

Judas - as noted before there are instances where BRC does need LE aside from the assaults I have noted previously there are issues with rape. One issue that is unresolved and for which I don't know the depth of the problem is child pornography. If you want an issue that could cause major problems for BRC that would be the one to watch.

ubu - Well thanks for the compliment....

Most are fairly straight arrows but there are some more interesting than others.

Social cost is hard to figure either way... I just wish the world was perfect.

keepthebeat - The golden rule and drug use...don't use drugs in a manner where you infringe on others rights (like getting so doped up you start attacking people). I'm sure productive people do use drugs but, would they be more productive without them? The problem is largely not with the productive ones but those that are irresponsible.

Yes there are many other destructive activities with which people engage. Of course, there is the resultant impact to society. An example is seat belt use. Now one of my friends thought he shouldn't be required to wear a seatbelt as he had the right to die. As I explained to him I thought it was fine if he died. It's when he is injured and lives that's the issue. Who pays for the medical care.....our insurance or our taxes.

I think the precedent to drink and smoke alone would equal the damage to marijuana. But as noted before it's just one more cost to society and so far society is not willing to accept that cost.

Looking forward to your responses and next year at BM.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 5:56 pm

One issue that is unresolved and for which I don't know the depth of the problem is child pornography.

LEOs not being able to gather any proof on the former topic I can't wait to see them play the child and pornography card.

You watch.

djCharlieBrown · Post by **djCharlieBrown** » Fri Oct 10, 2003 8:54 pm

I applaud everyone on this topic for an excellent thread. I have been thoroughly entertained, and enlightened. And as such, I would like to add my 2 bit thought:

The argument of blm ticketing pot smokers, the concern of their methods, the difference of opnion on the legality of marijuana... What bothers me is that my understanding of law is based on Morals, Morality, Common sense (Common Law) the basis for which society co-exists with itself and nature (murder, theft, rape, etc... all moral issues), the guidline for Dos and Don'ts. What really bothers me tremendously (when in discussion) is I fail to see, and have yet to be convinced, where Marijuana falls in this catagory. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there have not been sufficient studies to prove that marijuana is dangerous to our health and to others (where with alcohol there is). To take this frustration a step deeper, it is our governmental system that has led the way with all the false propoganda, and I personally take offense to the government, which I am forced to pay tax to, lie to me, and legislate penalties if I decide for myself otherwise and partake. Remenber, it is a Citizens duty to disobey bad law. Law enforcement personnel are Citizens, and are also fed the propoganda as well, and are the first line of offense to erradicate it when convinced. It is an officers first duty to the Bill of Rights then to also not enforce bad law. It is not I making this up, but our forefathers that established the original foundation for this country, creating our protection as Citizens.
Wasn't marijuana, or hemp for better terms outlawed in this country becasue of its textile properties could ruin the cotton industry back around 150 years ago. I remeber reading the original legislation was to protect the US textile industry (cotton). Only within recent history, wasit associated with drugs, a leading agent to heavy drug use, and how about those federal funded films about "weed" in the 50s... about as stupid as "Duck and Cover".
BLM and other agencies are as guilty of perpetrating fraud on society by going out of their way looking for it, and violating certain rights of privacy and security looking for it. Rights exists 100% of the time, everywhere, as certain rights are God-given not governmental priveleges.
We were warned about our government long ago, and it was our responsibility to keep it in check, and we failed to do so. We are now fed lies and propoganda to see things a certtain way, and are preyed upon as revenue producing agents ifr not in agreement and caught.
I wonder just how many people actually consume all the info, and decipher for themselves, or is it that most people are nothing more then recorders, replicators of what they are told? We are inundated with bad law, and yet it is obvious that certain things are legal that kill (alcohol, tobacco) Hello??? where's the morality behind all this?

So tell me, if a drunk runs into me in with a bike, or gets a bit out-of-hand, do I have the right to bust his/her chop? Or will I get arrested?

Blackrock Lover · Post by **Blackrock Lover** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:49 am

Isotopia - OK I'm a little dense please explain......

djCharlieBrown - That is an interesting point of view. You are correct rights exist 100% of the time, everywhere and must be respected as such.

Now if a drunk runs into you or gets out of hand you should not bust his/her chop. If it is reported and you are caught you would be prosecuted for assault if the injured party so desires. We really don't need any violence at BM.

Kinetic II · Post by **Kinetic II** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:04 am

I intrepret Isotopia's comments as follows:

First a quick backstory. It seems the Sheriff who forced BM to take the infamous Jiffy Lube sign down 3 years ago was at it again this year. The Piss Clear people are suspecting this same Sheriff had people steal extra copies of Piss Clear's drug issue to keep them out of circulation. It was also reported that the same Sheriff ordered the ORG to pull the paper...and they flat refused on first amendment grounds. (Wow, somebody has some backbone!)

Now, to Iso's comment...since this same Sheriff can't get his powerplay one way, what's to keep him from pulling out the pornography card and using the fact that children (ie: Kidsville) are present. He can always use the line, for the sake of the children this needs to go, this violates our indecency law, yadda yadda...and really there's nothing anyone could do to stop it. It's not a BLM thing, it would be the Sheriff enforcing state and local law who would be stupid enough to try it. (Imagine how all that press would enhance his effort to get re-elected!)

We'll see what 04 brings but there is nothing to keep that SOB from trying it, and it's a hard angle to defend against. I hope someone in the ORG gives this some thought and maybe prepares the foundation for a legal challenge should he try something. Meanwhile, I'm looking into when his next election is...I want to cut his main opponent a check for their campaign fund so I can say I did something to "Fix the problem".

djCharlieBrown · Post by **djCharlieBrown** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 12:26 pm

Addressing Blackrock Lover, I appreciate your point of view, and thank you for your participation in the discussion thread at hand. It offers a point of view, that some of us may not get, from someone of your position in a day-to-day encounter/discussion/confrontation under similar/real circumstances. My comment about "busting his/her chops" was intentional; not that I would be likely to exhibited that kind of behaviour, but that your response confirms certain conditions of my mindset. Let me explain please:

You indicated that if an individual exhibiting a diminished level of sobriety, be it under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and causing trouble, would be best reported to authorities for assistance in irradicating the situation (in the name of public safety), vs taking matters into one's own hand, and risking charges being filed. The common denominator here is trouble of some sort, compromising the safety and security of the immediate area due to the proposed situation. I'm sure the officers on duty are not hiding out waiting for the trouble maker; but sneaking or hiding around, walking into camps "under probable cause" and searching a bunch of people not causeing trouble, not hurting anyone, just does not fall into the same catagory.

To serve and protect falls into the first example; it does not fall into the second. To further this point, the offering of considering "bad law" comes to mind again as well; using this procedure to catch pot smokers. And here we now have individuals that are likely law-abiding in most aspects of life, that are now Criminals, due to the existence of a bad law. And as a result, violation of God Given Rights for the sake of some rediculous Code or Regulation in effect, thanks to Big Brother. And who really has been saved from these Criminals?

One might say, if you don't like the laws, get actively involved changing them, vote, etc.... Spare me, as this is nothing more than a continuation of the controlled mindset forced upon us, and generations have already surpassed us with admirable attempts in doing so. However, Thomas Jefferson did not recommend voting, he suggested our first duty as Citizens is to obey that which is right, disobey that which is wrong. His philosopy of Power in Knowledge and Power in Numbers is so true. It is a first line defense in preventing society from becoming inundated with bad law.

So, then why is it a priority of sorts, that officers tend to make a bigger deal out of catching a big criminal pot smoker, than to simply be present and available when assistance is truly needed, regardless of the specifics? Why is it that time and resource is put behind the activity of strolling around searching for a pot clue? Is it our country's "War on Drugs" aka "War on its Own Citizens"?, that condones the tactics (ive read in these threads) @ BM for playing the pot game? The bad law in existence is all that is needed to violate God's gift and rights.

One reason I hesitate about attending BM is because I have no interest in being a fish in a shark infested tank. I want to participate, and experience BRC. I'd like to bring a venue and Sound Art to BRC. Id be willing to make many a sacrafice to attend and provide. I am not however, willing to compromise my integrity by, without any danger to society or myself, to be caught up in a sneak around, we're going to catch you light up a bowl, because we know you have it somewhere mindset.

Just how many pot smokers busted were alerted to you and your fellow officers by concerned BRC citizens?

Just how many disorderly conduct, violent, intoxicated, individuals were caught by sneak around observation?

This threads offers the presumption that the pot smokers were snuck up on, not the violent offenders. It should be the same for both, if it has to be, bad law or not. Special consideration given to bad law should be an offense.

BrL, I hope you take no offense where I referenced you/your person in my ramblings; I mean nothing more than consideration that we might all be dubbed into something not quite right.

Thank You everyone.

Blackrock Lover · Post by **Blackrock Lover** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:21 pm

Ailchinn - I wouldn't get to excited about what some people suspect. If you check one of my earlier posts some people suspected we were arresting someone because he was naked. Truly one of the more interesting parts of BM is listening to the rumors about LE.

Now you bring this up in a very hostile us vs. them manner. With the Sheriff trying to make a powerplay. My experience with this particular matter was not what you imagined. You should know that many of the deputies and rangers working the event enjoy the event and would be there work or not. To that end they are concerned about activities that would be detrimental to the event and that are illegal. The only official comment I heard was in briefings advising us to be aware that this could happen and to watch for same. It's a topic that many of the patrol LEs had not considered but once you do think about it, it's something that we don't want to have happen for any number of reasons. One of the reasons, and not the primary one, is that it would be a black eye for BM and BLM.

djCharlieBrown - Oh contrar my friend, we would much rather deal with those being assaultive and I have personally done so (I believe) every year I have worked BM. Sneaking and hiding around doesn't happen too much at BM. Let's face it how much sneaking and hiding can you do in uniform in a place where everyone is walking around, and the places you would have to hide are other campsites (ain't no trees or rocks, or even a blade of grass, out there). Usually you're just walking or driving the streets and in that situation you, as I have mentioned before, deal with whatever situation presents itself. That may be drug use or a violent act (I had both this year).

To serve and protect - Some would argue that we serve and protect society by dealing with drug issues. I know you, and many others, might not be in that group. I can't say that drug laws are bad laws, I think laws that allow alcohol and tobacco use might fit into that category.

Hmm, priorities.... I will say and have told others before that I like to deal with all violations. My favorites are dumping, destruction or theft of resources, and illegal OHV use, some of the harder ones to catch and prosecute. Drug use is usually an easy case to make and prove. I don't know of any LEs at the event making a big deal out of drug cases. In fact several were tired of doing all the paperwork associated with same, but that is what we're paid to do. Now you mention all the time and resources put behind the activity of strolling around searching for a pot clue you should not assume that is the goal. That "strolling around" is in search of any illegal activity, or situation where assistance might be rendered, which includes but is definitely not limited to drug use. I don't quite understand your sentance about compromising your integrity or being caught up in a sneak around. You do not need to change your actions just because you are at BM. They should be no different than they are in the town you reside in.

I don't know of any pot smokers pointed out by BRC citizens.

Disorderly conduct, violent, intoxicated, individuals are generally not caught by direct observation. That is because we generally aren't in the right place at the right time. This year it was close I was only about 20 yds away from an assault, I didn't witness it but I was close enough to respond and apprehend the suspect.

It is interesting that this thread offers the presumption that the pot smokers were snuck up on, not the violent offenders. Again I will point out sneaking around BM is likely not going to happen. If I were going to be sneaky the first thing I would do is not wear a uniform. There are many other tactics which could be employed but are not. I submit that walking down a street or across the playa at BM is in no way being sneaky! Yes, even in uniform from the street drug cases are made, in fact most all the ones I know of are made that way, just observing actions commited in public in plainview.

I don't believe that special consideration is given to drug laws. We do know it's there and we watch for it among many other things.

So far I don't feel as though I have been dupped into something not quite right. Probably because I agree with the law and feel that as noted above it is not strigent enough. Ain't America great, I think the laws are too lax and you feel they are too rigid, but we all manage to get along somehow.

djCharlieBrown · Post by **djCharlieBrown** » Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:26 pm

I have a difficult time believing that there may not have been a directive to search and seek out pot smoking violations. I take, I believe it's Ubu's account, where deputies entered his camp, and conducted a search, a violation of those present, right to one's privacy and security, and because of what kind of probable cause, the word marijuana, or was it the smell of sage? Either way, a poor excuse at best. Im sure these individuals were conducting themselves ina non-threatening, non-violent nature; conduct that would not invite the outcome they experienced. Officers of the law, are not roaming the neighborhood and going to enter someone's home because they smell sage, or hear the word marijuana. Why should it be any different within a temporary domicile, within a temporary township? We as God's children have been raped of our God given rights to conduct ourselves ina non-threatening, non-harmful activity because of Big Briother's usurpingness. Classifying Marijuana as a Class 1 narcotic is nothing more than a legislative move, without concrete evidence to support its illegalness... and again, turning ordinary everyday citizens into Criminals (bad law), and giving officers the apparant right to intervene (color of law), when no moral dilemna exists (ie: rape, murder, assault, what have you... smoking a joint doesn't come close).
Your recognition of the pot busts not being a result of BRC citizen complaints should be an indicator to you and all of us, as what is socially acceptable (not big brother acceptable).
It sounds to me, that most of the pot head busts were a result of entering into camps un-announced, based on some PC... some of which is out of shear ignorance (ie: Ubu's experience). And if not knowing what Sage is, and believing its a narcotic of some sort, PC to seek and search, then I don't know what ignorance is. Maybe sneaking around is putting the point a bit out there, but having been around for a few years, I am not foolish enough to believe that some of the stories I have read are not accurate. And I am equally sure that a fair amount of these pot busts were perpetrated amonngst individuals strolling the Playa, while being under observation, waiting for the smoke signal. And as everywhere in this world, I am sure there were the foolish walking around in plain site toking a big one in plain view of anyone and everyone. Aside of the last example, expending resources to generatre revenues for a harmless activity deemed illegal by our legislatures for reasons unknown, but those expressed to the public being bunk for the most part (bad law).
I recall reaading a thread where the poster was going to take up defense strategy to defend his camp from any unannouced entranced by an officer seeking out "illegal" activities. I thought maybe a good defense would be to establish countless tents all over the city as decoys, and set a film crew in action to prove the point. Let there be the word marijuana ringing from the tents (tape recorder, remote mic, etc..), with the smell of sage in the air..... with cameras rolling. If there is no initiative to seek out the criminal pot heads, then the filming crew will become quite bored; but in the slight chance there is an emphasize on generating revenue for the the criminal issue at hand, then the proof is in the pudding. And please, the game has two sides, if we are forced to play the game, then we have every right to strategize the rediculouness out of the whole thing.
I believe again, it is our duty, to disobey bad law. It is the advice of our forefathers, and regardless of that, it is a reasonable consideration.

I by no means condone drug and alcohol abuse. I do not encourage anyone to take up the activity. But it exists, and the problems that may be associated with it, is not the substance, but the user, those with the compulsive personality, the one's that have no ability to recognize when enough is enough. I have reservation including pot as a problem substance.

Anyway, I enjoy the opportunity to exercise my grey matter a little bit. I need to go buysome music now.

So how about decoy city?

keepthebeat · Post by **keepthebeat** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 11:58 am

Thank you Charlie Brown. You echo many of the themes which I have touched upon previously and offered more food for thought.

marijuana use is victimless
drug abuse and illegal substance use are not the same
marijuana laws are reactionary
legal drugs can be more harmful than pot
we have the right to disobey laws that are wrong

The examples for the above claims abound. I will not elaborate again further with the exception of the issue of compulsive behavior.

There are many elements related to drug addiction. One is related to compulsive behavior. It occurs when an individual uses a substance in excess, experiencing side effects that are unhealthy and continues to use anyway ie the repeated hangover, the persistent asthma attack etc. Pot smokers can fall into this category as well. Pot smokers who smoke and cough daily should be eating and/or using a vaporizer etc. The other element of addiction is the physiologic withdrawal. This is much more dramatic for alcohol and cigarettes than pot.

Back to compulsive behavior. I previously mentioned that this can occur with non-drugs as well ie eating, fucking, driving, fighting, etc.

And metaphorically, I will add that spreading democracy and bombing/exploiting third world countries may be our most self-destructive addiction. What is the real threat to society? Weapons of mass destruction (none have been identified) or a president (by the way who leads the moral campaign against marijuana) who has demonstrated a compulsive need to sacrifice lives and dollars to rid us of a virtual threat.

I wish Bush would give up his addiction to Democracy/Capitalism, get off his horse, kick off his boots and fire up a doobie. Are there not enough body bags to prove that his addiction is unhealthy. Do you think he would still be enthusiastic about fighting a war that does not have a military solution if he joined us a BM and smoked a little pot.

Let the leaders of the world fire up a fatty and watch the peace flow in......

Hana Hou · Post by **Hana Hou** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:02 pm

I do have reservations re legalizing cocaine and heroine though.

I, for one, hope we NEVER legalize feminine bravado... It would cut right to the core of our society.

Thanks to brlover, ubu, and the rest for an enlightening interchange..

Kinetic II · Post by **Kinetic II** » Sun Oct 12, 2003 2:23 pm

BRL: I appreciate the post and the reminder that 99% of LEO's at BM love the event. But it only takes one power mad individual to cause problems and it appears the Sheriff would be the first one to go down that road. I don't want that to happen, therefore I stand behind my campaign funding comment. I am happy to see the kid protection awareness though.

As for the rest of the comments I'm staying neutral but I'm really enjoying everyone else's back and forth exchange. I'm learning a heck of a lot here, and this is a damn good thread. Keep the posts coming.