Bought and paid for

DEA, IRS give local police ‘holiday gift’ from confiscated drug money

OAKLAND — Federal agents issued the ultimate stocking stuffer Thursday when they gave more than $1.2 million in drug money confiscated from a former Hayward medical marijuana store to five Bay Area police agencies.

Defy the will of local citizens, ignore state law, and give your true allegiance to the feds and ye shall be richly rewarded.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Bought and paid for

  1. ezrydn says:

    We all know, oh too well, who they “Protect and Serve.” At our expense, I might add.

  2. بخشش says:

    .. but ever so graciously accepted by the natives in return for services rendered

  3. Matthew Meyer says:

    Well, this certainly helps explain why California law enforcement have taken the side of the feds against California’s citizens!

    (I mean, cracking hippie skulls and getting paid for it, too? Too good to pass up.)

  4. darkcycle says:

    It’s just the crooks dividing their loot.

  5. Peter says:

    shame on the lazy journalist and the newspaper for just printing what they were told without any exAmination of the facts.

  6. Francis says:

    Wow, what a heart-warming story! I know it’s kind of a cliché to talk about the “true meaning of Christmas,” but those folks at the DEA clearly get it, you know?

  7. Rick Steeb says:

    “Thirty pieces of silver”… Merry Christmas.

  8. claygooding says:

    At least they got it in time to hold a x-mas party,aka drug enforcement seminar,at their favorite topless bar.

  9. claygooding says:

    Marijuana Seizures On Public Lands Down In 2011

    “”Federal, state and local drug agents uprooted fewer marijuana plants on public lands in the Northwest this year . Police agencies speculate that outdoor pot gardeners are being driven away by stepped up law enforcement pressure. Correspondent Tom Banse reports.””

    No mention of the record breaking electrical usage for the year.

    • darkcycle says:

      “Police agencies speculate that outdoor pot gardeners are being driven away by stepped up law enforcement pressure.” Gee….I dunno…thier giant white helicopter with the FLIR/long range camera array under it’s nose hasn’t been flying nearly as often since Obama got in…I took that as a good sign. I haven’t heard anything from any of my Grand Cooley compatriots out East of the Mountains, but nobody I know has been backing off. I smell smoke blowing…they just weren’t working as hard.

  10. Balloon Maker says:

    Maybe I’m imagining, but the comments sections on articles about the drug war become more encouraging by the day. People are starting to realize that drug laws are a power grab and money grab. Maybe flaunting how much money you steal through asset forfeiture is a bad PR move assholes.

    And maybe the medical marijuana movement is bringing that more into focus, as legal businesses are being stolen from and destroyed.

  11. mollusk says:

    The pentagon will give them all the ruff ‘n’ tuff drug warrior gun store commando gear for free. Maybe the money is for stripclubs and hookers.

  12. JDV says:

    Wow. At least TRY not to look like money hungry crooks.

  13. Servetus says:

    The government has given itself a license to steal, and this holiday season the spirit of giving to itself is in full bloom.

    The 4th Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be violated! The Mighty Forfeiter has spoken.

  14. Peter says:

    This telling quote from the IRS special agent was left out of the article cited above, but was included on the “Lawofficer” site:

    ‘”This is one of the best parts of our job, when we can share the ill-gotten gains that are taken away from criminals with our law enforcement partners and local communities,” O’Briant said.’

  15. JDV says:

    Those are some real, slimy, Tammany Hall-type shenanigans right there.

  16. Pingback: Time to get the drums out again « BuelahMan's Revolt

  17. Bruce says:

    ChumpChange you can believe in.

  18. illimitableLEAPPilfersProhibition says:

    Former European Union Drug Czar, Dr Carol Edwards, speaks out against drug prohibition:

  19. Brandon E. says:

    The TSA can’t distinguish a cupcake from a potential security risk…wow.

  20. palemalemarcher says:

    So much for your veterans cope with PTSD. Confiscatorial plutocracy!

  21. Francis says:

    OT: But your friend and mine, Jack Marshall of fame, has yet another post on pot. Apparently, I’m a masochist because I waded into the fray again with this response to one of Jack’s comments (maybe we’re just not explaining it clearly enough?):

    …argue that it would be beneficial to inflict another destructive legal drug or ten on top of the already deadly plagues of tobacco and alcohol

    Again, prohibition doesn’t eliminate the problems associated with substance abuse. It simply adds new problems. And again, particularly in the case of cannabis, we wouldn’t be ADDING to the destruction of alcohol and tobacco, we’d be providing an infinitely safer, legal ALTERNATIVE, thereby reducing the OVERALL harm associated with the use of recreational drugs. These points have all been addressed at great length by numerous commenters in the previous thread.

    …serious make the argument that because we are stuck with alcohol, we should try to protect against another social drug that may be equally destructive

    (See response above.)

    …to weep for those arrested for viuolating a law that they were aware of and that is hardly difficult to obey

    The law in question is unjust, absurd, and hypocritical. When Rosa Parks was ordered to give up her bus seat to make room for some white passengers, that command was also “hardly difficult to obey.” But you know what? I’m glad she didn’t. YOU may find it easy to cede your freedom over your body and your consciousness to the state, but that doesn’t mean that everyone does. And it certainly doesn’t mean that we SHOULD.

    …to spend decades undermining anti-drug laws by pushing the intellectually indefensible argument that pot is harmless, then to criticize the laws because “they don’t work”

    The question is not whether cannabis is “harmless” (few things in this world are). The question is not even whether its benefits outweigh its risks. The question is who decides in a free society: adult citizens individually for themselves or the state for everyone?

    …to argue that “education” and “treatment” is a viable alternative to punishment, when the schools can’t educate anyone, and when treatment has to be paid for by all the people who are responsible enough not to use drugs.

    The schools can’t educate anyone? Huh? Again, we’ve reduced the number of adults who smoke cigarettes in this country dramatically over the last 40 years and we’ve done so primarily through EDUCATION. And if you’re concerned that treatment will be paid for by those who are “responsible enough not to use drugs,” who do you think pays for enforcement NOW? The fact is that treatment and education (unlike incarceration) COULD be paid for by taxes on legal, regulated drugs — in other words, by the “drug users” themselves.

    …to pretend that legalization won’t be a catastrophe for children, the poor, and the most vulnerable in society,

    PROHIBITION has been a “catastrophe for children, the poor, and the most vulnerable in society.” And if the sky really does fall when we finally legalize drugs, presumably people will recognize that and be clamoring for a return to prohibition, right? Plus, you’ll get the satisfaction of being able to say “I told you so.”

    …to use medical marijuana as a Trojan horse for general legalization, when plenty of other drugs can accomplish the same medicinal effects

    Some people in the medical cannabis movement care only about patients. Some in the “movement” only want to use medical cannabis as a “Trojan horse” for full legalization, anticipating a slippery slope. (Of course, the reason that slope is proving so slippery is because the drug warriors were never on firm ground to begin with.) And some have mixed motives. Frankly, none of that matters to me. The fact is that cannabis has some pretty amazing medical uses. (It also has some pretty amazing recreational uses.) And the claim that there are “plenty of other drugs [that] can accomplish the same medicinal effects” is simply not correct. For certain conditions, and for certain patients, there simply is no substitute. And many of the “substitutes” that are available have dangerous or unpleasant side effects that make them an inferior choice. (There are VERY FEW drugs with a safety profile that can compare to that of cannabis. There’s a reason that former DEA Judge Francis Young called it “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”) Why not let adults decide for themselves after consultation with their doctors?

    —to pretend that the criminal exploitation of drug demand will be stemmed one iota by legalizing pot

    That’s just silly. Not “one iota”? Really? Do you buy your alcohol or tobacco products (or your organic produce for that matter) from the Mexican cartels or a neighborhood drug gang? Run a google image search for “U.S. homicide rate graph” (not all together in quotes). Take a look at the murder rate before, after, and during alcohol prohibition (1919-1933).

    …to compare the U.S. culture in any way, shape or form to Switzerland, for God’s sake, with straight face

    Geez, we’re talking about the Swiss, not Martians. I’m pretty sure the Swiss are also a carbon-based lifeform, have 46 chromosomes, give birth to live young that they breastfeed, etc. The argument that we CAN’T make comparisons to the Swiss or learn from their experience is what’s silly.

    —to do all of this so that people can get high, as if this conduct is necessary, productive,useful, helpful, creative, educational or virtuous, when it is not.

    Again, making it easier for people to “get high” is hardly the ONLY reason to favor drug policy reform (although it’s a perfectly legitimate one). Do you think that’s Neill Franklin’s motivation? Many, many commenters have explained — at great length — the destructive effects of prohibition.

    • SubAuspiciisMrBrainwash says:

      4.0 / 4.0 GPA

    • SubAuspiciisMrBrainwash says:

      I just added this:

      There’s no other word for it, Jack!

      Due to Prohibition, far more people end up in prison or jail than would normally be the case. Apart from the fact that those extra prisoners are not then contributing economically to society, it also costs 50,000 dollars per annum to incarcerate them. Additionally their families often go on government assistance, and it’s again the average tax payer who has to pick up the bill. Their kids may be taken into care or raised by foster parents, again with tax payer money. Now add to all this the court costs, jail costs, and the salaries of all those people that have to deal with the enforcement of prohibition, like police officers, judges and public defenders and you’ll start to get a fair idea of why “Black Thursday”, October 24, 1929 happened during the period of another of our great experiments – Alcohol Prohibition.

      * The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
      * 743 adults incarcerated per 100,000 population at year-end 2009.
      * 2,292,133 adults were incarcerated federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2009, that’s approx. 1% of US adults.
      * Additionally, 4,933,667 adults at year-end 2009 were on probation or parole.
      * In total, 7,225,800 adults were under correctional supervision (probation,parole, or incarcerated) in 2009 — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population.

      Prohibition has helped fill our Prisons and Jails to capacity. Violent criminals, murderers, rapists and child molesters are released early to create space for so called ‘drug offenders’. Half of court trial time and also a huge chunk of police officers time is pointlessly wasted. Enormous untaxed profits from illegal drugs fund multi-national criminal empires which bribe law enforcement authorities and spread corruption faster than a raging bush fire. Prohibition takes violent criminals and turns them into multi-billionaires whilst corrupting even entire countries, including our own. Our drug laws are also funding the Taliban and al-Qaeda whose illegal opium profits allow them to buy weapons and pay it’s fighters more than $300 a month, compared with the $14 paid to an Afghan policemen.

      It’s quite possible, that many of the early Prohibitionists did not intend to kill hundreds of thousands worldwide or put 1 in every 30 American adults under supervision of the correctional system. But similar to Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920s, Drug Prohibition has given us rampant corruption, off the scale criminality, a bust economy and mass unemployment. On top of all this, it has gifted us the planet’s highest incarceration rate, a civil war in Mexico, an un-winnable war in Afghanistan and an even higher rate of drug-use (legal & illegal) than in all other countries, including those that have far more libertarian policies.

      Educating Jack

  22. darkcycle says:

    Hmmmm. When I commented at Jack’s site, I wasn’t responding to Jack so much as responding to Jack for anybody who might read through the comments. I don’t care if I convince him, I don’t expect anybody can.
    He’s an authoritarian and he’s smart. He can and will out argue us, simply by virtue of the fact he will never let it go. He’ll grind out the bullshit until we get tired and go away, then he’ll trumpet his superiority to anyone left reading his site at that point (I’m guesin’ even tgt, who agrees with us, will check out of that conversation soon).
    It is wasted time and effort. Remember…that blog only has a handful of regular readers. He never HAD as many hits as he got when we took notice of his B.S., and he’ll not get that many again. Ever. Unless we give him the controversy.
    In the Media websites, and the blogs that reach people in numbers…yeah. Never let ’em get the last word, and make them look the fools that they are. Polish your skills on the little guys, but remember we’re reaching out to the wavering, the fence sitters…the folks who just never thought about it this way. That’s why we’re effective at changing minds, that’s why we’re out here. Jack’s wasted breath.
    My suggestion? Wish him a good day, then go have one for yourself. Go and change some minds that are amenable to changing.

    • Francis says:

      darkcycle, agree 100% with everything you said. And I always try and remain mindful of my “true audience.” What can I say? I was indulging in a bit of a guilty pleasure. I think the reason I found him such an irresistible target is that he IS smart — for a prohibitionist (the old “tallest building in Kansas” problem). Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough to make the verbal sparring challenging, but it at least made it somewhat interesting. (I mean, I didn’t have to stretch first or put down my drink or anything crazy like that.) And the smarter the prohibitionist, the more impressive (and fun to watch!) the mental gymnastics they have to engage in to rationalize their prejudice. (I was actually starting to get a little dizzy.)

      • darkcycle says:

        …oh I know his type, he’ll argue ’till the cows come home. From where ever it is that cows go when they leave for a nice evening out…perhaps a nice vegetarian restaraunt and a mooovie…or off to the dis-cow-tech for some dancing and drinks…

    • SubAuspiciisMrBrainwash says:

      * People like Jack offer some of the best opportunities for practicing one’s debating skills; (he reminds me of John English or Linda, but with a slightly better brain) I believe that’s just what Francis is looking for, although he does seem to do it like a pro already.

      * I witnessed no evidence that any one of us were actually trying to convince anybody but the audience. If I include my opponents name in a response then that’s just for politeness. I do that very often.

      * Personally, I intend to remain in debate with Jack, and at every opportunity.

      • darkcycle says:

        Well, have at it. My head’s not hard enough for that wall.

        • SubAuspiciisMrBrainwash says:

          Thanks DC ;>)

        • Duncan20903 says:

          Controversy sells tickets. Does anyone else recall Timothy Leary and G. Gordon Liddy teaming up and going on tour? People lined up to pay to listen to them argue. Jack will never let it go because the controversy generates page views. Doesn’t that raise his SEO rating? It’s just like certain newspapers purposefully try to provoke us. E.g. The Denver Post. Hasn’t anyone else noticed that the vast majority of the comments columns of MSM outlets on which we end up posting are from newspapers?

          “Never try to teach a pig how to sing. It’s a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig.”
          ~~ Robert A. Heinlein

        • SubAuspiciisMrBrainwash says:

          Duncan, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe there’s a distinct difference between giving pigs vocal lessons and publicly roasting them alive.

        • Francis says:

          Aww, crap, why did I look? I promised myself I was done with EthicsAlarms and then what do I do? I hit refresh and see Jack’s latest response which includes this doozy:

          It is impossible to argue rationally with you guys; you just keep shifting.

          I tell you, that man could drive a pothead to drink.

        • Duncan20903 says:

          Malcolm, that’s a general rule of thumb. But you seem rather confuzzled. A pig is a fairly advanced life form. I’ve read that they’re even smarter than a lot of people. I was skeptical about that assertion when I first read it, but now that I’ve read the dissembling nonsense of Sabet, Murphy, Walters, Evans, Ms. T, et al, not any more. Pigs are delicious too. I’d have to be awfully hungry to sit down to a meal of Linda. Also to be considered: there are some things in life worse than death.

          Angus really is one sick puppy.
          Francis, you’re doing a great thing here. Your suffering is helping me stick to my resolve to avoid that man’s blog. There’s absolutely nothing more noble or beneficial to our society than doing something that benefits Duncan. Keep that in mind and you’ll go far young grasshopper.

        • SubAuspiciisMrBrainwash says:

          Francis, golden rule: After greatly annoying them, never go near the brain-dead without a garbage can lid or a carefully prepared all-cases, lucid exposition.

          Duncan, I believe it was you who first equated poor Jack with an even-toed ungulate. Not that I disagree of course.

  23. Duncan20903 says:

    …and the mouse roars:

    House speaker to lobby feds over medical marijuana
    By: The Associated Press
    December 28, 2011

    PROVIDENCE — House Speaker Gordon D. Fox said he will petition the U.S. Department of Justice to find a way for Rhode Island to open medical marijuana dispensaries that advocates are seeking.

  24. darkcycle says:

    Nice one…the evolution of position on legalizing marijuana.

Comments are closed.