ETS! encourages comments, feedback, tips, corrections, and info! Please keep them as concise as possible so we can print as many different voices as possible: ETS!, P.O. Box 85541, Seattle WA 98145, or e-mail ets@scn.org.

Excessive-force-as-usual

On Tuesday, May 15th, I was witness to incidents of excessive force, illegal search and seizure, and entrapment by the Seattle Police Department. These events occurred on Pike Street, between 1st and 2nd Avenues, and on 2nd Avenue in front of the Needle Exchange, between 12:30 and 1:30 PM. Police officers were randomly stopping and searching people on the streets, waiting for people to emerge from the needle exchange, and in one case I saw a man dragged off in a headlock. I watched the whole exchange between the officer and this man, and the suspect did nothing to warrant this excessive (and I believe, illegal) use of force.

When I tried to talk to the officers, I was intimidated into leaving the area.

This exercise occurred the day after a TV news story detailing the complaints of business owners regarding the neighborhood. Evidently, the Seattle Police Department considers the rights of business owners to be more important than those of the men and women who live and/or use services in this neighborhood.

Also, all of the people being searched and manhandled were white, and mostly male. This on the heels of comments by Police Chief Kerlikowski to make a concerted effort to "arrest more white males." THIS IS STILL RACIAL PROFILING!!!! The police seem to be acting as a reactionary force, responding to public sentiment, crime statistics, business interests, and the media. They are not operating on principles of fairness and justice FOR ALL.

This says nothing of the ways in which they are undermining a service like the needle exchange. If people can't feel safe to use it, then what good can it possibly achieve?

By the way, I am a school teacher, husband, and father, with no criminal Record--an everyday citizen outraged and sickened by what I saw.

--David Harrison

Supremes: "Drop Dead"

For those of you that lack my advanced legal education, allow me to translate the recent Federal judgment on medical marijuana into plain English: "Supreme Court to sick people: Drop dead." The federal government has now officially turned its War on Drugs into a search-and-destroy mission on medicine.

On Monday the 13th, in an 8-0 ruling, the nation's high court approved a Justice Department injunction against a California cannabis cooperative which supplied medical marijuana to patients.

In the decision, the court rejected any medical necessity exemption to federal marijuana laws, ruling that "marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception." Even if a state has legalized medical marijuana, the court ruled, the federal government can continue to prosecute people who violate federal marijuana laws.

The case, US vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, arose from efforts by federal drug agents to shut down several clubs in northern California that provide the drug legally under Proposition 215, a state referendum that authorized medical marijuana in 1996.

The Supreme Court ruling, which ignores both the 9th and 10th Amendments, means that the federal government will let sick people die rather than declare a truce on the least defensible front of the War on Drugs.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can continue to arrest and imprison people suffering from AIDS, cancer, and multiple sclerosis for the "crime" of trying to save their own lives. But despite the setback for the medical marijuana movement and patient's rights, there are still some reasons to be politically hopeful:

* The Supreme Court decision only applies to federal law. This ruling does not overturn state law legalizing medical marijuana. Patients in the eight states that have passed medical marijuana ballot initiatives are still protected against prosecution by state and local law enforcement.

* The Supreme Court is out of step with public opinion. Most Americans reject the idea that the government should have the power to arrest people for taking an unapproved medicine like marijuana. For example, in February 2001, a Pew Research Center poll found that 73% of Americans agree that doctors should be allowed to prescribe medical marijuana.

* There is already legislation to overturn the Supreme Court decision. The bill, HR 1344 (The States' Right to Medical Marijuana Act) was filed by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), and would change federal law to allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana if the states allow it, without the threat of federal prosecution. The bill would also reclassify marijuana as a Schedule II drug under federal law, which would formally acknowledge the drug's potential "medical utility."

* Finally, the most ardent Prohibitionists are starting to suffer for their zealotry. In Washington, for instance, Slade Gorton lost his Senate seat to Maria Cantwell mostly because of the tens of thousands of protest votes that went to Libertarian Jeff Jared, who made drug re-legalization a major part of his campaign.

So, while the Supreme Court decision was a setback, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of hope for sick people.

The Supreme Court has decided that handcuffs and prison cells are the best medicine for terminally ill patients. However, for compassionate Americans who reject the argument that marijuana is dangerous, we simply need to work harder to guarantee AIDS, cancer, and multiple sclerosis sufferers have access to life-saving medicines. Such work is not just a medical necessity--it's an ethical necessity.

--Matt McCally, Libertarian Party of WA State

Revolutionary Consumers, Investors, & Entrepreneurs

Geov Parrish is right on in his musings about our need for a revolution. A suggestion he makes is of "raising money for both the creation of alternative institutions, businesses, and media and for further organizing and ways of supporting people who dedicate themselves to overthrowing the government."

I might not agree with his use of the phrase "overthrowing the government," but I think he touches on something really important here. What needs to be overthrown is a mentality--a mentality of greed, of lust for power, of aggression, of empire. We need to change our government in a revolutionary way, and overthrow the plutocracy (which is firmly rooted in this mentality) that controls our government. And if we are actually going to succeed in this effort we need to empower ourselves in a big way, and this is about money and alternative institutions and businesses.

Yes, the elite continue to accumulate power, in the form of capital and through the political influence that this capital buys, and are using this power for selfish, destructive and outright criminal purposes. Yes, the transfer of our collective wealth to the richest few is taking place at an increasing rate. But let's not forget that the power of corporations and elites is ultimately derived from all of us, by our investment in and patronage of their businesses and by our labor working in their employ. The elites are banking and relying on our complicity for the maintenance and furtherance of empire.

As Geov says, we aren't going to bring down the plutocracy by force. But we could starve the beast to death by ceasing to provide its main source of food: our money. This might be the only strategy we need to triumph over the forces of empire. We can practice non-cooperation with the adversary. I believe this is the most revolutionary thing we can do; it is nonviolent, cuts to the chase, and is unassailable. We need to engage in the equivalent of spinning our own cotton and making our own salt. And we don't have to stop at "voluntary simplicity." If we so choose, we can create alternative institutions and businesses, based on our values of kindness, justice, respect and hope for the future and built on nonprofit foundations. The capitalists are putting all of their huevos in the free market basket and we could beat them at their own game. Most of us have money in banks, the stock market, and in money markets through which funds are loaned to our government and large corporations. If revolution is our objective then we might start by investing these assets in our cause instead of in theirs. We could pool this capital by setting up our own banks and/or investment funds. Then we could use the money to start up businesses aligned with our purposes, or even acquire companies and bring them into such an alignment. How about an electric utility committed to utilizing alternative sources of energy? An oil company committed to a sustainable future? Let's buy Weyerhaeuser and change its corporate agenda into one based on preserving rather than liquidating forest assets. Fair-trade anyone? We could take over a coffee company. Sound grandiose? Maybe, but if everyone who voted for Ralph Nadar--or considered it--joined in such an effort, a huge pool of capital with a dedicated market could be put to work toward fulfilling our collective vision of a sane, just and sustainable world. We have this potential power; it's just a question of whether we choose to use it. We need to think positively, and big, about our prospects for taking a more dynamic role in shaping our collective destiny.

The responsibility to do something about the problem is in the hands of those of us living in the wealthy countries, especially those of us here in the US. If we don't take action to cease empowering the corporations here, they will maintain their stranglehold on the rest of the world through more brutal means than they would be willing or able to employ in the US. Here, we the people have significant capital and therefore the means to take power by working within the system. In less developed countries the elite have virtually all the capital, and the poor have little prospect of financing alternative institutions. Their choices are much more limited.

We in Seattle are in as good a position as any other community to build the foundations of this necessary revolution. I hope that Geov's suggestions can be a starting place for further discussion of the practical work of building new systems that can replace the corrupt systems that are wreaking havoc on the planet and its inhabitants. We can create the future we want, together. "United we stand, divided we fall."

Sincerely,--Jeff Fairhall