Yesterday I promised to talk about Tommy Chong's jail sentence for misdemeanor possession. I think by now everyone who cares knows the story, but here it is anyway:
Belay that, I just did a little research to make sure I had my facts straight, and I wasn't even close. What I had heard was that TC had gotten busted for misdemeanor possession, along with several other people. All of then were first-offenders, but that he was the only one who got jail time. That's what I had heard. In actuality, he could have gotten busted for possession, but they didn't bother. They busted him for selling paraphernalia through an Internet/mail order business. Out of all the people that got busted--several different companies went down that day--he got the longest jail sentence. Some have said he got the only jail sentence, but, no, he just got the longest.
Now, what I was going to say, was that if several different people get busted for the same crime, but one of them has made a lot of money making fun of that exact crime--in fact, Cheech & Chong's records and movies make it pretty clear that they were familiar with drugs--then it's fairly obvious that the judge is looking at it from the standpoint that, "This may be the first time he's gotten caught, but clearly, he's done this lots of times before." And he'd be right. But he'd be wrong to impose a sentence based on that. Sentence should be based solely on the evidence presented in court.
Now that I have a better understanding of what really happened, though, well, to be honest, most of that still applies. On February 24th, 2004, the DOJ coordinated two separate sweeps of companies selling paraphernalia across state lines. One of those companies was 'Tommy Chong Glass.' TC wasn't the largest dealer of paraphernalia, he hadn't been in business the longest, but he was the most visible. He was also one of the most co-operative. But again, the visibility made him an easy target to make an example of.
I'm not a fan of marijuana use--I think it's a bad idea. I'm not going to get into that (What? Ramblings is missing an opportunity to go down a rabbit trail? Maybe some other time). Here's the thing, though: What constitutes paraphernalia? When I was in the Navy, a coworker of mine got busted because somebody noticed that he had a feather pinned to his hat with an alligator clip (he was in civilian clothes); a "roach clip." They tested the clip for marijuana residue and found none. As far as they could tell, this clip had never been used as a 'roach clip.' Maybe he washed it really good, but I doubt it. I nearly got busted one time because I picked up some trash in a parking lot (being the civic minded person that I am), and included in that trash was an empty pack of rolling papers. I could almost understand if I had actual rolling papers in my possession... Anyway, both of these items, alligator clips and rolling papers, have legitimate and legal uses that have nothing to do with drugs. The prosecutor in TC's case cited the verdict handed down by the US Supreme Court in the 1994 case of Iowa v. Poster-N-Things, which basically said, what would a reasonable person believe that this product was intended to be used for, given the packaging and the way it is marketed? There's a thought-provoking question. Now Tommy Chong Glass didn't just sell bongs, they also sold a home urinalysis kit--in case you had a job interview with urinalysis and you weren't sure if it had been long enough since your last toke--and a chemical that was supposed to remove traces of THC from urine, and a shampoo allegedly designed to remove marijuana smell from hair (won't pretty much any shampoo do that?). Some of these bongs had pictures of marijuana leaves on them (some had Tommy's picture on them). Okay, I would have to agree, that meets the criteria.
But let me ask you this: If I wanted to smoke tobacco in a pipe that had a picture of a marijuana leaf on it, is that a crime? Apparently it is. Let me rephrase: Should it be a crime? (BTW-small rabbit trail--I don't smoke (not even tobacco), and I don't own a pipe. Just thought I should let you know.) Let's look at this another way: What if I were one of those people that believed marijuana should be legal (I'm not), but I was a law-abiding citizen (in other words, not toking, just protesting the fact that I can't, legally), and I wanted various products with pictures of marijuana leaves on them. Do I have to paint the pictures myself, because it's illegal to sell paraphernalia?
Look, I don't think that marijuana should be legalized. I DON'T. But I don't think justice is served by putting people in jail for selling paraphernalia. Maybe if we had lots of prisons sitting half-empty just waiting for people to be convicted, but in some cases, judges are having to reduce sentences because of prison overcrowding.
Belay that, I just did a little research to make sure I had my facts straight, and I wasn't even close. What I had heard was that TC had gotten busted for misdemeanor possession, along with several other people. All of then were first-offenders, but that he was the only one who got jail time. That's what I had heard. In actuality, he could have gotten busted for possession, but they didn't bother. They busted him for selling paraphernalia through an Internet/mail order business. Out of all the people that got busted--several different companies went down that day--he got the longest jail sentence. Some have said he got the only jail sentence, but, no, he just got the longest.
Now, what I was going to say, was that if several different people get busted for the same crime, but one of them has made a lot of money making fun of that exact crime--in fact, Cheech & Chong's records and movies make it pretty clear that they were familiar with drugs--then it's fairly obvious that the judge is looking at it from the standpoint that, "This may be the first time he's gotten caught, but clearly, he's done this lots of times before." And he'd be right. But he'd be wrong to impose a sentence based on that. Sentence should be based solely on the evidence presented in court.
Now that I have a better understanding of what really happened, though, well, to be honest, most of that still applies. On February 24th, 2004, the DOJ coordinated two separate sweeps of companies selling paraphernalia across state lines. One of those companies was 'Tommy Chong Glass.' TC wasn't the largest dealer of paraphernalia, he hadn't been in business the longest, but he was the most visible. He was also one of the most co-operative. But again, the visibility made him an easy target to make an example of.
I'm not a fan of marijuana use--I think it's a bad idea. I'm not going to get into that (What? Ramblings is missing an opportunity to go down a rabbit trail? Maybe some other time). Here's the thing, though: What constitutes paraphernalia? When I was in the Navy, a coworker of mine got busted because somebody noticed that he had a feather pinned to his hat with an alligator clip (he was in civilian clothes); a "roach clip." They tested the clip for marijuana residue and found none. As far as they could tell, this clip had never been used as a 'roach clip.' Maybe he washed it really good, but I doubt it. I nearly got busted one time because I picked up some trash in a parking lot (being the civic minded person that I am), and included in that trash was an empty pack of rolling papers. I could almost understand if I had actual rolling papers in my possession... Anyway, both of these items, alligator clips and rolling papers, have legitimate and legal uses that have nothing to do with drugs. The prosecutor in TC's case cited the verdict handed down by the US Supreme Court in the 1994 case of Iowa v. Poster-N-Things, which basically said, what would a reasonable person believe that this product was intended to be used for, given the packaging and the way it is marketed? There's a thought-provoking question. Now Tommy Chong Glass didn't just sell bongs, they also sold a home urinalysis kit--in case you had a job interview with urinalysis and you weren't sure if it had been long enough since your last toke--and a chemical that was supposed to remove traces of THC from urine, and a shampoo allegedly designed to remove marijuana smell from hair (won't pretty much any shampoo do that?). Some of these bongs had pictures of marijuana leaves on them (some had Tommy's picture on them). Okay, I would have to agree, that meets the criteria.
But let me ask you this: If I wanted to smoke tobacco in a pipe that had a picture of a marijuana leaf on it, is that a crime? Apparently it is. Let me rephrase: Should it be a crime? (BTW-small rabbit trail--I don't smoke (not even tobacco), and I don't own a pipe. Just thought I should let you know.) Let's look at this another way: What if I were one of those people that believed marijuana should be legal (I'm not), but I was a law-abiding citizen (in other words, not toking, just protesting the fact that I can't, legally), and I wanted various products with pictures of marijuana leaves on them. Do I have to paint the pictures myself, because it's illegal to sell paraphernalia?
Look, I don't think that marijuana should be legalized. I DON'T. But I don't think justice is served by putting people in jail for selling paraphernalia. Maybe if we had lots of prisons sitting half-empty just waiting for people to be convicted, but in some cases, judges are having to reduce sentences because of prison overcrowding.
Just a quick celebrity checklist (what I think):
Tommy Chong--I don't think he should have gone to jail.
Martha Stewart--I don't think she should have gone to jail.
Jim Bakker--Maybe, but it should have been a minimum security prison.
Paris Hilton--Oh, she definitely belongs in jail.
Tommy Chong--I don't think he should have gone to jail.
Martha Stewart--I don't think she should have gone to jail.
Jim Bakker--Maybe, but it should have been a minimum security prison.
Paris Hilton--Oh, she definitely belongs in jail.
Look, I could see making TC pay a fine, and confiscating all his paraphernalia (I'm not sure I agree with even arresting him, but, at most, he should have gotten the aforementioned).
I'm not a fan of Martha Stewart, but throwing her in jail did not make me feel safer.
Jim Bakker did a lot of things wrong, but, let's face it, who did he hurt (some would say that he fleeced money from a lot of people--but if they hadn't given their money to him, they would have found someone else to give it to; another televangelist probably)? A lot of people felt better about themselves (and felt closer to God) just by watching PTL on TV. Basically he was running a pyramid scheme with his followers (every time he needed money, he would promote something on his show, and people would send money in, and then when they collected on whatever it was he had promoted, then he would have another promotion to cover the cost of the last promotion), but, unlike your run-of-the-mill con artist, Jim Bakker wasn't going anywhere. He just had to keep coming up with new schemes to finance his old ones. Is that a crime? Yes, I would have to say that it is; eventually the pyramid is going to collapse. But the sight of him being led off in an orange jumpsuit and shackles just seemed so unjust. I'm sure some people thought it was better than he deserved. I think that sort of treatment should be reserved for dangerous criminals--ones convicted of violent crimes.
Paris Hilton--got her license suspended for DUI, then got pulled over again, and convicted for driving on a suspended license. Should we fine her? How much would we have to fine her before she pays attention? Let's be honest about it, if you are I were convicted of the same thing, would we be sentenced to *only* 45 days (with a possible 22 days knocked off for good behavior)? And her excuse? She says her publicist told her that she could still drive to work. To work? I didn't know 'The Simple Life' was back in production. Maybe her next reality series will be... Never mind. I'm being hateful, now. But didn't she just make a big deal about how the dumb blonde act is just an act? I'm sorry, give me some time, I'll cool off, and I'll be more tolerant of her. At least they didn't shackle her.
Notice I didn't talk about the ones that didn't go to jail: O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake. You know what, though? I'm just not even going to get into that.
I'm not a fan of Martha Stewart, but throwing her in jail did not make me feel safer.
Jim Bakker did a lot of things wrong, but, let's face it, who did he hurt (some would say that he fleeced money from a lot of people--but if they hadn't given their money to him, they would have found someone else to give it to; another televangelist probably)? A lot of people felt better about themselves (and felt closer to God) just by watching PTL on TV. Basically he was running a pyramid scheme with his followers (every time he needed money, he would promote something on his show, and people would send money in, and then when they collected on whatever it was he had promoted, then he would have another promotion to cover the cost of the last promotion), but, unlike your run-of-the-mill con artist, Jim Bakker wasn't going anywhere. He just had to keep coming up with new schemes to finance his old ones. Is that a crime? Yes, I would have to say that it is; eventually the pyramid is going to collapse. But the sight of him being led off in an orange jumpsuit and shackles just seemed so unjust. I'm sure some people thought it was better than he deserved. I think that sort of treatment should be reserved for dangerous criminals--ones convicted of violent crimes.
Paris Hilton--got her license suspended for DUI, then got pulled over again, and convicted for driving on a suspended license. Should we fine her? How much would we have to fine her before she pays attention? Let's be honest about it, if you are I were convicted of the same thing, would we be sentenced to *only* 45 days (with a possible 22 days knocked off for good behavior)? And her excuse? She says her publicist told her that she could still drive to work. To work? I didn't know 'The Simple Life' was back in production. Maybe her next reality series will be... Never mind. I'm being hateful, now. But didn't she just make a big deal about how the dumb blonde act is just an act? I'm sorry, give me some time, I'll cool off, and I'll be more tolerant of her. At least they didn't shackle her.
Notice I didn't talk about the ones that didn't go to jail: O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake. You know what, though? I'm just not even going to get into that.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment