"Sobriety checkpoints" are sinister and a threat to liberty

Totalitarianism in action

Here’s hoping you didn’t start off your New Year with a 3am detention at a totalitarian police state “sobriety checkpoint” courtesy of fascists with badges and guns. I don’t think I’ve ever experienced anything as disturbing and infuriating as driving through one of these checkpoints which I did a few years back. I had known they existed, but only when I experienced one for myself did I truly realize just how creepy they are. There I was, driving with two friends when we found ourselves in a small traffic jam on a main roadway heading out of town. The cause? Jack-booted thugs stopping anyone and everyone, jamming flashlights in the faces of unsuspecting motorists trying to determine if any of us were wasted.

“Where are you coming from?” a cop barked at us.

“A restaurant,” I said, flabbergasted.

He shined the light on each of our faces before telling us, “Go ahead.”

Up until that unsettling experience, the thought of roadway checkpoints was largely an alien concept to me. For me the word “checkpoint” conjured an image of a dirt road guarded by paramilitary types with Kalishnakovs slung over their shoulders in some faraway Third World authoritarian shithole. No more. Arbitrary roadblocks set up by men with guns are right here in the “land of the free” and they’re here to stay.

That’s because in 1990, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz. In that ruling, SCOTUS ruled that checkpoints are just fine. Who cares if motorists who have committed no crime are detained without probable cause by armed wards of the state? It’s only the Fourth Amendment at stake.

If you ever find yourself at a sobriety checkpoint, you can limit the amount of time you’re detained by fully answering all of the police’s questions. I would recommend this course of action if you’ve been drinking. Calmly answer the questions and maintain eye contact. Police are trained to interpret evasiveness as a sign of guilt. Of course, if you’re hammered and have glossy, bloodshot eyes and Wild Turkey breath you’re probably done for.

Or if you haven’t been drinking, you can stick it to the cops while staying within your rights as a citizen. Under the law, police may stop you at a roadblock whose purpose is to weed out drunk drivers and under the law you must stop for them. But you have the right to refuse to answer their questions. Remember: under no circumstances are you required to answer the questions of police officers. Of course, refusing to answer a simple question like, “Where are you coming from?” will arouse an officer’s suspicions, but if you haven’t been drinking and feel like asserting your constitutional rights, I would advise saying something like,

“Officer, while I understand that this checkpoint is lawful according to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Michigan State Police v. Sitz, I am choosing to exercise my constitutional rights and respectfully decline to answer whatever questions you have. Furthermore, I will decline to furnish my license and registration upon request, unless that request is pursuant to my being cited for a moving violation. If there is nothing else, I would like to proceed to my destination.”

After saying this, the cop will either let you proceed or ask you to pull over to the side of the road. If you haven’t been drinking, he should let you go. But if he tells you to pull over, then you’ve got a real asshole on your hands who doesn’t know the law and who doesn’t like to have his authority questioned.

The good news is, this is the point at which successful lawsuits against police departments begin! Just remain calm and polite. Let the police be the ones to get out of control. After all, a police officer’s worst enemy is a citizen who knows his rights.

The Sitz decision is one of the most outrageous rulings in recent Supreme Court history. Sobriety checkpoints are yet another instance of travelers being treated as suspects first, and citizens second. Take the Transportation Security Administration’s naked porno scanners in airports. If you want to fly out of Logan where I live, you have to get scanned or groped by a government bureaucrat. Those are the options you have if you want to get on a plane. Not because you’ve done anything wrong, but because you’re traveling and therefore have no rights. They’ve even started performing pat-downs on bus riders and using dogs to sniff travelers’ luggage for everything from bombs to drugs. And of course, in the big cities police continue to randomly search the bags of subway passengers. In the United States, if you travel by automobile, air, bus, train, or subway, you are guilty until proven innocent.

This is the country we’re living in right now. It’s only going to get worse. We are almost a decade removed from the World Trade Center attacks, and the American public is still so afraid of terrorists, that we’ll do just about anything merely to feel safe. Insert cliché Ben Franklin quote about liberty and security here.

- Max

max.canning@gmail.com

Obama Nominates Bush-Era Supreme Bitch To Head DEA

Obama seems to be exhibiting short-term memory loss when it comes to his stated policies on federal marijuana laws.

Last night I posted about the difficulties facing researchers who are investigating the drug ecstasy (MDMA) as a possible medical treatment for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Shortly after writing this, I discovered some similarly unsettling news from the war on drugs front. “Last week, President Obama quietly announced that he would nominate Michele Leonhart to lead the Drug Enforcement Agency.” This is the same power-crazed, drug-hawk bitch that was “initially appointed and promoted by George W. Bush and oversaw the Bush administration’s tactic of raiding the homes of desperately ill individual medical marijuana patients in California.” This type of action flies in the face of Obama’s claim that, under his watch, the federal government would no longer “waste justice department resources” on prosecuting marijuana offenses “that circumvent state laws.” Oh how the times they are a-changin.

Here is a quote from the Washington Times from February 5th of last year in response to some of the first medical marijuana raids of Obama’s presidency:

“Drug Enforcement Administration agents this week raided four medical marijuana shops in California, contrary to President Obama’s campaign promises to stop the raids.

The White House said it expects those kinds of raids to end once Mr. Obama nominates someone to take charge of the DEA, which is still run by Bush administration holdovers.”

The irony here, of course, is that Michele Leonhart was the primary “Bush administration holdover” who was essentially "in charge of the DEA” at the time. Apparently the president wants no part in appointing new leadership to this backwards federal agency. Oh ya, I almost forgot to mention that “Ms. Leonhart also has a record of adamantly fighting against allowing scientific research of the potential medicinal value of marijuana. She is on record as “ignoring the ruling of a federal judge” in a case where she “single-handedly blocked applications from respected university researchers studying medical marijuana.” This is yet another glaring offense Leonhart has perpetrated which directly contradicts Obama’s stated position on marijuana laws.

It seems that Obama is suffering from an acute case of the “fuck-its” syndrome with regard to these issues, which is exhibited by the symptoms of just not giving a shit, combined with a touch of cowardice in the face of potentially having to navigate politically murky waters at this most turbulent time in his presidency. A look at Obama speaking about marijuana laws in 2004 vs. 2008 tells this tale much better than I can.

In the following video, you can see how self-assured and to the point Obama is in this 2004 interview. This is Obama un-filtered, exhibiting that ray of hope that everyone who voted for change was expecting him to deliver.



Now notice how uncomfortable the president is when discussing these issues while on the campaign trail in 2008. The only bit of genuine honesty that appears to leak through is in the last 40 seconds when he discloses that, as president, he would simply have bigger fish to fry than to worry about silly marijuana laws.



In light of his new nomination of Ms. Leonhart to the DEA, Obama’s current position on federal marijuana laws seems all too similar to that of his predecessor. He is pushing to elect a woman with an abysmal track record for “using justice resources to circumvent state laws,” as she did in the aforementioned California raids in 2009. If any of this seems the least bit unsettling to you, please take a moment to sign the digital petition urging senators to block the appointment of Michele Leonhart to the DEA. At this point, however, the audacity of hope for significant drug law changes in this country seems beyond audacious; it may be delusional. Still sign the petition though. Seriously!

~Wolf