April 6, 1996

Sir,

Drugism, yes that's what I said, Drugism. Like racism and anti-Semitism, its foundation is intolerance and hatred inspired by fear of things of which one has little knowledge or understanding. Drugism is widespread in America today, a virtual firestorm spreading its insidious influence to every region of the globe.

I offer this definition: Drugism- a belief that one's own selection of pharmacuetical or prepared substances are inherently superior and non-harmful, while at the same time, the selections of others are not. Also, the acceptance of this belief to the point of feeling morally compelled to engage in activities that proliferate and enforce the selection of these substances.

The anti-drug campaign, "War on Drugs," has become an ideology for many of the citizens of our great nation. Many of us blame the social and moral decay of our society on the use of so-called "illicit drugs." Making a few of the thousands of available substances illegal has resulted in an environment that not only encourages the violence and corruption associated with prohibition, but also encourages violence against, and the corruption of, our freedoms, liberties, and privileges guaranteed to us by the founders of our great nation. The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were authored to create for us an environment in which we could pursue prosperity and live in peace with our neighbors, free from government interference, as long as we respect the rights and property of others.

Many immigrant peoples have brought with them to this country various substances from their homeland. These include many types of plant derived medicinal and recreational foods and beverages. There are also substances native to this continent that have found their way abroad, such as Nicotiana tobacum, commonly known as tobacco. While there is no disputing that many of these substances can be harmful in large doses, or over a period of time, it is through education and moderation that many cultures evolve tolerance for consumption of these substances within the limits of responsible behavior.

Many of us respect the choice of others to consume substances we choose not to consume ourselves. There are those among us who would make such choices for us, without respect for the limits of responsible behavior. Their prejudice is driven by fear of a "clear and present danger," which is neither clear nor present. They are the authors of their own nightmare, cultivating hysteria with which to encourage the validation of their claim, that drug use fosters violence. It is prohibition that fosters violence, not only between rival black-market entreprenuers, but by law enforcement personnel against citizens that have offended no one. There are shows on television each and every day that glorify this violence and abuse of our constitutional and civil rights when there is no legitmate "compelling government interest" to warrant an intrusion into our homes and property, and obfuscation of our privacy.

Throughout the United States of America, the state governments regulate the consumption of various substances by licensing dealers and collecting taxes on the products sold. These products include spirituous, vinous, and malt liquors, cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, plug tobacco, snuff and other forms of tobacco, and cannabis. The monies collected by these taxes are usually allocated to such things as state education funds, health and social programs (hospitals, alcohol/drug rehab., senior citizen, etc.), state general funds (ordinary expenses of the state), state offices involved in the licensing and taxation of these substances (revenue departments, state stores, license, inspection and review boards), and corrections funds. If my recollection is correct, twenty-six states license and tax cannabis sales.

Recently, in the state of Arizona, several law enforcement agencies, including the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, have found themselves in the throes of Drugism, and refuse to acknowledge that the State of Arizona licenses and taxes cannabis sales. The legislation that authorizes the levy of, and rate of, tax on cannabis is found in the same section that authorizes the levy of, and rate of, alcohol and tobacco products. The legislation is found in the Arizona Revised Statute sections 42-1203,1204,1207, some of which has been misinterpreted by Maricopa County Attorney Richard Romley. This legislation clearly authorizes those granted a license to sell cannabis upon condition that the applicant complies with the provisions of the articles and regulations of the department, i.e., purchases tax stamps and affixes them to the packages. The Arizona Revised Statutes define the word, "Licensed," as "Authorized to do certain things." Mr . Romley has misquoted parts of ARS 42-1203.01, namely subsection D, which he should read , "No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize (immunity) or in any manner provide immunity for a dealer from criminal prosecution pursuant to title 13. Such prosecution shall not, however, be initiated or facilitated by the disclosure of confidential information in violation of ss. 42-108 subsection C." Immunity from criminal prosecution is quite a different thing from authorization to do certain things. Would he suggest that an individual that posseses a drivers license is immune from criminal prosecution? I don't think so!

I further suggest that he read ARS 13-3412, which states, "the provisions of ...ss13-3405... do not apply to: ...6. A common or contract carrier or warehouseman, or an employee of such carrier or warehouseman, whose possesion of such drugs is in the usual course of business or employment." It is clear that the State of Arizona Department of Revenue has authorized any holder of the Dealers License to possess and to sell cannabis, provided that the appropriate tax has been paid. Having a license satisfies the condition, "whose possesion of such drugs is in the usual course of business or employment," does it not?

A local district judge, in a recent case where a citizen that posseses such a license was charged with felony possesion in spite of it, ruled , "THIS COURT HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE FACTS IN THIS CASE PROHIBIT PROSECUTION FOR THE POSSESION OF MARIJUANA, BECAUSE THE TAX IMPOSED PRIOR TO THE PROSECUTION SERVED A PUNITIVE PURPOSE." This ruling was based upon the consideration offered by the court, "THIS CASE PRESENTS THE QUESTION; WHETHER THE PROSECUTION FOR THE POSSESION OF MARIJUANA, AFTER THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SOLD THE DEFENDANT A LICENSE TO SELL MARIJUANA AND SOLD NUMEROUS ONE OUNCE AND ONE GRAM TAX STAMPS, TO BE ATTACHED TO SMALLER AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA, VIOLATES THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, APPLIED TO THE STATES THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT."

Disregarding this ruling, a spokesman for the County Attoney Office says, "Our belief is that the judge is 100 percent in the wrong about this...we will continue to make arrests. Anyone who sells, purchases or posseses marijuana will be prosecuted, tax stamp or not." Richard Romley says, " They're not going to get away with it." It is sad state of affairs when law enforcment authorities, because of their own personal feelings, ignore a judicial ruling. I say it's a clear, and tragic, example of Drugism in our society today.

The state is obviously interested in the revenue that the tax legislation produces. State law enforcement officers acknowledge that the licence is legitimate, and will not arrest vendors. I charge that the county and city law enfocement authorities are also interested in funds, but they realize that they can generate more funds by ignoring the validity of the license and using the courts (county and city ) to extract these funds from the public in the form of large fines. I received a $1050.00 fine for touching a bag of cannabis that was on a table at my friends house after a city officer filed a complaint. The same bag would have produced only five dollars revenue for the state. I admit that the tax had not been paid, but only because my friends and the public at large have been terrorized so much by the use of force, by police against citizens, that they are afraid to subscribe to the licensing and taxation for fear of reprisal from county and city law enforcement personnel that have not acknowledged the taxation since its inception in 1983. I further charge that county and city officials are involved in a conspiracy of subversion regarding the states collection of the said taxes. It would be very interesting to examine the amount of revenue generated to their own coffers in light of the fact that they have been actively involved in this subversion since 1983. Not one city police officer that I have talked to has acknowledged the existence of the licensing and taxation of cannabis, despite the fact that its authorization by legislation was publicized.

As far as I know , the Dealers License is the only requirement imposed by the state to facilitate legal sales and possesion of cannabis, and that once the tax has been paid, it is no longer contraband. This also means that any paraphernalia involved with consumption of said legal cannabis is not contraband. The "burden of proof" that paraphernalia was used for consumption of non-taxed cannabis would be difficult, especially in the presence of any (portion of ) tax stamps. To remove from ones possesion any taxed cannabis, or residue encrusted paraphernalia, a law enforcement officer would be commiting a crime of theft, including intimidation and agravated assault, no doubt while in the possesion of a deadly weapon (firearm).

Somehow, I don't think we are going to see the county district attorney and local law enforcement personnel prosecuting consumers of alcohol and tobacco even though the taxes have been paid. I can only assume that many of their constituents, friends, and neighbors consume substantial quantities of these substances, with very few cases of irresponsible behavior. As a former consumer of cannabis, I am in good company with others that claim that distinction, our President, vice president, speaker of the house and secretary of the interior (who, as a former governor of Arizona, signed the Arizona [cannabis tax] bill into law), as well as many other highly respected individuals.

Having grown up in the suburbs of Philadelphia, a descendant of numerous first colonists, I have a strong attachement to the principles upon which our nation was founded, and feel it my responsibility to speak out against those that violate them.

I quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.,
"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."

SAY NO TO DRUGISM. STOP THE CLEANSING. END THE HATE!!!

Sincerely,
Reed Wurts, Laveen

Back to previous page

rwurts@prodigy.com