Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Phillips Double Standard for State ABC Director Not Busted for Pot?
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:02 AM
Meet Danielle Elks. A Channel 4 I-Team investigation found that, when police found marijuana at her house last October, nothing happened. Yeah, it seems like a non-story. But imagine if a police officer came to your house and found pot and rolling papers on the kitchen table. Do you think they'd shrug and say nothing?
And yet, according to the newscast, Elks was never bothered about it. On one level, it's easy to understand. Her husband, Charlie Daniels sideman Joel "Taz" Digregorio, had just died, and the police were there to notify her of his death. Elks wasn't home, so the police went inside.
But obviously Channel 4 wouldn't be looking into this if Elks were just a gal who'd gotten a break. She's not. She's the director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Commission, which has as part of its mission the eradication of marijuana.
I guess attempting to smoke it all so no one else can have it is one method of eradication. It has some obvious flaws, but it's a method.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Tennessee is full of people who think that things that are morally wrong should be illegal, but they don't want their friends to face the legal system when they get caught. They want the full weight of the law to come down on the "wrong kinds of people" but not good folks like "us."
This seems to be another illustration of my point. Even Elks thinks that marijuana is bad enough that she should take a job working toward its eradication. The police officers who came to her house know it's illegal to possess it. And yet, when it's their friend in the spotlight, their friend (or her husband) with the pot on the table, they can't bring themselves to enforce the very laws they expect us to live under.
Do you think there's any consideration for the fact that there are a lot of Tennesseans — maybe even Tennesseans who object on principle to pot smoking — who don't want their friends and loved ones to have to get sucked into the legal system over it?
But those are the rules. If you, enforcer of the rules, think the rules are stupid or that they suck or that they shouldn't apply to people like you, you should work to change the rules. But while you're working to change them, you should abide by them.
It's not even a matter of fairness — though, of course, it's also an enormous matter of fairness. It's that there's one set of standards for the people who rule us and another set of standards for us. I don't think anyone's life should be ruined over a little pot, but if you're out there regularly ruining lives over it, something stinks — and it isn't the weed — when you reserve the privilege of using it without legal consequences for yourself.
Having one set of rules for the "wrong" people and another set of rules for the political class is antithetical to a functioning democracy, frankly.
It's something of an embarrassment to our state that Elks legally had to be jacked up over a little pot. But it's a black eye to our state that she wasn't.
Readers also liked…
-
Moorehouse Proposes 'Don't Say Stacey' Bill
- Feb 22, 2012
-
One More Small Town in Nashville
- Mar 1, 2012
Comments (29)
Showing 1-29 of 29
I'm more bothered by the fact that the officers went into the house while she wasn't there. Maybe they didn't pursue it because they didn't have any official grounds for knowing it was there.
like
dislike
W has it. From the description here, the police entered her home illegally. Any evidence of pot they used would have been inadmissible.
Yeah, but W., they didn't know she wasn't there. They only knew she didn't answer the door. Sadly, we live in a world where people do bad things to each other and then off themselves. To me, it seems completely plausible that, once they got to the house to notify her of her husband's death and she didn't answer the door, they had to be concerned about whether she was dead or wounded in the house. A cop can enter your house without a warrant and without your permission in order to save you.
And, if I were sitting on a jury or the judge who had to rule on the admissibility of the search and that's the argument that was made to me--dead husband with drugs in his system, missing wife--I'd think the cops were within the law to check the house for her.
And you know I'm not one to defend the police, so I have to think that, if I think it's reasonable that they entered the house in order to make sure that she wasn't in there injured, most Tennessee judges also would.
I have to agree with W and bubbadog. This scenario has all the earmarks of an illegal search. However, I still think it's just fine to skewer Elks for rank hypocrisy.
Let's see, legally questionable search, just-dead husband... maybe let a little pot slide.
Yeah, that's a real "black eye to our state" alright. Horrific, really. This idiotic post is a black eye to our state.
Frank is right about that. And W is also correct--without a search warrant, and without being invited into the house, and without probable cause, this wouldn't have passed constitutional muster anyway.
And the troopers were there, why? To tell her that her husband--a musician--had just died? And she wan't home. So in addition to the "evidence" being inadmissable in court, you couldn't convince me as a juror that the drugs belonged to Ms. Elks, that she ever used them, or that she even knew they were there.
Come on, Betsy. And come on I-Team. This whole thing stinks. And not of marijuana smoke.
Marijuana prohibition makes as much (non)sense as alcohol prohibition did. However, if we ever re-legalize marijuana in this country, there may be a role for the TN ABC in licensing, taxing and regulating safe access to cannabis. Thus, it is encouraging to see that the TN ABC director is so personally familiar with the substance.
It should come as no surprise that there are two justice systems in this country, though I do believe the politically connected spell it "Just-Us". My own experience on this score was thoroughly covered in a bang-up Nashville Scene cover story back in 2007. Here's the link:
http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/ma…
I still believe that my own problems were rooted in the fact that I refused to sell cannabis (that I was growing for myself and four terminally ill neighbors) to a local drug dealer, who worked for my county's major drug kingpin, a local judge who is now deceased. Of course, the way the "Just-Us" system works, I will never know for certain.
My thanks to Betsy for this PITH article and to WSMV for stimulating it. Channel 4 was the only corporate media representative to cover our recent Marijuana Education Day in Nashville, sponsored by TN-NORML. That well-attended seminar included a panel of five medical marijuana users, all of whom risked much to speak truth to power. We really appreciated Channel 4's attendance and decision to lead that day's news with their coverage of that event.
Maybe one day, we will allow science, common sense and compassion to replace senseless and unsuccessful social control when it comes to cannabis. I don't think that day will come in Tennessee until we can elect legislators who represent flesh-and-blood people instead of representing corporations masquerading as people. (Maybe if corporations could get cancer instead of just causing it, it would be a different story.) Until that day comes, I would recommend that everyone read the book "Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?", authored by Steve Fox, Paul Armentano and Mason Tvert.
Didn't know law enforcement could enter a home without invitation
only for a notification of a deceased relative or mate. Actually, this
wasn't much of a story for sweeps week. Disgruntled employee wishing
to replace what many consider an incompetent employee!
I have to say it...
People who live in glass houses shouldn't get stoned.
Min,
Brava. Brava.
To the larger discussion, I suspect this is one of those instances where the answer lies with the Supreme Court. Perhaps we could get a few lawyers to comment on this.
Although I am not a lawyer and don't play one on tv, let me suggest that there are at least two issues here.
1) The officers entered for reasons unrelated to suspicion of criminal activity. They had reason to think the widow was there but not responding to them. That creates a legal reason to enter. Since they entered without permission and not with the intention of looking for evidence of criminal activity, they did not have the right to 'search' the premises. No digging around in desks or rummaging through the closets.
2) However, did the police actually 'search' the place? The incriminating materials were not hidden but lying in plain sight. One could argue that if the owner of the home left marijuana out on a table, the police violated no law by seeing it.
The issue of ownership is a different matter, depending on whether the discovery of the pot ends in criminal charges.
Betsy, thanks for an excellent post and for raising good issues that merit discussion.
Small 'd,' you make some valid points especially the reminder about the failure of Prohibition but the real threat to you and other pot users is health care reform. Those who want to nationalize health care would abolish smoking cigarettes and cigars tomorrow if it were economically and politically possible. There is no way that they will allow another form of smoking to become legal.
I didn't know the ABC was supposed to "eradicate" marijuana. The ABC licenses beer joints, right? Also this obviously was an illegal search, as others have pointed out. How much weed was found? "A very small amount." What are we talking about? A joint or two? That's a misdemeanor. These cops were falling down on the job here. They definitely should have persecuted this poor woman who just lost her husband. This is some shoddy journalism dressed up like a big scoop.
Mark,
Actually, much-needed and long-overdue health care reform is already underway in the 16 states and DC where safe access to medical cannabis is now allowed, and in the two dozen states -- including Tennessee -- now working to re-establish their own medical cannabis programs. In addition, cannabinoids can be ingested in a number of ways besides smoking, including pills, tinctures, sublingual sprays, ointments, suppositories and the use of vaporizers that allow the medically beneficial substances within cannabis to be inhaled without burning the cannabis, resulting in no tar or carbon monoxide exposure.
Even if medical cannabis users continued to smoke cannabis in the conventional way, they appear to experience almost no negative consequences (other than arrest) for that behavior. To that end, I would recommend the research of Dr. Donald Tashkin at UCLA who has conducted the largest case-control studies of the health effects of marijuana use and who has concluded that smoking cannabis does not increase COPD (emphysema and chronic bronchitis) and appears to have a protective effect in reducing lung cancer incidence, even among people who also smoke tobacco. Here's the link:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.…
Similar findings (that smoking cannabis provides protective benefits re: cancer rather than risks) have been reported by Kelsey et al at Brown University Medical School in their research on head and neck cancers. Here's the link:
http://www.health.am/cr/more/could-smoking…
Here's the money quote about the Kelsey et al research: "Researchers have found that long-term pot smokers were roughly 62 percent less likely to develop head and neck cancers than people who did not smoke pot."
It is nice to have you agreeing with me on this issue, the second time in recent weeks that you have done so. What have you been smoking lately? Whatever it is, keep it up (and pass it this way).
In the meantime, let's ALL keep working to get all governments out of our bedrooms, bloodstreams and belief systems -- starting with our own General (Dis)Assembly. That's something that anyone who doesn't believe in the nanny state or theocracies should support.
Bernie
Man, I'm excited to find that I know so many people who can count on illegal searches getting thrown out, who fully expect that cops will just shrug at a few joints, and who think that a person doing (or allowing her husband to do) the very thing she helps ruin lives over isn't that big a deal. But how can I be sure that I'm included in this group?
Yes, I'm white. But I don't have good political connections or a spouse with good political connections.
Will I just need to buy some marijuana and then leave it on my kitchen table and then wait for the cops to come by or is there some other way I can tell if I'm in the crowd of people who don't get hassled for minor shit or if I'm in the crowd of people who do?
And do you think it'd be possible for everyone who's jacked up over a small amount of marijuana to appeal to the Elks standard? "Oh, excuse me, Officer, but this is clearly only a Danielle Elks amount of pot. I think you have to let me go." Because that would be handy to know.
If the police came to report the death of a family member and happened to see a little bit of weed on your kitchen table after they let themselves into your house, then yes, I think they'd let you go.
Me or anybody? Because, I have to tell you, I'm pretty sure the "your family member just died" exception isn't made across the board.
This is, of course, part of why I think marijuana should be legalized. Obviously, every single person who is in the least bit familiar with it knows that it's just not that big a deal. It's not worth jacking a woman up for after her husband dies. It's not worth sending 18 year old kids to prison over. It's not worth hauling old-man cancer patients into court over.
Everyone knows it. Even the police know it. And yet, the informal exceptions to the rules are not uniformly doled out. We'd be better off to just legalize it, regulate it, and tax it.
But until then, I sure as fuck expect the people whose job it is to eradicate it to not use it or turn a blind eye to its use in their own houses.
Betsy,
I think it depends on more than just 'influence.'
For example, once the police find some pot lying on the table, even though they entered the house not intending to search, they may have the right to search. If the search doesn't turn up more than enough for personal use the decision might well be to let it drop, given the circumstances behind their decision to enter. If the police find enough bags for an episode of 'Weeds,' then probably not.
Having found the pot, the police might also check the record of the homeowner. If there is no record of multiple arrests for drugs or other serious crimes, then again the odds seem to be in favor of letting it drop. If the person has a record, particularly one involving drugs, then the odds are good that they will pursue it.
Also, the DAs office will no doubt get involved. If they think the chances of not having the case thrown out are good and some of the above factors are involved, then they will probably proceed. If the chance for a long-term court fight with appeals going on for a couple of years, my guess is that the DA says leave it alone.
I got quite a kick out of the "something stinks and it's not marijuana smoke" statements.
It was ironic, because I had my laptop sitting with me reading this in the bathroom...
...on the pot.
I guess the only real injustice is, why couldn't it have been my girlfriend's husband that died?
People of Tennessee, old Bets doesn't care if the woman's husband was just killed and whether or not the search was illegal, she just wants the woman prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law on the charge of hypocrisy. Anything less is a black eye to our state, ya'll.
Agency/Board/Commission:
Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Contact Person:
Shari Danielle Elks
Address:
226 Capitol Boulevard; Suite 300; Nashville, Tennessee 37243
Phone:
615-741-1602
Email:
Danielle.elks@state.tn.us
Mark,
I forgot to ask you for your reference re: government intending to ban tobacco under future health care reform. As someone who ran the federal government's anti-smoking campaign in the Carter administration and who served as a consultant in the initial FDA licensing of Nicorette, that is a new one for me. A handy link would be very interesting, unless it is www.redherring.com . Thanks.
Bernie
Bernie,
To be accurate I said that some of the advocates for nationalized health care would abolish cigarette and cigar smoking today if it were feasible. That it isn't is because only the most extreme wing of the nanny state thinks that voters would tolerate the new taxes required to replace lost tobacco taxes and the loss of the right to smoke.
But I will happily bet you $100 that in the next 10 years a serious legislator {not Dennis Kookcinich} will propose federal abolition of tobacco use because of the impact on health care costs. In the age of governments waging war on trans fats, Happy Meals, sugar etc, do you really think that tobacco is not in their crosshairs?
Mark,
We have reduced tobacco use in this country by over 50% in the past few decades and the trajectory suggests that rejecting tobacco use will continue to grow as the norm in this country without the need to outlaw tobacco. In addition, the power of Big Tobacco has been greatly diluted by their decision to purchase the bulk of the tobacco now in American brands from third world countries who can not only sell their tobacco cheaply but can also grow it without any pesky regulations controlling the chemicals they use to grow it. If anything, this consumer product (that continues to be produced and sold to consumers in an almost completely unregulated manner) has become more unsafe rather than less as a result. Even more reason for folks to avoid one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind.
As for your bet -- you're on. If there's anything our country has learned, it is that prohibition doesn't eliminate anything -- it just makes it more expensive. The continued ban on marijuana is a great example, as is the relatively recent ban on tobacco in many US prisons, which has driven the price of a single pack to $200 or more in those facilities.
Just let me know how I can collect on this bet. One more good reason for me to live to be 72.
Bernie
Bernie,
Your first paragraph makes my case. Even with a 50% reduction, the health care costs related to tobacco use are still enormous. And if the driving argument for the President's health care reform, especially the mandate to purchase insurance, is based on the cost to taxpayers of people not having everyone participate, then the logic of outlawing tobacco is irresistible.
We will work out something on the bet. My only fear regarding you making it to 72 is that the Obama health care plan might get fully implemented and one of the death panels decides you are not worth a new heart or lung or liver. If that happens, let me know. I have friends who can find anything. We might have to have a number of Chinese peasants shot to get the right parts, but what are friends for.
Mark Rogers has promised to donate his jowls to science.
http://www.adisgruntledrepublican.com/2012…
Mark,
My first paragraph documents why reducing tobacco use is important for a host of reasons, but it provides no justification for tobacco prohibition. In fact, if you compare marijuana use among teenagers in the US (where federal prohibitionist penalties for pot growing are more harsh than those for manslaughter) versus teens in the Netherlands (where adult pot use is quasi-legal and medical marijuana is available in pharmacies, but where teen use is one-third that of US counterparts), it is pretty clear that the lure of "forbidden fruit" that tobacco prohibition would stimulate would likely reverse our considerable gains re: reducing consumption of those coffin nails.
As for shooting Chinese peasants to live a few more years, I think I'll pass. I am satisfied with whatever time I have here on earth which, for me, is heaven anyway.
Bernie
Bernie,
You are arguing facts against a mindset that seeing 'smoking' as inherently evil. Cigarettes. cigars, marijuana... it does not matter. Legalizing pot to them is a step back. I am even deeply fearful that smoked ham and smoked turkey will be declared carcinogenic.
If the death panels don't get you, your friends will take up a collection to buy a Chinese donor for you. I will certainly contribute.
Just read a article in Scietific American that said those with cannabis in their system are twice as likely to have an accident while driving as those with a clear mind.
Gast, I don't know about the Scietific (sic) American article, but I will read it if you can provide a link. A recent review of a half dozen large scale studies of fatal crashes in this country and elsewhere demonstrated, in a number of those studies, that using marijuana appeared to protect against fatal crashes UNLESS the driver was also drinking. That may be because pot users are more cautious while driving to avoid an arrest that is more serious than a DWI. Here's a link to that review:
http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/nhts…
As the old joke goes, drunk drivers speed through stop signs while stoned drivers sit patiently for the sign to say "go". If you're another driver in the vicinity, the first behavior will kill you, while the second may just irritate you or, more likely, make you laugh.
Mark, the mindset you refer to doesn't exist in the public health professional community of which I am a part. Perhaps that is because most of us are familiar with the literature I posted earlier that demonstrates that cannabis smoking does not appear to bring about the health risks of tobacco smoking and may in fact provide a protective effect against traditional tobacco smoking-related diseases. Besides, as I also posted earlier, there are a variety of ways to ingest cannabis that do not involve smoking. You might review my earlier posts and read the links provided.
