cannabisnews.com: Washington Cracks Down on Tommy Chong










  Washington Cracks Down on Tommy Chong

Posted by CN Staff on September 12, 2003 at 23:44:41 PT
By Andrew Lisa 
Source: Daily Journal 

Although we couldn't find Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden if we attached an $87 billion LoJack to them, at least that evildoer Tommy Chong isn't still smokin'. Chong, Cheech Marin's 65-year-old sidekick from the evergreen '80s movies that bear their names, was sentenced to nine months in federal prison this week for conspiring to sell marijuana paraphernalia.
Whew, I feel safer already. If only we could get that Willie Nelson off the streets, then I'd really be able to sleep at night. A generation of bishops who knowingly turned their churches into brothels are free men today because they wear the right Halloween costume and believe in the right God. But it's perfectly logical that there's bed space in federal prison -- the same place we put John Gotti and Timothy McVeigh -- for a 65-year-old burnout whose greatest crime was spilling bong water on the carpet. Those lowlifes at Enron -- George W. Bush's largest campaign contributors -- blatantly stole hundreds of millions of dollars and ruined the lives of thousands of people who worked for them. With the exception of one -- count 'em, one -- B-level scapegoat who got popped last week, absolutely nothing has ever happened to any of those guys and nothing ever will. I guess when liars use stolen money to help liars steal elections, John Ashcroft focuses on more important things like aging hippies selling roach clips. I mean, Tommy Chong? Are you kidding me? And although our brilliant and effective drug laws start in Washington, the trickle-down theory does seem to work when it comes to stupidity filtering down to the county level. Right here in Cumberland County, the N.J. State Police and U.S. Department of Justice run ads that offer $1,000 to rat out someone you know for growing pot. Way to prioritize, fellas. In this state, our county has the second-highest domestic violence rate; the second-highest DYFS caseload; Abbott districts that have to beg for money to do little things like hire teachers; and a zoo that's so broke, the animals have to eat each other. Can someone tell these geniuses there are better ways to spend $1,000 than to catch college kids who read too much High Times? But at least the cops can say these people are growing pot. Chong wasn't a grower, a dealer or even an addict. He runs a head shop, for crying out loud, and he's rotting in federal prison at the age of 65. Bravo, Ashcroft. You must really feel good about using your power to make the world a better place. But as Chong goes to bed tonight in a cage for a crime that has no victims, he should try to look back on his life and reflect on what put him there. It is a shame for people to waste so much time and money over 30 years using drugs as an excuse to ignore reality. But enough about the DEA. Chong will get out in less than a year, and when he does, I'm sure he'll be up in smoke. Complete Title: Washington Cracks Down on Tommy Chong's Internet Bong SalesAndrew Lisa is a copy editor at The Daily Journal.Source: Daily Journal, The (NJ)Author: Andrew LisaPublished: Saturday, September 13, 2003Copyright: 2003 Daily JournalContact: djopinion thedailyjournal.comWebsite: http://www.thedailyjournal.com/Related Articles:Tommy Chong Gets Nine Months http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17280.shtmlTommy Chong's Hopes May Be Up In Smoke http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17257.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #86 posted by FoM on September 17, 2003 at 14:33:00 PT
Just a Small Comment
This has been a very interesting thread. I just wanted to say thank you to everyone.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #85 posted by Dan B on September 17, 2003 at 14:30:28 PT
Right on, E_Johnson
Forgetting marijuana entirely -- if you are an artist whose work is threatened with persecution because of its ideological content, and you don't stand up for that, then you are a piece of poop, as an artist, and a symbol of defeat to the entire artistic community.I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. I guess that I was addressing the legal aspects, but you are (at least now) more addressing the moral/ethical aspects of this case. Ethically, as an artist, he was wrong to denounce his work for the court record. No self-respecting artist would do such a thing. It demeans the artist and it demeans those who have spent money on and appreciated the artist's work.It looks like we have found a point of agreement.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #84 posted by E_Johnson on September 17, 2003 at 09:33:11 PT
And as an artist
Forgetting marijuana entirely -- if you are an artist whose work is threatened with persecution because of its ideological content, and you don't stand up for that, then you are a piece of poop, as an artist, and a symbol of defeat to the entire artistic community.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #83 posted by E_Johnson on September 17, 2003 at 09:07:28 PT
Something bigger
The way I see it, you either stand for yourself, or you stand for something bigger than yourself.Tommy Chong stands for himself. During his time in the spotlight, he has become a symbol of potheads who stand for nothing bigger than themselves.If I go down I am going to make sure that the record reflects that I stand for more than just myself.For one thing I'm sure everyone here has faith that my big mouth can't be shut even by Karen Houghton.;-)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #82 posted by Dan B on September 17, 2003 at 01:29:06 PT
Tommy Did Something Stupid, With Illustrations
Criticizing and debating someone's actions is not the same as wanting them to suffer.E-Johnson, I think goneposthole was referring to the comments made by Mike, not the comments made by you. He was the one who said, "He deserves LIFE for pleading guilty" in comment #18. Part of the problem with this discussion is that you and Mike made different arguments and I have been trying to respond to both of them at the same time. Sorry for the confusion."The bottom line is that it is perfectly legal under the current system for the prosecutor and judge to consider Tommy Chong's movies and television appearances when sentencing because those things are related to his "crime.""
Are you sure? I don't believe this. It will be true, if nobody complains.Actually, yes I am sure. That is how American courts work. That doesn't mean that I agree with it, but that is the truth. The prosecutor wanted to show that Tommy Chong had not changed his ways of late, so she went after his created character whose face graced the bongs he sold instead. She was morally wrong to do so, but she had legal precedent on her side. Suppose that a member of the Kottonmouth Kings (let's call him "Bob"*) were arrested in the future--say ten years from now (for the sake of argument, let's say that the laws still have not been changed ten years from now). Suppose further that Bob had "reformed," swore off cannabis, and became a well-regarded botanist, but he was charged with possession because he was driving his own car with one of his old Kottonmouth Kings friends who had not "reformed" as a passenger, and the old friend was carrying nearly a pound of cannabis at the time of the arrest. Both are charged and found guilty of possession. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor brings up the fact that ten years ago Bob wrote and performed songs about smoking cannabis, and that means that he should have a tougher sentence. The judge would rightly strike such comments from the record because they have no bearing on this case. Now, suppose the "Bob the botanist" had chosen another route. Suppose that he now made a living selling bongs and pipes with "Kottonmouth Kings" emblazoned on the side, and some Ashcroft wanna-be (heaven forbid!) catches him in some Operation Pipe Dreams-style operation (double heaven-forbid!). Police find a pound of cannabis at his business but decide to use it as a tool to get Bob to plead guilty to the paraphernalia charge rather than charging him with the greater charge of possessing enough cannabis that the feds can make a case for sale. Bob pleads guilty, and during his sentencing he claims, "I have completely reformed, your honor. I never touch marijuana, and I haven't in years." The prosecutor challenges the defendent not by bringing up the cannabis (remember, that cannabis has not been entered as evidence against him because he was not charged for possessing it) but by saying that he is actively involved in promoting drug use by selling bongs with 'Kottonmouth Kings' stamped on them. The judge asks, "What is 'Kottonmouth Kings' supposed to mean?" The prosecutor says, "Well, judge, it is a band that used to make hip-hop songs about smoking marijuana. And, by the way, the defendent is still receiving payment for those albums because they are still being marketed today." In this case, the judge would allow the comments because they speak to the character of the defendent. The character of the defendent is an issue because the defendent made it an issue by saying that he doesn't smoke cannabis anymore. The prosecutor has a right to counter that statement by presenting evidence to the contrary. That is why the statements about Tommy Chong's movies were allowed in the sentencing hearing. Tommy Chong made his character an issue rather than simply remaining silent about the issue until after the trial (as all good defense attorneys warn their clients to do). The prosecutor had a right to refute that claim, and she did so by bringing up the evidence at hand: the bongs with Tommy Chong's picture on them. Tommy Chong foolishly primed this predicament by making a statement to the press before his sentencing that his case might make a good movie. What do we learn from this? First, one should never make a statement to anyone other than one's lawyer (and only then in private) about a pending case. Ever. Second, when in court one should never make a claim about one's character that is demonstrably untrue. If one must make a statement, one should simply say that one is sorry and that one understands the nature of the charges. One should not say that one has reformed as of late (as of late, Tommy Chong has been appearing on That 70s Show as pretty much the same character he made popular in his movies). The third thing is a corollary to the second, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" means just that. Don't say anything until it is over.Fourth, the laws themselves suck. If laws against bongs, pipes and cannabis itself were not in place, citizens of this country would be a heck of a lot better off. Since they are in place, it makes sense to be as discreet as possible. At the same time, we need to fight the laws, and if we are caught engaging in civil disobedience (whether it is selling bongs or blocking traffic), we need to be willing to suffer the consequences. Fifth (and this is a personal belief, so this is where we are most likely to disagree), if you are going to engage in civil disobedience, you should know the law well enough to protect yourself from it. And, if one is offered a deal and decides to take it, one should be prepared for a backlash from others in the movement who think that one should be a martyr instead. (I am not referring to you, E_Johnson, but to others who have said something to that effect).Anyway, I am glad that we have had this discussion as it has forced me to consider points of view that I otherwise would not have considered. I don't view it at all as being merely academic, although such discussions do teach me a great deal. I don't know how much longer you want to continue this discusion as it seems like we are at odds over it and will likely never resolve this. But, I hope you feel like it has been worth discussing even though we seem to be at an impasse.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #81 posted by E_Johnson on September 17, 2003 at 00:14:47 PT
Dan B study the Soviet dissidents
It does change something when a dissident disavows his own cultural product. Imagine trying to battle to Soviet Union. Now who here would have the stones for THAT?Of course they were doomed to lose. The protest in Red Square against the invasion of Czechoslovakia only involved about six people and lasted about thirty seconds.And they all ended up in prison or in mental hospitals being subjected to sulfa drug torture.Well, samizdat didn't make much money, so the people who dealt in it were a little crazy...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #80 posted by E_Johnson on September 17, 2003 at 00:06:41 PT
Um...
Criticizing and debating someone's actions is not the same as wanting them to suffer.There is a lot to discuss here, because his films have had an impact on the community for better or worse, and he is taken by the media to be a representative of this community.We live in a celebrity-centric world and he is a big marijuana celebrity, and what people write about him is what everyone is going to wind up thinking about us to some degree.So everyone has a stake in his response to persecution, like it or not.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #79 posted by Mike on September 16, 2003 at 21:49:05 PT
What I want
I want a good deterant from other people pleading guilty *before* a sentencing deal. That was stupid. It left himself wide open and possibly set a terrible precedent.This is just going to be one of those issues that we will have to agree to disagree on. Of course I don't want anyone to wrongfully suffer, but I'll never be able to look at him the same way again. No matter how hard I try, he will always be just a little bit tainted in my eyes, and it saddens me to have to admit that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #78 posted by goneposthole on September 16, 2003 at 20:49:26 PT
just so it makes sense
so what does those who want Tommy Chong to suffer WANT? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #77 posted by goneposthole on September 16, 2003 at 20:46:53 PT
crucify him
He gave up his rights so he should receive the maximum sentence.Here, some seem to think that he should be receiving a life in prison because he became a sell out. So what do those who want Tommy Chong to suffer? Give him a maximum sentence. Seething, frothing at the mouth vengeance to see him suffer and meted out a full punishment, not mercy and forgiveness. I say again, give it up.I'm with you Dan B.John Ashcroft would pierce his side to let the blood flow at a maximum rate, and some here would prefer it that way.When the rooster crows three times, none know him. disgraceful.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #76 posted by E_Johnson on September 16, 2003 at 18:00:14 PT
According to WHOM Dan B?
"The bottom line is that it is perfectly legal under the current system for the prosecutor and judge to consider Tommy Chong's movies and television appearances when sentencing because those things are related to his "crime.""Are you sure? I don't believe this. It will be true, if nobody complains.It certainly will be true if defendants go along with it and don't even mention that they have any rights to protect.It is completely out of line for them to consider the fact that his films are "still available" because the continued availablility of those films is protected by something bigger than Tommy Chong.If enough people complain, then it won't be true.That's the way I see it."Perfectly legal" in a democracy comes from somewhere other than the prosecution. It's not just prefectly legal because the prosecutors perfectly get away with it.If you don't act like you have any rights, then by jingy you will have none.And if enough people consent to acting like they have no rights, then everyone else will have none too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #75 posted by Dan B on September 16, 2003 at 12:31:36 PT
One More Time, From The Top
The bottom line is that it is perfectly legal under the current system for the prosecutor and judge to consider Tommy Chong's movies and television appearances when sentencing because those things are related to his "crime." He used his image, cultivated from those movies and other appearances, as a direct selling point for his bongs. The movies and the sales are therefore part of the same "crime" in the eyes of the law. The judge and prosecutor were perfectly within their rights--yes, even under the Constitution--to bring up the movies and other appearances because those appearances and the messages set forth in those movies had a direct bearing on Tommy Chong's business. If you want to be angry at Tommy Chong for something, be angry that he gave them that loophole by which to hang him and his movies. I contend that using those movies as justification for giving Tommy Chong a comparatively longer sentence than the others sentenced under "Operation Pipe Dreams" was both morally wrong and constitutionally sound. The prosecutor was doing her job, which is to see that every defendent receives the maximum possible sentence. The judge, however, given the pre-existing bias against Tommy Chong, should have recused himself from this case. The problem is that it would be very difficult to find a judge anywhere in this country who has not formed some kind of opinion about Tommy Chong, positive or negative, because of his movies. This case opens no doors for the feds to start prosecuting free speech outright. What it does do is show what has been going on already for the past thirty-odd years: prosecutors and judges have conspired to give longer sentences for drug-related "crimes" when they believe that the defendent is a danger to their (the judges' and prosecutors') own warped morality. The Tommy Chong case is simply a high profile version of what has been happening in almost every courthouse across the country for the past thirty-odd years.You could argue that the prosecution of this case in such a high-profile manner set a standard for judges and prosecutors in the rest of the country to follow, but such an argument would have to presuppose that such things were not happening already. Believe me, nine months and $20,000 is not a huge sentence in the eyes of this prosecutor and this judge, and it is an easy sentence as far as most other judges and prosecutors are concerned as well. They believe they went easy on him. If you are angry at the connection drawn between this case and the movies, that connection was made on purpose by the defendent. The sentence was still within the guidelines for sentencing, so nothing illegal transpired. It is absolutely legal for a prosecutor and judge to take into consideration the conduct surrounding the charges when sentencing the defendent. In actuality, my main beef is the statement that the bongs were marketed to children. Where is the proof in that? All of Tommy Chong's pot-themed movies are rated R, which means that they are specifically targeted toward an adult audience 18 and over. There should have been an objection to that characterization. Other than that, there is nothing in the law, including the First Amendment, that says the character of the witness as portrayed in his or her works of art cannot be used to gauge the sentencing of the defendent. Remember, he had already pled guilty (which you say isn't the issue), so this was merely the court hearing to see what the outcome of that plea would be. His movies were not used to determine whether he was guilty or not. His movies were used to establish a pattern of behavior that is inconsistent with the statement the defendent made before the court, to wit: "It's never been my intention to break the law. I got carried away. I got carried away with my character. I did become that character for a while, but not anymore." He then claimed that he no longer used cannabis, among other things. Then what was nearly a pound of cannabis doing in his home? Why was his picture (in character from those movies that were brought up in court) plastered across the front of most bongs sold from his business? Did it occur to you that perhaps the prosecutor said that the movies are still in print because she needed to establish a link between the pictures of Tommy Chong on the bongs and the character he played in his movies? That the statement of the movies currently being available was used to show that the character in the movies is still well-known today, and that is why Chong's picture appeared on the bongs? I will say it again: this case changes nothing. Absolutely nothing. Positively nothing. There is no thing that this case changes. It is simply one more case in a long line of injustices brought on by the unjust anti-cannabis laws that produce these cases. Movies will still be made, songs will still be sung, books will still be written against anti-cannabis laws and in favor of cannabis use. This case does not affect the First Amendment at all. Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #74 posted by E_Johnson on September 16, 2003 at 10:36:40 PT
Dan B it's not the plea 
Pleading guilty is in a way being honest. Yes he was selling bongs. It's true. The law sucks but he was guilty of breaking it. What gets me really in the gut is this punitive discussion over his constitutionally protected films. That should not have been allowed and that was where he should have -- and could have -- drawn the line.I think he could have had more power than he realized in that situation if he pled guilty to selling bongs but drew the line at allowing a discussion of his films during the hearing.Our First Amendment rights have to be treated as sacred. People can plead or go to trial, whatever, but do not let the prosecutors start normalizing the discussion of protected speech during the legal process.Because then we're really getting ourselves into a Soviet situation.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #73 posted by E_Johnson on September 16, 2003 at 08:38:16 PT
Tommy dissed medical marijuana on TV once
Tommy Chong went on Nash Bridges once in an episode that seriously dissed medical marijuana as a scam for lying stoners. He played a slick cynical lying medical marijuana stoner, like an older version of his old character, proud of lying and cheating the system. That really hurt. It was just what Gray Davis or Bill Clinton would have wanted America to see.The show redeemed itself later when the mother in law of the character Joe played by Cheech started smoking pot for her arthritis. They had a very nice humorous episode around that, showing Joe as a middle aged cop dealing with having his elderly mother in law smoking pot in his own home and making him show up to work reeking of second hand weed.He didn't want her to smoke it in the house, so she made a batch of cannabis spaghetti sauce, but then Joe came home hungry and served up the whole batch to himself and his wife for dinner.And then the show got very nostalgic about the sixties and showed Joe and his wife dancing together, stoned out of their minds, but in a very lovingly nostalgic way.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #72 posted by E_Johnson on September 16, 2003 at 08:25:11 PT
The movie that most needs to be made
Rainbow Farm.I'll bet Showtime or HBO would just love a project on Rainbow Farm.There are so many dramatically compelling stories going on every day in this war. I'm enrolling in an online writing course to work on one of mine.(Not Rainbow Farm, someone else needs to write that one.)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #71 posted by Dan B on September 16, 2003 at 00:37:55 PT
More movies
American Beauty, Wonder Boys. Both show middle-to-upper-class (socioeconomically) Americans smoking cannabis. I think E_Johnson is correct; we will see more pot dramas and docudramas in the future. That's how we can best get the heart of the message about the evils of cannabis prohibition out there.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #70 posted by Dan B on September 16, 2003 at 00:30:38 PT
More movies with pot (casual, but still... )
The Cell features Jennifer Lopez smoking a j before she goes to sleep while she is working on an important case. No fuss is made of it whatsoever.There's Something About Mary features Ben Stiller and Cameron Diaz sitting on a car sharing a j at one point. Again, no big deal, no fuss is made, it's just a part of life.I think that often this casual cannabis usage in movies goes a long way toward showing people that it is not some kind of abberation when someone chooses to smoke a j occasionally. It's just part of our culture. Not just "cannabis culture" or "drug culture," but American culture. It's a good message to project.Note to E_Johnson: I agree with you. I wish he would find the strength to fight the system as well. It seems like the only real difference between me and you on this issue is how far we go to demonstrate out displeasure with his decision to cop a plea. I can forgive his behavior because I am not sure that I would act differently (given that I would hate to spend nine years away from my wife and all), and I think it is a lot harder for a lot of people (not just you, obviously) to forgive hime for it. I do understand your anger. Thanks for taking the time to get it across to me.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #69 posted by FoM on September 15, 2003 at 22:47:22 PT
NORML Action Alert: Free Tommy Chong!
Tell Congress To Stop Prosecuting Paraphernalia Sellershttp://capwiz.com/norml2/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=3406006
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #68 posted by FoM on September 15, 2003 at 22:30:49 PT
 EJ, I Agree
Yes I do. A serious movie seems right because this is a serious issue. In the times of Cheech and Chong movies people knew their movies were extreme but they were funny. Most people back then believed the laws would be changed in the near future. As we know it didn't happen or we wouldn't be here doing this now.A small joke:Knock, Knock, Knock. The man opens the door and finds a small snail on his stoop. He picks up the little critter and throws it as far as he can. Three years later, three more knocks. The man opens the door and there sits the same snail. He looks at the man and says, What was that about?"That little joke reminded me of all of us and our determination.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #67 posted by E_Johnson on September 15, 2003 at 22:10:28 PT
The pot movies of the future
are going to be dramas, not comedies, I predict.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #66 posted by FoM on September 15, 2003 at 21:31:47 PT
Thanks BGreen
That is interesting about Poltergeist. I've seen Half Baked but not Dazed and Confused. I am thinking about the movies we had and can't think of more movies that talk about pot. That 70s Show does some really funny smoking scenes. I can't believe they haven't been censored yet. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #65 posted by BGreen on September 15, 2003 at 21:21:36 PT
How about Poltergeist?
Craig T. Nelson and Jobeth Williams enjoyed smoking cannabis after the kids went to bed.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #64 posted by BGreen on September 15, 2003 at 21:16:21 PT
Dazed and Confused
is another movie about teenagers in the 70's using cannabis.The title alludes to the Led Zeppelin song of the same name.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #63 posted by E_Johnson on September 15, 2003 at 20:37:43 PT
About the lawyer
"Apparently his attorney is starting to make noise at the "injustice" and made an analogy to Schwartzenegger's movies showing him as a killer doesn't necessarily make it true in real life.
"After the Revolution, he will be executed.(Just kidding hehehehe I just felt like saying that, it's a seventies college student thing.)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #62 posted by FoM on September 15, 2003 at 20:34:08 PT
Thanks Patrick
I'll keep that movie in mind. I just found this picture from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. The really funny thing is I never watched this movie. We owned a video store for almost 10 years and it was one of my top rentals. http://www.netwalk.com/~truegger/ftrh/inside-van.jpg
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #61 posted by E_Johnson on September 15, 2003 at 20:30:56 PT
Okay here is one strategy
For dealing with Karen Houghton's comment implying that the continued availability of pro-pot movies is a matter of criminal concern, here is the ACLU of Pennsylvania Civil Liberies Complaint Form:http://www.aclupa.org/legal/civil_liberties_complaint_form.htmIf we all file complaints on Karen Houghton's commentary during the sentencing regarding constitutionally protected ilms of Tommy Chong, maybe at least she'll feel some peer pressure in her own legal community over this.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #60 posted by Patrick on September 15, 2003 at 20:29:03 PT
Friday
...is the name of another movie that is not so much about pot but that pot is just a normal part of everyday life. TGIF! If you haven't seen Friday FoM you should. It is a very funny movie. Personally, I don't think that kids should smoke anything but have heard that they have a game where they take a toke everytime the characters do it in the movie. I have never bothered to count how many times that might be but the character "Smokey" is a riot who smokes all the way through the movie.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #59 posted by FoM on September 15, 2003 at 20:18:15 PT
Movies That Mention Pot
I was trying to think of well known movies that marijuana is a part of the movie.I thought of one of my all time favorites right away: Easy Rider. Others I thought of are: Half Baked, The Big Chill, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Breakfast Club, All of Cheech and Chongs movies, Animal House, Saving Grace, and St. Elmos Fire.  I could be wrong on a few of these though.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #58 posted by Mike on September 15, 2003 at 20:02:22 PT
Celebrity Justice
Just saw a segment about Tommy Chong. Seems that previously there were two other people sentenced for the very same thing by a different judge and each of the other people received six months of house arrest.Apparently his attorney is starting to make noise at the "injustice" and made an analogy to Schwartzenegger's movies showing him as a killer doesn't necessarily make it true in real life. Tommy Chong himself is now saying he was singled out because of his status.Its going to be interesting to see what else is revealed and how this pans out. Still, I'd like some mention and questioning made somewhere of the outrageous comment "His movies are still available!"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by FoM on September 15, 2003 at 19:57:38 PT
Thanks Mike
I appreciate it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by Mike on September 15, 2003 at 19:54:43 PT
FoM
Thanks for slight editing. As soon as the post went up I knew I shouldn't have mentioned it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by E_Johnson on September 15, 2003 at 17:45:57 PT
This is an important issue
We can condemn the system all day and all night, it's what we normally do.But we have a choice in how we respond to the system and everyone's choices end up depending on everyone else's choices.So it's not only valid but important to understand the impact of various choices on others in the community and on the rest of the country.Tommy Chong's choices not only affect him but also everyone else.They chose him because he is symbolic and so we have to discuss him like he is symbolic.I really wish he would find whatever inner strength he needs to make a stand for dignity and freedom.It would matter a lot, because he is in the spotlight now.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by Dan B on September 15, 2003 at 16:16:37 PT
conemned
You know what I meant: condemned. Sorry about the typo.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by Dan B on September 15, 2003 at 16:15:02 PT
Mike and E_Johnson
I hope you aren't actually angry with me for making the points I have made. I know that I singled out your comments, but I did it for the sake of expediency. I of course stand by your right to feel as you do and to express that. I just happen to disagree on some points, particularly with condemning Tommy Chong when I think it is more constructive to condemn the system that conemned him. You don't have to agree. We can agree to disagree, I think, and still get along, right?Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by Dan B on September 15, 2003 at 16:06:41 PT
Okay, okay
I hope I can make myself more clear this time because I know I haven't done so in my previous remarks. What I am saying is this: Tommy Chong's plea has not changed the way the courts work. The only person his plea really affects is Tommy Chong. By the same token, I think that both the prosecutor and the judge behaved in a manner completely outside what should be normal jurisprudence in this country. Aside from the fact that there should be no laws against cannabis and its attendant accouterments, lawyers and judges should also never argue that "His movies are still available." That comment should never have ocurred in a court of law, especially in America. What I meant to say with all of this is that the courts and the prosecutor are wrong on so many levels that they are difficult to enumerate. I still don't fault Tommy Chong for that. It is fine if you do, and you can get as angry as you want. In the end, our energies are better spent going after the laws than going after the people who are victimized by the laws.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by afterburner on September 15, 2003 at 15:04:47 PT:
Mike - Comment #48 
"or they will have the attitude that if someone isn't doing anything they shouldn't be doing, there would be nothing to hide. ::shudder::"I know a few people who already voice these sentiments regarding surrendering our rights in order to fight terrorism. ::shudder::DEA searches: LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by E_Johnson on September 15, 2003 at 14:59:01 PT
How things have changed
Things really are different from the days of Up in Smoke. Back then, stoners were apolitical, by and large, with the exception of Vietnam.Today, it seems that many people are attracted to the marijuana reform movement more for the politics than for the marijuana!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by FoM on September 15, 2003 at 13:32:14 PT
Mike
I slightly edited your post so flaming can't start. I'm very happy with all the comments that I'm reading today. Hope you understand. 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #48 posted by Mike on September 15, 2003 at 13:22:04 PT

Dan B
This is an emotionally charged issue, and I suppose its important to remember that we are on the same side. It just sickens me what this country is turning into. The positive side of that is how absurd the US is looking in the eyes of the rest of the world.As for accepting a "deal", I would never accept any such deal. I would go to Canada first. Which is where Tommy chong should have been selling his waterpipes to begin with. The thing that scares me the most is that we aren't very far from a society that will require mandatory implants to be tested yearly for any "illegal" substance. This would become as routine as renewing a driver's license.. and it would be so gradual people won't notice.. or they will have the attitude that if someone isn't doing anything they shouldn't be doing, there would be nothing to hide. ::shudder::However, I really do believe things happened for a reason. Wouldn't it be something is Tommy chong were to be killed in prison? I wonder how the media and public attention might be influenced. Of course, something like that happening would be terrible, but certainly we know that its not to be unexpected. Horrible things happen to good people wrongfully jailed all the time. I just hope the attitude wouldn't be "well he was a dopehead,so no big loss."Finally, I want to point out that I respect you and the views of most everyone here. Any time we lose a battle our emotions get charged. Like when Nevada had the re-legalization on the ballot. Of course it wasn't going to pass with all the federal money campaigning against it. Public opinion is easily manipulated with advertising. But I watched people here becoming so over-confident that when the measure was defeated they took it out on each other here.I won't hate Tommy chong. But I sure would like to hear his side of this.. most likely after he (hopefully) gets out. It just sounds like there must be too much missing from this puzzle.BUT, E_J is so right on. That comment "His movies are still available!" Implying that they should be illegal. I can certainly see forms of speech becoming illegal. We are already seeing it begin. I'm just glad that in the eyes of the rest of the world the US is becoming more and more isolated. haha.. we jail cancer patients until they die a painful death, while within a few years the EU will be dispensing cannabis to patients. What a world!On a side note, as an element of frustration, I went to the DEA site and entered terms into their search engine like "Tandy and Nazism" or "Walters and 'Hitler worship'". I know they monitor those searches, as they say so. Just venting a little steam. Have a good one. ;)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #47 posted by E_Johnson on September 15, 2003 at 12:57:18 PT

I'll tell you why Dan B.
"Has he been a sterling example for the cannabis using community? No. What makes you think he should do so now?"Because we demand it from him, having made him rich with our own hard-earned cash.If he wants to keep mining our wallets for his source of cash, then he'd better do more to back the community.Where else does he have to turn to feed his expensive lifestyle?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #46 posted by E_Johnson on September 15, 2003 at 12:50:43 PT

I stand by everything
It's pretty clear from everything that was written about this proceeding that the reason why he was given any time at all was because he participated in cannabis culture on a political and artistic level.WHY ELSE PRAY TELL did the subject even come up????This was not small talk they were making. His films are still available. The prosecutor complained about that in the court in front of everyone.Why on Earth should Karen Houghton complain that constitutionally protected films are still available? The proper complaint from an officer of the court sworn to uphold the Constitution would be that the films were NOT available, because if the films were NOT available, then that would indicate a crime had occurred.In a trial, if they had mentioned his films, that could have been grounds for appeal. That would have struck a blow for the whole of cannabis culture, for the basic right to make a pro-pot film and not have it result in criminal penalties some day.Since he decided to plead guilty rather than go to trial, he can't appeal anything. The question is legally moot since he signed away all of his rights in the plea agreement.But I can still get mad about what happened and you cannot do one thing to change that, at all.Are we fighting for our own selves or for something more important than that?Would you would have accepted a plea bargain from the British instead of going to war in 1776?The maximum penalty for telling the British to go to Hell was death.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #45 posted by Dan B on September 15, 2003 at 10:06:13 PT

Mike
Complacency, oh well its the law, therefore they are justified. Did you know that it was constitutionally LAWFUL to kill the Jews in Germany? The laws were gradually modified to make this possible. Gestapo or soldiers could kill on the spot that they personally deemed a threat to the nation. And people did nothing! It got to the point where the soldiers doing the killing grew up knowing nothing but this reality. It was just a part of life, like our unconstitutional laws today have become so engrained that people just roll over and say its the law, oh well. Be it the "Patriot Act" or Hitler's "Enabling Act".You are twisting my words. I never said that what they did was justified; I said it was legal. E.Johnson specifically asked, "Was it legal for Karen Houghton to even mention Chong's LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED movies in his sentencing hearing?" I was answering that question. She also pointed out that "It is wrong wrong wrong to add prison time to a sentence because of a movie someone made." I merely pointed out the fallacy in her thinking that the judge added time to his sentence. The potential sentence was up to a year in prison. The judge actually gave him less than the maximum in terms of prison time. If we are to be taken seriously, we need to get our facts straight, and we need to be careful about the way our message comes across.I don't need a history lesson about WWII; I know quite a bit about that time period and the correlation between what went on in Nazi Germany and what is going on now with the American "drug war." An excellent book on the topic (if you have not yet read it) is Richard Lawrence Miller's Drug Warriors and Their Prey. I encourage everyone at Cannabis News to read it as it is chock full of reasons why the drug laws--all of them--need to be changed.I stand by my original post, whose principal point was that we should be going after the laws and not after Tommy Chong.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #44 posted by Dan B on September 15, 2003 at 09:52:47 PT

Tommy Chong Never Was a Hero
In which movie did Tommy Cong stand up to the police when arrested for charges related to cannabis? In which movie did he provide an accurate portrayal of the average cannabis user? I'd like a recitation of the exact situation and the exact dialog from the movie in which these events tok place.Tommy Chong is good at making people laugh at him and specifically at his cannabis smoking. He and Cheech Marin are almost single-handedly responsible for creating the "stupid stoner" image that cops have used to justify busting cannabis users for decades since then. Has he been entertaining? You bet. I'll admit that I laughed right along with everyone else. Has he been a sterling example for the cannabis using community? No. What makes you think he should do so now?I support Tommy Chong's First Amendment rights to make such movies and portray such characters. I also support his right to sell thousands of bongs and pipes that are primarily used for the purpose of smoking cannabis. The former is his right as an American citizen, and the later should be his right as well. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that his production of "stoner movies" means that he owes some kind of blood debt to the cannabis smoking community. That's like saying that anyone who writes anything at Cannabis News must sacrifice potentially years from his or her life in order that the cannabis smoking community might save some face should he or she be caught.Instead of berating Tommy Chong's for his decision to not fight the federal government in a losing battle, we should be using his case as a prime example of what is wrong with the cannabis laws. As goneposthole has pointed out, all we are doing by going after Chong is "blaming the victim," and that gets us nowhere.The maximum penalty for "paraphernalia" possession in federal court is 3 years in prison. The maximum penalty for a first possession of any amount of cannabis is one year in prison and $1000. But Tommy Chong had nearly a pound of cannabis, which in the eyes of the feds means intent to sell. To their way of thinking, that makes him automatically guilty of selling (they don't have to prove that he actually sold any; they just have to prove that he had more than a "personal use" amount, usually defined as one ounce or less). If they had additionally charged him with selling, that charge carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The judge ultimately decides whether to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively. If ran consecutively, Tommy Chong would have been facing 9 years in prison and a $251,000 fine, which would likely have gone toward the costs of busting more cannabis users--possibly toward busting medical marijuana users in California, the feds' current favorite pastime. Instead, Chong pled to just the minimum charge and got 9 months plus a $20,000 fine. That's less than one-tenth of his potential maximum sentence. All he had to do was say he was wrong, that he was a bad example, and that he wouldn't do it again. If I were in his position, I would have taken the same deal. You would have, too.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #43 posted by Mike on September 15, 2003 at 08:07:27 PT:

Dan B, sorry but E_J is right on
Complacency, oh well its the law, therefore they are justified. Did you know that it was constitutionally LAWFUL to kill the Jews in Germany? The laws were gradually modified to make this possible. Gestapo or soldiers could kill on the spot that they personally deemed a threat to the nation. And people did nothing! It got to the point where the soldiers doing the killing grew up knowing nothing but this reality. It was just a part of life, like our unconstitutional laws today have become so engrained that people just roll over and say its the law, oh well. Be it the "Patriot Act" or Hitler's "Enabling Act".I can imagine it now. Jews in Germany with Chong's ethics: "Yes, being a Jew is wrong and we should be killed (just be kinder to me.)"You know what fries me the most? That he rolled over and plead guilty and denounced his fandom before a sentencing deal. THEN he basically said *they were right* and all of us who have enjoyed his character and movies for years have been wrong.I'm sure glad people like Marc Emery have more nads than Tommy Chong apparently doesn't.Perhaps its fate.If his sentencing prevents him from making another "dope" movie, sadly it will be for the better. Our cause has gained too much momentum only to have Cheech and Chong come along now and fuel old stereotypes, even though worldwide momentum will continue regardless of Tommy Chong or Johnny P. Nazi.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #42 posted by goneposthole on September 15, 2003 at 07:30:20 PT

my mind reads it correct
but my eyes deceive me. it should read 'about what he has done'.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #41 posted by goneposthole on September 15, 2003 at 07:26:02 PT

Won't argue with you on that one
I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me, me.It gets old fast. John Ashcroft is guilty there, all he thinks about is himself, first and foremost. He has used Tommy Chong so he can gloat about he has done. It's a crime and a crying shame. John Ashcroft's me, me, me attitude stinks to High Heaven.He is hardly a shining beacon for what is right, good and true.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #40 posted by E_Johnson on September 15, 2003 at 06:52:40 PT

What I blame Tommy Chong for
Only caring about the money he could make from this movement and not bothering to give anything back to the community in terms of leadership.It's the Baby Boomer Me Generation.He's all about himself. That's all the boomers were about.I don't want to die in Vietnam, but it's okay for my kids to die in Iraq.I don't want to go to jail for pot, but it's okay for my own kid's nasty pothead friends to be locked away in prison for pot.I want my right to free expression, but those people who glamorize drugs to my kids have to be put in jail.That's the ethics and idealism of the Baby Boomer generation, right there.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #39 posted by E_Johnson on September 15, 2003 at 06:37:16 PT

Journalism is a future victim
If pro-pot movies are not protected by the First Amendment during criminal sentencing, then neither is pro-pot journalism.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #38 posted by E_Johnson on September 15, 2003 at 06:23:39 PT

You'd better be wrong
I don't believe that it is legal for a judge and prosecutor to sit in a court room and add prison time to a bong seller because "his movies are still available."That has to be wrong. His movies are still available because people fought and died on a battlefield to build a country where free expression is legally protected by the highest law of the land.Maybe Karen Houghton can excuse violating his First Amednment rights on the basis of determining "character" but I think this BS is just end run around the Constitution.Are pro-pot movies protected by the First Ameendment or NOT?If the answer is YES then there cannot be ANY criminal penalties of any kind for having made them.Congress shall make NO LAW restricting that freedonm. NO LAW to me means NO LEGAL MEANS of punishing someone criminally for their free expression.If we don't fight the Karen Houghtons of this world, then we are going down the tubes, be sure of it. We will most definitely lose this war if we sit back and allow them to get away with THIS.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #37 posted by BigDawg on September 15, 2003 at 05:55:54 PT

Dan B
Well said.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #36 posted by Dan B on September 15, 2003 at 02:16:11 PT

Stop Blaming The Victim
Some of you aren't going to like this, so skip it if you must. I am responding to a few things that were said in comments here.Was it legal for Karen Houghton to even mention Chong's LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED movies in his sentencing hearing?Yes, it is legal as it goes toward establishing the character of the defendent. In a sentencing phase of a hearing, such matters are routinely taken into acount, though most people haven't made movies about being stoned.It is wrong wrong wrong to add prison time to a sentence because of a movie someone made.Well, the judge didn't add prison time, he simply gave a sentence closer to the maximum than he might have had he not had bias. Like it or not, the laws stipulate that a judge can use his or her discretion when sentencing as long as the sentence falls within the guidelines, and the "character of the defendent" does count. If Chong's lawyers would have argued against the judge's bias, the judge would have reminded the lawyer of this fact. The lawyer didn't bring it up because the lawyer knew this to be true. In fact, this judge didn't even give the maximum penalty, which was a year in prison.  The hard truth is that Chong was caught red-handed with thousands of pieces of evidence that he broke the law that outlaws "drug paraphernalia." Any head shop owner in this country could be raided tomorrow and find him or herself in the same position. The charge is legal because there is a law against such things. In short, Tommy Chong knew that he was busted and he made a deal to get the least possible charge. He wasn't even given the maximum sentence for that charge. In the eyes of the law, he got off easy.When we see Tommy Chong groveling in front of the judge, we should understand his groveling as a sign that there is something truly screwed up with the law, not that there is something wrong with Tommy Chong. Obviously, not all of us here recognize that fact. I always liked him, but Tommy Chong betrayed us ALL.No, he didn't. If he betrayed anyone, he betrayed himself. Furthermore, if anyone betrayed us, it's the government of the United States that passed the laws against cannabis in the first place and continues to enforce them in the face of stacks of evidence that it is only doing harm by doing so. Sadly, Tommy Chong gets NO sympathy from me. What he did was STUPID and SELFISH. He deserves LIFE for pleading guilty. Imprisonment for helping destroy the life, liberty, and freedom of the people.Please! Why is it that everyone feels a need to blame the victim in this case? Did you think that Tommy Chong was some kind of superhero? He's human, and he made a mistake. Deal with it. If you truly believe that he deserves life in prison for pleading guilty and taking a lighter sentence, you should believe the same for anyone who pleads guilty to cannabis or paraphernalia charges. If you believe that, what are you doing trying to change the laws against cannabis? Do you really believe in an individual's right to choose for him or herself what is best for his or her own life? Or does that principle only apply when it comes to cannabis? It isn't Tommy's fault that the laws are so screwed up. The charges themselves are what we should be angry at, not Tommy Chong's response to them. If you believe otherwise, I encourage you to go down to the state police station in your neck of the woods, spark up a bong, and smoke until you get arrested. Then come back here and tell us all how good you feel about fighting the charges that will be brought against you. Come back, that is, after you get out of jail.Dan B

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #35 posted by estey on September 14, 2003 at 21:22:21 PT

FYI
The "man" who convicted Chong is Arthur J Schwab.From google (search for arthur j schwab pa):Arthur J Schwab
3000 Old Orchard Ct
Gibsonia, PA 15044
Phone: (724) 625-2747This is his home address. Here is his "work" address:Arthur J Schwab 
301 Grant St
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 562-1438 Let your voice be heard...

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #34 posted by Nuevo Mexican on September 14, 2003 at 21:11:16 PT

Word up mike, it was OJ's son, 
so much for your theory on Tommy Chong! LOL!
This will backfire, and Tommy chong will not be serving 9 months, the publicity will be too good for his next pot-exploiting movie, or he'll turn into the George Soros of the Paraphenalia Business, hopefully It's all good! Right Tommy? ('stupid' gene notwithstanding, Cannabis-comedy has always been Tommys' cure for financial doom, or how would this dumbed down version of a sixties Zap comix character have gotten this far. I agree the Cheech and Chong movies set us back, well, at least 25 years! There's always hope of him having an Ed Rosenthal-like effect somehow (or Mr. Magoo) and things ending up going his way as usual, with an education in the ways of the drug war, as a benefit to the cannabis community? He doesn't belong in jail, but seems to think he deserves it somehow, and he won't feel that way next week! Developing....
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #33 posted by goneposthole on September 14, 2003 at 20:39:18 PT

appalling is right
the whole business of it smells bad. Vincent Bugliosi would have a few choice words for all of this sham of a trial, and hearing them would be worth the while. Instead, we have a ravenous US Attorney General that goes for blood and grinds out a pound of flesh. Tommy Chong was exercising his free speech rights on the court house steps, and was punished for doing so. Anything he said can be and will be held against him, and was. He incriminated himself in the eyes of the insane drug laws. He just doesn't have to testify against himself. He is legally protected by the fifth amendment. Different deal, totally. What the Judge and the attorney did was oppurtunistic for sure. They should be appalled at themselves. Giordano Bruno wouldn't recant that the earth revolves around the sun and was subsequently burned at the stake for doing so. He was guilty of butting heads with the Pope back then whether or not he was right about the earth revolving around the sun. The Pope's word trumped Bruno's. Crocodile tears from a Pope, too. Such was 'justice' in the year 1600, and has a similar distasteful flavor in America today, 2003.
Appalling is the proper descriptive word.John Ashcroft's 'divine right' rivals that of Popes of long ago. A helluva note. When St. Peter greets him at the Pearly Gates, John Ashcroft is in for a big surprise. Karma will play a hand in all of this here on earth beforeso. I have a feeling Tommy Chong is going to get the last laugh in the trial by ordeal. He is maybe guilty of being somewhat lose with his tongue. 
He has every right to say any thing he wants. He is innocent of any wrong doing. These are sad days for America. Gone to hell in a handbasket is all too true. Nowadays, you can be fined 1000 dollars for transporting garden seeds across state lines without proper documentation. Type in 'white list' on a search.Justice is what we need, hell is what we get. It will change.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #32 posted by E_Johnson on September 14, 2003 at 20:21:58 PT

Every SINGLE journalist missed this point
These journalists worked thenmselves up into such a lather to sound properly world weary and contemporary that they missed something that presumably ought to be vital and critical to their own field.I think we should all write letters to the editor that remind the journalists that although selling bongs may be against the law, making pro-pot movies is not only legal, but protected by the Bill of Rights, and therefore this judge and prosecutor have no business at all mentioning his films in his sentencing hearing or taking them into consideration in any way at all.Suppose some reporter gets busted for pot, and the prosecutor notes that their published articles all seem to be pro-marijuana.This Karen Houghton needs to be confronted.If AUSA Karen Houghton wants to make pro-pot movies a crime for which one can be punished with jail time, then she needs to go to Congress and ask them to do that. AUSA Karen Houghton can't just shut down everyone's rights to free expression in this country during the sentencing phase of a plea bargain.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #31 posted by John Tyler on September 14, 2003 at 20:09:01 PT

good analysis
After reading all of the comments on this, I think that e_johnson has a good grip on some valid points. It was truely disappointing to see Tommy cave in like a whipped prisoner..."I got my mind right now, boss" (from Cool Hand Luke) and give up everything, even letting the judge and prosecutor take his First Admentment Right. By his actions he demeans everyone. Maybe he had weak lawyers, maybe it was hard for him to be brave. I don't know. I hope he realizes what he has done. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #30 posted by FoM on September 14, 2003 at 20:07:46 PT

Yes EJ
I think this is terrible. It's wrong and I wish I knew what to do to make a difference. What does Cheech Marin think about it. Is he upset? I'd like to hear something from him.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #29 posted by E_Johnson on September 14, 2003 at 19:05:05 PT

How can what they did be legal?
The judge and prosecutor are both on the public record admitting that they used Tommy Chong's constitutionally protected films in consideration of his sentence.How can that be legal? Doesn't the Bill of Rights operate at all in the sentencing phase after a plea bargain?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #28 posted by E_Johnson on September 14, 2003 at 19:02:34 PT

We need to shut this door ASAP
Is it or is it not legal to criminally punish seomone for their pro-pot movies, books, discuissions, postings, email or speech?If it is not legal, then the government broke the law and Tommy Chong's lawyers let them.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #27 posted by E_Johnson on September 14, 2003 at 18:52:18 PT

Think of it this way FoM
Imagine any one of us being sentenced, and the prosecutor searches for everything we ever said about marijuana on the Internet, and comes to court and uses the fact that we admit in public that we are pro-legalization to slap extra time on us?This is the same deal here. This can now happene to anyone. Pro-marijuana speech is now something you can be legally punished for, according to this sentencing.The judge and prosecutor openly admitted that his protected utterances as a film star factored into his sentencing.So how can those utterances be protected by the Constitution, if he can be legally punished for having made them?According to this judge and this prosecutor, you CAN be criminally punished for pro-marijuana speech.Is no one appalled by this??????????????????????
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #26 posted by E_Johnson on September 14, 2003 at 18:44:50 PT

goneposthole I won't give up MY rights
He can plead guilty to any damn thing he wants but when he apologizes for a constitutionally protected activity -- he's wrong, he's really really really wrong.Because it's not just his right to make dope movies, it's everyone's. He is not in THAT boat all by himself and he sure doesn't have the right to drill a big hole in it and help sink it.It is wrong wrong wrong to add prison time to a sentence because of a movie someone made.His movies were not just legal -- they were legally protected. Legally protected means he cannot be punished in any way shape or form for having made them.The AUSA and the judge both put themselves on record as considering the films he made as the main reason why he got prison time instead of probation.It's really absolutely distressing, and it appalls me that nobody seems to be picking up on what happened.You cannot get time because you made a l;egal, constitutionally protected movie.Yet we see that he did get time for that movie, the judge and prosecutor brought this up in open court with no shame whatsoever, and it is appalling and frightening and Chong was wrong to let them get away with it.It's not just HIS First Amendment, it belongs to everyone. 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #25 posted by FoM on September 14, 2003 at 11:26:29 PT

One More Thought
Tommy Chong is 65 years old. He might be feeling his age and might be losing his fight. When we built our house we in our late 20s. What we lacked in money we made up with our youthful strength. I think it would be impossible for us to do what we did back then now and maybe Tommy Chong can't deal with it like he would have when he was younger. Just a thought.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #24 posted by goneposthole on September 14, 2003 at 05:25:17 PT

Vincent Bugliosi
I would like to see him tear into John Ashcroft just once. One time would be enough.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #23 posted by goneposthole on September 14, 2003 at 05:12:38 PT

doubly victimized
If you were being fined upto 250 000, 00 USD and had a family to think about, what would you do? Let's blame the victim, Mr. Tommy Chong, for being a victim.Sorry, but I am just not buying this bs about first amendment rights being trampled on. The guy has a heavy boot on his crotch, writhing from the pain of it, and then also gets kicked in the head for good measure.This ain't funny. John Ashcroft is having a hayday on this one, he doesn't need any more help.First they came for Tommy Chong, but it wasn't me, so it's his problem. Then they came for E_Johnson, but it wasn't me, that's her problem. Then they came for FoM, but it wasn't me, that's her problem. Then they came for you, and that's your problem. I'm gonna run and hide, hope they don't catch me, the others can fend for themselves.Like I say, this stuff ain't funny. How fast would you roll over and die? Who's next?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #22 posted by FoM on September 13, 2003 at 21:39:08 PT

ekim
I hope a movie will be made.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #21 posted by ekim on September 13, 2003 at 21:31:48 PT

Brother Tommy that is.
think smiling be kind.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by FoM on September 13, 2003 at 21:29:52 PT

Mike
I understand how you feel. Time will tell us the truth as it always does. It might be a while until we know why this whole thing went down the way it did. They did find almost a pound of marijuana and yet not much was said about it in any articles just the charges against his business. Something isn't right is all I know.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by ekim on September 13, 2003 at 21:18:27 PT

stop iwana get out of this uniform
like when in the Wall he tears off his cloths and the whole tempo changes -- man i can see a most fantastic movie of just what has become of this great Nation it will be an epic. Tommy will be a part of it its being filmed as we read, i try to remember the Wall when he said together we stand divied we fall. we have come too far to fall so pick up those that would start that momentum.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by Mike on September 13, 2003 at 20:56:42 PT

2 more cents
FoM, I was thinking like you before. Last night I was thinking that his family might have been threatened because it was easier to believe than what he actually did to be of his own volition. I almost posted that here. Then I got to thinking... The charges were so validly questionable to begin with. Trying to drag anyone else into it would have undermined and diluted what they were trying to achieve. If anyone threatens my family, I will fight harder and let everyone know what they have done. He simply rolled over. Just horrifying. However, there are many many examples of people fighting the system and doing fantastic work in the process, like Ed Rosenthal to name one example. However, I no longer believe 'they' threatened Tommy Chong's wife any more than I believe 'they' framed OJ Simpson. And I'm NOT happy to have come to that conclusion.goneposthole,Sadly, Tommy Chong gets NO sympathy from me. What he did was STUPID and SELFISH. He deserves LIFE for pleading guilty. Imprisonment for helping destroy the life, liberty, and freedom of the people.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by FoM on September 13, 2003 at 16:36:37 PT

My 2 Cents
I have been thinking how I feel about Tommy Chong and what he has said about marijuana. He is married and maybe they threatened to bring charges against his wife if he didn't cooperate. I can't help but feel it might be to protect her. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by goneposthole on September 13, 2003 at 16:15:00 PT

I don't think so
Judicial system failure, failure of the Drugwar, continued persecution of cannabis imbibers, including Tommy Chong is all too evident, yet Tommy Chong gets beat upon. Give it up. Come to the aid of your fellow man. Who has been betrayed here, fellow cannabists?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by Rev Jonathan Adler on September 13, 2003 at 13:54:50 PT:

Freedom is precious, family is first.
Advocates who walk this road are subject to very negative consequences, such as having your house shot at 9 times, while your children and wife almost were hit; Being singled out for prosecution when you prove your legal burdens in court; getting thrown in jail for 180 days straight 1 month after another Judge gave you an ounce back by court order (the same amounts of the same substance), being kidnapped at gunpoint and walking away from the psycho trusting in the Lord; Being made to look guilty while running for Governor and having the voters told NOT to vote for you; having to suffer over-flights of helicopters at 50 feet off the deck almost daily and nightly; ..... gee whiz, I think I must be venting! Sorry; it sort of bottles up a bit now and then.
 *Life is good and lessons are meant to be learned, right?
All becaused I refused to be a criminal and insisted on being legal. Oh well! This is a great experience to share with others. Peace, Rev. Jonathan Adler
Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by Jose Melendez on September 13, 2003 at 12:51:38 PT

 Do we have an big-name attorney reading?
Peterson?Segesta?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by Jose Melendez on September 13, 2003 at 12:50:11 PT

afterburner
PLEASE check your references, and try to be more careful:http://www.snopes.com/quotes/caesar.htm
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by Max Flowers on September 13, 2003 at 10:55:30 PT

By the way, E_...
I love the way your mind works... if you weren't married to Mr._Johnson, I'd be asking you out lickety-split. :-)Oh and I also think that you just defined solid grounds for an immediate appeal of that conviction and sentence: that A) his freedom of speech was used against him illegally and improperly by the judge in considering his "crime" and let's throw in from me too that B) his attorneys were guilty of gross malpractice in not objecting to such an obvious breach of civil rights as it happened in court. Do we have an big-name attorney reading? Come on, this is a no-brainer, this thing should be able to be thrown out.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by afterburner on September 13, 2003 at 10:50:49 PT:

Something to Think about
US NC: OPED: 'Do Your Own Thing' Boomers Doom Individual Liberty 10 Sep 2003 
Daily Record, The (Dunn, NC) 
http://www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v03/n1370/a03.htmlI say they just forgot their mission when the Just Say No storm troopers came knocking down their doors. The SWAT team approach to social engineering spread fear across the land. The terrorism of 9/11 is just the latest fear-mongering event. "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- Julius Caesar - 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by Mike on September 13, 2003 at 10:50:16 PT

E_Johnson
THANK YOU! I always liked him, but Tommy Chong betrayed us ALL. That was VERY BAD and set a HORRIBLE precedent.  I'm just disgusted.  It was a very stupid move, but no one ever accused Tommy Chong of being a genious."His movies are still available!"  The Nazis are closing their fists....
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by Max Flowers on September 13, 2003 at 10:43:52 PT

E_Johnson
I'm right there with you, I was telling someone that yesterday... he tried to suck up to those bastards, and grovel for a plea bargain, licking the hand of the cruel masters and got slapped down. He should have demanded a jury trial, and exposed in the press the unconstitutional and absurd waste of energy going after a man selling glass tubes. And his attorneys should be disbarred for leading him right into that meat grinder with no effective defense... it's as if they were working for the other side. The obvious defense, that anything from tobacco to salvia to dog doo could be smoked in those pipes and he has no control over what someone does with them, was not used. The whole thing was pathetic.On the other hand, when Tommy gets out, he will be able to make a book deal worth about 10 million. I hope he knows this. (I got a get word to him in case it hasn't occuured to that stony ol' mind of his).
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #8 posted by goneposthole on September 13, 2003 at 07:19:07 PT

Mr. Ashcroft is like Mr. Stalin
It's ok to express your views as long as they coincide with theirs. Such a cheap shot on the weary American populace.Watch out, American great unwashed, watch what you say, but go ahead and gamble, and drink, and fight, and practice your corrupt business but don't even think about smoking cannabis. You'll become a pariah. The pogrom must go on.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #7 posted by E_Johnson on September 13, 2003 at 07:15:22 PT

Were Karen Houghton's comments legal?
Was it legal for Karen Houghton to even mention Chong's LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED movies in his sentencing hearing?Can someone have jail time added to their sentence for the movies they make or the books they write that are legal?THis was such an abomination, I am filled with rage towards Tommy Chong for his failure to defend in court his own right to free expression.I am filled with rage towards that man, seriously, for the way he let Karen Houghton make a criminal issue out of his legal, Constitutionally protected movies.He apologized for making them, instead of standing up for his constitutional right to make them.We all lost something in that exchange.

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on September 13, 2003 at 07:02:41 PT

They missed the most disturbing thing about this
The single most disturbing thing about this prosecutionj was the way the US Attorney Karen HOughten went after the First Amendment.She made his films an issue, which is abominable and a sign of some very bad things to come.It sounds like the Ashcroft administration is getting ready to ban pot movies. I think we should start sending copies of Cheech and Chong movies to all US Attorneys and remind them that this is a legal product and if they want to treat it like it is a criminal banned product then they should come out in public and tell the public that the Department of Justice of the United States wants the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights officially repealed by COngress.THis was a really scary thing. His LEGAL movies became an ISSUE in his CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT.And CHONG LET THEM!!!Tommy Chong didn't even stand up for the First Amendment in his groveling.I did those movies a long time agi Ma'am I would never make another movie like that Ma'am.But they are still available your HOnor! His movies are still available so he must be punished.This was BAD. Tommy Choing groveled away the First Amendment rights of everyone in this country when he apologized for his legal creative product on film.THis is really reaLLY BAD AND THE WORST THING IS NOT THAT HE IS GOING TO PRISON.The worst thing is that he apologized for using his right to free expression and essentially promised not to use it again.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #5 posted by goneposthole on September 13, 2003 at 07:02:31 PT

The author better be careful
Speaking the truth can have a deleterious effect. I guess he's taking his chances. A few words of wisdom for our 'fearless leaders' from Benjamin Franklin:"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest."One would hope that the Bush Cabal would finally learn a thing or two about a thing or two. However, I've given up hope.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on September 13, 2003 at 06:52:32 PT

We've become Cuba
They pay people $1000 to turn other people in?Hey Fidel! This is what you've always wanted for our country Fidel -- for everyone to be as morally destroyed as in Cuba.There is but one thing left to say --Danial Ortega for President
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #3 posted by Jose Melendez on September 13, 2003 at 06:18:23 PT

Justice. Not.
Want proof war on terror equals jobs for drug warriors? Do a search for the word "drug" in this page:http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #2 posted by Jose Melendez on September 13, 2003 at 06:10:51 PT

meanwhile, "Oddly Enough"
from:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=573&ncid=573&e=4&u=/nm/20030912/od_nm/crime_britain_cannabis_dc(snipped)Officers on the street would be left to decide the maximum weight at which cannabis smokers could claim their supplies were for personal use and not dealing, said Andy Hayman, drugs spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers.   "If we start making statements about weights... those who deal in drugs will just make sure they've got possession of a drug just below the weight," he told BBC radio.   Seizures of hard drugs have reached a record high, government figures show, with heroin up 16 percent year-on-year in 2001. But cannabis still accounted for more than seven out of 10 drug seizures.   Hayman said the rationale for existing drug laws -- that people who tried cannabis were often led on to harder drugs -- had been disproved.   "The theory of 'gateway' drugs doesn't stand up," he said. "The evidence does not support that."  
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #1 posted by billos on September 13, 2003 at 03:29:12 PT:

Chong
This is an excellent article. I couldn't have said it better. And, while Ashcroft and Pee walters beat their chests and shine their badges as Chong goes to prison, a few more addicts will overdose on heroin in Anytown, U.S.A.
How pathetic.
[ Post Comment ]






  Post Comment