Forest Service Harassing Rainbows:
The Wyoming chapter of the ACLU contends that the U.S. Forest Service has been harassing the annual gatherings of the "Rainbow Family" gatherings. Why would they do that? Haven't they read Judge Dave and the Rainbow People.
Because the ACLU considers normal expectations of hygiene and behavior on publicly held land enforced by legally employed personnel to do so as the ACLU's usual interpretation of gross denial of rights, and persecution.
Besides, it keeps the Boy Scouts out of there.
I do wonder whether the ACLU might have better things to do. On the other hand, distracting the ACLU with this could leave us better off.
This post is really little more than an excuse to note the Judge Dave book. I'd say it was a rollicking fun read even if I hadn't clerked for the author.
JHA
We have the designated driver program to keep drunk drivers off the road, shall we make the Forest Service the designated suee to keep the ACLU away from the rest of us?
As if there was any connection between Iron Butterfly and reality.
Howsabout "a pot full of pot"?
Did you also clerk for the Department of Redundancy Department?
I sure hope so.
Unfortunately, since the ACLU did their usual good job and talked to only the "Rainbow Family", its probably not true.
Pity.
We all here at the Department of Redundancy Department are all very concerned about your concerns.
Does that mean we can cull them? Hot damn. I am flying back to America, buying an arsenal, and getting as many hunting licenses as they will sell me. All I have to do is randomly disperse bags of pot and bongs throughout the forest and then sit up in a tree with a good view. The folks at the University of Texas were sober and had the good sense to run away and hide, quickly. The guy in the clock tower was still able to pick off a whole lot of people. These Rainbow Family losers are already disoriented. Letting them get stoned before I open fire should tilt the odds in my favor. I bet I can get at least 50.
Does that mean we can cull them? Hot damn. I am flying back to America, buying an arsenal, and getting as many hunting licenses as they will sell me. All I have to do is randomly disperse bags of pot and bongs throughout the forest and then sit up in a tree with a good view. The folks at the University of Texas were sober and had the good sense to run away and hide, quickly. The guy in the clock tower was still able to pick off a whole lot of people. These Rainbow Family losers are already disoriented. Letting them get stoned before I open fire should tilt the odds in my favor. I bet I can get at least 50.
Does that mean we can cull them? Hot damn. I am flying back to America, buying an arsenal, and getting as many hunting licenses as they will sell me. All I have to do is randomly disperse bags of pot and bongs throughout the forest and then sit up in a tree with a good view. The folks at the University of Texas were sober and had the good sense to run away and hide, quickly. The guy in the clock tower was still able to pick off a whole lot of people. These Rainbow Family losers are already disoriented. Letting them get stoned before I open fire should tilt the odds in my favor. I bet I can get at least 50.
Alright then let's consider the situation here. Is the Rainbows group a of hippies, a fair number of which likely smoke pot? Yes, almost certainly. However, there are important issues of liberty involved if the government searches my property solely on the basis of my choice of dress and association rather than individualized suspicion. For instance I think we would all agree that the majority of NORML members have pot in their homes. Hell, finding out someone is a NORML member is probably a better probabilistic indicator of the presence of pot in their home than the evidence given on most search warrants. However, it would be a serious violation of liberty if the government could stop people and search them justified solely on their political beliefs and associations.
The article doesn't give enough details to make it totally clear what happened but it's quite easy to see what might have happened. The forest service, noticing that almost all Rainbows members are dirty pot smoking hippies uses this (correct) stereotype to conclude that Rainbows members they see are likely in possession of a controlled substance and hence have probable cause to search Now it doesn't seem like the ACLU is even necessarily saying that there was some kind of constitutional violation here (they aren't suing) but I think they have a valid concern when the principle trigger for searches is an individuals political/cultural associations (dresses like hippie, member of hippie group).
The point is that we simply don't have enough information to say whether this was a reasonable or unreasonable complaint.
-----
As an aside I'm wondering how much of this great expense the forest service claims was required to monitor these rainbows gathers would have been avoided if they just let the hippies get stoned in peace. I don't want to be a hippie but it's quite sad to see a country founded on the principals of liberty and self-determination come in and tell peaceful stoners that the government has decided their lifestyle is unacceptable and therefore illegal.
The other thing that I remember was that the Forest Service sets limits on how many people can camp at any location, and the Rainbow Family tended to greatly exceed that. The reasons for the limits are not just for the trash, but also for other human damage to the ecology.
While at one level, you can argue that this infringes their rights, on the other, you have to remember that federal lands are held in trust and managed by these agencies for the benefit of the American people. The camping limitations are typically not set for just this one group, but exist long before they ever apply for their permits (and are likely part of the long range Forest Service planning models). So, what we are really seeing here is the ACLU backing one group's right to take from the commons.
The comments were interesting. Rainbow objected to the requirement that someone sign a permit application, on the grounds that they had no leadership or organization, were sort of the Monte Python self-governing collective, minus the self governing, and since no one person could speak for them, no one could sign. I wondered just how someone had submitted the comment raising this issue in the group's name....
AS to the actual issue I wonder if the ACLU, which isn't filing a suit on the issue, got involved in early outrage and when they started investigating realized they were on shaky ground and just released this report to avoid offending people. If there were actual substance to the police abuse charges I doubt the ACLU would have gone without at least getting a response from the USFS.
A local forest ranger had several visits from a Rainbow who was scouting for a gathering place. Naturally, the ranger was less than helpful. At one point the Rainbow became angry. The ranger told him she felt a lot of negative energy around him, which should be taken elsewhere. He left without a word.
It has been my misfortune to drive into areas in the days following Rainbow gatherings twice: once in Kanawha State Forest in West Virginia and another time in a park in Tennessee whose name I have forgotten.
I have never seen anything like it before in my life.
I have seen campsites following large gatherings where there was inadequate garbage pick-up - in those instances people at least make some effort to pile the trash on or near trash cans or dumpsters that are overflowing. Not after the Rainbow gatherings.
Trash strewn everywhere - it looked like the aftermath of a flood or a hurricane. It was simply inbelievable.
If the coppers know in advance there are going to be people assembling who may or may not individually partake in forbidden substances, they set up "safety roadblocks" etc...
While we can certainly quibble over whether the absolute certainty that at least one person of the whole group will have illegal drugs is grounds to have PC to stop them all - - i would hope that a libertarian blog and its readers can see WHY when this does happen people get upset.
This is not to condone the hippies' trashing of forest lands - which is comically ironic in itself - but this whole preemptive policy based on what appears to me to be a fishing expedition is fundamentally incompatible with liberty.
I am going to a music festival next summer. This music festival is known to have people in the past there who have used drugs. Does this mean I will have drugs when I go? Why do i have to be a suspect because of what others have or have not done, or been caught with or arrested for in the past?
One person out of 30 comments here sees a problem with this?
Not a valid objection. Why should those who were extra stupid about these securities get more? If they really think that's a concern then just tie the bailout to restrictions on corporate executive salaries, stock options and bonuses. That's sure to make those greedy SOBs balk at taking the money.
Agree entirely, but that's also wrong. They should start issuing them huge tickets for improper disposal of human waste ($1000 fine IIRC) -- after they haven't paid 3 of 'em, they can start getting injunctions on visiting the park until they've paid.
I think you have it backwards, Burning Man has probably faced more government "oposition". The difference is that instead of ignoring government requests and requirements, Burning Man has considered government requests and fulfilled government requirements (mostly, and made good faith efforts on those they miss).