In 2003,
Tommy Chong, a comedian who made a
career out of acting (and presumably being) stoned, got sent to federal prison
for nine months for illegally selling beautiful custom-made blown-glass bongs (
“drug paraphernalia”) over the Internet.
The story is told in a surprisingly understated and affecting
documentary entitled “aka Tommy Chong,”
which came out a few years ago and just recently made it to my TV screen via
Netflix (that miracle of converging information, communication, and
transportation technologies).
Anyway, what
I want to focus on here is the government rationale for busting Chong, because
it pertains to many difficult social problems. DEA had to go to extraordinary gyrations
(spending millions of dollars in the process) to entrap Chong (who was the
prime investor in his son’s small boutique bong business). Then the helicopters and SWAT teams got to
swoop in on Chong’s house and his little glass-blowing factory to ensure that
no one would get hurt. The Justice
Department also ensured that Chong would cop a plea and do jail time, rather
than go to trial, by threatening to indict his wife and son if he didn’t plead
guilty. Of course this kind of miscarriage
goes on all the time. What’s really incredible
is the skein of logic that the U.S. Attorney used to publicly justify Chong’s high-profile
prosecution: by selling drug paraphernalia, Chong was supporting terrorism. After
all, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda bankroll their operations in part by producing
and selling opium and other illegal drugs, and such drugs require various tools
for preparation and consumption, so those who provide such tools are key
elements of the terrorist infrastructure. Chong’s bong business was supporting our most
dangerous enemies, and he was morally accountable for terrorist attacks. Get it?
Gee, that
reminds me of something else I just read (thanks to Thad Miller alerting me to
this) on ClimateEthics.org, a Web site
sponsored by Penn State University’s Rock Ethics
Institute: “We now
know from climate change science that people consuming a large amount of fossil
fuel derived energy in some developed countries are already contributing to
death and sickness in Africa, South Asia, and threatening residents of small
island states in the Pacific . . . For instance, a village vulnerable to
climate change impacts may be at risk because of unique local geographical
features such as where the village is located in relation to upstream steep
topographical slopes while being in a part of the world where more intense
storms are predicted. . . And so those causing climate change are
causing great harm to others . . . [E]thics
unequivocally requires that those harming others stop the behavior causing
great harm.”
My guess is
that one could make pretty robust predictions about the ideological preferences
of someone who believes that if you sell bongs, you are morally accountable for
supporting terrorism, versus someone who thinks that if you drive a car you are
morally accountable for killing poor people on other continents. Okay fine,
but what about the CO2 emissions from bongs? What about the sponsorship of terrorism by
nations that provide fuel for your car? I
prefer my ethical responsibilities tied to simpler cause-effect chains. Otherwise aren’t we all guilty of everything?
