Drugs, you see, are addictive and

dangerous, and harm people's

lives. So we should protect life

and health by, you know, killing

people. Interestingly, this

excerpt comes from a speech the

Speaker gave to a group of

county sheriffs; during the same

speech, he reminded them that

they were - as local, rather

than federal, law enforcement -

the front line of defense

against not just crime but also

against dictatorial government.

Up on that local front line, the

very same police department

responsible for our airport-road

ticket recently offered up an

extraordinary example of the

consequences that come with the

we-suggest-you-

just-follow-orders-like-we-do

approach to enforcing the rules

of legislatively designed social

behavior.

Michael Pismarck has rented the

granny flat in Bob Brown's back

yard for several years, but he's

not someone you'd be likely to

mistake for an actual granny; he

acknowledges that he

occasionally uses drugs -

marijuana, meth - and has lent

out his couch to

down-on-their-luck friends from

time to time, sometimes even to

friends who also do drugs. We

know, we know: a horrible human

being. But try to read on

calmly.

As the weekly newspaper Westword

reported on 9 April, the police

showed up at Pismarck's door

back in December. They'd been

tipped off to the presence of

drugs in the house, and they

wanted permission to search;

Pismarck said yes. The officers

found an ounce of marijuana and

.078 grams of methamphetamine.

Since he had a roommate at the

time - the roommate apparently

being the person who called the

police - and didn't admit that

the drugs were his, criminal

charges against Pismarck were

dropped.

The police, however, weren't

done. "We'll never know if the

officers found everything

there," a lieutenant told

Westword reporter T.R. Witcher.

"Perhaps he had a small amount

because he sold some."

Arguments like "we'll never know"

and "perhaps he sold some" are

kind of flimsy, but who cares?

Brown recently received a letter

from the police department

ordering him to evict Pismarck.

He refused. Pismarck had been a

good tenant for five years,

despite the single incident with

the police, and was insisting -

plausibly, Brown thought - to

have even "cleaned up his act,"

as Westword describes it. So

the police gave the landlord an

ultimatum: Evict Pismarck

immediately, or they would seize

all of Brown's property. As in

take it from him, remove from

his ownership, take away,

goodbye. The city code enabling

them to do this is called a

"nuisance abatement" law. An

ounce of marijuana, less than a

gram of meth, a few unprovable

feelings over at police

headquarters: Quite a nuisance,

and more than enough to justify

government seizure of someone's

home, clearly.

Despite the momentary lull, one

of the most common complaints

about current US culture is the

aggrieved belief that we no

longer have a good solid set of

rules and values, absolute

boundaries beyond which it's

simply unacceptable to go. Look

for this one to flare up again,

bright and hot, as the momentum

grows toward our next round of

national elections. Pat

Robertson acolyte Kay Coles

James has used precisely the

right language to sum up this

idea:

The murders and the rapes are

really terrible and all that,

but we're to understand that the

last evil, the moral relativism,

is the real biggie. It's the

root of the others - not that

crimes have "root causes," a

verboten term - and the disease

that has to be stomped out

before the others can be truly

healed.

This is supposed to be a

conservative idea, but the truth

is that it can be played either

way. One of the clearest

descriptions of moral relativism

was offered thirty years ago in

a book meant to teach about

social justice. Community

organizer Saul Alinsky

explained, in the 1971 book

Rules for Radicals, how to fight

evil; his recipe for

righteousness in the streets and

cities of the US still reads

like a handbook for third-world

thugs, religious-right-pandering

Republican politicians, and

James Carville. "All issues must

be polarized if action is to

follow," Alinsky wrote. "One

acts decisively only in the

conviction that all the angels

are on one side, and all the

devils are on the other."

And so it becomes possible,

possessing clear and firmly held

moral values, to imprison

anti-democracy candidates, and

prosecute people who express

religious convictions that

threaten religious freedom, and

kill people who sell marijuana

to protect the lives of the

people who smoke it, and seize

homes without evidence to

protect against nuisances. Free

of moral relativism, with all

the devils shoved over to one

side and the path to

righteousness bright and

unimpeded, the perils of

individual judgment are

conveniently overcome, and the

truth - check the appropriate

document for the truth belonging

to your particular order - can

be made to dominate.

Should make a hell of an argument

in traffic court, don't you

think?