The official blog of the Libertarian Party
June 07, 2005
Supreme Court Deals Literal Deathblow to Thousands
By Stephen Gordon
The U.S. Supreme Court decided this week that it is preferable for U.S. citizens to suffer needlessly and oftentimes die rather than for the Constitution to be upheld or the will of the people to be granted.
The Supreme Court has acted in such a matter that tens of thousands of members of a new generation may also suffer and die. However, this time, the deaths are needless.
The ruling vindicates federal drug laws, namely the Controllled Substances Act. In so doing, people like Angel Raich and thousands like her will die, often suffering horribly in the process. Raich suffers from a variety of medical conditions which necessitate the compassionate use of marijuana. Her condition includes an inoperable brain tumor, a uterine tumor and a life-threatening wasting syndrome. Raich lives in California, where the medicinal use of marijuana has been legalized by state law. Currently, ten states and the District of Columbia have enacted compassionate use of marijuana laws.
Should you not believe the consequences to be so grave, a quick analysis of the Peter McWilliams case is indeed sobering. According to the account of conservative commentator William F. Buckley, McWilliams literally choked to death on his own vomit after being denied the only medication which was preventing his nausea. McWilliams was also from California.
While there are no documented cases of death from marijuana use, hundreds of thousands of people suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, anorexia, chronic pain, and numerous other conditions would enjoy a relief from symptoms of these diseases had it not been for this decision.
An even greater number of people - such as my personal friend Laura Campbell, who is a conservative, Southern Baptist mother of three from Alabama - suffer needlessly from chronic conditions which can be effectively treated with the medicinal use of cannabis. Campbell lives in Alabama, one of several states currently considering legislating compassionate use. She suffers from a variety of chronic pain diseases, and is allergic to the more traditional pain medications.
Campbell reports that local drug dealers frequently provide her with free or deeply discounted marijuana out of their concern for her condition. It is indeed telling that drug dealers are more compassionate than our own government.
The 6-3 ruling in the case of Gonzales v. Raich (originally Raich v. Ashcroft) also dealt a death blow to states rights with arguments that growing marijuana for medicinal purposes in one's own backyard somehow involves interstate commerce. Justice John Paul Stevens stated in the majority opinion that locally grown and used marijuana might affect the national market.
". . . the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity," he wrote.
In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.''
While legal scholars debate over the merits of federalism and interstate commerce, real people are going to die as an application of this decision. The growing movement of reformers in a variety of states may still pass laws making it impossible for local law enforcement to prosecute medical marijuana users, but federal agents have been given the green light to target our chronically ill. The obvious consequence of such prosecution will be the suffering and/or deaths of thousands upon thousands of Americans.
There are but three options remaining for such people. Many will continue to consume such products in violation of the law in order to ease their suffering.
Others may, as my friend Steve Kubby did, move into voluntary exile in a country which values human life. Kubby now lives in Canada, and despite some legal difficulties, has managed to control his health care issues though the medicinal use of marijuana. However, he is still considered a fugitive from U.S. law.
The remaining option is to change the law on a federal level. Stevens wrote, "The voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
Perhaps Stevens is out of touch with the legislative branch, as such an attempt was made last year with the Hinchey/Farr-Rohrabacher amendment, which would have defunded all federal efforts to arrest and prosecute medical marijuana users. It failed by a vote of 153-272, however. A crucial positive point is that a wide variety of left and right leaning congressmen were supportive of the proposed legislation.
Another critical point to consider is that an overwhelming majority of Americans support the decriminalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. While poll numbers may vary a bit from state to state and between various demographic groups, there is a clear picture that over 75% of Americans favor medical marijuana while our legislators tend to vote by a two-to-one ratio in the other direction. Clearly, there is a disconnect between our Congress and its constituents.
With the current makeup of the Supreme Court, this writer sees but one legal option remaining. This is to form a broad coalition of drug reform advocacy groups, supportive medical and legal organizations, noted celebrities, supportive leaders from all political ideologies, and patient advocacy groups for the express purpose of enacting federal legislation legalizing cannabis for compassionate purposes. To be sure, there are many organizations already fervently working towards this end. However, each of us has a finite set of resources and the entire movement suffers from naturally occurring conflicting agenda between these various parties. With no reasonable limitation on federal powers remaining, it is time for all of us to put our differences aside in order to meet and determine how we may best work together to expedite such a change in federal law.
Toward this end, the Libertarian Party is willing to facilitate a conference in the D.C. area with the express goal of establishing a more cohesive coalition effort between such groups, personalities, and organizations.
It is time for new federal laws which allow for the compassionate use of marijuana.
It is critical that we act now, before more Steve Kubbys move into exile, more Laura Campbells suffer needlessly, and more Peter McWilliams's choke to death because of our government's callous disregard for the seriously ill in our country.
Stephen P. Gordon is a communications consultant specializing in political, public education, media relations and fundraising campaigns. He is the founder of Alabamians for Compassionate Use and the Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party of Alabama. He recently served as Communications Director for the Badnarik/Campagna 2004 campaign.
Posted by Shane Cory at June 7, 2005 04:29 PM
Reader Comments:
Drug laws and gun control are two issues that make me feel as though the aliens will come and take me home any day now. Sigmund Freud was a cocain addict. When he finally found that it did not do all the things he thought it did, he just stopped taking it. I just cannot believe there is so much widely accepted legitimacy to drug laws and tea toteling when the Founding Fathers were a bunch of drunkards and the 18th and 19th centuries abound with the wide availability of all sorts of hard-core drugs.
And, then just as now, there were addicts. But, then just as now, society didn't ever go to the dogs. And there were a whole lot of users that never did end up on skid row. I just cannot believe that such a movement has gone so far.
This is a tragedy. The FDA regulated what medications my grandmother could take without any concern if she died or not. She did not and would not have taken any Marijuana or drugs like that but she needed a different type of cancer medication that the FDA could not approve of until five or ten years, by that time she died. She probably would have died from cancer anyway but this was the drug her doctor thought had the best chances of curing her and she was not given it because it might harm her.
I have a few posts about this at my blog:
http://iliketocomplain.blogspot.com
Justice Thomas is right on with his analysis, that's why I think something needs to be done about the interstate commerce clause itself. Congress and now the Supreme Court has shown that it will use the commerce clause to squeeze through whatever legislation suits their fancy.
Amending the Constitution to rein in Commerce Clause abuses makes sense to me. I'll give it a shot:
AMENDMENT XXVIII
Congress' authority to regulate commerce among the several states shall not include the power to prohibit commerce, either directly, or indirectly, through onerous regulation or the imposition of excessive fees or taxes.
Congress' interest in the regulation of commerce among the several states shall always be to promote commerce, not restrict or prevent it.
Congress shall make no law that regulates commercial activities, to the extent that they occur entirely or substantially within the borders of a single State. The President shall not enforce laws in such a manner as to have the effect of regulating or constraining commercial activities, to the extent that they occur entirely or substantially within the borders of a single State. In making, applying, and enforcing law, the burden of proof is on the federal government, to establish, using facts and arguments that are both pertinent and compelling, the extent to which any particular class or instance of commerce occurs "among the several states."
Activities pursued or goods produced or acquired in avoidance of normal commerce shall not themselves be considered "commercial," or suitable as objects of regulation under the authority this Constitution gives the Congress.
With all deliberate speed, Congress shall examine federal commercial regulation that exists at the time of the enactment of this Amendment, and shall repeal any such law that is found to be in conflict with the letter or spirit of this Amendment. The President shall issue pardons for any convictions that were based on any laws so repealed.
=============================================
How's that for a first draft?
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
I'm not understanding how the federal government has the power to arrest people who grow medical marijuana within their own homes. Does commerce "among" the several States mean "within" and "between" or just "between"? I take "among" to be a group of things. So a group of states has commerce between them. Regulating commerce within those states seems to be a different thing.
In a favorite right-wing bulletin board I go to just to find out how screwed up many Republicans really are, they brought this up. They talked about how it is the PERSON'S problem to deal with when it comes to drugs and alcohol, and NOT the federal government's.
However some person who call himself a conservative decided to justify the drug war by saying that it's "society's responsibility to keep drugs illegal". Oh? Society's? Society is the responsible one in police states, nanny states, and in COMMUNIST states!
Better yet, if it's SOCIETY'S responsibility when it comes to drugs, then maybe it's society responsibility to make GUNS illegal! (Hey THEY kill too, you know?) Maybe, just maybe, it's society's responsibility to give FREE HEALTH CARE to everybody! (After all, without it, people will DIE!) Oh here's one, maybe it's society's responsibility to GIVE MONEY TO THOSE WHO CAN'T OR WON'T WORK! (Otherwise they will end up on the streets!) Hell, it's also society's responsibility to EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN! Etc. etc. etc. etc...and the beat goes on. However, those four things ANY Republican nozzlehead would disagree that government should be involved with them.
The point I make with this is these are all things that people should be handling THEMSELVES! Their protection, their health, their income, their education, etc., and drugs should be one of them as well.
Does anybody also realize it is the REPUBLICANS who started and do ALL of the further oppression of us with the drug war? Now, we have a stupid Republican who wants to pass a law which will make you a snitch in the drug war if the Feds want you to be, or you will go to prison! This is messed up, and here's the link to sign a petition: http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=28
To compliment this great piece by Stephen Gordon (where have you been hiding, btw?) I have some talking points up:
Gonzales vs Raich: Libertarian Talking Points
I'm stoned right now actually. There's nothing wrong with it.
> How's that for a first draft?
I like it. After DownsizeDC.org passes its "Read the Bills Act," let's submit your Amendment to them and get it passed.
> Why do we need an Amdmt? Why not live with the original meaning as Thomas suggests.
Well, clearly not all Justices (whose job it is to do so) understand this issues as well as Thomas. This would clerarly define what "interstate commerce" is, so we can stop the federal government from regulating anything else they might find "objectionable."
off topic
the daily show is really ripping the libertarian party... this Jim Lezinski (SP?) guy is really looking like a loon.
It may be bad editing, but the LP really has to get a better face out in the public!
This whole thing just bothers me. Why are so many people allowing the government to violate the principles of the constitution? Originally, the government would have nothing to do with what state's chose, so why is this happening more and more often now? What is the point in outlawing medicinal marijuana? We all know that there was no point in outlawing the herb in the first place, and look at all the harm it has caused by creating prohibition for something like that? Where is the gain in outlawing medicinal marijuana? What GOOD is this going to do for anything at all? Somebody that voted against medicinal marijuana please answer my questions!
Many people support our President due to his stance on being "prolific." How is it prolific when you push for a god-given medicine to be outlawed when thousands of very deadly prescription pills run amok among today's youth? You are endangering the live's of thousands that way. Not to mention starting a misguided war doesn't make you very prolific either.
This my friends is just the people up high stretching their power, and we must take action to stop it, before things get worse.
Free of cost, each one of us can easily contact our congressmen and women to enact compassionate legislation regarding the theraputic use of marijuana. Next week an amendment will be introduced in the House that will cut Federal funding to prosecute patients using the drug legally under state law.
We all have fundamental principles, and the goal of the party is to get elected, but in the meantime we should do what we can by influencing our current lawmakers the correct path.
If every Libertarian took action, it would be a huge boost to the vote to allow states to set their own policies. Please follow through and write to your congressman.
http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=25197&ms=hp
1) I believe that if Jefferson, Madison, et al were to do the Constitution over again, they would have eliminated the Commerce Clause or negated it in the Bill of Rights. It provides too much room for corporate preference over small business and individual rights (for those interested in battling the GOP fascist goals). For those more opposed to DNC socialist goals, 200 years of court applications of the Commerce clause clearly speak for themselves and brought about (through the processes of revisionist history and case law) the rationale for the majority view in this decision.
2) Stephen, I've been around - and rather busy of late. I've just not been trolling the 'net or doing many media interviews since the last legislative season in Alabama ended. Sometimes one has to catch up on paperwork and sleep and such. BTW, dude, where have you been? : )
3) To answer the e-mail about the disjointed section of this article, Shane did [an appropriate] minor edit of another version of this posting I did for a much more conservative audience. There is also a speech version, which I will be delivering Saturday. This is not a criticism of Shane - I think his first 48 hours on his new job have been outstanding and clearly a move in the correct direction. If anyone wishes to view alternate versions of this posting, simply visit www.alacare.org or e-mail me.
4) I have not seen it in print yet, but I have been told that the USMJ Party has accepted our challenge for a public forum on national legislation for medical marijuana in the Village Voice. I am still awaiting the online version of the article. The interview was conducted yesterday.
5) I am aware that most of the drug policy organizations are stating that the feds are not going to crack down on medical marijuana users after this decision. I disagree - as there is no longer a legal reason to stop them (9th Circuit notwithstanding). There is a PR reason - but this did not stop them from going after a new generation of people like Todd McCormick, Peter McWilliams (RIP), Steve Kubby and countless others. They more or less stated so much already.
I don't expect them to go after an 80 grandmother for PR purposes, but do expect them to target certain outspoken people in this cause.
This is why I don't use, possess, buy or sell marijuana or paraphenalia. If I am ever busted, it will clearly be a set up - as has already occured with some of my friends. Unlike Clinton, I'll be clear and state that "I have inhaled" but I will stay clear of the substance as long as I am deeply involved in the politics of the issue.
6) An answer to criticism about calling for federal legislation:
a) Although my (sometimes) very close friends from drug policy organizations are stating business as normal, one may note from the press (not on the front pages, however) that certain members of Congress are using this issue to promote their legislative agenda.
I agree with our Congresscritters in this case. IMO, the greatest immediate implication of Raich v. Ashcroft is that state law is essentially negated. The only pragmatic remedy is for changes in federal law.
While I clealy support legalization of all medications for all people at any time of their individual choosing - that law simply will not pass in today's political climate.
What can pass is a decrim bill for medical marijuana - or perhaps even moving THC from Schedule I to II or better.
What we need to do is to immediately form a cohesive coalition activity in order to effect such a cange in law in order to move public policy in a more libertarian direction. Loretta Nall and the USMJ Party already agrees. For the sake of countless lives and to remedy much needless suffering, hopefully other marijuana policy organizations will follow suit.
I heard about this Supreme Court case on NPR this Monday. This is serious bull. My own state of Alabama had a bill going through the state legislature last session to legalize medical marijuana, which failed. In retrospect, it looks like it wouldn't have mattered even if it had passed. I agree with Taylor that we should tell our congressman not to follow the Supreme Court's lead. Maybe Congress will have a little more sense, though I doubt it.
I'm under no illusion. The possibility that Congress will successfully pass the amendment to bar Federal funding is a long shot to say the least. Nevertheless, we have to be persistent. This proposal has been around for only two years and it gained Republican support in a one year period. We have to keep in mind our efforts can't just be about one vote, but it has to be to set a correct tone over time. If our efforts pay off in five years, that is nothing to complain about.
The tone in Congress has to change, and although you may think sending letters does virtually nothing, each one is another straw that will eventually break the camel's back. We need a realistic approach to marijuana. It should be legalized and regulate for adults 21 and up, but until that day comes, we should at least have the heart to remove sick people from the battlefield.
Please help out and write.
http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=25197&ms=hp
Tito:
The bill in 'bama ain't dead just yet. I am the local dude behind it. We simply had to cross certain boundaries before the legislative cycle ended for this legislative cycle. In this case, we passed the Judicial Committee, and when re-introduced next year, it should become a healthcare issue, and not a criminal one.
BTW, are you going to be at the convention in Dauphin Island next weekend? If so, we should talk. If not, give me a call or e-mail.
Steve
The latest decision was not just some ruling that affects potheads and critically ill patients. The 6-3 ruling has in effect killed the rebublic.As Clarence Thomas stated in his dissenting opinion, if growing marijuana for personal use in a State that laws permit it can still be prosucated under federal law via the interstate commerce act via over interruption of the commerce clause, the fedreal government can reach anywhere.Federalism and the government of enumerated powers are gone.
The thing that bothers me the most about this is the hypocrisy of Justice Scalia.This man has spoke with elegance about federalism and the importance of interruption of the Constitution that most fits the original content and not precedent set by activist judges or federal laws that go beyond their enumerated powers. Yet Scalia's judgment is based on a 1970 narcotics law that simply goes way beyond the scope of the commerce clause. Scalia and all small government activists that sit on the side of the majority opinion should take a hard look in the mirror.
Any person that loves freedom and likes to see the balance of powers in check should take a deep breath because it is gone.Any person that loves state rights and hate encroaching fedreal powers should brace themselves because that power has grown. Sorry Benjamin Franklin we couldn't keep it. The republic is dead!
the daily show is really ripping the libertarian party... this Jim Lezinski (SP?) guy is really looking like a loon.
It may be bad editing, but the LP really has to get a better face out in the public >>
As long as we have a radical platform such as ending taxation, privatizing the roads and having open borders, we're only going to look like loons. It's time for the radical wing of the party to step aside and let the moderates have a turn in 2008.
The key ot Scalia is to realize he loves all things government. There is no foundation in the Constitution for the Raich ruling. Federalism didnt die with this decision, it has been dead since the New Deal. It just looked like it might rise again. If you read the decision you see that the new rule regarding the Commerce Clause is not whether the law is itself constitutional but whether it is part of some bigger law. If the challenged action is part of some large legislation is in now automatically Constitutional. That rationale permetated the decision regarding the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. There is a section of that law that prohibits issue ads within 60 days of an election (the only time the masses are actually paying attention). Despite the obvious fact that the law violates the First Amendment, the Supremes said it was OK becasue it was part of a larger bill. Congress now has cart blanche to pass unconstitutional legislation so long as it a large bill. We need to make an amenemdnt that mandates only single issue legislation.
Posted by: at June 8, 2005 10:37 AM
As to the comment about the "radical wing" of the party stepping aside...I didnt realize we had a radical wing. We are the party of principal and we do not compromise. If there are moderates in the party I wonder why they just dont join the Dems or teh Repugs. Then they can compromise all their principals.
> We are the party of principal and we do not compromise.
We are the party of princial and we do not get elected.
Boy! Mention going to war and you all scrape out any and every reason NOT to do it, but an effort to keep poison off the streets by the supreme court really gets you motor running. So it seems a lot of you are way too concerned with getting stoned, hopping on some passivist "moral" platform and making love not war. Hmmm, sounds like the hippies of the 60's that make up the democratic party today.
I agree that the war on drugs is failing miserably. But drugs are only a crutch for weak minded individuals who can't "hold it together" on thier own. Go smoke yourself into oblivion, and let clear headed individuals make the important decisions.
Because face it, most of you don't REALLY care about how pot can help a cancer patient, you just want a cheap high. Just like pro-choice who don't REALLY care about rape victims, they just want to remedy a (human)mistake without consequences.
But when we Liberate a population from a cruel and inhuman dictator who slaughters his own people, you get a yellow streak a mile wide, discount any and every reason to actually DO SOMETHING about it.
I don't usually like to come on this strong, normally, but elitist, cowardly potheads really tick me off.
Go burn another one, Dudes.
Compromise on tactics, yes. On choice of one intermediate goal over another, sure. On principle, never. If you compromise on principle, you have lost. Period. That's no compromise, it is surrender.
Mind you, intelligent compromise that allows you to work with others without sacrificing principle is a tough thing to do. That's how the best players get their reputations, though.
Bill,
I don't smoke marijuana. I do know quite a few medicinal users, though. Laura, mentioned above, uses it because she is allergic to the mainstream medications which would help with her conditions. She does not get high on the substance - and merely takes the lowest possible dose to ease her suffering.
Quite a few people have died (McWilliams above and my friend Jim who died of AIDS) because they were denied a medicine.
If this is the poison to which you refer, they would have been alive had the government not intervened in their ability to procure it. To applaud the Supreme Court decision is to applaud their deaths.
Am I assessing your position correctly?
Stephen,
I am NOT referring to ACTUAL medicinal users. I'm talking about the airheads who use just use to kill their own brain cells.
I work in a county jail and 8 out of ten people who come in on drug charges need to be in jail. Most, and I mean MOST of those really need to be in jail, because the charges are usually coupled with other serious offenses.
Bill says, "Because face it, most of you don't REALLY care about how pot can help a cancer patient, you just want a cheap high."
How about BOTH? I care a lot for the pain of cancer patients. My Mom died from cancer within recent memory. But also: what's wrong with a cheap high? Budweiser makes a fortune supplying just that to millions, and their activity was also once wrongly illegal. The question is, who is to make the decision about whether you will get high today, or which medicine you will take for whatever ails you. You? Your Mama? The Government? If you answer anything but "you," you are declaring yourself incompetent and dependent. Relying on your parents' decisions is defensible, but how can you possibly give up your decisionmaking power to the legislatures and Congress, which prove to be composed of idiots and wannabe tyrants EVERY DAY? I suppose you can make the choice to cede your own competence, even to those losers, but voting to take personal decisionmaking authority away from others, or supporting officials who would so vote, is wrong on many levels. As we have seen, we don't get "right" out of going down that wrong road. Yet people seem to want to press on even further. Madness.
Bill says, "But when we Liberate a population from a cruel and inhuman dictator who slaughters his own people, you get a yellow streak a mile wide, discount any and every reason to actually DO SOMETHING about it."
The problem, Bill, is that command resources are being used for this so-called "good deed." That means innocent people are taxed, others have their own behavior restricted, others are killed, and others are ordered to lay down their lives when what they hoped to do was defend their own country, not crusade around the world making other countries "free."
None of these people can say "no" to this "good deed." It is therefore NOT a good deed, but just another form of tyranny. We can only hope that the consequences are benign, but news reports inform us daily that actions taken in our name, with our resources, have had both good and horrendously bad results.
Americans ought to be free as individuals to join or contribute to "foreign legion" type organizations if they choose, so long as those organizations aren't declared and active enemies of the US. But building up and sending our own national military overseas is justified only when we are really at war with the nation being attacked, not because we choose to declare war in order to "liberate" that nation. It may be justifiable for OTHER countries to do this. But in America, the point is for our government to create and maintain a zone of freedom for US citizens and people who come here to visit, work, or escape oppression as refugees. It is not to remake the world by military force, however worthy that goal might seem.
RIP Amendments 9 & 10, we hardly knew ye.
> Compromise on tactics, yes. On choice of one intermediate goal over another, sure. On principle, never.
I agree. But some people in the party refuse to accept that tactics and principle are mutually exclusive. They think that the only way to achieve a given principle is to instantaneously change everything into some sort of libertarian utopia.
A libertarian utopia might be nice, but nobody will ever vote for it. Ever.
We are fighting a people who wouldn't think twice about blowing either of us away. We were attacked on our own soil and it demanded an immediate and excessive ass kicking over there. I hope that a war over there will prevent them from bringing it to our shores again. And if we liberate a nation, well, that's a positive after effect. Yes, we have our own internal problems, but it's better here than abroad. I suppose I'm one of the few Libertarians that think an "open boarder" is one of the most assinine ideas that could be thought of.
When I was younger, I shrugged off drugs because of parental control. I got out on my own, and DID try it, DID inhale, and wound up wondering what all the fuss is about. I choose not to do drugs, and the decision is reinforced every time I go into work and see the suffering caused by drugs and alcohol, which go hand in hand. It is rare that I see someone who comes in who is just drunk, or just stoned. I see legions who have MORE THAN ONE KIND of drug in their system.
Stephen,
I feel for those who benefit from medicinal use, but I think your statement "indeed the drug dealers are more compassionate than our own government" is about as naive as you can get. If you think the government is ruthless, try crossing a parasite that deals drugs. You tell your friend Laura to keep her kids away from these "angels", because eventually they are going to want SOMETHING for thier "discount".
Bill, hey, drug dealers are a diverse group of people that you cannot make assumptions about. That is an unproductive insult against people you don't even know. Think twice before condemning a whole group of people or else you end up thinking like a Republicrat.
Michael,
I've seen the handiwork of a multitude of drug dealers, and it's ALL as unproductive as any "insult" I could dole out. When you have to bond your kid out of jail and they don't even know who they are, THEN you preach to me about these parasites. The only thing that keeps me showing up at my job is the hope that I may make a difference in one of these young peoples lives.
Steppenwolf had a song, long ago, (God Damn the Pusher), and a line says,
"I've seen a lot of friends running 'round/with tombstones in their eyes"
I never understood that until i had to subdue a 99 pound 18 year old girl who was strung out on pot and meth, and couldn't even tell me what day it was.
And if you take offense because you're one of these "street pharmacists", then I suggest you take a really long, hard look at yourself, and find another line of work, because you don't know what effects this stuff can have, or scarier, you don't care.
If this is not your profession, please accept my apologies. I don't know which drug dealers you are taking up for, but you obviously don't know them THAT well.
Bill,
Prohibition creates those drug dealers you hate.
The drug war is job security for your profession.
The government should not be responsible for your life. Obesity is the number one killer in America, should we ban McDonalds? Can you imagine trying to stifle a Big Mac cartel? It’s ridiculous that we should sacrifice freedom in order to save the addicts. Jail does not help an addict...neither does prohibition. If someone wants to get a fix, they can find legal drugs that the government has said are 'ok.'
I don't see how you can stand for a libertarian viewpoint, but be for sacrificing your individual freedom.
Grr. I first heard the news... on the news... Anyhow, what irked me was the fact they spent only a moment on it before they switched to identity theft (it was Good Morning America). Gave me the feeling of: "Too bad for the druggies, now on to other important news".
My mom has MS. She has on occasion used cannabis as a means to actually survive the pain and get up the next day to go to work (as a single mother of 3). She holds no addiction, and tries not to use it unless absolutely necessary.
The federal government is not helping society with the 'War on Drugs'--it's destroying what chance the regular Joes and Janes have of trying to survive. Why not just end the prohibition of drugs like they did for alcohol? Look at how the crime and death rate plummeted!
Bill,
You may be the rarest of all libertarians --one who seems not to believe in non-aggression nor personal liberty. Anyway, hang in there and don't forget to vote our slates in '06 and '08. Good luck.
Bill,
The federal government is the biggest drug dealer in the US. It is known that our government through the military brings in almost 70 percent of the drugs into this country. They dump it into our urban areas. Cocaine is the drug choice for whites but most of those who are prosecuted for drug crimes in this country are blacks and hispanics. There are only two choices we can go about all this.....decriminalize drugs or incarcerate more minorities. Our federal governemt is biased against races, social classes and economic classes. A limited form of government will eliminate many prejudices and biases and will set many of us free.
Bill, no one denies bad people deal drugs, but good people deal drugs, too. If your job shows you only the people that are arrested then you have a very biased viewpoint. Your cynicism is blinding you.
I can (and will) get drugs whether or not they are illegal. Anyone can. Whether I get them from a street dealer or a 7-11 is up to you.
I'll be the first to agree that the war on drugs is a HUGE flop. And I believe highly in personal liberty.
I also believe in personal RESPONSIBILITY (which I believe is also a party concept). As I said before, I truly feel for those who benefit from cannibis medicinally, I back them 100%.
But I will not sit idly by and let someone elevate a drug dealer to almost saint status. I simply say beware of their "gifts"
I firmly believe that more laws DON'T make less criminals.
What I am saying is that most folks who get involved with drugs get in FAR deeper than what they ever expected.
I agree about the McDonalds comment. In all seriousness, the perfect treat for me is "supersized". But we have irresponsible people who blame McDonalds for their weight problem, so they do away with supersized items. It's ludicrous to punish many for the irresponsibility of a few.
With freedom, comes RESPONSIBILITY. If you want to fry your gray matter, do so at home and quit breaking into your neighbors house or car to fund your habit. IMO, it is the height of irresponsibility to use these substances for recreation (read NOT medicinal).
And I believe in non-aggression when it is not warranted. But when provoked, don't hold back.
And as for job security, I've seen far more users than dealers. YOU finance them a better lawyer. Let's put these slugs out of business, get the law changed, THEN, if you really must, light up.
And you're always welcome to put me out of a job. Just say NO.
IF YOU CAN, I DARE YOU.
Chris Bennett,
I have worked at 2 different jails, different sizes, different locations. The population is a direct parallell to race on the outside. You have fallen for the crock that only "minorities" get prosecuted. So don't try to put a race guilt trip on me, I know better.
Whenever I hear this garbage, I want to ask Colin Powell how the man kept him down. Or better yet, Condoleeza Rice may be interested in how she's getting shafted. Both top-notch individuals who(despite their political leanings) seem to know and do their jobs fairly well.
And as for "good guys deal drugs too", that may be good PR for you, but it's more misleading than a democrat stump speech.
Dave,
What kind of non-kook person wants to end taxation, end all business regulation and privatize the roads? Answer: None.
No reasonable, every day joe is going to take us seriously when we have 'end taxation' in our platform. That scares off people. If you want the LP to actually become a political force, you need to make some minor tweaks to the platform.
Instead of 'ending taxes', lets end income and capital gains taxes.
We need to be more clear on our stance on the environment. Many people take it as 'let corporations pollute, who the hell cares'
Instead of abolishing Social Security, why not start with a baby step of allowing individuals to decide if they want the money in an IRA or SS?
Instead of ending business regulations altogether, why not just talk about cutting back on the regulations that are costly and really don't make the workplace any safer.
Instead of 'ending all restrictions on immigration', why not just cut back [but not eliminate] on the red tape so more peaceful people can enter the country?
The LP had a good chance to be known in 2004 -- we could've made the debates. I can only hope Aaron Russo runs again in 2008. I can only hope the LP makes major reforms by 2008 or else I'm going back to the Republican Party.
One of the critical things people have to start doing is to start really entertaining the idea that maybe the widely accepted conventional wisdom of their day is actually not only false,but, in fact, absurd. So, giving them baby-step agendas they can all agree to is actually not getting them to rebell against the conventional wisdom in the fashion that they need to. It just makes us into a democratic party or republican party wannabe.
We *must* remain the "Party of Principle" or we shall surely die, and even if we do not, libertarianism as we know it certainly will.
(P.S. Most of the conventional wisdom throughout history has turned out to be undiluted BS... think about it....)
"And you're always welcome to put me out of a job. Just say NO."
I drink. Truthfully, I would be considered an acoholoc by AA's standards. And of course, "once an acoholoc, always an acoholic."
Drugs, the drug war, the stigma, everything about it -- it isn't just kind of wrong or technically against my libertarian sensibilities. It is ABSURD! It is an absurdity and an abomination! We had no such drug laws. People were cocain users and heroin users. They were middle class citizens, and in some cases profoundly influential intellectuals. Paul Erdos -- one of the most celebrated and prolific mathematicians in history (out published only by Leonard Euler, himself) said that if he stopped taking amphetamines, mathematics would suffer!
He lived a long life as a wierdo dying at age 83 in 1996. He also seemed to be some kind of neurotic socialist -- my least favorite kind of person in the world. I'm not sure the rest of us matter as much as him or Euler, though. Our petty little drug war... founded by lesser minds....Drug use is a personal decision that fits or does not fit into the particular context of a person's life, much like financial decisions of the sort as to whether to put your 401(k) into growth funds, value funds or perhaps fixed income funds and so on.
Our founding fathers, for Christ's Sake! were drunkards! It shouldn't even be a stigma, let alone illegal....
To the no-namer who is complaining about "end taxation", I know what else you'd like to say:
"We need taxes for our roads, etc." Right?
Have you ever been to New Hampshire? It's beautiful! There's no sales tax, or state income tax, AND the state does not take federal funding for roads. By doing the last thing, NH is the only state left in America that does not have a law MAKING people buckle up (only under 16ers have to). That means NH can also keep their legal limit at .10 and I think they are also allowed to have a drinking age lower then 21 if they choose.
Now you wonder how the roads are if there is no unlimited funding coming in. Actually they are BEAUTIFUL! I drove I-93 from Massachusetts to Vermont and there was absolutely nothing wrong with the road. I guess that means they look for private road construction companies to fix whatever is wrong with the roads, and they do a great job in order to win the state's business again, and if their work screws up, they are fixing it for free. PERIOD!
Unlike my state, Michigan, which has had some of the worst roads in the country, but we keep getting unlimited funding from the feds so our construction workers can just keep patching up potholes and creating more asphalt roads that fall apart within a year or two, therefore keep on working continuously on our freakin dime!
Actually I should write a piece on the idea of telling states and cities to THROW IT BACK! As in, do NOT accept any federal funding and try to do things more economically, therefore keeping your freedom.
Bill,
I'm not pulling a race card, I'm stating the facts. If you can't handle the truth I'm sorry.....but in the end we all pay severely for it.
Hello Bill
I've enjoyed reading your posts:
"With freedom, comes RESPONSIBILITY. If you want to fry your gray matter, do so at home and quit breaking into your neighbors house or car to fund your habit. IMO, it is the height of irresponsibility to use these substances for recreation (read NOT medicinal)."
I've consumed ETOH since I was 15. I occassionaly smoke some weed. Personally, I prefer alcohol (I might be in the same boat as Liberator veritatis).
I have never broken the law.... well besides, smoking the illegal weed and drinking underage ;-)
Anyway, my point being that I've never commited a crime under the influence. Nor have I stolen from my parents or strangers or girlfriends or relatives to support my habit. I've had to give up smoking tobacco because I couldn't afford it anymore and because I wanted to quit.
So you see Bill - you are contradicting yourself. If what you recommend is implemented, I will be punished for the actions of those idiots who cram your jail cells.
How on Earth is this fair?
ETOH and tobacco as as toxic/bad as "Marie juana" (if not worse - do you know anybody who died from THC poisoning?) - and yet, ETOH is legal but pot is not?
Bizzare!
regards,
Lots of good posts, and good discussion. A slippery slope argument has permeated our political culture for decades and has no sign of slowing down. Marijuana should be legal as its effects are hardly more severe than alcohol. MJ has been lumped in with more addictive drugs and so thousands of users are harassed and receive ever increasing sentnces and difficulty for recreational use that the same alcohol users do not face unless they drive. How much money does Anheiser-Busch and Miller spend in lobbying every year?
The solution is two fold. One: Decrease the size and importance of the federal government. Two: Emphasize personal choice and responsibility at every opportunity. The next time you hear someone say "there ought to be a law" start questioning and arguing. That mindset has got us this far and continues to erode our freedoms.
Get this.
Newsweek has published an article at http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usdope094296547jun09,0,4326680.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines which quotes Javier Pena, special agent in charge at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, as saying, "We investigate large traffickers. We're not after the users, the sick people, the dying people."
What a con artist! These guys helped to kill libertarian author Peter McWilliams and have hounded Steve Kubby out of the country for growing their own pot plants to help treat their own respective forms of cancer!
This is just an absurdity. What is the best route for pro-legalization people to take?
I remember well the dismay over the perceived media "blackout" that was conspired towards Badnarik's campaign. Yet, can libertarian views and particularly those of the LP be any more invisible then they are now, almost a year later?
Stephen Gorden may be able to shed some light on this phenomenon and, to his great credit, he is still putting out good essays of which to preach to the choir. But, today no one in the mainstream media sees any merit in bringing in the libertarian voice to any issue, let alone one like "legalizing marijuana" which is usually a knee-jerk association with the LP.
Why is this?
A glaring LP deficiency, in my opinion, that stands in the way of our gaining more mainstream media credibility is that our party chairman is such a non-entity. DNC has Howard Dean out there raisng money and making headlines every day. Ken Mehlman has only served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee since January, but he appears on national media venues all the time. At the least his four goals for his term as Chairman are posted with his picture on the home page of the RNC.
Both of our main competitor's chairmans are out there campaigning their butts off while we sit back and debate libertarian philosophy amongst each other. Our chairman doesn't even join these forums.
My apology for the typo that misspells your name in the previous post, Mr. Gordon.
Drugs have been and always will be a problem that humanity has to deal with. The question is how to deal with them. Our government along with almost every other government on this planet thinks that the best way to manage this problem is by fighting to reduce the supply of these drugs by prosecuting sellers and users alike. This has been tried and obviously failed. Drug prohibition has created many more problems than it has solved. The mafia, street gangs, and terrorists all reap huge profits to support their activities because of this prohibition. The simple fact remains that you cannot defeat the forces of economics. Where is a demand for something there will always be someone willing to supply it, no matter what the ramifications.
We need to focus on stemming the demand for drugs not the supply. We need focus on treating those have come to abuse these drugs. People who are addicted to drugs need a reliable and safe outlet to assist them in getting clean. We as a society have a much better chance at minimizing the negative effects drugs have on our society if we try to manage the addicts and not the supply of drugs they crave.
Brent said...
"Both of our main competitor's chairmans are out there campaigning their butts off while we sit back and debate libertarian philosophy amongst each other. Our chairman doesn't even join these forums."
I agree with Brent. I want to hear daily status reports on this blog from Michael Dixon. Where are you Michael Dixon? Do you have a problem with giving us daily status reports here on this blog? What the hell are you doing?
Brent and Doug:
I understand your concern about Michael Dixon not being visible. The LP's chairman does need to be more visible. Perhaps both of you can volunteer to help raise the money to pay our national chair, just like Dean and Mehlman are paid by their respective political parties? Currently, our national chairman is a volunteer, and thus has to expend a tremoundous amount of his own funds and time to serve the best he can, and still manage to run his business.
If we paid the chairman, perhaps he would have the time to be able to post to blogs such as this without sacrificing his business and livihood.
Unless, we are lucky enough to elect a national chairman who is independently wealthy, I'm afraid that as long as our national chairman is still expected to be a volunteer, he/she will still remain relatively invisible to the public, no matter who it is.
In my opinion, Michael is giving a lot of his time and own money to be national chairman, and we should be very grateful for it. I know I am.
You can't give someone a quarter and tell them to run an effective ad campaign. Go easy on the guy.
I am grateful to Michael Dixon. He is willing and able to stand up and do way more work for free than most of all the rest of us are willing to do. Truly, it doesn't take much effort for most of us commentators to sit back and snipe posts back and forth between our personal computers.
But the days of "business as usual" at LP headquarters should be over if we are planning to win big in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. The sooner that either Michael Dixon or his successor evolves into the type of party chairman who operates with a staff, budget and tour schedule of the caliber to compete with the DNC or RNC, the better.
Has anyone ever approached Harry Browne or Michael Badnarik or Aaron Russo to be chairman of our party lately? --or someone else who already commands a much higher media profile than the typical LP chairman of today and who already has a lifestyle that allows them to work at it full-time?
If it takes finding a charismatic, sweet-talking millionaire libertarian with the passion to go head-to-head in the big leagues, let's find her (or him) and turn 'em loose. Is anyone in charge of looking for a better solution?
Or are we doomed to run our next campaigns the same old way we have always do?
Ok, sorry for not being a purist -- I guess I'm a statist pig, then.
Yeah, lets keep running purists and achieve nothing in 2008 like we achieved nothing but being branded as conspiracy theory spouting, machine gun toting anarchists who read ayn rand and want to privatize the sewer system.
Ending taxation does not win over reasonable people. Reasonable people are scared by the idea of ending taxation -- besides, how would we have a strong military defense w/o taxation? Probably the anarcho-capitalist dream of a microsoft military.
Every time we have a candidate who wants to step up to the plate and agrees with roughly 90% of the platform or could put us on the radar, the purists get pissy and instead of getting a Russell Means or an Aaron Russo, we get stuck with an Andre Marrou who will achieve nothing.
I can only hope the purists will step aside JUST ONE ELECTION and let Aaron Russo or someone else who is not a radical have a run.
Well, those prisons are going to get packed even more, but that's OK, these terminally ill inmates will easily be able to score pot once inside. I remember when these conservative republicans used to scream about getting the government off our backs. However, under Bush-Cheney, we have the most intrusive government in our nation's history. Moreover, they have absolutley no regard for state laws and state legislatures. I am very scared of my government.
Mark Allen G. and Adam Silverstein,
You two have made more sense than the "F.U., I'm gonna get stoned anyway" crowd. And we all need to fear the mammoth that government is grown to be. And you're right, Mark, it is a sad fact that jail and prison inmates are the ONLY people who have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to health care. I would really like to see this changed before my tax dollars go to give another vital organ transplant to someone on death row, or a breast reduction to a transvestite serving time. And then allow a woman to starve to death so her degenerate husband can get her life insurance. Where do we get our values here?
Most medicinal use of pot will NEVER be prosecuted, so we really need to concentrate on more important issues than whether we can get high legally.
And if you want the law repealed, work to get it repealed. Until then, whether you like it or not, it is illegal. And for many, it is the precursor to a lifetime of misery.
The most encouraging aspect of this post is that the LP is trying to gather a coalition around this issue. This is exactly the way that the LP can be most effective; it's a far better use of time and money than electing one guy to a school board seat in a town of 200 people. This will help in two ways:
First, it will provide substantial aid towards creating a more libertarian state; if we gain victory on just this one issue, it will have caused more substantive change than the entire rest of the LP's history.
Secondly, it's a great way to show what we're all about while not having us look like lunatic loner loser nutbags. If we maintain a policy of shifting alliances and coalitions over specific issues - where we can stand with the ACLU one day on the medical marijuana issue, then oppose them on affirmative action the next; where we can stand with the Heritage Foundation one day on free trade, then oppose them on police powers the next - we will be much stronger, better known and more effective.
Let's get it done!
Bill wrote: "Most medicinal use of pot will NEVER be prosecuted, so we really need to concentrate on more important issues than whether we can get high legally."
Tell that to people like the late Peter McWilliams (author of LIFE 101: Everything We Wished We Had Learned About Life in School-But Didn't and Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country), Steve Kubby (former libertarian candidate for governor, now living in exile in Canada), and the hundreds of other cancer victims persecuted by the Feds who have similarly tried to seek asylum in Canada!
Roger Macbride was the best LP candidate ever.
When will Self-Gov.org add Andre Marrous, Ed Clarks and Roger Macbrides bios?
Who writes all of the laws in Washington? Corporations. Which corporations do you suppose favor making marijuana illegal, even for medicinal reasons? Well, try the alcohol lobby, the pharmaceutical lobby, etc.. I am just so tired of Washington pretending that they are doing what is in our best interest by passing these victimless crime bills. We should have the freedom to do whatever we want to do with our own lives as long as we don't hurt anybody else. And Washinton should once and for all, stop trying to legislate morality, because the morality they represent the most, is not the largest group, but the group that screams loudest (cha-ching).
How much longer will this complete stupidity reign in the United States? I cannot believe how full of ignorance the tiny little minds of many members of our government really are! It's funny that while marijuana, which I use responsibly on a near daily basis, is completely demonized in this nation while the same people who are in their own, socially acceptable way, drug addicts, can go home at the end of the day and pop their happy little pain meds and complain about traffic while inhaling cigarette smoke and maybe even a deadly and addictive dose of alcohol or three while people who could actually use marijuana for relief lie in agony and pain day after day. It makes me sick just thinking this over in my head. My 27 year old sister is severely diabetic and needs a kidney/pancreas transplant. She currently takes 16 different types of pain pills/injections/mixtures every day. Due to taking so many different pills, her overall condition has worsened. She tells me that the ONLY time she has relief from the severe neuropathy in her feet and other complications from the pain meds is when she can get high. Open your eyes America!
Why do most stoners have a terminally ill relative (or friend) that has to use pot? Because they all seem to have one.
You have to jump on some moral bandwagon, so you can feel better about getting high. What is that? A sympathy buzz?
I hope no offense is taken by those who actually need it. I've said it before, I back legitimate medicinal users 100%, but these moral retards who think getting stoned somehow makes them a better person and superior to others really need to get a life. If your engaging in an illegal, dangerous activity and you need an excuse to feel good about yourself, here's one: your "buys" finance a better lawyer than you can afford, so your saintly dealer doesn't have to spend more time in jail than YOU.
Bill, you are on the wrong track...again. I'm no "stoner." I don't use drugs of any kind...even tobacco or alcohol. I think you'll find that most of the LP's most fervent opponents of the drug laws are not "stoners," yet we all have stories to tell about people we know or know of in the libertarian movement who have needed marijuana to keep the nausea under control that chemotherapy induces in many people.
The most famous example is the late author and libertarian Peter McWilliams, who was denied access to marijuana by those same Feds whom you said would never use the drug laws to go after small users who needed their pot for medicinal purposes. He was found dead having choked to death on his own vomit. Thus, he was literally killed by the actions of those same DEA agents you feel so warm and fuzzy about.
Lib TV,
I lump the DEA with BATF, no warm and fuzzies here. And it is the outspoken "stoners" that prevent us as a party from being as mainstream as we need to be. Face it: the party's stance on gun laws, smaller government, and more responsible citizens to govern themselves are what attracts a lot of members and followers (that's what piqued my curiosity, and made sense to me). If medicinal use of pot were the only issue in the forum, then it may be more successful. And if I just read the posts here instead of checking out what the party stands for, it would scare the hell out of me and I would've written it off a long time ago. The impression I've gotten so far in the posts is that most Libertarians are "Bush-bashing, passive, surrender at all costs and get stoned out of your mind, it won't matter because the world sucks" crowd.
I only know a couple of Libertarians and think highly of them, and agreed with most of the stances that they explained to me about the party, and that's why I had to check it out. The principles as explained to me, along with what I've read on the actual website made a lot of sense and something worth believing in. And then I get to the posts and wonder if I should re-think the whole thing.
If I've come on a little strong in most of my posts, they all answer on subjects that I have knowledge of and strong opinions about. I offer my condolences, but no apologies.
I know I'm not alone in how I feel, because of the handful of posts written by folks who seem to hold roughly the same opinions.
I also wonder how you got the idea DEA agents were my favorite folks. Just because I disagree with recreational marijuana use doesn't mean I'm a nazi, or anti-libertarian.
Bill,
Thanks for your clarifications. If I can sum up: you dislike the broad brush of "Bush-bashing, passive, surrender at all costs and get stoned out of your mind, it won't matter because the world sucks." I can understand. That view is certainly highly negative, and no one likes negativity.
On the other hand, the "Bush praising, aggressive, kill the bastards and screw the freaks, because we won't have liberty until we do" approach is equally negative. That's been my point.
So here's the bottom line question: what's it going to take to stop the negativity on both sides?
I'm not going to B.S. you, I don't have all the answers. But we definately need to get in touch with mainstream America. Despite what most folks say, not having the government spoon feed them every morsel scares them to death.
We definately need to get the word out, and I'm doing my part, because we DO have a choice between the two paths of destruction that is our present political factions. I know that Americans are hungry for something beside "damn if we do, damn if we don't".
The Bible says "to all things there is a season, a time to kill, a time to heal" and despite how anyone may feel about God, this is true. We need a party that knows when to do what. Flexible, but not wishy washy. I believe that from what the party principles say, the Libertarian party is prime to be that power in 2008.
There is too much bashing as it is. We need dignity in our corner, and togetherness for a common goal: true liberty in America.
Bill: I agree.
The only thing I would add is that it starts at the local level.
"All politics is local," said Tip O'Neill, former Democratic Speaker of the House.
"The whole process of American Democracy starts at the local level," wrote former Republican National Chairman Haley Barbour.
There are over 33,000 cities, towns, and villages in America. We need to build 33,000 local Libertarian machines that know how to win elections. It may seem like a daunting task, but I believe it's quite achievable. 2008 is a bit optimistic, but it's a possibility. 2012 is definitely do-able.
Bill, you just don't seem to understand. So what if you think "potheads" are stupid burnouts. If I want to sit in my house and smoke a bong all day, that should be my complete right as long as I don't bother anyone else. Personal freedom AND personal responsibilty. Pot needs to be legal for ALL medicinal AND recreational purposes.
What is it exactly, that I don't understand, KRM?
If you use anything to excess, it will fry your brain (and other important organs). It is a proven fact that the psychological after effects of pot are as dangerous as while drinking alcohol?
And you want me to understand? The main precept of this party is RESPONSIBILITY. These substances ALTER your ability to THINK. How in the hell can you call yourself responsible if the decisions you make are tainted by an altered mind?
YES, the decision to smoke pot, shoot up, inhale, or however else you want to kill yourself should be YOURS.
If you want freedom and responsibility, it all comes with a price.
Read the next paragraphs very carefully before you decide to crucify me:
The impressions I've been getting from reading these posts is that as long as we legalize drugs, everything will be "sunshiny"; we should be non-agressive and just accept whatever our enemys throw at us; open our borders and expect everyone who comes to OUR country to be so grateful to be here that they won't upset our way of life; and if they do, it won't be enough reason to fight them; our soldiers who DO think that resistance should be met with equal or greater force are criticized for being warmongering barbarians...
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
Most of the ones who have posted here on this site seem to want it all, and expect it ALL to be accomplished with pure logic, and defended bloodlessly.
America has not gotten to be the ONLY remaining superpower IN THE WORLD by lying down and rolling a doobie. If you want to criticize this country so much and you feel that it is such an evil place populated by small minded fools that is not worth fighting for, then GET THE HELL OUT, START YOUR OWN COUNTRY AND QUIT MUDDYING THE WATERS.
For the ones who know and live in the real world, and ACTUALLY believe in personal responsibility such as Karl, Lyn, Brent, Libertator Veritatius(sp) and others whose names I do not know, get the word out about LP to the mainstream, and remember that we need to outnumber the ones who think that personal responsibility ends when you get your way.
And as for the ones who may be deploying soon, or already there, my prayers and heart are with you, until I am there in the flesh.
The only reason that the federal government has outlawed marijuana is because of the plant itself. The hemp plant has the potential to give many businesses a run for their money if it were used to make rope, clothes and thousands of other uses. Read this article and it will enlighten many to the reasons that the oil and chemicle industries do not want HEMP made available to the public...http://www.illuminati-news.com/marijuana-conspiracy.htm
Again I say read this article. It deals with the thousands of practicle uses for HEMP. It also deals with the reasons the U,S government as well as the chemical, fuel and clothing manufacturers do not want the general public to become aware of the thousands of uses available from the HEMP plant.READ IT FOR YOURSELF AND THEN DECIDE........http://www.illuminati-news.com/marijuana-conspiracy.htm
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supreme Court Deals Literal Deathblow to Thousands:
» Gonzales vs Raich: Libertarian Talking Points from Hammer of Truth
Since the mainstream media likes their opinions in neat little sound bites, I’m proffering these talking points to anyone who wants to write letters to the editor, call into radio shows or appear on television:
The federal government is behavin... [Read More]
Tracked on June 7, 2005 10:24 PM
» Let's regulate the interstate commerce clause itself from I like to complain
I think the only solution might be to have a Constitutional amendment that strictly defines what *does* and what *does not* constitute "interstate commerce." [Read More]
Tracked on June 7, 2005 11:14 PM
» You can help medical marijuana users today! from Alabamians for Caring Use
How much cannabis does it take to be lethal? The answer to this question is 100 pounds - as there is an urban legend about someone who was killed when a bale of cultivated marijuana fell from a loft onto his body. All jokes aside, there are no docume [Read More]
Tracked on June 9, 2005 06:48 PM
» Raich Continues to Challenge Medical Marijuana Laws from Alabamians for Caring Use
Angel Raich, of Gonzales v. Raich fame, is taking her case back to court despite the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that gro [Read More]
Tracked on November 25, 2005 02:57 PM
» Raich Take Medical Marijuana to Court Again from LPA
Angel Raich, of Gonzales v. Raich fame, is taking her case back to court despite the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that growing weed in one's backyard somehow involves interstate commerce.
This time, she is using a new constitutional angle of attack [Read More]
Tracked on November 25, 2005 03:03 PM
| 
Drug laws and gun control are two issues that make me feel as though the aliens will come and take me home any day now. Sigmund Freud was a cocain addict. When he finally found that it did not do all the things he thought it did, he just stopped taking it. I just cannot believe there is so much widely accepted legitimacy to drug laws and tea toteling when the Founding Fathers were a bunch of drunkards and the 18th and 19th centuries abound with the wide availability of all sorts of hard-core drugs.
And, then just as now, there were addicts. But, then just as now, society didn't ever go to the dogs. And there were a whole lot of users that never did end up on skid row. I just cannot believe that such a movement has gone so far.
Posted by: Liberator Veritatis at June 7, 2005 05:22 PM