Stephen -- the first link on this post is bad... can't access the url.

http://http//blogs.salon.com/0002762/2006/06/13.html

is the link you have.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/2006/06/13.html

By the way, the original post here has a paradoxically minor yet serious error: it says that the bill "will bar federal funds from being used to the medical marijuana laws," which sounds as if it will prevent federal funding of medicinal marijuana, which is fine by me (if we want government out of our lives, then we cannot accept them -funding- even something we advocate.) But, what the bill actually says is that it will prevent federal funds from being used to prosecute and investigate people in states where medicinal cannabis is legal, which is obviously a good thing as well. Just a bit of clarification though.

A good thing indeed. It would seem to be a nobrainer for 'state's rights' and 'smaller government' conservatives too.

The roll call votes should be published.

"Tomorrow" is spelled incorrectly.

This was defeated last night by 259 to 163.
Only 18 republicans voted yes, (including Ron Paul), three more than last year. 53 Dems voted no - it would have passed if they also voted with the 144 dems who voted yes.

This issue is a big reason why I'm moving from the GOP to the LP, at least partially. To me, the marijuana issue doesn't pass the "who cares?" test. That is to say, if you can ask "Who cares?" and not get a great answer, then it doesn't need to be regulated by the government.

That's obviously vague and by no means scientific, but of all of the things wrong with society, I don't think pot is one of the major ones. The only reason it has become any kind of problem is because it's illegal and requires organized crime to obtain and transfer it. It's a big fight that extends nationwide, and frankly, for law enforcement officers, it's just not worth the candle. I understand the rationale behind the war on drugs, and some of the harder drugs do create problems for society at large just from their usage, but weed just doesn't fall into that category.

I know I'm preaching to the converted here, but it's just my two cents.

"It would seem to be a nobrainer for 'state's rights' ..."

A Point of Order labb:
'States' do not have rights. 'States' have 'authorities' and 'powers'. If the individual 'States' have rights as governments, the Federal Government has rights, also being a government. If the US Government has rights, so do the Canadian Government, Mexican Government, Iraqi Government, French Government, etc. As an 'uber-government', the United Nations, then would also have rights.
Eventually, a Statist is going to throw this argument at our proverbial feet and we definitely do not want our own words damaging the movement. May I suggest to labb, and the Membership at large, to refrain from using the phrase "State's Rights" in favor of, say, "Federalists". (Hmm. The term "Federalists" might make us sound acceptable to certain Statists long enough for them to here us out on some issues, too.)
Plus, some people think we are nothing but a bunch of Anti-Semitic, Homophobic, Mysoginistic Klansmen. Do we really want to use a term associated with the late George Wallace and Strom Thurmond?

Just a thought.

People are going to think of us what they want. Don't change your ways because others might -think- you're something that you clearly aren't (I know you weren't suggesting that, but keep it in mind.)

As for the "states' rights" issue... I think it's more of a phrase than a definitive point of advocacy. However, you did make a good point about what a statist might do to twist those words around (interestingly enough, one of my conservative friends made that exact same explanation for why we shouldn't say "states' rights" in political discussions.)

The important thing is that a person know what he's saying, so if he's called on something he can describe his meaning. If we're always worried about what others might perceive of us or what we say, then the politically correct advocates have already won (and they do NOT deserve to win anything.)

>>I understand the rationale behind the war on drugs, and some of the harder drugs do create problems for society at large just from their usage<<

Could you expand on this?

I always considered it a waste of time and money not to mention more troublesome to seek to restrict actions with no victims.

The harder drugs are bad enough for their use to be their own punishment and with people free enough to see the problems they generate, a few things can happen.

1. you can regulate it like alcohol and tobacco.

2. They can sue the manufacturer for misrepresenting a harmful product.

3. People doing it simply because it's forbidden don't start.

4. people invent softer and safer versions of it.

Right now, some real bad guys profit from it's criminal status. Legalizing it would eliminate that problem.

I guess it depends on your views of "self-ownership." if you think people should be allowed to kill themselves, then you probably believe they should be able to do it slowly with drugs.

The point I was trying to make with "some drugs create problems for society at large" is that many of them impair a person's ability to logic. I, too, believe that the war on drugs is, paradoxically, what creates the war on drugs itself, because of the criminal activity necessitated by illegal drugs. I think as a whole I respect the drug legalization lobby, and for the most part I agree with it, but I'm still trying to wrap my head around all of the details of and arguments for it.

For me, just because alcohol and tobacco are legal doesn't necessarily imply that hard drugs should be legal too, because for me that's justifying harmful behavior because other bad stuff is okay. If anything, that type of argument is one for restricting alcohol and tobacco, not legalizing drugs.

Also, saying that drugs could be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco is a losing situation for a libertarian, in my opinion: Aren't we trying to limit state control of things? For that reason I don't think we can argue for the legalization of drugs on the basis that they could bring tax revenue and/or be regulated just as much as other harmful substances that are currently allowed. I think the best argument is the victimless crime scenario, although how people react to certain drugs might infringe on another person's life, liberty, and property. Again I state, I'm very friendly to the idea of drug legalization, but it's still a matter of figuring out the best way to justify it while responding to the most common concerns and arguments against such a policy.

>>Also, saying that drugs could be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco is a losing situation for a libertarian, in my opinion: Aren't we trying to limit state control of things?>I think the best argument is the victimless crime scenario, although how people react to certain drugs might infringe on another person's life, liberty, and property.<<

I think the ultimate libertarian position is that prevention is bad because prevention naturally inhibits progress.

You need to punish and hold responsible those that harm without punishing those that do none. By outlawing drugs, you punish everyone, even those that don't cause harm.

Currently, we throw harmless crackheads and occasional users into prison with rapists and murderers.

And it is currently impossible to buy and conduct scientific experiments on illegal substances unless you're working for or with the government.

I think the libertarian platform focuses much more on regulating results rather than methods.

How can progress be made when government prevents, blocks, and hampers avenues that could lead to progress?

Maybe the cure to cancer is in crack! But we will never know.

If the end goal is total freedom, then one needs to chose the best methods towards that goal.

I think the best way is to legalize but regulate the perceived "harmful" and "immoral" substances and activities then aim for deregulation.

Using Prohibition as an example would be one way to get more people on our side.

Hmmm, it mangled up my post.

>>Also, saying that drugs could be regulated just like alcohol and tobacco is a losing situation for a libertarian, in my opinion: Aren't we trying to limit state control of things?<<

I think we should aim for our goal of total freedom in small, measurable steps.

It works for the Christian Right, who seek to get voters and the courts (through precedence) to warm up to their ideas while working towards a seemingly grander scheme of a Christian Theocracy or something similar.

What you just laid out, willmack, is the best argument I've heard with regard to drug policy and the rationale for regulation. I think if that kind of logic could be applied to the public at large, rather than just merely saying "You can regulate it like other things," the LP will be in much better shape and look less like hypocrites.

As someone who is slowly becoming libertarian, I've always seen the drug issue as one of hypocrisy, and I wondered, interestingly enough, why the LP didn't advocate a gradual process rather than a radical alteration of policy. What you just wrote shows that such a belief is already in place, which is definitely a positive thing for Libertarians and the party itself.

I like the idea of medical marijuana. Maurice Hinchey is my congressman, and I always admired him for his honesty, even though I don't always agree with him. Like ROn Paul, he opposed going into Iraq from day one.

Getting back to the marijuana issue, we Libertarians have to work using the Swiss Cheese method. I would like to see deregulation for drugs, alcohol and tobacco end immediately. I'm also realistic enough to know that it won't happen. Too many people want the regulations. Be have to de-regulate in stages. De-criminalizing marijuana is a good first, but not last step in this process.