UCLA Students Take Over Building in Protest of Fee Increase Vote
Jason Segel Sings His Phone Number at the Swell Season Last Night
BART Cop Murder Trial to Move to Downtown L.A., Lawyer Predicts More L.A. Riots
-thumb-110x110-459458.jpg)
Bouchon Amuses Our Bouches
Midnight Movie: VICE Explores LA's Hidden Urban Oil Wells
That was an eighth of some $80 weed. 510 Kush. Photo by Anti/LAist
This initiative will amend the Constitution of California to defend and safeguard the inalienable rights of the People against infringement by governments and corporations, providing for the lawful growth, sale, and possession of marijuana. Marijuana will be taxed through a system of stamps and licenses--a $5 stamp will be required for the sale of an eighth ounce of marijuana and a $50 annual license will be required for the growth of one marijuana plant. To protect participants and encourage participation in the system, such licenses and stamps will be available anonymously in stores where marijuana is sold.
So instead of getting some quack doctor to give you a prescription for $100 because of your supposed "anxiety" or alleged "insomnia", you will just pay an extra tax each time you buy yourself another 8th.
Aside from allowing all willing adults to be able to buy weed easily, this initiative will start to generate revenue for California, and stimulate our struggling economy. More weed stores means more jobs for Californians, more taxes to be collected, and more people enjoying better weed. And finally marijuana will be put into the same file as Alcohol and Cigarettes where it belongs, instead of it being equated with crack-cocaine and heroine.
The initiative goes on to say why they believe this to be a necessary measure:
We also hold these truths to be self-evident-That, as an intoxicant, marijuana is far less harmful to the health and safety of the People than alcohol--That, as a smoking substance, marijuana is far less addictive or harmful to the health of the People than tobacco--That, even though alcohol is harmful to the health and safety of the People, the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933 only increased the harms associated with alcohol use: criminals seized control of the alcohol market, crime and violence increased greatly, and poverty, unemployment, and corruption flourished, while otherwise lawful alcohol drinkers were treated as "criminals" subject to detention, arrest, and incarceration, even though they had not harmed the rights of anyone--That, as with alcohol prohibition, the prohibition of marijuana has only increased the harms associated with the use of marijuana: criminals control a multi-billion dollar market, crime and violence have increased greatly, and poverty, unemployment, and corruption flourish, while otherwise law-abiding marijuana smokers are treated as "criminals" subject to detention, arrest, and incarceration, even though they have not harmed the rights of anyone-That the history of marijuana prohibition is a history of repeated injuries and infringements upon the inalienable rights, powers, and best interests of the People.
Fuck Yes! Preach on, brothers! They go on to point out that alcohol, tobacco, and big-pharma lobbyists have the politicians that are supposed to represent the People in their back-pockets and serving the interests of the alcohol, tobacco, and big-pharma industries.
Despite the harms of marijuana prohibition, politicians persist in imposing and upholding marijuana prohibition, because these politicians are not working for the People--they are working for the corporate executives who financed their campaigns, such as corporate executives in the alcohol industry who want to protect their monopoly on intoxication, corporate executives in the tobacco industry who want to protect their monopoly on smoking, corporate executives in the pharmaceutical industry who want to protect their monopoly on expensive medicines, and corporate executives in the many industries threatened by competition with hemp. These corporate executives pull the strings of the government to perpetuate marijuana prohibition despite its harms, because they do not care about the inalienable rights and best interests of the People--they care about taking as much money from the People as possible. These corporate executives also use their control of the mainstream media to make it seem like marijuana prohibition is a failed attempt to serve the interests of the People, censoring the idea that marijuana prohibition is a successful attempt to serve corporate interests at the expense of the People. For these corporate interests, politicians sacrifice the inalienable rights and best interests of the People. This corruption and corporate influence is worse at the national level, where the People can least afford political influence and the media is most effective at manipulating public debate. Because of this corruption, it is futile for the People to turn to the federal government for protection--because the federal government is the source of the harm. The repeated attempts by the People to reduce the harms of marijuana prohibition have been answered only by repeated injury. The harm from marijuana prohibition is ongoing and the need for relief is urgent. Such is the suffering of the People, and such is the necessity that constrains us to alter our former systems of government. A government with a character marked by every act that defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Therefore, appealing to humankind for the rightness of our intentions
They need 694,354 signatures by September, 5, 2008. I think it's totally do-able. Its been over a decade since Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was passed with over 5 million votes in favor.
So 12 years later... are we more or less tolerant of recreational use of marijuana? For now, we'll have to wait and see.
Related Story: Marijuana Initiatives, What Went Down in '06
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I thought it sounded like a pretty good initiative until I read this line... "Exempts marijuana sales profits from income tax.".
This is obviously a gem of The Libertarian Party, who don't believe in taxes or social responsibility.
While I fully support any measure that would legalize or decriminalize marijuana, I think taxes should be paid. This initiative is probably doomed to failure on this stipulation alone.
Growers, middle men, and dealers, make enough money to afford to pay an income tax on their profits. Many manage to live quite opulent lifestyles and are not paying any taxes on what they make now unless you count the occasional bust.
My other prediction for why this initiative will fail is political cowardice. Much like Prop 215, most politicians will avoid making a stand on this one way or the other.
I'd still vote for it, but growers and dealers should be taxed.
Thanks for highlighting the key points for easy skimming! Now where can we sign the petition? Paging Mr. Christopher Springer (the proponent for this measure)...
as is frequently the case, I agree with JRB.
I see where you are coming from, but i disagree. Most people i have encountered do not make their full living on marijuana, but rather its something that they participate in during their off ours from their "real job"
also $50 per plant IS a tax. if a grower has 50 plants, then he is paying $2,500 each grow cycle. And end users were only paying $100 a year, with $30 renewal fees, the $5 per 8th will up that number considerably.
That's all very fine, but who's going to take care of the quack doctors?
agreed, jrb.
libertarians (no capital L deserved) would like everything to happen, without anyone actually paying for it.
What's the use? If the voters pass legislation, it'll only get overturned by the unaccountable judges sitting on the courts. Gotta love the "People's" Republic of California!
"$5 per 8th will up that number considerably."
I agree with that tax.
"$50 per plant IS a tax."
A well tended hydroponic plant will yield about 1.5 to 2 lbs of high grade tops, while bottom leaf and stem can be isomerized for hash oil or have the THC leached out by cooking it in butter for edibles. This is an enormously profitable cash crop.
Production equipment in any kind of manufacturing is taxed. In this case it would be the plants.
As for the income a medium to large scale grower could make, I think that if I pay tax on my paltry little income, they can certainly afford to pay income tax out of their profits.
Income tax is a whole seperate deal in any business.
While this may insulate California consumers from state police, marijuana will still be illegal under federal law, and if one state were to flagrantly announce that it will violate federal law, DOJ would probably get involved in busting and prosecuting people involved in the pot trade in California. Even I would support DOJ in doing that, and I'm very much against marijuana prohibition -- the rule of law, and the Supremacy Clause, have to mean something. And, in the worst case scenario, you would much rather go to a state jail than a federal prison.
Given that California law is among the most lenient in the country on marijuana, this could actually be counterproductive. Not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, but that's how I see it.
The Dr. that wrote my rec gave me a far more thorough examination than I've ever had, and he actually spent 45 minutes talking to me! That was a fuckin' first.
That, coupled with the fact that I had to provide corroborating medical history in order to obtain my rec, makes it hard for me to imagine calling my Doc a "quack".
That sort of thing does the MMJ movement a disservice, don't you think? Even in the name of some other, possibly better but destined to fail, legislation?
in the end, i think i am being swayed by your logic, jrb.
While i may not know any of them personally, there are definitely people who make their full living on growing it. and a full blown tax exemption isn't fair to everyone else who's income is not exempt.
but otherwise the shits tight as a drum.
i was under the assumption that loose grown products can't have income tax placed on them.
I agree, thanks for highlighting certain things for easier skimming.
I don't smoke weed, and I don't think anyone would consider me "pro weed" but if it does get legalized - it needs to be taxed, just like alcohol and tobacco, which if would be classified with. I agree with jrb, not taxing it could make passing this harder (not that I'd be bothered either way, I'm just saying...).
But mharwitt brought up something about loose grown products. I know nothing about that...curious to find out more.
yeah, mharwitt...
are you saying that R.J. Reynolds doesn't have to pay taxes on the tobacco products it sells?
i doubt it. but thats very interesting.
"DOJ would probably get involved in busting and prosecuting people involved in the pot trade in California."
Yup, just like they did with medical marijuana dispensaries.
I'd still like to see it happen though. California is always first state to make a move like this. Other states will follow and I don't think they have the resources to bust everyone. Don't expect any help from the vast majority of politicians. They'll lose votes from some one no matter which side they come down on, so it's best for them not to take a side.
And no Ben not all Drs who will write letters of recomendation are quacks, but many are very opportunistic about writing them.
this dude, WiseWeasel said this on the digg thread:
The comments on the linked site complaining about the income tax exemptions are missing the fact that declaring marijuana income to the IRS would put you in a dangerous position from a federal prosecution perspective. It's probably not a good idea to declare federally-prohibited income to the IRS. It seems to me like the exemptions are in place to protect the privacy and freedom of those that would be participating in this new industry.
thought that was a really good point.
Did a college freshman write this? Reads more like a manifesto than a proposition. It won't go anywhere.
"libertarians (no capital L deserved) would like everything to happen, without anyone actually paying for it."
torrmoz, you obviously have no idea what a Libertarian is. -_- They do not want "everything to happen, without paying for it"... The very core ideal of Libertarianism, is LESS government involvement.
They want LESS to happen, so we don't HAVE to pay for it.
However the heck you managed to mix that one up, is beyond me... -_-
It's potentially a win-win-win situation:
The growers are happy, despite the tax, as they'd save much more than that avoiding all of those pesky costs associated with concealing their operations from the law (and, for the unlucky ones, legal fees and revenues lost to confiscated product or jail time.) Easy to imagine big Agri-Business getting involved, which could create some interesting opportunities for growers creative enough to exercise their unique skill-set as consultants.
The state is happy: more tax revenue, less money wasted on the whole "enforcement" charade.
The consumers are happy for reasons that obviously don't have to be explained to this lot.
A win-win-win. Which is why it will never happen :)
John Gunjah
www.thinkingstoner.com
"torrmoz, you obviously have no idea what a Libertarian is."
I would be hard pressed to debate you what exactly the Libertarian platform is. I haven't read all of it. They seem to me to be pretty intent on NO TAXES and NO GOVERNMENT, not just less of them.
They also want everything privatized.
Imagine going to "The Office Depot National Park" where they've just clear cut several acres of ancient redwoods to clear space for your camping enjoyment, and coincidentally just happen to be having a sale on copy paper.
Imagine driving a few miles up the 101 and having to pay a toll to the company who owns one section, then you cross into some one elses' section of the 101 and have to pay a seperate toll to the company owns and maintains that section.
Sounds like a corpoarate feeding frenzy to me.
My older brother was Libertartian until Hurricane Katrina. We sat and watched what happens when you have, NO GOVERNMENT. Since we have family in New Orleans, needless to say, he is no longer a Libertarian. Katrina cured him of that.
Dude that looks like some REALLY good bud! Sure would like to have a hit of it.
JT
http://www.FireMe.To/udi
I lived through Katrina (lived in the other LA at the time) am I still am a Libertarian. Katrina showed me what complete dependence on an inept local and State got gives you...squat.
Thank goodness those orange Helicopters were there to bail them out (aka the US Coast Guard aka the Feds!)….They rescued over 20k people beginning the night OF the storm! Efficient government is a good thing.
Your view of Libertarians is a bit extreme….most want limited government (because it is costly an ineffective), not anarchy.
My older brother was Libertartian until Hurricane Katrina. We sat and watched what happens when you have, NO GOVERNMENT. Since we have family in New Orleans, needless to say, he is no longer a Libertarian. Katrina cured him of that.
Uhhh... we have a MASSIVE government and the events of Katrina happened. If anything your brother should be MORE of a libertarian post-Katrina. I sure am.
"Imagine driving a few miles up the 101 and having to pay a toll to the company who owns one section, then you cross into some one elses' section of the 101 and have to pay a seperate toll to the company owns and maintains that section."
Oh the horror! Having to pay for the roads you use! You know who didn't want that? Henry Ford. Talk about a corporate feeding frenzy. Imagine the balanced transportation system we'd have if that was the case. No more sprawling roads to everywhere and no where. We'd likely still have the 1,000+ miles of privately owned and operated interurban rail that was killed off because of the government funded car based Nationalized Transportation System. Now we have to fight with brainless politicians and insane NIMBY's just to get a shitty piece of rail laid in order to bail out the failure that the subsidized car culture has proven itself.
"Your view of Libertarians is a bit extreme…."
Libertarians are a bit extreme.
"...most want limited government (because it is costly an ineffective), not anarchy."
Taxes are the dues we pay to live in a civilized society. If you want to address the inefficiencies of government spending, you target the funding process, not the programs themselves. The reason most government programs are inefficient is because there is no incentive for a program to be efficient. If a program saves money during a fiscal year, their reward is to get their budget cut for the next fiscal year.
You'll never get cost efficient programs with a system like that.
The Libertarian answer to the problem is to scrap the programs entirely. Kind of extreme don't you think?
All of the people on here saying that people are making their living off of selling marijuana and need to have their income from it taxed are forgetting that once it is "made legal" the price will drop. No one will be able to make a living growing marijuana and selling it without paying a large amount of their income for the $50/plant tax. I would imagine it was done this way for simplification purposes the fact that the feds would be able to access the tax records thereby eliminating the anonymous aspect of the initiative.
Also, a judge cannot overturn an initiative or referendum that was passed by the people as long as it is written correctly. This referendum/initiative process was developed in order to bypass the established legislative, legal system so that "we the people" would be able to get laws on the the books without corrupt officials being able to stop it.
"Oh the horror! Having to pay for the roads you use!"
Yea Fred that would be horrible considering that you, me, and everyone else, have already been paying to build and maintain these roads since the day we started earning a living and paying taxes.
I'll tell you this. If a Libertarian or anyone else privatizes the roads or National Parks I've already paid for, I better get a check in the mail refunding my share of what I've already paid into the system.
"Libertarians are a bit extreme."
Not really. That view is being perpetuated by both parties in power. Libertarians just want a return to the Constitution and what it provides for. Nothing more. Where our country is now should be viewed as extreme from a Constitutional point of view. I definitely want the government, just in a more limited form. And as for Katrina, if anything it shows the ineptness of big government. Look at FEMA and the millions upon millions (close to a billion) of dollars they squandered or misappropiated.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-06-katrina-fraud_x.htm
I can't think of a better example to go Libertarian off the top of my head.
This is stupid. I agree with legalization but there is no way this will pass. Why don't they take smaller steps? I think a lot of people agree that marijuana possession should not be a criminal offense and that our jails should not be full of people arrested for such a petty crime. I think it is easy to make a strong case for that both from the left and right. Why not change the punishment from jail to a large fine? Come one, it needs to be baby steps... this is not practical at all.
What's the point of this? Do people just want to make a statement that will be lost quickly or do they actually want to pass an initiative?
This initiative sadly is a case for criminalization of marijuana since it was obviously written while stoned!
Paging Christopher Springer: you're the proponent for this initiative -- if you want signatures, please let us know where to sign!
Katrina demonstrates ineptitutde IN big government; not ineptitude OF big government. Meaning, "big" government is not inherently inept. However, when we elect "small" government types who don't respect the concept of government itself, we get horse trainers running FEMA, and, yes, an inept government. 203 more days.
"we get horse trainers running FEMA, and, yes, an inept government. 203 more days."
I totally agree paulk. FEMA was working just fine in the aftermath of the Northridge Earthquake. The failings of FEMA during Kartina had more to do with who was in charge of FEMA, and the Bush Admin's restructuring of FEMA, than it did the agency it's self.
Show me the petition! Even though I'm in Florida, I'm all for anything that changes this insane national policy of making criminals out of weed smokers. Talk about a victimless crime! Talk about a waste of time!
irb, you seem like a rational, intelligent person, but you may want to do a little more homework on the libertarian party. As meetmybackhand mentioned, this party is all about getting back to the fundamentals this country was founded on. I, for one, happen to believe that I can take care of myself, and put my money to much better use, than any bloated toad of a bureaucracy can.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ~P.J. O'Rourke
I've done my homework on the Libertarian Party, specifically the National Platform of the Libertarian Party, adopted in May, 2008 in Denver Colorado.
Paragraph 2.0, "Economic Liberty," does not seem to allow for antitrust laws. These laws protect us from price-gouging by monopolists -- and there is historical precedent for this (in fact, that history is why antitrust laws exist).
Paragraph 2.1, "Property and Contract" allows for complete freedom to contract, meaning the government cannot set minimum working conditions, such as safety standards, maximum hours and minimum wage. I suggest Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle."
Paragraph 2.2., "Environment" gives the government no role in protecting the environment, but leaves it to private industry.
Paragraph 2.3, "Energy and Resources" is against government oversight of energy production. Let's drill in ANWR!
Paragraph 2.7, "Labor Markets" would eliminate the government's role in management-labor disputes, and return us to the pre-NLRA state of all-out wars.
Paragraph 2.8, "Education" would give total control of the education system to parents. Abstinence-only education and intelligent design are fully equal to comprehensive sex ed and Darwin.
Paragraph 2.9, "Health Care." Free market! Who would have guessed it? If you can't afford it, screw you.
Paragraph 3.5 "Rights and Discrimination." We oppose race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. BY THE GOVERNMENT. Everyone else? Have at it!
I could go on, but my fingers would get too tired. Please don't say that the market will fix all of these things if we take away the laws. The laws the Libertarians want to tear down were legitimate responses to abject market failures. We've seen what the market will provide, and I'll take a real government, thanks.
This law MUST pass.
Feds are out of touch on this entire issue.
Libertarian Party = social darwinisim
jrb, you're much more concise than I am!
I had a few debates with my bro when he was a Libertarian.
New left = Big Brother Government drunk on our money.
Katrina's problems were complicated by an inept State and local government that herded people into the middle of a flooding bowl. Ask yourself: why are the Dome and Convention Center no longer evacuation centers....It made things much worse and they corrected, but did not admit their mistake. FEMA's hands were tied by a napping Governor and imbecile of a Mayor!
Thank goodness the Coast Guard is exempt from posse comitatus
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1122007,00.html
We need voters to persistantly pressure their State politicians and their US Congress representatives to amend laws taking Marijuana
of the Schedule II classification and add "M" to
the Federal ATF agency, renaming it to "ATFM" and
make Marijuana aka HEMP a vital money making commodity listed on the Stock Exchange. Instead of wasting money trying to PROHIBIT "M" like we did booze during the Depression, a time no one
who survived it ever wants to remember!!! I again
must say to everyone please we need to do this
the right way and not create endless problems we
all may regret! The way things are heading our
economy needs a boost and frankly by allowing "M"
to be accepted like any other business it will be
beneficial to everyone! By the way did you know
the going rate for a pound of "M"? How about
$5,000.00! You do the math!!!!
"FEMA's hands were tied by a napping Governor and imbecile of a Mayor!"
If that who caused thousands of people in the Superdome crowding together, with street gangs in charge, fighting and killing each other over the crumbs of anything, while tractor tailers full of ice, drinkable water, and MREs, got re-routed, held up at the border, or sent to the wrong places?
I think it was Bush's moron croney in charge, "Yer doin' a heck of a job Brownie!" who was responsible for that cluster fuck.
I'm one of those "quack doctors" that writes medical marijuana recommendation letters in California.
IMHO, marijuana should be completely legal and taxed. In the meantime, I will continue to protect as many people as I can from the bad laws which criminalize this victimless activity via Proposition 215.
My favorite soundbite that I use when I testify in court is: "marijuana is safer than peanut butter."
Then I procede to back up this soundbite with medical facts.
Happy days are here again!!! Let's start the new gold rush...
PR
hmm. the other day, a friend and i were driving in a small residential neighborhood called hollywood park. we weren't high, nor had we been smoking that day. after running a stop sign (that was hidden far better than any stop sign should be) and being pulled over by a waiting patrol car, we soon realized the gravity of our situation. i spent that night in the county jail and got picked up by my less-than-pleased parents around 4:30 in the morning. i've got to show up to court tomorrow afternoon, where i'll stand as a criminal and be tried (although i'm not exactly sure what will happen, as this is my first time).
what i really remember about the situation was me, shoeless and beltless, handcuffed to a cold steel bench, chatting with the arresting officer (whose name escapes me-alas, his mustache isn't so lucky), who told me "i'm not going to debate this with you, the fact of the matter is, you broke the law, not a law i agree with, but the law."
i don't want to sound self-righteous or anything, but i'm no criminal. i had a plant in my car, not an especially harmful one, and i was thrown in jail, will likely get a large fine, and a spot on my record, for this plant that i enjoy.
the irony of the situation (irony is something i've become familiar with since i started smoking) is that, at the end of the night, he glanced at the djarum blacks in my friend ryan's pocket and said "you know, those are probably worse for you than the weed."
i guess my point is, the laws that had me arrested are pretty lame and the resources could be better applied elsewhere. so do i support the legalization of weed? you bet i do, but it would also need the same regulations as alcohol and tobacco, no driving, no smoking in public places, the like.
sorry, that was a mouthful.
Anyone know how to get a hold of Christopher Springer? We need to figure out how to work together to put together a grass roots effort to get the signatures necessary to get this proposition on the ballet. If Springer is reading this can you email me at tom@thomashawk.com
I have tried every method i could think of to locate this fine gentleman. no luck.
Maybe we can figure out a way to collect our own lists of signatures, in the proper authorized way, and get them to Mr. Springer.
We got about two full months here people!!
That is exactly who put those people in that situation....the State and locals. Not only did they hamper FEMA's efforts, but the Governor also blocked the Red Cross from delivering supplies, because (when she woke up from her nap) she realized all too late that it wasm;t a god idea to herd people to locations surrounded by water!
People in Louisiana know what that idiot did and her approval rating was so low she didn't run for a second term....Heck of a job Blank-O!
I say again,,,Thank goodness the Coast Guard is exempt from posse comitatus or the Napper and imbecile would have hampered their efforts as well!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1122007,00.html
Tarzan, what you describe is exactly why Brown was out of his league. As the head of FEMA, he showed absolutely no leadership skills in that situation.
Brown was the Federal Govt fer crisakes! If the locals were all confused and discombobulated it was his job to step in and set things right. FEMA's primary mission is supposed to be EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT after all.
Another thing, if numb nuts Bush Co. hadn't tied up most of the National Guard in an illegal, unnecessary, invasion of a counrty that didn't even attack us, we would have had more National Guard stateside doing the job they're supposed to be doing. I know the Bush Admin claimed differently, but it's not as if they don't lie their asses off about everthing else.
Actually if the State and locals had followed their own evacuation plan....those people would not have been in that quagmire. Putting them in the Dome and CC were decision made by the locals and it made things exponentially worse.
FEMA is a bureaucratic agency created to mitigate damages after a disaster, but because of local bungling the disaster was elongated. I spoke to high level official in the Coast Guard and they told me it wasn’t FEMA’s job to evacuate these people or take charge of the situation…they are simply charged with paying/evaluating the bill spent by local agencies. Also, there were plenty of National Guard troops available if only the Governor (who admitted on TV she should have called for more troops) had asked for them!
My point is simple…Katrina confirmed my Libertarian leanings. A small efficiently run organization like the US Coast Guard gets the job done. Trimming the fat of government is essential for our success as a nation. Worrying about corporate owned national parks is a bed time story used to scare neo-libs!
"Worrying about corporate owned national parks is a bed time story used to scare neo-libs!"
Gee is that why big oil is pushing so hard to drill in ANWR?
I agree with trimming fat. What I don't agree with is amputation of essential services. I had enough debates with my brother to know that the Libertarian doctrine is basically "sink or swim".
"Gee is that why big oil is pushing so hard to drill in ANWR?"
I don't know...make a profit and increase our domestic supply! Pushing domestic oil down a pipeline is safer than transporting it by ship from overseas (Exxon Valdez 89, The Prestige 02, The Bright Artemis 06, the Volganeft-139 07.....) Never heard they wanted naming rights. Save your fairy tales for someone who buys it.
"I agree with trimming fat.”
Step one of becoming a Libertarian is there.
“What I don't agree with is amputation of essential services. I had enough debates with my brother to know that the Libertarian doctrine is basically "sink or swim"."
There are extremes in all groups, but your typical Libertarian isn't an anarchist. Most want a VALUE out of what we pay for in government….Leaner and more effective. Just throwing money at the nation’s problems and building government layer by layer has been the standard policy of both the Dems and Reps….It isn’t working and costing US more money everyday!
"Save your fairy tales for someone who buys it."
If you look at a map of the drilling in the immediate area of ANWR, you will notice a lot of oil developement. This leads me to believe that there is a large common reservior of oil there. All drilling in ANWR will do is allow them to get it out of the ground a little faster, at an enormous cost to that ecosystem.
Oil companies are NOT good stewards of the land they develop. They have a horrible enviromental track record, and they lie their asses off about how little impact they make on the environment they do develop. I don't trust them when they say they'd protect the area. If it costs them extra money to do so they won't.
"Most want a VALUE out of what we pay for in government….Leaner and more effective."
As I pointed out in an earlier post. If we were to revamp the budgetary process and reward efficiency instead of cutting a program's budget when they find ways to save money, you'd eliminate most of the waste you see now without eliminating the programs. One reason why most gov't workers don't bother to share a good idea is because their superior probably wouldn't implement it anyway because he doesn't want to have their budget cut for the next fiscal year by being too efficient.
Ah the typical American...rant about oil companies profits or environmental record...then jump in the gas guzzler for the long ride out to the suburban retreat with a large grass covered yard (which you water and mow weekly).
Neither of the two "major" parties in the US are willing to make budgetary changes to government....growing it layer by layer is of higher priority!
Tarzan, would you mind taking a look at the official Libertarian Party platform and telling us which paragraphs you agree with and which you don't? Thanks.
Yer talkin' to the wrong dude Tarzan.
I don't own a car. I walk the 7 blocks from home to work. My biggest carbon sin in the last three years has been a flight to New Orleans to visit family. Other than that I rely on public transpo and shoe leather. I practice what I preach.
I hear ya about the big two. I'm a Green and a Mixed Economy Socialist myself.
I've enjoyed debating you though, thanks for keeping things civil. Is there another blog or political discussion forum you frequent? No one has ever complained, but I don't want to piss our hosts here off with a lot of thread drift.
"What I don't agree with is amputation of essential services."
Essential services? Somehow we were able to prosper and become (arguably) the most powerful nation on earth without the likes of essential services such as FEMA, social security, medicare (to name but a few), and others for at least 150 years.
"If we were to revamp the budgetary process and reward efficiency instead of cutting a program's budget when they find ways to save money, you'd eliminate most of the waste you see now without eliminating the programs."
This may be true for some programs, but what about social security? or medicare? Medicare is projected to be bankrupt by 2019 and social security by 2041. These programs are the result of the government taking upon responsibilities not provided for in the Constitution, however well intentioned they may have been when created. Working people TODAY would be much better off and would have more fluid capital if they weren't putting their hard earned money into federal programs they won't see the result of because they'll be bankrupt. I supposed the government can print more money but that doesn't really solve the problem.
Revamping the budgetary proces would be nice, I agree, although I'm curious to see how anyone could do it. The reason private enterprise has proven over and over again to be more efficient than government is because you are rewarded for efficiency (profit) and held accountable for your losses. Neither is the case with the government. If an arm of a corporation has misappropriated almost $1 billion in funds like FEMA, it'd have a very short lifespan. Amazingly, it's still around.
How about term limits for congressman and senators, rather than have all these "career" politicians who, many of which, are lining their pockets with cash from big corporations or lobbying groups? If our government wasn't so big the effect these lobbying groups/corporations would have on our supposed representatives would diminish, would it not? If our politicians weren't continually indebted to interest groups maybe they'd actually try and do some good for the short time they're in office.
I also agree with jrb. I will not vote for this if it is a boondoggle for dealers. But, otherwise i certainly would vote yes. marijuana should be sold just like alcohol and tobacco.
If someone could define social responsibility in such as way as it pertains to Libertarians not believing in it, that'd be great.
Are you referring to government deciding for adults what they should and should not do and that's your definition of social responsibility then you might be right; however, most Libertarians I know support their respective societies, volunteer their time and make contributions to those who are needy. That's social responsibility as this Libertarian defines it.
As for federal law trumping state's rights, I suggest you do a little reading of your Constitution!! Federal law has jurisdiction in FEDERAL TERRITORIES ONLY, not state territories.
Just because you like big government walking all over YOUR rights doesn't mean everyone else has to put up with it.
Peterson553, I went to law school and took Constitutional Law I and Constitutional Law II. I don't know if you did or not, but I'm pretty sure that I know that federal law is supreme not just in federal territories, but anywhere that Congress has the authority to make law, i.e., anything that affects interstate commerce.
paulk, the federal government has no business getting involved in something that is happening in California AND ONLY in California. The federal government's job is to protect us from foreign enemies and regulate interstate commerce. The feds have no business getting involved in any of this in CA. This is exactly the type of situation the founding fathers forsaw when they delegated rights within the Bill of Rights.
You're also absolutely wrong in your last point to Peterson553; however, it's been so long since the Constitution was written that no one cares about it any more, which is why the feds GOT AWAY with claiming 'fed law trumps state law.' Absolutely not. States are independent entities free to pass their own laws. The Feds are only supposed to get involved if it relates to interstate commerce or a foreign enemy. But nobody knows shit any more, including you.
In 1914 the Supreme Court NARROWLY outlawed cannabis 'only as a means to regulate interstate commerce' by requiring a tax stamp at an obscene price; if you were found in possession without a stamp, which would cost like $5mil in today's dollars, you'd be arrested.
The Supremacy Clause is the common name given to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which reads:
“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. ”
The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.
In closing...it's not a war on drugs, it's a war on minorities:
tinyurl.com/1mn
phillydrifter, I agree with you on policy. However, you're wrong on Con Law. Check Article VI, Clause 2, and explain.
"This may be true for some programs, but what about social security? or medicare?"
Both totally necessary programs, as should be a national healthcare program, and a paid college education program. Maybe if we didn't have an administration pissing away a half trillion dollars and counting, on an illegal invasion and occupation, we could afford those things. Most other industrialized countries in the world have them, and they haven't been taken over by Communists yet.
And BTW 150-200 years ago no one had those things.
Something most Libertarians don't quite grasp is, that the Constitution was written to be a living document, so it could change with the times. I think the authors were pretty smart when they designed it that way.
"...rather than have all these "career" politicians who, many of which, are lining their pockets with cash from big corporations or lobbying groups?"
Wait a minute! I thought you guys called that "Free Speech".
I call it bribery, but in any case, as long as you let politicians write the rules on campaign finance, you're gonna have the fox in charge of hen house security.
And peterson, I define social responsibility as not trying to weasle out of paying your taxes. Oh and another thing peterson, the 'ol states rights dealie-o was decided a long time ago. It was called The Civil War, and state's rights lost out to the Fed.
Remember?
BTW, I agree to with phillydrifter on policy re: the war on drugs. I probably agree with him/her on little else. Just to clarify.
You know what? You caught me. I'm no constitutional scholar, I'm no law student. I've read the bill of rights though, and I know people like Washington and Jefferson and Madison grew industrial hemp. This isn't about smoking pot to get high, this is about protecting rich corporations from having to compete with the world's #1 most prolific plant; this is about big pharma being able to push all it's synthetic medicines without every joe q. public growing his own in his back yard.
But I know for a fact that states are independent of one another, free entities, which are only bound by the Feds by their interstate commerce and protection from foreign enemies.
I know what I've read, especially by Profs Whitebread and Bonnie (Two UVirginia profs, though I may be mistaken in the school), two authors of 'The Marijuana Conviction,' which states, on page 16:
"Why had Congress chosen this awkward revenue mechanism for what was clearly a regulatory enactment? In simple terms, Congress was attempting to do indirectly what it believed it could not do directly: regulate the practice of medicine and the intrastate sale and possession of drugs. In 1914 when Congress enacted the Harrison Act, the prevailing interpretation of its powers to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and to raise revenue was that these powers were limited and that the power to regulate "local" affairs had been reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment." (^29)
"Thus, as the Supreme Court pointed out in 1925 in a case construing the act, "direct control of medical practice in the states is beyond the power of the Federal Government." (^30) "By using its taxing powers, however, Congress was regulating these local activities only "incidentally," in order to facilitate implementation of its primary intent--the raising of revenue. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed Congress to get away with this ruse, but only by a five-to-four margin." (^31)
I also damn near killed myself while drunk on alcohol, and no, i'm not blaming the alcohol. It was my fault, but it was my fault because of the lies i'd been fed since I was a child. I remember all too well Nancy Reagan appearing on 'Diff'rent Strokes' to preach 'just say 'no!'
How about 'just say 'know'? This is not a war on drugs, and it never was. It's a war on minorities, and these drugs have been here as long as humanity itself. They're not going anywhere, and when you think about it, really think about it, alcohol was probably the LAST drug mankind 'perfected,' in that i'm sure alcohol occurs naturally (I saw a video of a squirrel that had gotten drunk off the fermented insides of a pumpkin, and couldn't even climb a tree, every time it got all 4 claws off the ground onto the tree it would fall off.)
If i hadn't been lied to about the supposed dangers of drugs, I never would have been such a hardcore alcohol fan.
it's now my job in life to overturn every one of these laws.
If that squirrel video happens to be on YouTube, please link it. That sounds like the greatest thing ever.
I think prohibiting marijuana is within the legitimate bounds of the federal government's powers. I think it is an unwise use of those powers. Sorry to everyone who came in here to read about pot and had to read about constitutional law instead.
philly, you left out big cotton.
The powerful cotton lobby in the south at that time had a lot to do with the prohibition of industrial hemp. As a cash crop hemp was already in decline because steam power was replacing sail power on most seagoing vessels.
BTW I agree with most of what you say about marijuana, and drugs in general. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on the curcumstances Fed's power does trump state's powers on most things.
Man the Fedz aint gonna let this pass. Plus the govenator will help them defeat this bill.
MJ is what fuels the governments Black ops along with the pockets of Big pharm and other industrial giants.
Doctrines of Demons as the Bible described these laws passed against Non lethal God given creatures.
Peace
alternativechristianviews(dot)info
From what I can gather so far this thing would be a disaster if it passed...its a wolf dressed in a name that looks like sheep clothing.
I haven't even been able to find out who wrote and filed it?
I hope we can achieve some fundamental things in court before this kind of initiative passes because if we dont my thoughts are that:
1. It levy's a $50 per plant for growing a plant which is a direct violation of my Inalienable Rights not to mention how that kind of fee would stop me and most people from growing our food, fiber, building materials and meds because its a prohibitively expensive tax just like the Marijuana Tax Act was. In fact it absolutely sets the stage for corporate control.
2. It will open the door for GE/GMO patented varieties which would then pollute the natural gene pool with nightmare Monsanto 'technologies'. In other words the only thing protecting cannabis from the genetic raping of the entire species before we do some fundamental work in the judicial branch is its illegal status.
3. It will end up in court anyway only as a defendant(the State of Cali) instead of being the plaintiff and that makes all the difference because it dictates what the central questions/causes of action of the case are which thereby dictate how and what becomes 'relevant' and 'admissible' evidence.
In other words a defendant has a far more limited scope of response which on this issue can mean all the difference in the outcome of any such litigation.
It would end up being a case about States Rights rather than human rights and or natural rights.
So in so far as I can conclude so far I'm giving a big huge thumbs down in my review of:
The Inalienable Rights Enforcement Initiative
Please do everything you can to stop this measure if your in favor of reality.
One more thing, if your wondering what a honest effort in this war looks like...in other words what the only reasonable response to laws that violate your very most fundamental natural human right to plant a seed looks like, you can find such here:
http://www.hemphasis.net/kiczenski/kiczenski.htm
Watch the vid for examples of real actions and read the case for an example of speaking truth to power which is what we should all be doing relentlessly.
love,
ron kiczenski/lbm
I would highly recommend that you check out The Grandfather's Report online at mwhodges.home.att.net.
It is an amateur site, difficult to navigate, but the guy is authentic and has much of interest to say.
If you are a student of history, then you will know that the criminalization of marijuana was achieved with a bribe - an illegal action - and on that basis alone, this law should be reversed and revisted with great public scrutiny and a few truths.
You may also want to actually talk to the folks who dealt with FEMA authorities during Katrina's aftermath - I think you would find that, as with all super-sized committees/governments run amok, they were not only ineffectual and disorganized, they were woefully ignorant of their own policies! My son, along with approximately 150 outside contractors, were given meals and boarding for nearly 45 days before someone realized - gasp! - there were not actually entitled to such benefits. Was your money or mine refunded for such inept leadership? I laugh at the thought.
Paulk and jrb - these idea of yours, that you happily pay taxes because you are a civilized person living in a civilized society, makes me weep for your naivete. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a realist. I simply do not trust this ever-expanding malignant cyst that has become our government - nor do I believe that it's right that our government is buying our citizens so cheaply, whether it's through programs like welfare, social security, or simply goverment jobs with their guaranteed raises and retirement benefits.
Our forefathers, the framers of our constitution have surely turned over in their graves so many times now, it's likely they've turned to butter.
'Nuff said.
P.S. jrb
so·cial Dar·win·ism
noun
Definition:
biological advantage creating economic advantage: a discredited social theory stating that the political and economic advantages in a developed society are derived from the biological advantages of its collective membership
Okay, now I just have to say one more little thing and then I'm done. Global Warming - Al Gore should be taken to court for making money and earning kudos off this particular scam. As a people, we should use caution, courtesy, and common sense in dealing with our environment. As a people, we should use caution and common sense in dealing with money-grabbing, scam artists who prey on the fears of the ignorant. We are nothing more than bugs to this planet and to think that we have any affect at all on its naturally efficient systems of renewal is the ultimate arrogance of the human race. Pah.
yeah there's no global warming.... cargo ships from china are using the now using passage ways around the north pole that for as long as history remembers use to be impassable due to the large glaciers in the way INSTEAD of paying for the expensive panama canal route.
that's not global warming, that's uh... coincidence?
"that's not global warming, that's uh... coincidence?"
Total coincidence Anti.
We should all continue to drive Hummers with the windows rolled down and the a/c blasting. In fact, I'm thinking of buying a Bradley armored vehicle. Let some dufus in an SUV try and cut me off while I'm driving that!
Polar bears? Who needs 'em! And really, how many species of other animals do we really need?
Yea, that arrogant 'ol Al Gore. Tryin' to save a planet and such!
Oh, and pjw. Where'd you get that definition of Social Darwinisim. Just curious.
Some one up there on the list said if just one state does this, well in case media suppression has you all ignorant, these Federal Bills were entered back in April. The same day that George Carlin died there was a new article circulating that the Dutch were going ban tobacco smoke in public places but not yer good old fashioned rope.
This could change your whole attitude
Check it out. Save your seeds
To look up bills up under consideration by the 110th Congress of the United States, visit the Library of Congress
www.loc.gov
Then pick on the Jefferson Collection. There's a place in that Jefferson section where you can look up House bills by
number.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5842.IH:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5843.IH:
H.R.5842 is all about stopping Federal persecution of prescription holders and H.R.5843 is kinda like oh what the heck let's just legalize it .
Could be a whole new fuel source in the future.
and food
and paper
and paint
and particle board
and clothing
and plastics
and medicines for eyes and alzheimer's
and natural solar power storage
and deep taproot combined rototilling for old burnt out cotton fields
and canvas for painting great works of art that as long as those "originals"
an intense air foil to cool the earth in areas considered left unfarmed.
Hey cowboy Eu'rope too?
Have a nice day!
WoW I thought I'd seen pathetic in my life watching the gov/corps make ya all willing and thankful slaves, but reading this thread is especially enlightening in knowing how they can do such a thing so easily lol!. This thread is suppose to be about the proposed Inalienable Rights Enforcement Initiative and the babble here just goes go on and on about things that are mostly useless in the context of this topic.
Its almost like yall see the word 'pot' and go gaga in support without ever really knowing what your voicing your support for and then you just charge on into a orgy of lashing out at each other over nothin much at all lol!
So I'm guessing this post will fit right in hehe.
I'm starting to think Americans well deserve to get what they've paid for and made others pay for over the decades and its probably not a pretty package lol...No doubt you will all end up victims of your own blinding ignorance as you continue ego bashing each other like some kind of medieval circle jerk and the rest of the starving world finally comes to eat you alive. lol!
Anyhoot if ya ever do get back to the point of this thread, please consider learning before you leap to sign on or vote for this sham in sheep's clothing called Inalienable Rights Enforcement Initiative k, thanks~
Good day...
"Some one up there on the list said if just one state does this, well in case media suppression has you all ignorant, these Federal Bills were entered back in April. The same day that George Carlin died there was a new article circulating that the Dutch were going ban tobacco smoke in public places but not yer good old fashioned rope.
This could change your whole attitude
Check it out. Save your seeds
To look up bills up under consideration by the 110th Congress of the United States, visit the Library of Congress
www.loc.gov
Then pick on the Jefferson Collection. There's a place in that Jefferson section where you can look up House bills by
number.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5842.IH:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5843.IH:
H.R.5842 is all about stopping Federal persecution of prescription holders and H.R.5843 is kinda like oh what the heck let's just legalize it .
Could be a whole new fuel source in the future.
and food
and paper
and paint
and particle board
and clothing
and plastics
and medicines for eyes and alzheimer's
and natural solar power storage
and deep taproot combined rototilling for old burnt out cotton fields
and canvas for painting great works of art that as long as those "originals"
an intense air foil to cool the earth in areas considered left unfarmed.
Hey cowboy Eu'rope too?
Have a nice day!"
Not likely while folks like you run off half cocked not knowing the first thing about what you are helping to bring about.
I know ya mean well, but if ya dont know the details of this issue then ya shouldn't be promoting it as if you have the answer k?
Those bills would mean the opposite of freedom as they would do just what they are designed to help along which is corporate/genetic/patent take over of the entire cannabis species.
Do the research would ya?
Or maybe you like corporate rule and the way it kills and enslaves us all?
".No doubt you will all end up victims of your own blinding ignorance as you continue ego bashing each other like some kind of medieval circle jerk"
Well gee ibm, sounds like you've got your own circle jerk going.
WITH YOURSELF!!
Have fun though. I'm sure nobody does you better.
hehe and it felt sooo good! ;-)
Actually I'm a bit ashamed of myself now lol that always happens after lol!
Seriously though I am ashamed for letting myself go off here that way and I humbly offer all apologies.
Its been kind of a bad day...
Peace~
ok folks, its been great. we all had fun hashing it out...
But this will be the last comment. I'm closing the comments, because i agree with ibm when they say that this thread has gotten wayyyy off topic.
it's all good though. and special thanks to jrb who was a fountain of useful information throughout the thread.