SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Cultists can't accept another leader.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Libertarian Thread (Was: Gary Johnson Thread) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Maurile Tremblay
- Start date
CBusAlex
Footballguy
I don't think Johnson is ever going to win over the Truther/Chemtrail/FEMA-Death-Camp/Vaccines-are-Mind-Control contingent of Paul's supporters, and for good reason.
Jobber
Footballguy
Well then these Paulites will guarantee their dream party goes nowhere.
CBusAlex
Footballguy
at the backup Gary Johnson.
Fennis
Footballguy
Gary Johnson benefits from Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney
Ron Paul has built a massive base of supporters over his 30 year career with a consistent message of liberty that he was so unwilling to compromise he earned the nickname Dr. No.
Most lovers of liberty naturally hoped that Ron's son Rand would carry on the message of his iconic father, and most are now sorely disappointed. Rand Paul did the unthinkable--he endorsed Mitt Romney, whose views are far closer to President Obama's than the principled libertarian from Texas. :
"He flat sold out," said Carl Hall of Montevallo. "We looked the other way when he voted for sanctions on Iran, when he proposed a 17% income tax, but this is too much, and he did it on Hannity, which is the ultimate slap in the face."
Campaign insiders are quick to defend the Paul endorsement as a tactical move that solidifies what is seen as a fringe movement with the Republican establishment. Jack Hunter, a popular liberty commentator has gone on record saying that the Senator from Kentucky made the only move available to him: “in fact,” says Hunter “If Rand Paul had not endorsed Mitt Romney I would be working overtime to convince him to do so.”
Hardcore libertarian activists who have donated both sweat and treasure see Hunter’s comments and Rand Paul’s endorsement as a slap in the face. To them if it was a strategic move, it was bad strategy because it managed to divide a movement that has amassed unimaginable momentum by being united and consistent.
“Rand Paul is either a sellout or a liar,” explains Chris Hollingsworth of Southside. “We are being told by campaign insiders that this was a strategic move, that we should ‘go along to get along, but that flies in the face of logic. Ron Paul has been able to spread his message and build the movement to this level by refusing to compromise his beliefs. In one stupid move Rand Paul has jeopardized what his father spent three decades building. I’m voting for Gary Johnson.”
Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party seem to be the big winners from this whole episode. Many liberty voters who were going to abstain or write in Ron Paul are now saying they plan to use their energy to build what is already the nation’s third largest party:
“I was thinking of writing in Ron Paul,” says Lamar Jackson, “but after Rand’s endorsement of an Obama clone, it made me realize that I need to be fighting to break the two party strangle hold.”
When the crowned prince of libertarianism can become a Judas or a Judas goat, it magnifies the power of a corrupt system.
Many in the Ron Paul movement aren’t thrilled with supporting Gary Johnson, a candidate they see as weak on issues like the Federal Reserve and the so-called war on drugs, but they see the need to build a third party alternative to the leviathan GOP and Democratic parties that currently control national politics.
“If we can get 10% of the national vote we become kingmaker and the other two parties will naturally swing our way, they’ll have to in order to win elections,” explains Montevallo Libertarian George Kinley.
The ultimate goal according to libertarians should be to win local elections, to change the face of politics and tyranny at home, and shift the discussion nationally.
“If we control our hometowns we essentially nullify the federal government. If we grow the Libertarian Party at home liberty will consume the country.”
Regardless of one’s personal take on the Rand Paul endorsement, it is obvious that liberty voters seeing red, though it is doubtful they will vote that way.
Ron Paul has built a massive base of supporters over his 30 year career with a consistent message of liberty that he was so unwilling to compromise he earned the nickname Dr. No.
Most lovers of liberty naturally hoped that Ron's son Rand would carry on the message of his iconic father, and most are now sorely disappointed. Rand Paul did the unthinkable--he endorsed Mitt Romney, whose views are far closer to President Obama's than the principled libertarian from Texas. :
"He flat sold out," said Carl Hall of Montevallo. "We looked the other way when he voted for sanctions on Iran, when he proposed a 17% income tax, but this is too much, and he did it on Hannity, which is the ultimate slap in the face."
Campaign insiders are quick to defend the Paul endorsement as a tactical move that solidifies what is seen as a fringe movement with the Republican establishment. Jack Hunter, a popular liberty commentator has gone on record saying that the Senator from Kentucky made the only move available to him: “in fact,” says Hunter “If Rand Paul had not endorsed Mitt Romney I would be working overtime to convince him to do so.”
Hardcore libertarian activists who have donated both sweat and treasure see Hunter’s comments and Rand Paul’s endorsement as a slap in the face. To them if it was a strategic move, it was bad strategy because it managed to divide a movement that has amassed unimaginable momentum by being united and consistent.
“Rand Paul is either a sellout or a liar,” explains Chris Hollingsworth of Southside. “We are being told by campaign insiders that this was a strategic move, that we should ‘go along to get along, but that flies in the face of logic. Ron Paul has been able to spread his message and build the movement to this level by refusing to compromise his beliefs. In one stupid move Rand Paul has jeopardized what his father spent three decades building. I’m voting for Gary Johnson.”
Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party seem to be the big winners from this whole episode. Many liberty voters who were going to abstain or write in Ron Paul are now saying they plan to use their energy to build what is already the nation’s third largest party:
“I was thinking of writing in Ron Paul,” says Lamar Jackson, “but after Rand’s endorsement of an Obama clone, it made me realize that I need to be fighting to break the two party strangle hold.”
When the crowned prince of libertarianism can become a Judas or a Judas goat, it magnifies the power of a corrupt system.
Many in the Ron Paul movement aren’t thrilled with supporting Gary Johnson, a candidate they see as weak on issues like the Federal Reserve and the so-called war on drugs, but they see the need to build a third party alternative to the leviathan GOP and Democratic parties that currently control national politics.
“If we can get 10% of the national vote we become kingmaker and the other two parties will naturally swing our way, they’ll have to in order to win elections,” explains Montevallo Libertarian George Kinley.
The ultimate goal according to libertarians should be to win local elections, to change the face of politics and tyranny at home, and shift the discussion nationally.
“If we control our hometowns we essentially nullify the federal government. If we grow the Libertarian Party at home liberty will consume the country.”
Regardless of one’s personal take on the Rand Paul endorsement, it is obvious that liberty voters seeing red, though it is doubtful they will vote that way.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Imagine how good the Colts would've been this year if they had a 2nd Peyton Manning on the roster.
An article/editorial from the recent newsletter. I view and support Johnson from the "right wing" so it is interesting to see things from the "left wing" side.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/22/former-democratic-party-press-secretary
Former Democratic Party Press Secretary Supports Gary Johnson for President
The former New Mexico governor is the only choice for those who favor liberty at home and abroad.
Terry Michael | June 22, 2012
For almost all my life, I have been a “professional Democrat,” as well as a strong believer in our dual-party system, with a range of philosophies under “two big tents.” As a 9-year-old, I wore an Adlai Stevenson for president button to the fourth grade. I wanted to “complete the New Deal” as a 1960's left-liberal teenager. At 36, I became press spokesman for the oldest continuing party committee in the world, the Democratic National Committee (1983-87.) And since then, I have run a program to teach college journalists about “practical politics,” preaching that having just two parties helps simplify electoral and governing choices.
With that partisan pedigree, I am about to become an apostate. I am going to do what I think the founder of the Democratic Party, the classical liberal Thomas Jefferson, might consider doing this year. I am going to vote for former Republican New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, now the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
I don’t intend to change my registration. I’m still a Democrat. But I’m a small “l” libertarian Democrat, who wants to teach fellow Democrats that 21st century libertarians are not a bunch of selfish, Ayn Rand-style, greedy capitalists. Among the three issue frames of politics—economy, social, and foreign—most rank-and-file Democrats share much in common with modern libertarians. Most libertarians want to keep government out of our bedrooms, away from our bodies, and out of the backyards of the rest of the world. On the economy, while we are for limited spending, taxes, and regulation, we favor free markets—not oligarchic capitalism that uses government to re-distribute tax revenue to the military-industrial-congressional-media complex, the behemoth pharmaceutical companies, or other lobbyists along Washington’s K Street who seek benefits from government and regulations that put competitors at disadvantage.
Why would I abandon the candidate for whom I had great hopes for change in 2008, a president from my own home state of Illinois, Barack Obama? In fact, I even made a libertarian case for Obama in 2008 at Reason.com—which turned out to be hoping against nothing but hope.
For me, that hope turned to despair when President Obama ramped up another hideous elective war, putting tens of thousands of young men and women in harm’s way in Afghanistan; rammed through a taxpayer and deficit-funded corporate welfare program for drug and insurance companies, in the guise of health care reform; and reneged on promises to slow prosecutions in the assault on personal freedom, the violence-creating neo-Prohibition known as the war on drugs.
While some Democrats may avert their eyes from that record, this libertarian Democrat is going to vote on principle. Gov. Gary Johnson balanced New Mexico’s budget all 8 years he served; he pledges to end the insanity in Afghanistan immediately; he is committed to legalizing drugs, to ending the government-induced black market that drives up profits and causes Mexican cartels to murder thousands, like the Al Capone murder and mayhem created by alcohol Prohibition. And he wants to end handouts to corporations that see the U.S. Treasury as a giant ATM, stocked with cash by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
I have been a slave to political pragmatism during my four decades in these 10 square miles surrounded by reality known as Washington, D.C. But this year, I encourage my Jeffersonian, classical liberal friends, in each party and neither, to send a simple message to both my party and the Republicans, in the form of votes for Gary Johnson.
Just one word, that message fits easily on a bumper sticker. Liberty.
Director of the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism, Terry Michael is a former press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. He writes at his libertarian Democrat web site, www.terrymichael.net.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/22/former-democratic-party-press-secretary
Former Democratic Party Press Secretary Supports Gary Johnson for President
The former New Mexico governor is the only choice for those who favor liberty at home and abroad.
Terry Michael | June 22, 2012
For almost all my life, I have been a “professional Democrat,” as well as a strong believer in our dual-party system, with a range of philosophies under “two big tents.” As a 9-year-old, I wore an Adlai Stevenson for president button to the fourth grade. I wanted to “complete the New Deal” as a 1960's left-liberal teenager. At 36, I became press spokesman for the oldest continuing party committee in the world, the Democratic National Committee (1983-87.) And since then, I have run a program to teach college journalists about “practical politics,” preaching that having just two parties helps simplify electoral and governing choices.
With that partisan pedigree, I am about to become an apostate. I am going to do what I think the founder of the Democratic Party, the classical liberal Thomas Jefferson, might consider doing this year. I am going to vote for former Republican New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, now the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
I don’t intend to change my registration. I’m still a Democrat. But I’m a small “l” libertarian Democrat, who wants to teach fellow Democrats that 21st century libertarians are not a bunch of selfish, Ayn Rand-style, greedy capitalists. Among the three issue frames of politics—economy, social, and foreign—most rank-and-file Democrats share much in common with modern libertarians. Most libertarians want to keep government out of our bedrooms, away from our bodies, and out of the backyards of the rest of the world. On the economy, while we are for limited spending, taxes, and regulation, we favor free markets—not oligarchic capitalism that uses government to re-distribute tax revenue to the military-industrial-congressional-media complex, the behemoth pharmaceutical companies, or other lobbyists along Washington’s K Street who seek benefits from government and regulations that put competitors at disadvantage.
Why would I abandon the candidate for whom I had great hopes for change in 2008, a president from my own home state of Illinois, Barack Obama? In fact, I even made a libertarian case for Obama in 2008 at Reason.com—which turned out to be hoping against nothing but hope.
For me, that hope turned to despair when President Obama ramped up another hideous elective war, putting tens of thousands of young men and women in harm’s way in Afghanistan; rammed through a taxpayer and deficit-funded corporate welfare program for drug and insurance companies, in the guise of health care reform; and reneged on promises to slow prosecutions in the assault on personal freedom, the violence-creating neo-Prohibition known as the war on drugs.
While some Democrats may avert their eyes from that record, this libertarian Democrat is going to vote on principle. Gov. Gary Johnson balanced New Mexico’s budget all 8 years he served; he pledges to end the insanity in Afghanistan immediately; he is committed to legalizing drugs, to ending the government-induced black market that drives up profits and causes Mexican cartels to murder thousands, like the Al Capone murder and mayhem created by alcohol Prohibition. And he wants to end handouts to corporations that see the U.S. Treasury as a giant ATM, stocked with cash by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
I have been a slave to political pragmatism during my four decades in these 10 square miles surrounded by reality known as Washington, D.C. But this year, I encourage my Jeffersonian, classical liberal friends, in each party and neither, to send a simple message to both my party and the Republicans, in the form of votes for Gary Johnson.
Just one word, that message fits easily on a bumper sticker. Liberty.
Director of the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism, Terry Michael is a former press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. He writes at his libertarian Democrat web site, www.terrymichael.net.
It's great hearing that from a Democrat.
I agree Maurile but I am not convinced this isn't his own ideology rather than the "company line".
I think most Democrats sincerely hate it when Congress gives money to Haliburton. But they keep supporting congressional powers and political structures ("oligarchic capitalism that uses government to redistribute tax revenue") that make it inevitable. It's good to hear from one who doesn't.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Yeah see though we Democrats don't like the structure much either. The problem is we do need taxes to pay for infrastructure, research, investment, Medicare, etc. The reason this guy can promulgate his opinion on the internet is because of government spending and taxes in that system. Too often Libertarians come off as if it would have happened anyway. Well no it probably wouldn't have happened in the open way it did which means lots of lost opportunities.
NCC - I respect and appreciate the thoughts you add. I am confused on that last statement though. Can you clarify it a bit for me?
"Too often Libertarians come off as if it would have happened anyway. Well no it probably wouldn't have happened in the open way it did which means lots of lost opportunities."
"Too often Libertarians come off as if it would have happened anyway. Well no it probably wouldn't have happened in the open way it did which means lots of lost opportunities."
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well, and I am not ascribing this to all Libertarians, I hear a lot about how if we just let the market it will do everything. I don't believe that. I don't see how anyone that has studied any history can believe that. There are things that the free market simply won't do because you have to show how you are going to make money at it. I mean you would have had to have been a singular visionary to see what the internet has become when DARPA first started spending money on it. And I am just using the internet as one example since we are using it to communicate. I do have lots of common ground with the libertarians but in the long run I find many of their would be fixes to be kind of pie in the sky with no basis in how the real world works.
Now I understand where you are coming from and I agree for the most part. There is no "one size fits all" out there and I agree that this is one area that Libertarians may fall short if they are not flexible. I think most of the party faithful realize that flexibility is needed in all portions of the platform. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
What makes the internet great is what the private sector did to it, and government had very little to do with that besides providing some infrastructure. I mean, I'm suret the internet was similarly awesome when it was just DOD and university scientists swapping academic papers, but the government didn't bring us real-time news, social networking, gaming, e-commerce, or porn. You're argument seems to be roughly the equivalent of saying that the downtown area isn't really free enterprise because all the stores are on a road build by the city. Libertarians don't generally have a problem with that sort of thing -- you're getting us confused with anarchists.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well the problem comes with paying for it and who should run it doesn't it? Directly from the Libertarian site:
No it can't. Not even close to a statement based in reality.
NCCommish
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Yeah, I agree that that particular statement is ridiculous.
Fennis
Footballguy
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
Did Washington "run for office as an outsider"?
I skipped that election so I don't remember. I think EVERYONE was an outsider at that point (in a literal since).
Softballguy
Footballguy
What's with the "Obamney is the new Brangelina" subliminal stuff at 1:38?
NCCommish
Footballguy
Well there was really no running in those days IIRC. Electors voted for president and vice president. Largely they were selected to be electors and they decided. Washington got unanimous support from the electors in both "runs". Of course this was all arranged behind the scenes by Hamilton if the stories are to be believed.
It's an obvious overstatement — an unfortunate characteristic of much libertarian rhetoric. But the list of things that the government can do better and cheaper than private business is way, way shorter than the list of things the government actually does.If you ask most libertarians what the government should stop doing, it will be stuff like subsidizing tobacco while funding anti-smoking ads, not stuff like DARPA. Most libertarians are perfectly fine with the government providing a national defense, even if they tend to think we're often a bit overzealous about using it for non-defense purposes.
NCCommish
Footballguy
See here's another part of the problem. Government isn't a for profit exercise. I don't care if private enterprise can do it cheaper. Of course they can because they don't have to care. Kind of like for profit prisons. Just had reports where a prisoner had his medication cut and then was refused transport via ambulance while in the middle of multiple seizures. Died in a puddle of his own urine, curled up on the floor of his cell after having a brain killing final seizure. And why was he refused transport? So the private prison "could do it cheaper". Yay cheaper.
I'm trying to think of a worse example you could use than comparing prison systems...
NCCommish
Footballguy
I don't think it's a bad example. But maybe you want to talk about why we learned our lesson via private fire depts instead?
You keep citing examples that most libertarians are okay with.National defense, a court system, a police force, prisons, fire departments, roads and other infrastructure . . . opposition to government provision of these things comes only from anarchists. You don't have to worry about the tiny percentage of libertarians who are anarchists, because they pretty much don't vote anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
I just posted the quote from their site. Do anarchists run the Libertarian site? And all I was citing was examples of things the private sector can seemingly do cheaper but cheaper doesn't mean better or even acceptable.
joffer
Footballguy
"Better and cheaper" is the operative phrase. If the private sector can provide fire and rescue service better and cheaper than a municipality can, I think there'd be a good argument for privatizing fire departments. But I don't think it's clear that it can. Do you?
dgreen
Footballguy
Right. The focus isn't just on "cheaper". I can provide cheaper QB services to the Washington Redskins than Rex Grossman. But, sadly, I'm not better than him. I'm not even remotely close to his level. Doing something "cheaper" could mean that you aren't really providing everything the more expensive competition is providing. It has to be about costs and benefits.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Don't sell yourself short.
On the ACA decision (little heavy on the hyperbole in my opinion)and a tweet as well: If #Romney is elected, says he would give us #SCOTUS Justices like John Roberts. I will give us Justices like @Judgenap. (referencing Judge Napolitano) - any opinions of Napolitano (for reference only)?
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-gary-johnson-opposes-supreme-court-ruling-on-health-care
GOV. GARY JOHNSON CALLS SCOTUS HEALTH CARE RULING AN “INCREDIBLE BLOW TO BEDROCK PRINCIPLES”
June 28 2012, Santa Fe, NM – Libertarian presidential nominee and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s health care ruling:
“It has been clear for a while that we need a new President and a new Congress. Now it appears we need a new Supreme Court.
“Whether the Court chooses to call the individual mandate a tax or anything else, allowing it to stand is a truly disturbing decision. The idea that government can require an individual to buy something simply because that individual exists and breathes in America is an incredible blow to the bedrock principles of freedom and liberty. It must be repealed, and Congress needs to get about doing so today.
“There is one thing we know about health care. Government cannot create a system that will reduce costs while increasing access. Only competition and the price transparency that competition will bring can accomplish the imperatives of affordability and availability. Whether it is the President’s plan or the Republican prescription drug benefit, the idea that anyone in Washington can somehow manage one of the most essential and substantial parts of both our quality of life and the economy is, and always has been, fundamentally wrong.
“We can never know how many Americans are out of work today because of the uncertainty the monstrous health care law has caused. The Court has done nothing to remove that burden.
“Nothing about today’s decision changes the basic reality that it is impossible to eliminate deficit spending and remove the smothering consequences of federal debt without dramatically reducing the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. And neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have given the slightest hint of willingness to do so.”
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/gov-gary-johnson-opposes-supreme-court-ruling-on-health-care
GOV. GARY JOHNSON CALLS SCOTUS HEALTH CARE RULING AN “INCREDIBLE BLOW TO BEDROCK PRINCIPLES”
June 28 2012, Santa Fe, NM – Libertarian presidential nominee and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s health care ruling:
“It has been clear for a while that we need a new President and a new Congress. Now it appears we need a new Supreme Court.
“Whether the Court chooses to call the individual mandate a tax or anything else, allowing it to stand is a truly disturbing decision. The idea that government can require an individual to buy something simply because that individual exists and breathes in America is an incredible blow to the bedrock principles of freedom and liberty. It must be repealed, and Congress needs to get about doing so today.
“There is one thing we know about health care. Government cannot create a system that will reduce costs while increasing access. Only competition and the price transparency that competition will bring can accomplish the imperatives of affordability and availability. Whether it is the President’s plan or the Republican prescription drug benefit, the idea that anyone in Washington can somehow manage one of the most essential and substantial parts of both our quality of life and the economy is, and always has been, fundamentally wrong.
“We can never know how many Americans are out of work today because of the uncertainty the monstrous health care law has caused. The Court has done nothing to remove that burden.
“Nothing about today’s decision changes the basic reality that it is impossible to eliminate deficit spending and remove the smothering consequences of federal debt without dramatically reducing the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. And neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have given the slightest hint of willingness to do so.”
NCCommish
Footballguy
I know we already tried it and it didn't work. That's why we don't still have private fire companies. Why do we have to fail again and prove it twice?
NCCommish
Footballguy
And yet Medicare seems to be more efficient and better liked than it's private counterpoints by the people who use it.
"And yet Medicare seems to be more efficient and better liked than it's private counterpoints by the people who use it."
I assume this is anecdotal, or are there surveys? My step-dad is on Medicare now and I don't here good things from him or my mother. But, that's not proof that it sucks either.
I assume this is anecdotal, or are there surveys? My step-dad is on Medicare now and I don't here good things from him or my mother. But, that's not proof that it sucks either.
Koya
Footballguy
I fully subscribed to this position, until it dawned on me that yes, this really is just a tax. Now, should the gov't get involved in taxing health care? Complicated issue. The libertarian in me says hell no. But are we really ready to then say - hey, if you don't have healthcare, you won't get services. You'll literally be left to die? Where is the line drawn between someone who chooses not to have health care and someone who can't afford it. Should they both be left to die? So, there seems to be a strong public good portion here which can only be taken on by the gov't, as I see it.Now, there were certainly other approaches to solving this issue, but taxation pays for some things I agree with, some I don't. On this front, if the overall benefit of having some mandated system whereby I have to pay can reduce costs overall (not sure it can, but this is the argument) and/or improve services to many... if in the end it costs the nation less because more people are either healthy to can get help before health issues become something that is more costly to treat (not to mention other health related issues such as productivity, having a parent well/alive to raise their kids etc) then I can see some merit.I really like what I've heard about Gary Johnson, and again, I thought along these lines strongly at first. But then I realized:If, hypothetically, taxing everyone for better healthcare is beneficial, wouldn't I rather let the PRIVATE SECTOR take the burden of getting those monies directly from me rather than let the gov't either contract it out as the middle man (inefficient, allows for corruption, and adds a costly layer even if it were efficient - which it won't be) or, god forbid, provide the service themselves (even more inefficient, corrupt and with less service not to mention you are ballooning the size and scope of the gov't itself rather than private entities) - if that's the case, I can understand and accept this as a better way to be taxed.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Duly noted and apologies for insinuating otherwise. I knew better too. Thanks for the info.
NCCommish
Footballguy
No apology needed at all. I expect to be called on stuff and you have been nothing but a gentleman.
mattdaddy
Footballguy
Some Anarachist wrote this a while back
"Our very real medical crisis has been the product of massive government intervention, state and federal, throughout the century; in particular, an artificial boosting of demand coupled with an artificial restriction of supply. The result has been accelerating high prices and deterioration of patient care. And next, socialized medicine could easily bring us to the vaunted medical status of the Soviet Union: everyone has the right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care."
-Murray Rothbard
Government Medical "Insurance"
"Our very real medical crisis has been the product of massive government intervention, state and federal, throughout the century; in particular, an artificial boosting of demand coupled with an artificial restriction of supply. The result has been accelerating high prices and deterioration of patient care. And next, socialized medicine could easily bring us to the vaunted medical status of the Soviet Union: everyone has the right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care."
-Murray Rothbard
Government Medical "Insurance"
Johnson has been pushing the legalization policy quite a bit lately. I think the political support it picking up but we feel so many years away. Latest two:
Feds target another pot dispensary, despite @BarackObama saying the DOJ wouldn't go after medical marijuana. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/harborside-health-center-_0_n_1666850.html#slide=1056641 #MMJ
SAN FRANCISCO -- An Oakland medical marijuana dispensary that has been billed as the largest pot shop on the planet has been targeted for closure by federal prosecutors in Northern California, suggesting that a crackdown on the state's medical marijuana industry remains well under way.
U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag has threatened to seize the Oakland property where Harborside Health Center has operated since 2006, as well as its sister shop in San Jose, executive director and co-founder Steve DeAngelo said Wednesday. His employees found court papers announcing asset forfeiture proceedings against Harborside's landlords taped to the doors at the two locations on Tuesday.
Although medical marijuana is legal in California, a federal court complaint that Haag's office filed Sunday says the dispensaries are violating federal law by selling marijuana. It cites a federal law that "makes it unlawful to rent, lease, profit from or make available for use, with or without compensation, a place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing or using a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana," as justification for going after the landlords.
The court action represents an escalation in a months-long, statewide crackdown on medical marijuana by Haag, who said last year that she would try to shut dispensaries that were within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds, which Harborside isn't.
Haag issued a statement Wednesday, saying that while taking action against pot shops operating near children had been her first priority, "marijuana superstores such as Harborside" are now on her radar, as well.
"The larger the operation, the greater the likelihood that there will be abuse of the state's medical marijuana laws, and marijuana in the hands of individuals who do not have a demonstrated medical need," she said.
DeAngelo, who was the subject of a Discovery Channel reality TV show called "Weed Wars" last year, vowed to fight the Department of Justice's attempt to put him out of business and called Haag's claim that his shops must be running afoul of the law because of their size "completely absurd." Harborside serves about 100,000 medical marijuana users a year, sells about $20 million worth of pot and marijuana products, and pays $3 million in federal, state and local taxes annually.
Kudos to @GovChristie for some welcome common sense: "NJ Gov Christie calls war on drugs a 'failure'" http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/328241 #legalizeit
Washington - New Jersey's Republican governor has joined a long and growing list of politicians from both sides of the political aisle in slamming the 40-year war on drugs as a failure.
Speaking Monday at a Washington, D.C. event hosted by the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization, Gov. Chris Christie had harsh words for the drug war began by President Richard Nixon in 1971 and accelerated by Ronald Reagan a decade later.
"The war on drugs, while well-intentioned, has been a failure," Christie declared. "We're warehousing addicted people every day in state prisons in New Jersey, giving them no treatment."
Feds target another pot dispensary, despite @BarackObama saying the DOJ wouldn't go after medical marijuana. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/11/harborside-health-center-_0_n_1666850.html#slide=1056641 #MMJ
SAN FRANCISCO -- An Oakland medical marijuana dispensary that has been billed as the largest pot shop on the planet has been targeted for closure by federal prosecutors in Northern California, suggesting that a crackdown on the state's medical marijuana industry remains well under way.
U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag has threatened to seize the Oakland property where Harborside Health Center has operated since 2006, as well as its sister shop in San Jose, executive director and co-founder Steve DeAngelo said Wednesday. His employees found court papers announcing asset forfeiture proceedings against Harborside's landlords taped to the doors at the two locations on Tuesday.
Although medical marijuana is legal in California, a federal court complaint that Haag's office filed Sunday says the dispensaries are violating federal law by selling marijuana. It cites a federal law that "makes it unlawful to rent, lease, profit from or make available for use, with or without compensation, a place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing or using a controlled substance, to wit, marijuana," as justification for going after the landlords.
The court action represents an escalation in a months-long, statewide crackdown on medical marijuana by Haag, who said last year that she would try to shut dispensaries that were within 1,000 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds, which Harborside isn't.
Haag issued a statement Wednesday, saying that while taking action against pot shops operating near children had been her first priority, "marijuana superstores such as Harborside" are now on her radar, as well.
"The larger the operation, the greater the likelihood that there will be abuse of the state's medical marijuana laws, and marijuana in the hands of individuals who do not have a demonstrated medical need," she said.
DeAngelo, who was the subject of a Discovery Channel reality TV show called "Weed Wars" last year, vowed to fight the Department of Justice's attempt to put him out of business and called Haag's claim that his shops must be running afoul of the law because of their size "completely absurd." Harborside serves about 100,000 medical marijuana users a year, sells about $20 million worth of pot and marijuana products, and pays $3 million in federal, state and local taxes annually.
Kudos to @GovChristie for some welcome common sense: "NJ Gov Christie calls war on drugs a 'failure'" http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/328241 #legalizeit
Washington - New Jersey's Republican governor has joined a long and growing list of politicians from both sides of the political aisle in slamming the 40-year war on drugs as a failure.
Speaking Monday at a Washington, D.C. event hosted by the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization, Gov. Chris Christie had harsh words for the drug war began by President Richard Nixon in 1971 and accelerated by Ronald Reagan a decade later.
"The war on drugs, while well-intentioned, has been a failure," Christie declared. "We're warehousing addicted people every day in state prisons in New Jersey, giving them no treatment."
roadkill1292
Footballguy
How many other prominent members of the mainstream parties have gone on record saying this? Christie's opinion carries real weight (heh heh).A former mayor of Baltimore, Kurt Schmoke, a rising star in politics, just killed his career when he came out in favor of legalization in the late 80s. I hope we've put that kind of thinking behind us now and can have some thoughtful debates on this issue.
I agree with you there. I haven't seen many quotes from high profile politicians but it only take a few for others to come out of hiding. Christie's words were huge (heh heh back)
NCCommish
Footballguy
I think we are past the point of saying this being political suicide. When a guy like Christie who was a US Attorney, if a controversial one, and a conservative darling can say this with no repercussions hopefully more politicians will realize which way the wind is blowing on this issue.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
so, catch me up - is this guy actually running?! i'm seeing little evidence of it but the chatter, if he is. if he's the nominee, why isnt he pounding it out there during the deadzone between big-party primary & convention?! has he no depth to his pockets, is he being buried by Big Media or is he out there but just so beastly dull (im a New Mexican, used to it) that he's not catching on?
Similar threads
