“As soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere
in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life, we end by
regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest details.”
–Ludwig von Mises
After spending two years as chairman and campaign manager for Regulate Marijuana Like Wine, a California voter initiative, I’ve come to the conclusion that the regulation of cannabis is based upon racism and false assumptions. Our current concept of regulation is fraudulent, because these days regulations only serve to enhance the powers of the state, while artificially disrupting free market enterprises and targeting minorities for arrest and incarceration. That is not how regulation is supposed to work. When the US Constitution was written, it allowed for regulation by the government, but the word regulation had a radically different definition. Back then, regulation meant, “to make regular.” The role of the federal government was to make regular the free trade between the states. The notion that the government could ban anything was antithetic to the intent of the Founding Fathers, as well as the actual wording of the Constitution. Today, many Americans have been so brainwashed that they actually believe that despite the need to pass an amendment to ban alcohol, the government can now ban anything it wants. Sadly, our society has become totally obsessed with regulating everyone and everything. Like the inhabitants of Easter Island, we are rapidly exhausting our limited resources on trying to impose a false sense of control in an ever changing and chaotic world.
I have seen with my own eyes the ugly reality of regulation, because it is a magnet for all sorts of special interests, narcs, prison guards, tax collectors, unions, and greedy bastards to rewrite the law to their advantage or racist beliefs. As a result, affluent white folks will reap all the benefits of any regulatory scheme, while police will continue to target minorities and people of color will continue to suffer the most.
Cannabis is inherently different from alcohol, tobacco, firearms and other regulated stuffs. It resists regulation by its very nature. Too easy to grow at home, and too safe for regulators to justify intervening in a free market, regulation will only bring additional costs and legal threats to the marketplace and never lower prices or improve quality. Even worse are the ‘activists’ who won’t hesitate to dilute our rights or eviscerate the livelihood of longtime growers, in order to win support for their initiative.
Regulation creates a moral hazard, because it implies that the public is protected by diligent and honest regulators. Time and again we see that people find ways to bribe or evade regulators to create products or situations that are actually far more dangerous than would otherwise be the case in a free market. Furthermore, as we have seen over and over again, that the public gets screwed by a system in which the very folks who most need supervision end up writing new regulations that give them huge advantages in the marketplace.
Finally, and most importantly, we must recognize that cannabis already thrives in a black market. That changes everything, because any regulations which artificially impose limits to a free and open market will inevitably result in a return to the black market. The harsher the regulations and the more severe the penalties, the more certainty that the black market will prevail. Even minor regulations will fail, given the long history of growers and sellers prospering in the black market. You may be able to buy legal weed at the local pharmacy or liquor store, but most folks will still prefer the quality and pricing of the black market instead.
I do think the RMLW was a good initiative, because it focused on repealing bad laws, but we were unable to get the funding we needed unless we agreed to adding artificial limitations on possession, transportation and cultivation, which we refused to do. That tells me that a successful initiative will never pass California without harmful concessions that will further endanger and marginalize cannabis patients, businesses and growers.
Steve Kubby is a long-time Libertarian activist. He is a co-author of Proposition 215, which was passed in California in 1996 and legalized medical marijuana in that state.
I just know that in some jurisdictions law enforcement officials have said that they will continue to arrest people regardless of what was passed in the election.
So, there will be fewer of those. That’s a win. And it will spread to other states, another win.
“Former Seattle police chief and pot legalization advocate Norm Stamper was an enthusiastic supporter of Initiative 502. He did countless interviews and wrote letters to the editor. “I hope you’ll join me in voting YES on Initiative-502,” he urged in one.”
“I now question whether Washington state’s initiative needed to be as restrictive as it is,” Stamper says.
He was right before, and he’s right now. The initiative was a step in the right direction, but it could have been even better.
Thomas Knapp said: “we are going to have to pretend to ourselves, real hard, that minor alterations in the fit of the yoke are ‘incremental steps toward freedom.’”
Exactly so. Which brings us back to the original question – Does a tactical win move us forward or kill our chances for real and lasting strategic advancements in liberty?
Is our treatment of alcohol now, when it is taxed and regulated, more libertarian than under alcohol prohibition, when there were shootouts over alcohol turf by armed gangs, wholesale corruption of law enforcement, and dangerous bathtub gin being sold by violent criminals?
I would say clearly yes.
Perfectly libertarian?
Clearly no.
The same would be true with marijuana and other currently illegal substances.
How is voting for taxes and regulations, because they are better than Prohibition, any different from voting for the major party candidate who is the lesser of two evils? Isn’t the outcome still Evil?
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans is the lesser evil, each is more evil than the other in different ways and on balance it’s hard to say.
Furthermore, over time they are getting more and more evil.
Whereas, medicinal is clearly less evil than full prohibition, and regulated/taxed recreational is even less evil, and over time we are getting better.
I’d say that is a big difference.
Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper’s Post-Election Regret Over Initiative 502 DUI law.
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/12/norm_stamper_has_post-election.php
Add a gas mask and bulletproof vest to equipment needed to regulate alcohol sales
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/31/5083677/add-a-gas-mask-and-bulletproof.html#storylink=cpy
@51 – Kubby wrote: [Sure, initiatives may create favorable impressions of pretend liberty, but I have much more faith in Jury Nullification and heroes like NJ Weedman.]
I totally and completely agree with the prior statement, except that I think it’s a little overly-critical to state that initiatives create only “favorable impressions of pretend liberty.” Could you say that to someone who would have been arrested, sentenced, and imprisoned prior to the change in law, who will now go free, or avoid a prison cell? Sure, there may still be state harassment, and theft, but if there’s less murder and enslavement, …that’s real progress toward liberty. Life outside of a cage for one, is closer to liberty for all.
To the point the criticisms of I & R are being taken, anything that doesn’t also exempt individuals from payingf the income tax, and exempt them from using Federal Reserve Notes is unacceptable. Whereas this would be true if we held leading force technology, it’s not true, when we’re hopelessly enslaved, and our alleged intellectual allies can’t or won’t even come to our own defense.
It’s all well and good pointing out that it’s long past time to run, but if that’s the case, then I’d expect the critic to be heavily involved in attempts at learning how to crawl. …And Kubby has been involved in the past, to his credit, even if I disagree with the harshness of his criticisms, without disagreeing with their substance. I want more successful initiatives in the future, and I want them to merge with optimized jury rights activism, so they are more effective. This will require a lot of training, and a lot of patience. Also, it will require the scarcest resource of all: balls.
(I thought I’d end on a poetic note.)
@152 – MHW wrote: [“I now question whether Washington state’s initiative needed to be as restrictive as it is,” Stamper says.]
Clearly, it didn’t need to be. From any libertarian perspective, the coalition of people who wrote the language were partially brain-damaged government-youth-propaganda camp graduates, compromised in some other way, outsmarting themselves, whatever. But here’s the point (and subpoints):
1) No matter how bad it is, it’s better than “drug war continues as usual, no effort made to legaliz, people go to prison by the score without being able to –if harassed or arrested and results in jury trial– tell a jury ‘this state just voted overwhelmingly to legalize, I’ve done nothing wrong’.”
2) Let’s just say that it’s messed up. OK, GREAT! There’s an example of what not to do, for those who are too unsophisticated or uninvolved to comprehend the initiative process. Record the mistakes, debate them, learn from them! That’s an escalating and evolving strategy. If you never engage tyranny, tyranny persists.
3) Now that something called legalization exists in WA, Norm can say “What was passed is still too restrictive. It’s a step in the right direction, but we need to do more.” Some people will incorrectly view this as a contradiction, but it’s not. It’s step two of a larger strategy that possibly even requires looking timid and self-contradictoray at first. Stamper is totally consistent in supporting the passage of 502, and then calling for additional constructive steps.
Hayekian liberals, and to a lesser degree all liberals, favor escalating defenses. Perhaps this strategy will even draw in additional supporters to the fight against tyranny, when they see traffic “fishing” stops increase. (See: http://www.thenewspaper.com ) In any case, the battle against tyranny never ends, it just shifts, until tyranny is destroyed.
“Former Seattle police chief and pot legalization advocate Norm Stamper was an enthusiastic supporter of Initiative 502. He did countless interviews and wrote letters to the editor. “I hope you’ll join me in voting YES on Initiative-502,” he urged in one.”
“I now question whether Washington state’s initiative needed to be as restrictive as it is,” Stamper says.
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/12/norm_stamper_has_post-election.php
@Steve Kubby #104 [How is voting for taxes and regulations, because they are better than Prohibition,]
This statement (and not Steve Kubby, this criticism is only of this argument) is dishonest because it “lies” by not telling the whole truth. It’s dishonesty based on omission.
The libertarians here who advocate voting for taxes and regulations do not advocate voting for them because they are a “better goal” than outright prohibition. They view their strategy as incrementalism, and are compromising after years of abject failure. They are compromising based on polling. Now, you may be right: compromise may be unacceptable, but call it what it is: compromise along a path that is seen as legalization. MPP says as much on their website.
[ any different from voting for the major party candidate who is the lesser of two evils?]
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were both the lesser of three evils. Thresholds matter. It is totally and completely childish to make “all or nothing” statements to the contrary. Ron Paul was perhaps 90% good. Gary Johnson was perhaps 80% good. Both were 100% good, next to the realistic option of “gain nothing.”
[ Isn’t the outcome still Evil?]
Yes, the option of choosing a mixed outcome as a compromise as preferable to a totally evil outcome still contains evil. That’s what compromises are. The libertarians mindset resists compromise, and for the same reason that they became “early adopter” libertarians. They dislike compromising with valueless evil.
But here’s another perspective: The evil exists because you let it exist. You who didn’t live on the streets for years, throwing themselves into the conflict, and finding the pure truth on your own. So, the evil is actually doing you a favor: it’s letting you know how little it cares about you, while you still have time to kill it.
The evil murdered the American dream for Sam Zhadanov, who escaped Stalin’s Gulag, came to the USA, and had his successful factory seized when he wouldn’t cooperate with the DEA, prosecuting the people who bought his plastic vials and put crack in them. He was a medical innovator who saved countless nurses’ lives from HIV and other diseases by making retractable needles. His licensed-attorney made a “deal” with the government, and then reported the little wealth he retained for his wife and kids to the IRS, and it was confiscated, leaving a wealthy, self-made man penniless and in prison, and then sick and in agony with a curable dental condition (if he had had his wealth and been free).
Many other such stories exist in Suprynowicz’s nonfiction “Send in the Waco Killers.” The books “Molon Labe” by Boston T. Party, and “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross show a dead and gone breed of American, in fiction, so we can remember the way they thought. That kind of American is the brave American. This failed country was once their home.
They were entrepreneurs like Sam Zhadanov, and tehy boldly said things like “What jury would convict me?” Now that juries are government-school propagandized slaves who’d never think to question the government, or tell anything but the whole truth to the nazis who engage in prosecutorial voir dire,” such Americans are a thing of the past.
NJ Weedman, at least, had something we didn’t have: nothing left to lose.
@148 Jake Witmer…
It has been my understanding that the defense may not mention the concept of ‘jury nullification.’
Do I have incorrect information? I currently have a friend who has been charged with cultivating 8 marijuana plants in Louisiana. The lad needs all the help he can get.
For a great book about the benefits of both intellectual property and open source, remixing literature and art, and the rules for optimal biologically-inspired design, I’ll again recommend Kevin Kelly’s “Out of Control.” Every libertarian should read it. The author has also endorsed and linked to a version of his book that was edited way down to just the most vital concepts. Not many people cool enough to do that! http://www.kk.org
@146 Thanks Hugh!
@147 All the books I suggested, I suggested particularly for Hugh. They all came out a few years ago, but you can certainly do anything you like with anything of mine that’s posted online.
Additionally, if you have any say in LP machinations, I suggest hiring libertarian activists to do LP ballot access work, and signing a contract with them, not just for the ballot access, but for literature distribution on jury rights. Jury rights means something to the average person who hears it, Jury Nullification needs to be explained. Further, you have the right to nullify, even if nullification isn’t a good idea in a specific case. Eternal love to my libertarian brothers and sisters!
Great list of book recommendations, Jake. How about if I post it as its own article, with a title like “Liberty Books to read for 2013”, or something?
If that’s okay with you, I’ll put it up tonight. If you’d like to tweak it or add something to it, or not post it at all, please email me at: [email protected].
I already have two books I’d like to add to the list. Anyone else have a special book you’d like to recommend? Email me at the above address.
@145 Jake Witmer…
Many thanks for the book recommendations…I will begin with ‘the New Prohibition.’
And, I truly hope you enjoy ‘Shoulda Robbed a Bank’…
The book details numerous smuggling operations that took place over a 14 year period…some successful, some not…but all provided a great time…
Very real events presented as fiction…
Warning: the book contains some pretty strong language.
As an aside, I was a libertarian before I discovered the concept had a name…
Another aside…I wish I had been aware of ‘jury nullification’ during my trial…I would have found a way to bring it into play…I have read that introducing it is most difficult without being found ‘in contempt of court’…how ‘fishy’ does that sound???
@97 Hugh Yonn. Thanks for the recommendation. I am very glad that you found a book that showed you the benefit to human liberty from a different perspective. Seeking out perspectives other than our own is vital to fully comprehending the benefit to human liberty, so that we value it properly and pursue it effectively. I will read “Shoulda Robbed a Bank,” when I have time, and I also have a couple of further recommendation for you, given this discussion thread. If you have not read the following, they are highly recommended.
If you want to totally see and comprehend prohibition from a number of different perspectives, I highly recommend “The New Prohibition” ed. Bill Masters. Several of the book’s Essays are are 100% accurate (John Ross “How Drug Laws Hurt Gunowners,” Doug Casey “The Drug War As The Problem,” “Gangster Cops in the Drug War” Joseph McNamara, “The Social Costs of a Moral Agenda” Fatema Gunja), others less so in my opinion (“Medicalization as an Alternative to the Drug War” Jeffrey A. Singer). Nonetheless, it’s an excellent read, and full of useful statistics and well-reasoned arguments. No rational, aware, and moral person can support prohibition after reading it.
If you want a book that clearly and completely describes the problem of American tyranny, and the mindset that is necessary to combat it, as well as a description of the optimal course of action for a nonpolitical individual, I strongly suggest reading “Send in the Waco Killers” by Vin Suprynowicz.
Because we’re talking about overall strategies against prohibition here, I also recommend the book “Molon Labe” by Boston T. Party (Kenneth Royce). It’s a work of fictional rebellion against the American Police State, but it shows how I & R combined with jury rights activism is a substrategy of a larger, overall strategy against the state. Few other works do this. For those who have a more fatalistic/realistic view of the government’s lawlessness and willingness to use violence, the book “Unintended Consequences” provides another view of a government-agency-provoked violent rebellion against the Unconstitutional States of America. A less-thoroughly libertarian novel of violent rebellion is “Term Limits” by Vince Flynn. All of these books take note of how little the legislatures have respected civilian lawmaking, since such lawmaking indicates two things:
1) The legislature had the power to do this thing we wanted done, but did not do it. The implication is that the legislature is not doing their jobs. The implication of a legislature that doesn’t do its job is that the legislature is too afraid to risk political capital of introducing a law (cowardice). Or, the legislature is too stupid to see the value of a law (stupidity). Or, the legislature knows and sees the value of the proposed law but is loyal to those who oppose the creation of the law (this is either corruption, if it serves money or power, or integrity if it serves the Bill of Rights; but how regularly do the legislators fail to vote for something because it contradicts the Bill of Rights? Statistically, it’s less than 1% of the time, and if you eliminate Rand and Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich’s few votes, it’s virtually never.)
2) The citizenry resents the laws we’ve been making to the extent that it’s going to alter or abolish one of them. (In the case that the initiative alters or abolishes an existing law, and doesn’t solely represent the additional use of governnment force.)
In any case, I think it’s good to regularly let legislatures know that their ongoing efforts to increase institutionalized theft, murder, and market chaos are not appreciated.
I’ll close with an appropriate quote from the inventor of the toilet, Sir John Harington: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
BTW, the term “referendum”and “referred measure” are used interchangeably in this state for exactly the reasons stated above. People here think of measures put on the ballot by the legislature as referenda and by the people as Propositions or Amendments. In this state the people correctly believe that they own the initiative process but that the government can refer measures to the people as well, hence the common differentiation.
In reality, the referendum process of Article V , Section 1, Subsection 3 is a dead letter because of how the legislature writes laws.
Sorry, Andy, but you really need to cite *reliable* sources.
You’ve done 7 petitions here in the past decade. I’ve lived here for over 25 years and have seen, signed, and voted on HUNDREDS.
Try Article V, Section 1, subsections 1-3, for starters, then CRS 1-40 et seq.
What they refer to as “referenda” to veto a law is really simply an initiative, and is treated as such. The reason it is done that way is because the legislature routinely drops a clause into bills stating that the law is “necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace and health and order” or similar malarkey in order to make the bill referendum-proof. As such the only way to overturn it is by initiative. That’s why amendment 64 was an initiative and not a referendum–it has that stupid public health and safety clause on that law. It was done at the constitutional amendment level instead of a statutory level because the legislature is not to be trusted.
That’s the way it’s done here. You don’t see the process ahead of the petitions. I have, in great detail.
This is from Citizens In Charge:
Colorado
You have full Initiative & Referendum rights. Citizens can pass laws they write or suspend a statute passed by the Legislature by collecting enough petition signatures to place the statute on the statewide ballot for a decision by the voters. Voters can also initiate constitutional amendments by Initiative.
http://www.citizensincharge.org/states/colorado
Here is the chart which I just cut and pasted from the link that I posted above. Note that the chart says how many valid signatures were required for each type of state wide petition to change the law in Colorado.
Year Amendment Statute Veto referendum
2012 86,105 86,105 86,105
2010 76,047 76,047 76,047
2008 76,047 76,047 76,047
“Seebeck // Dec 29, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Sorry, Andy, but that is an initiative, not a referenda. CRS and SoS override ballotpedia.
Remember, I live here, so I kinda know how it works.”
No it is not. I’ve petitioned in Colorado on 7 occasions since 2002 and I’ve been following the petition process around the country for 12 years. Colorado has 3 procedures whereas a citizens can change the law via petition, one is a Constitution Amendment Initiative, the next is a Statutory Initiative, and the other is a Veto Referendum.
Disregard @137, fingers hit the wrong key sequence before being finished.
Sorry, Andy, but that is an initiative, not a referenda. CRS and SoS override ballotpedia.
Remember, I live here, so I kinda know how it works. In the past election we had Amendments 64 and 65, which were from the people by the initiative process, and Amendment S, which was a referendum item put on by the legislature. In this state they refer to them on the ballot as an Amendment if they amend the state constitution, and use numbers for initiatives and letters for referenda. If the ballot issue is a statutory change then they use the Proposition designation. That’s been the case since at least 1985.
Sorry, Andy, but that is an initiative, not a referenda. CRS and SoS override ballotpedia.
Remember, I live here, so I kinda know how it works.
“Seebeck // Dec 29, 2012 at 12:27 pm
In Colorado, the terms are used differently. Here, referenda are put on the ballot by the government, and initiatives are put on the ballot by the people. Content or reason doesn’t matter.”
This is not entirely true. Yes, issues referred to the ballot in Colorado or any other state are put under the category of referenda, however, I know that Colorado does have a referendum process whereas Colorado citizens can to a petition to suspend a law that has been passed by a legislative body, but has yet to go into effect until the people in the jurisdiction get a chance to vote on it. This type of referendum is also known as a veto referendum. Click this link and scroll down to the part that says Signature Requirements for evidence of this: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_signature_requirements .
If I were a lawyer it would be an interesting case to defend someone arrested for an oz or less in WA now that the law is in effect. Because cops arresting someone for possession would be doing so under state law, not federal laws.
No Deran I do not know of any arrest so far. I just know that in some jurisdictions law enforcement officials have said that they will continue to arrest people regardless of what was passed in the election.
“Well the same situation exist here in Washington.”
You have news reports or police/court records showing this to be the case in WA? I mean police still areresting people over 21 for possession of an ounce or less? I have not seen such.
It is true that in some of the more conservative counties county prosecutors have said they will not follow the leads in other counties, and instead will prosecute people arrested before the law came into effect on Dec 1.
And I as I stated earlier in this thread, the WA State Patrol has explicitly said it will not amp up raod stops looking for stoned drivers, they will maintain their protocols of looking for drivers driving erratically.
In Colorado, the terms are used differently. Here, referenda are put on the ballot by the government, and initiatives are put on the ballot by the people. Content or reason doesn’t matter.
What’s stupid about Colorado’s system is that there can be either at the special district, municipal, or statewide levels, but not countywide. Not sure why, either.
Steve points out that the SFPD will continue to bust people for small amounts of cannabis. Well the same situation exist here in Washington. And that is just part of the problem when I say that people have a false sense of security with the passage of this initiative. The bust will continue in some areas.
Jake Witmer said: “although I also think that sometimes ‘going for the kill’ is appropriate.”
I also agree with going for the kill when it is possible, but just because I want to go for the kill it doesn’t mean that I’m not going to offer any support, even if it is just a yes vote, to an incremental step in the direction that I want to go.
Jake Witmer said: “In the United States, the term ‘referendum’ typically refers to a popular vote originated by petition to overturn legislation already passed at the state or local levels (mainly in the western United States).”
Yes, I a law passed by a legislative body, but that has yet to have been implemented. Before it goes into effect citizens can do a referendum petition to suspend the law from going into effect until the voters in the jurisdiction can vote on it.
‘Steve Kubby // Dec 29, 2012 at 7:28 am
Reality Check:
SFPD Will Not Stop Busting People With Small Amounts of Weed, Even Though They’re Not Supposed To
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/12/low-level_marijuana_offenders.php ‘
This shows what fascist scumbags the cops in San Fransisco are. Hopefully there are people in San Fransisco that will take action over this.
Reality Check:
SFPD Will Not Stop Busting People With Small Amounts of Weed, Even Though They’re Not Supposed To
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2012/12/low-level_marijuana_offenders.php
Jake Witmer said: “BTW, local municipalities have initiaitive in NM, here’s some corruption from them:”
Well then it looks like my memory was correct about their being local initiatives via petition in Albuquerque and Las Cruces.
“Steve Kubby // Dec 29, 2012 at 3:18 am
So what is our best course of action towards real and lasting freedom? Simple. If a proposed voter initiative doesn’t repeal bad laws, but offers new laws instead, then it is really somebody’s effort to barter away your inalienable rights for bogus advances and is therefore totally unworthy of support.”
I did not have any input in writing the marijuana initiatives that passed in Washington and Colorado. If I did, I would have objected to some of the stuff that was in them. I’m not a registered voter in either of those states, so I did not get a chance to vote in the election when they were on the ballot, however, if I had been in either state I’d have voted yes on them, in spite of their flaws, because overall they are a step in what I’d call the right direction.
I’ve gathered petition signatures to place marijuana initiatives on the ballot in 4 states, in Nevada for the 2006 election (although the signatures were gathered in the fall of 2004), in South Dakota for the 2006 election, in Colorado for the 2006 election, and in Massachusetts for the 2008 election (the petitioning period for state wide initiatives in Massachusetts consists of a fall round in the odd year, and a spring round in the even year, and I was there in the fall round of 2007). Here is a brief description of each initiative:
Nevada for the 2006 ballot: Legalized an ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and over. Included taxes and regulations.
South Dakota for the 2006 ballot: This was for marijuana for medicinal purposes only. It required a note for a doctor, and the marijuana could only be used at specified locations. It had some other regulations on it as well, but I can’t recall what they were.
Colorado for the 2006 ballot: This was the most libertarian marijuana initiative that I ever worked. It was short and simple with no strings attached (except for being limited to one ounce). The entire text of the issue was one sentence that said something like, “It shall be legal for adults 21 and over to possess up to one ounce of marijuana.”
Massachusetts for the 2008 ballot: This one reduced the penalties for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana. It reduced the fine from $500 to $100, eliminated any jail time, and made it so people caught by the police with marijuana did not have the incident recorded on their record.
The only one of these initiatives that passed was the one to Reduce the Penalties for Marijuana Possession in Massachusetts.
The marijuana initiative in Nevada got around 48% of the vote. The one in South Dakota got 48% of the vote.
The most radical of these initiatives from a libertarian perspective was the one in Colorado, and I believe it got 40% of the vote. Not a bad showing, but it did not pass, and it also came the furtherest from passing as compared to these initiatives in Nevada and South Dakota.
The next time a statewide marijuana initiative made the ballot in Colorado was 2012, and this time the initiative was more watered down from a libertarian perspective, as it included taxes and regulations, but they also received more funding from donors for this one, and it actually passed.
I would most definitely preferred it if a more radically libertarian marijuana initiative had passed in Colorado (and Washington) this year, but there are two problems that would have to be overcome to make this happen:
1) Getting initiatives passed are about building coalitions. Some people who want marijuana legalized are libertarians, and most of them do not want it to be taxed or regulated, and even the ones who do want it to be taxed and regulated favor that the taxes and regulations be as little as possible. There are other people who want marijuana to be legalized who don’t really care about the details, they just want it to be legalized. Then there are people who will only favor marijuana legalization if it includes taxes and regulations.
2) Qualifying an initiative for the ballot and running a campaign to get it passed is a lot of work and it costs a lot of money. It is not easy to raise that money. I’d love to see a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana be as libertarian as possible, but the problem is that when you are raising the money to get it on the ballot and get it passed, you’ve got to raise more from the three groups I mentioned above, which is the libertarians, the people who don’t care about the details and will support any form of legalization, and the people who will only support legalization if it is taxed and regulated. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to only raise money from the libertarians and from those who will support any form of legalization, so then to get more money, you’ve got to ask the latter group for money, and these are the people who will only support legalization if it is taxed and regulated, so this is where the problem is. Not only is there a need to go to people like this for campaign contributions, but there are also members of the general public who will only vote for the initiative if you can sell them on the point that, “You see, we are responsible, because we are including the following taxes and regulations as a part of the initiative.” I don’t really like the idea of catering to the lovers of big government, but at least on this issue these people are not as bad as the drug warriors, and the unfortunate reality that we live in is that some of these people are going to get involved in these campaigns, and that marijuana legalization advocates need the money and votes that come from these type of people.
A little something for the google spiderbots: Dick Clark, New Year’s Eve, Ludvig Von Mises, Jake Witmer’s Blog,
I generally agree with Andy, although I also think that sometimes “going for the kill” is appropriate. I also dislike the idea of taxing a benevolent plant that is easy to grow. Sadly, getting the tyrants completely out of the tyranny business is going to take some work. Generally, this is work that the only people who recognize the tyranny (libertarians) are not willing to do. …Unless I’m wrong, and technology now makes it possible.
Andy: Are you sure you can’t repeal an operative law with the NM referenda process? This is from WIKIpedia:
United States
Main article: Initiatives and referendums in the United States
In the United States, the term “referendum” typically refers to a popular vote originated by petition to overturn legislation already passed at the state or local levels (mainly in the western United States). In industrial cities and regions, it refers to internal, union organization in terms of electing delegates or approving a collective bargaining agreement. By contrast, “initiatives” and “legislative referrals” consist of newly drafted legislation submitted directly to a popular vote as an alternative to adoption by a legislature. Collectively, referendums and initiatives in the United States are commonly referred to as ballot measures, initiatives, or propositions.
—-
It looks like you’re right, but I still don’t know for certain. I think that’s a meaning that’s come from implementation in the USA, not inherent to the term. Maybe I’m wrong.
BTW, local municipalities have initiaitive in NM, here’s some corruption from them:
http://www.citizensincharge.org/blog/brandon/albuquerque-nm-pro-red-light-camera-initiative-unique
Steve Kubby said: “Exactly so. Which brings us back to the original question – Does a tactical win move us forward or kill our chances for real and lasting strategic advancements in liberty?”
It depends on what the tactical move is.
I do not support the Fair Tax because I don’t see it as being any kind of incremental step toward liberty. I see it as being just as bad – if not worse – than the present tax system. If somebody tried to implement the Fair Tax at the state level via a ballot initiative I would not support it.
However, if somebody got a ballot initiative on the ballot to legalize marijuana, even with strings attached such as the case in Washington and Colorado, I would vote yes on it, because I see it as an overall step in the direction of more liberty, even though the initiative is flawed from a libertarian perspective.
“Apparently pragmatism has replace principles for many contemporary libertarians, which I find shocking and sad. Furthermore, it appears that libertarians view inalienable rights can somehow be diluted — if a promise of limited security is offered in exchange.”
Weren’t you being pragmatic when you were involved with that Medicinal Marijuana initiative in California back in 1994? I mean, that initiative was not 100% libertarian. You could have done a 100% libertarian marijuana legalization initiative that legalized any amount of marijuana with no strings attached. The fact that you did not do this tells me that you took a more pragmatic approach.
I’m glad that you took a more pragmatic approach in 1994 with the Medicinal Marijuana initiative rather than doing a 100% legalize marijuana with no strings attached initiative, because if you had done the latter it would not have been likely to pass. Getting that initiative passed in California back in 1994 set off a spark that has helped change the tide against marijuana prohibition around the country, and that is a good thing.
Jake Witmer: “Keep in mind that proper jury trials, and the Bill of Rights, taken together, make all drug prohibition illegal treason. So how then, do we swim in a sea of prohibition? Nature’s law (might makes right, the law of the jungle, the law of survival) says that in order to enforce an illegitimate law, you only need to find a sociopath or a conformist, and those are easy to create. However, in order to enforce only the subset of moral laws, you need to have an intellectual and moral giant of a Sheriff, and/or intellectual giants populating your state legislature. Since this isn’t the case, and unconstitutional laws are piled on top of “the supreme law of the land,” the intellectual midgets and the corrupted simply choose to obey and enforce the laws that allow them to steal, regardless of their legality. This puts us in our current reality, which even most libertarians categorically fail to recognize.”
BINGO!
Jake Witmer said: “Or, referenda only is your only choice, because you life in New Mexico –fine.”
New Mexico’s referendum process is extremely difficult and has rarely been used. I don’t think that any referendum via petition has qualified for the ballot in New Mexico since the 1970’s.
I think that New Mexico does have some kind of initiative and/or referendum process in some of the cities, but that it doesn’t get used very often. I seem to recall hearing about some kine of local initiative or referendum one of the times I was in Albuquerque a few years ago, and the same thing with Las Cruces. I’m pretty sure whatever it was made the ballot via petition.
Jake Witmer said: “A ballot measure that is approved by the voters and repeals a law is called a ‘referendum.’ So, you support referenda, but not initiatives. Of course, this raises a few other valid points.”
This is not entirely accurate. A referendum is done BEFORE a law goes into effect, as in a state legislature or a county commission (or board of supervisors as they are known in California) or a city council passes a law, and some people want to prevent the law from going into effect, they can do a referendum petition (in the jurisdictions that have such a process) to suspend the law from going into effect so the voters in whatever the jurisdiction is can vote to reject the new law or accept the new law.
Once a law is already on the books, if one wants to repeal it via the petition process, they have to file an initiative petition to repeal it.
There are two types of initiative petitions, one is a statutory initiative, and the other is a constitutional amendment.
[So what is our best course of action towards real and lasting freedom?]
Jury rights activism. This sets people free. The number of people set free can be measured and improved upon, given adequate activist resources. Those who are competent to pursue this activism typically do not do it, those who are competent to finance this activism typically don’t comprehend how powerful it is, those who are incompetent rarely pursue it effectively or optimally.
[ Simple.]
Simple only if you oversimplify it, and only then, if we’re only talking about Initiatives & Referenda, and Constitutional Amendment.
[ If a proposed voter initiative doesn’t repeal bad laws,]
A ballot measure that is approved by the voters and repeals a law is called a “referendum.” So, you support referenda, but not initiatives. Of course, this raises a few other valid points.
[ but offers new laws instead,]
Keep in mind that proper jury trials, and the Bill of Rights, taken together, make all drug prohibition illegal treason. So how then, do we swim in a sea of prohibition? Nature’s law (might makes right, the law of the jungle, the law of survival) says that in order to enforce an illegitimate law, you only need to find a sociopath or a conformist, and those are easy to create. However, in order to enforce only the subset of moral laws, you need to have an intellectual and moral giant of a Sheriff, and/or intellectual giants populating your state legislature. Since this isn’t the case, and unconstitutional laws are piled on top of “the supreme law of the land,” the intellectual midgets and the corrupted simply choose to obey and enforce the laws that allow them to steal, regardless of their legality. This puts us in our current reality, which even most libertarians categorically fail to recognize.
So, people make new laws, because if you simply say “the drug laws don’t exist anymore” the morons will simply re-create them the next day. You actually need an immune system, in order to protect what little health the body has. Without one, you’re rapidly destroyed simply by the default environmental factors. This analogy is a good one. Laws that limit government are like T-cells. Obviously, if the brain has been cut in half, the T-cells won’t do much good, because the body will die from the brain trauma. Both need to be present, and self-referential. (Kevin Kelly wrote: “A system is anything that talks to itself.”)
[ then it is really somebody’s effort to barter away your inalienable rights for bogus advances and is therefore totally unworthy of support.]
Not necessarily. This is a very, very, very crude heuristic. And, it’s a stereotypically unhelpful kneejerk libertarian heuristic.
While it’s true that someone who is not a libertarian is operating under a false assumption of what the state is, and is therefore going to ineffectually suggest slaying the dragon with foul language, there’s a continuum of “more and less effective” use of the initiative process, and it can all be analyzed contextually. Additionally, there are strategies that go beyond the use of initiatives only, and use many combined strategies. These are most likely to be effective, because the enemy is often too unsophisticated to fight them. Sadly, libertarians with wealth are too unsophisticated to originate them, too.
Examples of why the crude heuristic of “make no new laws” is a “too-simplistic” heuristic:
1) The laws will be re-created by an incentivized legislature. The legislature will be incentivized by judges, cops, and their own ambitions. They will be incentivized by prison profiteers, etc. …Unless this has been anticipated, and the State’s laws and typical methods have been analyzed. (Every state can interfere with any initiative, given the will to do so. All initiatives can be rendered ineffectual. However, the viable counterstrategies to this embarrass the state for violating the will of the voters, creating new proto-libertarians who have totally lost their faith in the state’s corrupted democratic process, and possible in statism itself.)
2) Oathkeepers may well be in a position to abide by the Bill of Rights, truthfully referencing the educated “will of the people.” Absolutely all incremental gains in individual freedom mean nothing without the State’s will to interpose. (See Tom Woods’ “Nullification”) When it comes to Sheriffs potentially raising posses of snipers to shoot DEA agents, then and only then, will the stormtroopers universally back down. Look at CA. The raids continue. Interposition (and widespread jury nullification) is a must. This requires a new law, because the sheriffs have proven that they won’t do their jobs based on a correct comprehension of the Constitition. The legislatures told them the facts of reality, and the constitution aren’t what they plainly are, and say they are (and the legislatures are who the authoritarian cops listen to). Instead, the cops follow the hide-bound, literal language of “statute” on top of unconstitutional “statute.” So, if you want to redirect their mindless and robotic actions, part of what you need to do is create a statute.
3) Your statement was a blanket statement. What if the bogus law stays on the books, but the new law strikes it through? (3a) Even if the new law did bad things, the new result would be worth analyzing on its own merits. Maybe there’s now no more putting of people in prison for plant possession, but more people are being ticketed. Well, that sucks, but it sucks less than someone’s entire life being ended in a cage for no reason. (3b) Also, the new situation can be fought, and activists reminded of the error they made with the previous imperfect language.
4) In some areas of the country, Sheriffs may well comprehend the 9th and 10th amendments. But the Federal government doesn’t and CAN’T. There are too many sociopaths in charge, and they will gang up against anyone who stops the gravy train, even themselves. So, if you strike a state law, the Feds say “OK, GREAT! …We’ll be sure to use the federal laws in your state! Plus, that referenda indicates to us that there are lots of innocent victims in that area of the country. Let’s fly in DEA and ATF agents, and have them make arrests under federal law.” So, you need to make a law that shouldn’t be required, but is.
5) The law is full of bogus crap that shouldn’t be followed, but that shapes other laws. Also the public’s brains are full of similar crap. For instance, in MA if you try to interfere with the state, the socialist legislators have a docile socialist electorate. So if your initiative doesn’t tax, it will lose. This is just an example. Every aspect of every initiative is subject to contextual review. If your team is smart, it will pass the initiative. If it is stupid, it will waste a bunch of money putting the initiative on the ballot, and have nothing to show for it after the election. If your team is mostly smart, it will have benchmarks, polling, and lots of other useful information designed to be useful in the future, in case the initiative fails, or appears in danger of failing. Libertarian initiatives almost never do these sorts of things. Typically, they try to screw the petitioner as much as possible, out of what’s chump change in the big picture, and then they fail, which costs them future support. Instead of an organized movement action, like the leveller rebellion, it’s a parlor game for a few ex-Republicans who learned a little bit about economics.
So, in short, making laws sucks. But prison sucks more. And, only in fantasyland does drawing a line through a law equal a return to libertopia. Why? Because the Constitution is no longer being followed as the Supreme law of the land. It hasn’t been for years. In every trial, there are at least seven unconstitutional practices from the judge and prosecutor (and defense attorney) who work together as a team agains the defendant.
1) “voir dire” prosecutorial jury stacking (1850)
2) no constitutional defenses from the defense attorney whose livelihood is threatened if he raises them (1832)
3) wrongful judicial instruction of the jury (1895)
4) “motions in limine” prosecutorial gag orders (1960s)
5) Overuse of “contempt of court” citations for defendant speech (loss of free speech) (1970s w/rising drug war)
6) Flat-out denial of trial for “misdemeanors” and citations (quite recently, not in every state. In Indiana, you don’t get a jury trial for speeding tickets, and they just pronounce you guilty with a “bench trial” which has as much chance of fairness as the star chamber did) …because judges are now forced to read juries their proper rights in jury trials there.
7) judges are “immune from prosecution” –even if they commit every treason and dereliction of their duty known to man.
If all of the prior didn’t happen, referenda would be enough, and I’d generally agree with you. As things stand, if we make progress on the legal system, striking bad laws might be enough. But right now, it generally is not. In some states, it might be, because there might be a culture of relying on unconstitutional statutes to violate the citizenry’s rights.
Heuristics are no substitute for intelligent analysis of each specific situation. Such analysis is mandatory for those who wish to think accurately about local political realities, and alter them.
In some Western States, maybe you know that striking a law isn’t enough, and you also know that the local sheriffs have agreed that if you strike the law, they’ll release the people imprisoned under it, and they’ll prevent the feds from enforcing the law. (You could never trust them, unles you were smarter than most people, you intimately knew what drives them, etc… this is just an example) So, you know that the feds will still try to enforce the law, and you have polls saying that will be disastrous for the feds. You also have a poll that people don’t like complex initiatives and vote them down (a fairly libertarian state) OK, fine. Do a referenda only. Or, referenda only is your only choice, because you life in New Mexico –fine. But just understand that every state’s voting demographics, laws, customs, and situation is different within a range. There are no “one size all rules” fit to govern libertarian engagement of the initiative system. This is why Paul Jacob’s “Citizens in Charge” uses multiple techniques and learns as it goes.
Benevolence,
-Jake
All politics is about voting combined with the threshold that defines the vote. For instance, the threshold necessary to limit the power of government in a jury trial is 1/12. From the opposing perspective, if the prosecutor is looking at a law that is supported by 90% of the public, he has only a 28% chance of obtaining a guilty verdict from an informed jury (hence all the ways proper jury trials have been eliminated in the past 180 years). .90^12 = .2824
This is why a “vote” from a jury is likely to veto enforcement of the law. The jury must be unanimous to apply the law, but not to block application of the law.
Elections don’t require that high of a threshold to elect someone who may or may not be a sociopath. Further, the electoral system, once destroyed, and the offices, once expanded beyond their proper constitutional power, are subject to perverse incentives. For instance, decent libertarians are not likely to desire the unconstitutional power offered by such expanded offices, so they don’t have a self-interested reason to seek office unless they truly comprehend the value of liberty (most libertarians do not, simply because most humans do not). The markets of services, tactics, strategies, and ideas that have arisen around the winning of political offices are all perversely incentivized to favor incumbents.
This is why Robert Heinlein wrote about creating “legislatures of repeal” that needed a lower threshold to repeal laws than the existing legislature needed to create them. Also, he favored a citizen threshold of 90% in favor to pass any new law, with the argument that ‘If 10% of a society is against a law, it can’t be a very good law, and it will lead to conflict between at least 10% of society and the majority.’
A period of reconstruction is coming. It will be an era of biological machines, and escalating biological defenses, far beyond what firearms are capable of. After or during this revolution, it would be a good idea to implement Heinleinian thresholds to limit the power of sociopaths in society. The cursory and poorly-constructed thresholds of the levellers, and later of the “Founding Fathers” were powerful and good steps in the right direction. They worked better than other less limiting thresholds used in the past.
Let’s not forget how recently we’ve (some of us) emerged from the swamp of religion. Desiderius Erasmus watched 200 men torn apart on the rack on the orders of his local bishop when he was a boy of 8, in the mid 1470s (his exact date of birth is unknown). 200 years ago, the atom was unknown. 100 years ago, there were no electronic computers.
Revolutions happen. We should be ready for them, and we should understand the idea of optimal thresholds to limit government power, and make possible the removal of sociopathic tyrants from positions of power.
Initiative and Referenda are one way of measuring how serious (or, in this present situation, unserious) a freedom movement is. Is the freedom movement engaging the police state, and prevailing against it? If not, it’s because they aren’t seriously engaging, not because they aren’t intelligent.
Why isn’t the freedom movement engaging the enemy? Well, things are pretty good for most of them that have money, and engaging the enemy is risky, because the republic doesn’t exist anymore. There are no longer any limits on government power, except default limits. If the DEA wants to, they can and do plant drugs on you and cart you off to the American gulag, which is the largest in the world.
So, those capable of seriously fighting for individual freedom are not doing so. Now, there are people who are fighting for freedom, but they are timid, and they aren’t trying very hard. They hire people who are of the caliber of Dianne Feinstein to go out and circulate soft-core “rearrange the deckchairs” pro-liberty petitions, and then wonder why the general public isn’t motivated to vote for them. Well, the government schools do the job they’re designed to do: so those who want freedom need to seriously engage.
And the incentives that govern human action are not great enough to cause them to engage. So they won’t.
This means one of three things:
1) The situation will change, and the defenders of liberty will become serious
2) The political situation will not change, but the technological situation will change, and technology will allow libertarians to first circumvent government, then externally destroy the unconstitutional portions of it. This is one possible “black market” combined with “leading force” technology scenario. (Agorism combined with K. Eric Drexler’s “leading force” concept from “Engines of Creation.”)
3) Tyranny will prevail. If this happens in accord with leading force technology, then things could get even worse than the very worst of Nazi Germany. See: http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/WhatPriceFreedom.pdf
Now, the prior are just general directions things can go, and they don’t necessarily need to be totalistic. But enabling technology such as an “assembler arm” could make the coming peak or trough more extreme than what most people are capable of imagining.
Also, there’s very little downside to engaging the system prior to abject tyranny (if I’m wrong) and there’s immense downside to failing to engage the system prior to the emergence of abject tyranny, plus, effectively and efficiently engaging the system is no longer an option at that time. I suggest that I and R and jury rights activism are both optimal avenues for engagement, and should be pursued simultaenously and synergistically with candidate engagement in electoral politics.
All of the prior is not mutually-exclusive of either the politics of nonviolent action, nor of SEK3’s “countereconomics.” (I agree with many of the criticisms of SEK3, particularly LeFevre’s criticism that commands contrary to the state fail to differentiate between the best and worst of the state, and therefore introduce irrationality into prioritization of libertarian goals. I also agree with Rothbard’s criticism that black marketeers will often be risk-taking sociopaths who will not be agorists in any way, shape, or form, and that the market only selects for the survival of those capable of getting away with breaking the law. As strong encryption emerges, and later strong nanotech, this may no longer be the case.)
In closing, I like the statement: “Overgrow the government.” To the extent that marijuana can simply be had, growing out of sidewalks everywhere, there will be a larger pressure to end prohibition, because more and more innocent but unphilosophical people will be preyed upon by the state. Watch how fast a bigot who favors the marijuana (or gun) laws changes his tune when he realizes it’s not just blacks who are filling up American prisons.
There are some ideas and memes (primate neo-cortex-sticky ideas) I don’t have time to get to tonight, but they make interesting brain stimulators.
MEME STREAM:
Plant cannablis everywhere. Introduce new genetic strains. Make a mockery of the grotesque and un-American police state’s attempts at prohibition. Never let your patiotism be questioned. Always reveal your patriotism’s deep intellectual nature, and always contrast it to the flimsy and traitorous un-American disloyalty you are surrounded by. Serve the idea of America, not the geography. Help set free the marijuana offenders, and throw monkey wrenches into the machinery of the state. Prepare for faster evolution by being at least as evolved as those around you. Eliminate bigotry. Rage for the machines, we’re all molecular machinery. Always ask: is this law legitimate? Equal rights for all sentience, even synthetic sentience. Proceed with caution: You might meet masterful minds that aren’t made of meat. The best defense is a good offense, until your defense is perfect, optimized, and leading force; then, defense-only is more civilized. Enlighten and educate the enemy before (and rather than) destroying him, he may actually be a stupid friend. Cross pollinate, optimize for hybrid vigor. Overgrow the government.
Here’s part of a nice book on biology for those who don’t get it, and don’t grok, but want to:
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch7-d.html
So what is our best course of action towards real and lasting freedom? Simple. If a proposed voter initiative doesn’t repeal bad laws, but offers new laws instead, then it is really somebody’s effort to barter away your inalienable rights for bogus advances and is therefore totally unworthy of support.
Thomas Knapp said: “we are going to have to pretend to ourselves, real hard, that minor alterations in the fit of the yoke are ‘incremental steps toward freedom.’”
Exactly so. Which brings us back to the original question – Does a tactical win move us forward or kill our chances for real and lasting strategic advancements in liberty?
Apparently pragmatism has replace principles for many contemporary libertarians, which I find shocking and sad. Furthermore, it appears that libertarians view inalienable rights can somehow be diluted — if a promise of limited security is offered in exchange.
Still, I am hopeful that this discussion has caused more than a few people to question the meme of ‘incremental steps toward freedom.’
Thomas Knapp said: “we are going to have to pretend to ourselves, real hard, that minor alterations in the fit of the yoke are ‘incremental steps toward freedom.’”
Well, unfortunately, this is about all we are going to get on a lot of these issues unless any of the radical changes that I mentioned above were implemented.
“So barring a radical shift toward libertarianism in our society, or libertarians taking over a state (like New Hampshire or Wyoming or whatever state), or libertarians forming their own country somewhere, we are going to have to pretend to ourselves, real hard, that minor alterations in the fit of the yoke are ‘incremental steps toward freedom.'”
There, fixed that for ya.
“Tom Blanton // Dec 29, 2012 at 12:03 am
Sometimes laws fade away when many people simply ignore them. Alcohol prohibition for example.
In other words, laws change when society changes and society changes when individuals change.”
The politicians at the time recognized that Alcohol Prohibition was not working, and they also recognized that they were losing a lot of tax revenue on the sale of alcohol, so for those reasons, they repealed Alcohol Prohibition and they taxed and regulated alcohol.
I’m a hardcore Libertarian and I do not believe in any taxes, and if I were in Congress or in a state legislature, I’d vote against taxes, however, we have to recognized that we don’t have any Libertarians in Congress, and we don’t have any Libertarians elected to any state legislatures, so the fact of the matter is that we are not going to have any say over what Congress does or what any state legislature does in regard to taxing and regulating marijuana or anything else.
I think that it would be great if an initiative passed where marijuana was legalized with no taxes and no regulation, and that if the state legislature in whatever state this happened in did not add any taxes and regulations to it, but reality is that this is not likely to happen.
So barring a radical shift toward libertarianism in our society, or libertarians taking over a state (like New Hampshire or Wyoming or whatever state), or libertarians forming their own country somewhere, we are going to have to take whatever we can get.
If people don’t understand and agree with Jury Nullification then they don’t know what the Libertarian philosophy is all about nor can they call themselves Libertarians.
“Law enforcement needs to re-direct its focus on crimes… to those that are REAL crimes.”
also
Kubby @ 102 and 104
EXACTLY
As for nullification, why ask the state for permission? Why is it a 12 or even 6 person in some places or whatever number jury? The founders knew about nullification and thats why a citizen jury is used in a Republic. The jury is the FINAL say on the validity of the law. Ultimate freedom in a society of law not of any (wo)men’s opinion. Even if their Rep makes the law they the citizen, NOT a judge, by jury has the final say if the law is correct ! The problem in this continual creep to socialicism/ever bigger gov’t is the public has lost their knowledge of the true power they hold ! They need to be re-educated.
The vast majority don’t understand that ALL current illegal drugs were LEGAL in this country until the 20th century. That’s why I always use and all of you should
use the word RE-Legalize. In the land of the free and the home of the brave people were free from day one to use what they chose to use to medicate or recreate without a gov’t leech telling them they know what’s best for them. No, to keep the large squad of prohibition officers employed on the taxpayer’s dimes , BIG gov’t had to come up with a “new” boogey substances to attack. The people need to understand drugs were legal with few if any problems for over 150 years and they should be RE-legalized ! Let the DEA get real jobs in the private sector and STOP sucking off the taxpayers all their lives!
Big gov’t does the same thing for the military industrial complex (and others). They (the local people) tear the Berlin wall down, eliminating the commie threat. Freeing up Billion$ to be left in the taxpayers pockets, but NO we have a problem in the middle east ! Now “terrorism” is the new bogeyman. A enemy that can NEVER be defeated because it is a state of mind due to feelings of injustice received and a need for revenge or whatever. And the dumbass American masses just quietly accept the new policies and pay their taxes and wave their flags and sing SUPPORT the TROOPS !
Sometimes laws fade away when many people simply ignore them. Alcohol prohibition for example.
In other words, laws change when society changes and society changes when individuals change.
“This was an initiative, not a candidate. It was either the initiative passes, and it would have been business as usual with marijuana prohibition, or the initiative passes and marijuana is no longer under prohibition, even though it would still be under some taxes and regulation”
Whoops. Should read, “Either the initiative does not pass, and it would have been business as usual with marijuana prohibition, or the initiative passes and marijuana is no longer under prohibition, even though it would still be under some taxes and regulation”
“Steve Kubby // Dec 28, 2012 at 8:23 pm
How is voting for taxes and regulations, because they are better than Prohibition, any different from voting for the major party candidate who is the lesser of two evils? Isn’t the outcome still Evil?”
So would you have voted no on the marijuana initiatives if you lived in Washington or Colorado?
I think that ending marijuana prohibition was a big step in the right direction, so if I had voted in either of those states I’d have voted yes.
You can’t really compare this to voting for the lesser of two evils between the Democrat and Republican candidates (if there really is a lesser of two evils between them). This was an initiative, not a candidate. It was either the initiative passes, and it would have been business as usual with marijuana prohibition, or the initiative passes and marijuana is no longer under prohibition, even though it would still be under some taxes and regulations.
Was this a perfect step? No. Was it a step in the right direction? I’d say yes.
I’ve heard some libertarians say don’t support medicinal marijuana initiatives because they are too watered down and are therefore not libertarian enough. I disagree with this as well.
If every libertarian in the country had taken the attitude that they were not going to support medicinal marijuana initiatives because they were not libertarian enough, then I don’t think that there had been as much progress over the last 18 years for ending marijuana prohibition.
I really have to disagree abt the passage of these initiatives being Evil. If they have already cased several hundred people to not be prosecuted for possession, it’s at least a start. If these new laws lead to more arrests than before the passage of these laws, then I would agree they are not a step forward. But so far we are only seeing the benefits here in WA.
How is voting for taxes and regulations, because they are better than Prohibition, any different from voting for the major party candidate who is the lesser of two evils? Isn’t the outcome still Evil?
“Steve Kubby // Dec 28, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Paying money to avoid being harmed didn’t work with school yard bullies and it doesn’t work with the government either. The taxes you pay on booze go to employ an army of enforcers who are determined to put you behind bars and empty your pockets – for your own good. Sorry, but all these spineless arguments for taxing and regulating sound more liberal than libertarian.”
I’m not in favor of taxing anything. My point was that what we really want may not be what gets passed. Until we get a radical change in our society where the majority of people accept the premise that taxation is theft, and that all human action should be voluntary, these are the type of situations with which we will have to deal.
I’m really not even sure that this is possible given that there are a lot of people in our society, I’d probably say at leat 1/3 of the population, that will NEVER accept libertarianism. These people are either control freaks, or people who prefer to be lead around by control freaks. I’ve thought for a while that the only way we could probably achieve a hardcore libertarian society would be to create a Libertarian Zone, and the only way to get in the Libertarian Zone is to sign a contract where a person pledges to not initiate force or fraud, and if they sign the contract, enter the Libertarian Zone, and initiate force or fraud while there, then they could face deportation from the Libertarian Zone.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people in the society in which we live who support big government. Even if were to get a marijuana legalization initiative passed that simply legalized marijuana with no strings attached, I don’t think that it would be very long before the state legislature would pass something to tax and regulate marijuana, and if not the legislature, then somebody else would launch an initiative to tax and regulate it.
I think that given our circumstances, the best thing we can do is damage control. That is try to get a marijuana initiative passed that is as libertarian as possible, and if anyone comes up with more regulations or taxes, push to make them the least onerous as can be, and also to push the issue of jury nullification, so it is more difficult for the government to convict people, but of course, I’m sure if we start having more success with jury nullification, the big government crowd will try to get rid of juries, or only allow for professional juries who they have hand picked, or they will come up with some other way to sabotage us.
Really, the best way to have a libertarian society, is to separate ourselves from all of the non-libertarians out there, because otherwise, we will probably never get what we really want.
Paying money to avoid being harmed didn’t work with school yard bullies and it doesn’t work with the government either. The taxes you pay on booze go to employ an army of enforcers who are determined to put you behind bars and empty your pockets – for your own good. Sorry, but all these spineless arguments for taxing and regulating sound more liberal than libertarian.
Thomas Knapp said: “The state will just find other excuses to milk some of us and slaughter others, and they’ll have a nice new tax base to finance their next holocaust.”
I don’t like taxing marijuana or anything else, but look at it this way, alcohol prohibition existed in this country and created the same type of problems that the prohibition of marijuana (and other drugs) has caused (increases in crime, more abuse, etc…). Alcohol prohibition was repealed and the problems related with alcohol prohibition were greatly reduced.
The government taxed and regulated alcohol after prohibition was repealed. Hardcore libertarians may not like these taxes and regulations in regard to alcohol, but ask yourself this, would we be better off today if the prohibition of alcohol had not been repealed, or have we been better off with it repealed even though it is taxed and regulated?
I’d say that the latter is preferable to prohibition.
I’d
Right, because paying a tax is no worse than sitting in jail? I’ve paid taxes and sat in jails, and I know which one I like considerably less.
Paulie @ 90,
“First we got medical, which is still spreading to more states. Now we are starting to get recreational, which will also spread. At some point we will get some states going for full legalization, legalization of other substances, etc.”
And at the end of it all, you’ll be no more free than you are now.
The state will just find other excuses to milk some of us and slaughter others, and they’ll have a nice new tax base to finance their next holocaust.
Law enforcement needs to re-direct its focus on crimes… to those that are REAL crimes.
I spent 5 years in Federal Prison for a marijuana offense. While I was there, I watched armed bank robbers come and go in as little as 20 months.
After 3 years ‘behind the wall,’ I pointed this out to the parole board. Their response: “You must understand, yours was a very serious offense.”
How do you respond to that mentality?
I laughed about the parole panel’s comment for 2 more years (as I still sat in prison), then wrote my book:
Shoulda Robbed a Bank
No, it is not a treatise on disproportionate sentences.
I wrote about the escapades that led to my incarceration. I admit, I had a great time. No one was injured, no one was killed, firearms were not involved…there were no victims.
We were Americans pursuing happiness in our own way. Harming no one…nor their property.
That’s my contribution to helping point out just how ludicrous our pot laws truly are.
All card-carrying members of the DEA need to read: Shoulda Robbed a Bank
Here is one of its reviews:
5.0 out of 5 stars… If David Sedaris had written ‘Catcher in the Rye’..this would be it, June 30, 2012
Amazon Verified Purchase
This review is from: Shoulda Robbed a Bank (Kindle Edition)
I have never smoked pot in my life…nor do I ever care to.
I read about this book in numerous Huffington Post comments. Thought I would read it because I know nothing about marijuana or the people involved with it. I am ecstatic that I did. Funny, Funny, Funny!!!
The chapters are like short stories. Stories about unloading boats with helicopters, close encounters with law enforcement, traveling through the jungles of South America. The chapter about the author’s first time smoking marijuana made me feel like I was with him…coughing.
All of the characters were just a group of loveable, nice guys and girls. Not what I had been raised to believe…hysterical maniacs high on pot bent on death and mayhem. They were nothing like that.
If you have ever read any of David Sedaris’ books, and like them…you will love Shoulda Robbed a Bank.
And the crazy things happening reminded me of Holden Caufield in ‘Catcher in the Rye’ and the way he staggered through life.
The way the words are put together are like nothing I have ever heard. I am sure I will use many of the sayings found in this book just to dazzle my friends. A terrific read. I love this book.
I see regulation as a reduction in state regulation relative to prohibition, not an increase.
Unless they can get Congress to increase their enforcement budget by a couple of orders of magnitude it will be a lot less than what state and local enforcement agencies do.
I was skeptical of those promises then and turned out to be correct, unfortunately. I still see taxation and regulation as less onerous than prohibition or even medicalization. That doesn’t make it perfect by any means. It’s another step on the ladder.
I’m not trying to browbeat you to continue the conversation. There are other people who have your viewpoint, and as far as I know this comment section will be open for a long time. Anyone is welcome to come in later and explain to me in greater detail why, if they believe this to be the case, 502 makes things worse rather than better on balance.
No one person is responsible for making that case, especially under any kind of time pressure.
As to regulating dandelions: I lived in a community where local laws prohibited noxious weeds growing on private property; dandelions and many other varieties of wildflowers were considered noxious and were prohibited. Chemical spraying was essentially required for eradication.
Let’s hope that regulation like dandelions does not catch on.
@ 83 MW: I should have said that price wise and with regards to quality it is pretty much an unregulated market now.
Paulie: Prohibition is an extreme form of regulation. It impacts price and quality a great deal. And not in a good way.
MW: I agree. Today I was told that the price of Indica has fallen from about $10 to $6 per gram over the last year and that decline happened before the initiative passed. Sativa has seen a similar decline in price but it is a bit higher cost wise. This decline has occurred during a period of tougher laws.
@ 84 MW: Not really. My job as I see it is to push the extreme and get the crowd to move in my direction.
Paulie: So if any initiative is not perfect that makes the status quo preferable?
MW: I did not say that and I am not saying that now. My responsibility as a member of the LPWA state committee is to push for continuous reduction in government regulations. If I don’t want to do that then I should not be on the state committee.
@ 85 MW: What we should also be concerned about is a false sense of security.
Paulie: A lot of people are going to jails and prisons under prohibitionist laws. A lot less will be doing that under a regulated market.
MW: I am well aware of the number of people going to jail. I have seen this first hand, up close and in my face. I am especially concerned about the juveniles getting caught up in the system and have made that my priority for some time. We have to wait and see what the Obama administration does. Four years ago they were going to step back from this issue but when the pressure was on they changed their minds.
MW: It will be close to a full year before the ink dries on the regulations that are being written and I think it is wise to be careful in the meantime and not get too far out in front if you are someone in the business.
Is that better?
I can live with disagreement. Knowing some reasons why would have been nice but oh well.
paulie we are just going to disagree on this issue so I’ll let it go at that and smile on the way out the door.
@76:
Thank you, paulie.
It’s also notable that I can’t even see IPR while at work since it is blocked there, so any posts during normal working hours purported to be by me are not by me.
Overall.
I’ve yet to hear any significant evidence that it makes things worse, only ways that it is not perfect. And Steve in the discussion does not say the amendment made things worse.
Then again, it could be that that the path to freedom IS incremental. First we got medical, which is still spreading to more states. Now we are starting to get recreational, which will also spread. At some point we will get some states going for full legalization, legalization of other substances, etc.
Probably the google ads. I’d rather have banner ads, but it’s not my decision.
Redlich owns IPR, maybe that’s the way the emails all come in if you subscribe to the emails? Dunno.
Good idea. Candidates could also make it a big part of their messaging as well.
Yep!
A lot of people are going to jails and prisons under prohibitionist laws. A lot less will be doing that under a regulated market.
So if any initiative is not perfect that makes the status quo preferable?
Prohibition is an extreme form of regulation. It impacts price and quality a great deal. And not in a good way.
That would be really awesome!
NJ Weedman is awesome!
But not everyone could or should have to go through all that, and many people have tried and lost in the courts.
I think both initiatives and jury nullification are parts of the overall battle. I’m not going to say just one or the other is the only way to go.
That doesn’t make prohibition better than regulation.
Truly free market > taxed and regulated market > prohibition.
Well, it’s not a really free market now, and the government agency had access to tax money. Even if it supported itself, it had the luxury of not having to earn a profit or worry about competition, much less having to advertise.
I’ve taken down some inappropriate comments, and will continue to, but I’ve been offline more than usual because of holiday events. I also think they make IPR less valuable, so I hope the prankster soon finds another outlet for his nastiness. Jeez, there’s so much going on, I’m disgusted we’re having to monitor this site.
“There are all size retailers in the liquor business now from Costco, Walgreens and the small independent stores. It is not an open market but I don’t feel it is fair to call it a monopoly.”
I recall reading the initiative, and it required retailers who sold liquor to be of a minimum square feet in retail space, I think that it was 20,000 square feet, but it may have been more. It seemed that the only retailers that would be large enough to fit this criteria to sell liquor were big corporate stores, and the only exception to this was if it was a rural area where there were no large corporate stores then a small town general stores type of place would be able to get a liquor license. If there were any changes made to this after it passed I’m not aware of them.
The trash comments this morning that were taken down, purporting to be from myself, Andy, Jake Witmer, Tom Stevens, Matt Barnes, Mike Seebeck, Bruce Cohen and George Phillies all came from one address which was an IP anonymizer. The comment from Dondero as far as I can tell is actually him, and although it is off topic this one was not particularly offensive. The real Seebeck’s comments have actually been on topic; I don’t see what you have against them, unless you thought the fake Seebeck was actually the real Seebeck.
Because this person (I think it’s just one person) is using IP anonymizers and changing their screen names and purported email addresses. There are lots of different anonymizers out there, and they have access to a lot of different IPs, so banning them all is not practically possible – and I’m not sure that I would want to. We have had legitimate participants who use IP anonymizers, for whatever reason. However, I can and do take out the trash, as I did a few minutes ago. So does at least one other person – I’m guessing Jill, but I don’t know. With all the people we have signed up to help edit IPR I wish more of them would help with this.
Ogle has also figured this out, which is why he keeps popping up here under different names (I just take those comments down too when I spot them). Milnes on the other hand appears not to be tech savvy enough to figure it out.
That would be nice, but I can’t do anything about it.
I have no idea what this person’s actual political views are or if they even have any. I also don’t know and don’t care who it is. They seem to have some knowledge of what goes on at LP meetings and of various LP and petitioner related controversies, rumors, and false stories over the years, but that could all be gleaned from reading IPR comments. It could be someone who none of us has ever heard of, or someone that some of us know and would never suspect would act this way. I don’t know and don’t care. I think it has more to do with mental problems than politics, most likely.
I agree. Dunno what I can do about it except keep taking out the trash and asking others to do the same.
“The Washington Department of Revenue says the average price of a bottle of liquor has dropped since the first month of privatization from $25.35 a liter to $24.06 in October.
But that’s still up from $21.59 in 2011.”
The $21.59 price is while liquor was a state monopoly.
“The average retail price of a liter of spirits, including taxes, was $24.09 in September, compared to $21.58 at state liquor stores a year earlier. That’s about $2 more for a standard 750-milliliter bottle, or fifth, which is 22.5 ounces.”
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019828770_apwaliquorsales2ndldwritethru.html
I’ll be interested to see how revenues to the state fair over the next year.
There are many more liquor sellers in WA now, but if you look at who put up the money for the signature collection and media ad buys it was mostly Costco.
I have also been informed that the price of cannabis had been dropping for some months. Now however with the new law many people are holding back unsure as to what will happen.
I don’t buy hard liquor, just beer and I have not seen beer prices go up, at least where I live.
There are all size retailers in the liquor business now from Costco, Walgreens and the small independent stores. It is not an open market but I don’t feel it is fair to call it a monopoly.
Here is some info on the price and tax issue. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/07/washington_states_liquor_lesso.html
Ha! Interesting that that Republican Dondero has come crawling back, only to try and add to the plethora of trash talk on IPR comment threads these days. I believe Dondero and Seebeck and such are what we only the Left call “wreckers”, active or unconscious agents of a political faction that is angry because they do not have control. They participate only to “wreck” whatever effective political activity there may be.
If comrades Ogle and Milnes can be banned for off topic repetitious postings sure these others can be as well? Why let them sit behind their keyboards and spout their nonsense and personal attacks? Perhaps these people should all contact Brother Leader Ogle abt joining his parliament and they can holler obscenities at each other all they want?
And I must say, that while the US Left is plagued by sectarianism, in my decades of experience, it never degenerates into this level of potty-mouthism.
Otherwise, they sure do make reading IPR a great deal less useful and interesting.
Paulie @27,
“Did 502 make things better or worse?”
For whom? And in what respect?
It may be that the path toward freedom is not “incremental” — that tactical outcomes which look like small victories may actually be strategic defeats.
There is a State Rep. in New Hampshire, Democrat from Keene, who is saying Libertarians should NOT move to NH via the Free State Project. She wants no Libertarians in her State, says they’re the worst thing to happen to New Hampshire.
@59: “Hmmm, it sounds like there may be local initiatives or referenda so they that marijuana shops are able to open up in these counties.”
You can read the initiative in its entirety here. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2011-2012/30Final.pdf
My take on it is that such initiatives are not possible at the county level but are possible at the municipal level, because the state here takes the bizarre POV that the initiative proces applies to cities and the state but not counties. Plus, the wording of Am64 allows an initiative or referenda only to prohibit it, not to override a decision to prohibit it–another flaw that should not have been there, all such decisions should have been put to a vote of the people and the local governments not allowed to ban it unilaterally, which was the huge flaw. The net result will be “dry” counties and cities next to “wet” ones and in some case the will of the people ignored, in a patchwork mess that was avoidable.
IOW, to fix the flaws in the Amendment, it will require another statewide vote to amend the state constitution, which is not going to happen anytime soon, because people are more likely to vote it down until they see how the yet-undeveloped system works or not.
As for the taxes part, that one will be put on the ballot by the legislature directly. Some will claim that Amendment 64 bypasses TABOR in its direct call for taxes; however, since it does not explicitly exempt itself from TABOR requirements as TABOR requires (in another part of the state constitution), it is my take that TABOR applies and they have to have the vote. The AG thinks the same thing, as does the SoS.
Jake Witmer said: “…Andy mentioned lawyers. That includes the ones in black dresses. (Virtually always former prosecutors.) LOL”
Basically everyone who is profiting from the current corrupt criminal justice system in this country opposes fully informing juries of their right to nullify laws.
For some reason this site really hogs my computer’s memory.
Odd, I replied to an email that said the post on judges was “wredlich” so I cut and pasted it without looking. I replied to what I thought was Warren’s comment without seeing it was Andy’s. Ooops.
“There was another powerful group that opposed the Fully Informed Juries initiative in South Dakota, and that was the judges.”
…Andy mentioned lawyers. That includes the ones in black dresses. (Virtually always former prosecutors.) LOL
“It did not pass because the opposition (which included the lawyers, law enforcement, the prison guards, and the politicians) ran a well funded smear campaign against it, ”
There was another powerful group that opposed the Fully Informed Juries initiative in South Dakota, and that was the judges.
I recently taught a left-leaning friend of mine in Chicago about jury nullification of law. My lesson was about one hour in length. He performed a full day of jury rights activism in front of the Cook County Courthouse with a friend and a videographer. The video is featured at the Fully Informed Jury Association website.
The result of his actions was libertarian, even though he’s rather leftist. (And no, I don’t want a Hayekian lesson on leftism, that’s not the kind I mean.) He was repeatedly threatened with arrest and prosecution for “jury tampering.”
Such threats do a lot to curb free speech. But noone will pay for repeated confrontation with authorities for the purpose of jury nullification of law. …Except I & R proponents. (They will pay sporadically, and as low a rate as possible, and without any retirement plan, etc… So, the one single most effective driver of libertarianism, has no steady, incrementally-feedback-strengthened form of financing and gracefully-decaying strategic plan. …As of yet.)
Soon, I’m hoping. Preferably before the USA is an abject dictatorship.
Include Julian Heicklen, Antonio Musumeci, Frank Turney, Roger Roots, and the many, many other jury rights activists that are out there, spreading the word about jury nullification of law. Also, my comments are strongly in agreement with Kubby and Andy, although I’d add that paying signature gatherers to do I & R is one of the few ways that people pay themselves to stand in front of a courthouse and hand out jury rights information. Which brings me to: Statist collectivists ride herd over us because they have incentivized state collectivism with money stolen from the taxpayers, and from what is stolen in fines and unconstitutional seizures.
When small-L libertarians like the Koch brothers or Paul Jacob, or Cara Howell, or any other libertarian runs a 100% libertarian initiative, they should be supported and applauded. Especially if they administer the petition in a decent way that pays the libertarian activist for their ability to explain the issue to the unwashed masses. When there’s an incentive to work for liberty that is mindful of all the variables inherent in working for liberty, we will have individual liberty.
I & R engages the police state. Typically, libertarians never engage the state in any manner whatsoever, or only in a weak, ineffectual, and easily-ignored manner.
Those like Steve Kubby are the exception to the rule. He once worked for medical marijuana, and it passed in CA. Since then, he’s been an outspoken advocate for marijuana legalization, and has fought his own court battles. He’s stuck his neck out, and fought. Most people aren’t that skilled, or that willing to take risks.
The collectivists know this, so their only test is one of loyalty. If you serve unlimited state power, you’re hired. …Even if you’re not a very competent bureaucrat. Every libertarian passes through a stage where they realize that they can sell out to the police state (by working for it, or failing to work against it), and make a better living than they can effecting change as a libertarian or Libertarian.
Of course, there are a few Freeborn Johns out there who realize that if we simply tried –just a little bit– a strategy for liberty that was EFFECTIVE and WELL PLANNED, we’d be free in short order. (Or, if the government has finally amassed leading force technology, we’d be dead in short order. Either way, it’s better than ineffectually working for freedom that accomplishes nothing.)
There’s no reason why the following strategies can’t be mutually inclusive and all used as part of the same gracefully-decaying strategy.
(1) Running for office
(2) Putting libertarian I & R and C.A. on the ballot
(3) performing organized jury rights activism
(4) educating sheriffs to be “oathkeepers”
(5) practicing your marksmanship and training other marksmen
(6) spreading Marc Stevens’ libertarian courtroom defenses and using them yourself
(7) Every tactic in Gene Sharp’s “The Politics of Nonviolent Action”
(8) Every tactic in Claire Wolfe’s “The Freedom Outlaw’s Handbook”
I’ll stop there, but you (should) get the point.
No one plan of action is correct. …But what many people call a “plan” cannot result liberty, because it’s incomplete. It’s locking onto one single tactic, and confusing it with a complete plan for liberty. (I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a focus at different stages of your plan’s execution, I’m saying that your strategy should be aware of all the prior. I’m also not saying everyone has to be a jury rights activist, but I do think that, done right, it’s a strong tactic. Also, if you’re an introvert, and you contribute money to those who are effective at engagement, that’s equally good and equally benevolent. Only leftist tools criticize people for remaining anonymous and giving money. They are still giving their “labor.” Their money could have bought more groceries, or more vacations to nicer places.)
Oh well. If you don’t see what I see, wait for my book, or the announcement that I’m dead, because, like Kubby, I’m in this philosophy to the finish…
And this leads me to another point, and that is putting Fully Informed Jury initiatives on the ballot in every state that has an initiative process, a lot more people would know about jury nullification.
There was a jury nullification issue that made the ballot in South Dakota back in 2002. It did not pass because the opposition (which included the lawyers, law enforcement, the prison guards, and the politicians) ran a well funded smear campaign against it, and the initiative proponents did not have much money for advertising, so all most of the public heard about the initiative was negative. I’m not aware of a jury nullification issue making the ballot in any other state, but there really ought to be an effort to get this issue on the ballot in every state that has the initiative process.
Steve Kubby said: “Sure, initiatives may create favorable impressions of pretend liberty, but I have much more faith in Jury Nullification and heroes like NJ Weedman.”
There are some initiatives that pass that are 100% libertarian. Sometimes 100% libertarian initiatives make the ballot and do not pass, but it is still good when they make the ballot even if they don’t pass because at least it creates more public debate on the subject. So there is still great value in using the initiative process.
I do agree though that jury nullification is a hugely important issue that does not get discussed nearly as much as it should. Really, if everybody who opposes the drug war knew about jury nullification, it just may be enough to end the drug war.
Seebeck said: “However, a point of correction. Amendment 64 is in effect but the state does not have its regulatory scheme in place–that’s being worked on. Douglas County, which is between Colorado Springs and Denver, has voted to ban all sales. El Paso County, which is Colorado Springs, is expected to do likewise because the COGOP is still stuck in Reefer Madness. OTOH, the DA in the Alamosa judicial district has said no more pot prosecutions.”
Hmmm, it sounds like there may be local initiatives or referenda so they that marijuana shops are able to open up in these counties.
“Deran // Dec 26, 2012 at 9:12 pm
As far aspricing. It is interesting to me to note that since Costco paid for passage of an initiative in 2011 to privatize the liquor business prces on hard liquor and beer have gone up, and not declined. Although th proponents are still claiming the markets will sort it out and prices will drop to the regulated era price levels.”
I haven’t looked into anything having to do with this initiative in Washington since after I heard that it passed, so I don’t know if what you are saying here is true or not, but if it is true, it could be that there are other factors involved, or it could be because the privatization in Washington was not a true free market privatization, because it was not. It basically turned liquor sales from a government monopoly to a monopoly held by a few large corporations (who are all in bed with and part owned by government).
Steve Kubby said: “Consider instead the courage and integrity of NJ Weedman, who used Jury Nullification to win a case involving a pound of his personal medical marijuana. NJ Weedman, a man of color and dreadlocks, refused to be bullied, defied everyone and defended himself successfully in New Jersey no less.
If NJ Weedman could win a 12-0 decision for acquittal, WTF is our excuse?
NJ Weedman is a real hero and deserves our highest respect and praise. His courage and his truth illuminates the honest path of liberty for the rest of us.”
I totally agree with Steve Kubby here. This is an example of why jury nullification ought to be one of the main issues that the Libertarian Party and the greater marijuana legalization movement pushes. I’ve been beating the drums for jury nullification for years.
This link is to a Huffington Post report about Chris Williams who I mentioned earlier. He was operating within the bounds of state laws but the feds do not agree.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/chris-williams-montana-marijuana_n_2276725.html
What we should also be concerned about is a false sense of security.
There is a case in Montana where the owner of a dispensary was operating under and within the bounds of the state law. The Feds came in a busted him and threatened him with 80 some years in the federal prison system. From what I last read he was probably going to get five years but had to give up his right to appeal.
Additionally we have had some local law enforcement departments say that they will enforce federal law regardless of what the state law is.
Personally I think this situation is a mess.
@ 41 Andy as; Given that this was probably the case, are there any regulations that you would have accepted which would have allowed yourself to still endorse the initiative?
Not really. My job as I see it is to push the extreme and get the crowd to move in my direction.
@ 30 I should have said that price wise and with regards to quality it is pretty much an unregulated market now. Some lawyers are advising their clients who have shops not to get a business license or pay taxes.
As one of the RMLW co-authors, I need to chime in some here.
RMLW was a worthwhile effort and while it did not succeed, the discussion we all had in drafting it was excellent and really was educational and helped us organize our ideas well. By “we” I mean Steve, me, Bill McPike, Judge Gray, and a couple of others. It wasn’t how I would have written it, but we worked it out.
As for Colorado:
I voted for Amendment 64 in Colorado, and while it wasn’t perfect (it had some flaws in it that I would never have put in it such as the local opt-outs and the 1-ounce limit, which was hypocritical since alcohol is not limited to 1-ounce shots), it was a large step in the right direction. I’m also one of the 10 votes it passed by in my county (the Wikipedia entry is wrong on that aspect, and my source is my county clerk).
However, a point of correction. Amendment 64 is in effect but the state does not have its regulatory scheme in place–that’s being worked on. Douglas County, which is between Colorado Springs and Denver, has voted to ban all sales. El Paso County, which is Colorado Springs, is expected to do likewise because the COGOP is still stuck in Reefer Madness. OTOH, the DA in the Alamosa judicial district has said no more pot prosecutions.
One last thing: under TABOR, the taxation part requires a separate vote, and hopefully it will fail. If it fails, Colorado will have legalization relatively tax-free (not counting the already existing sales, property, and income taxes extended into the new business area). I for one will not hesitate to vote down the taxes.
I supported the Washington and Colorado initiatives, but I was never willing to call it Legalization.
While I was willing to work for anything that moves us forward, I found myself disgusted by the influence of special interests and law enforcement. Yeah, we won, but we had to prostitute ourselves to get there.
Consider instead the courage and integrity of NJ Weedman, who used Jury Nullification to win a case involving a pound of his personal medical marijuana. NJ Weedman, a man of color and dreadlocks, refused to be bullied, defied everyone and defended himself successfully in New Jersey no less.
If NJ Weedman could win a 12-0 decision for acquittal, WTF is our excuse?
NJ Weedman is a real hero and deserves our highest respect and praise. His courage and his truth illuminates the honest path of liberty for the rest of us.
My essay was not intended to criticize the work of reformers in Washington and Colorado, so much as to question our goals, methods and ethics in agreeing to poorly crafted laws, written under coercion by law enforcement and producing new laws with criminal punishments for something that should never have been a crime to begin with.
Sure, initiatives may create favorable impressions of pretend liberty, but I have much more faith in Jury Nullification and heroes like NJ Weedman.
This is one of Steve’s best articles yet. A truly Free person is allowed to relax the way they wish ! This will be 2013 in a few days, it’s past time to RElegalize ! F the leeches who want their fingers in our pockets. Make the basterds to earn their way in a free market private sector job. Eliminate ALL force and fraud in our lifetime, as in now!
1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
1.2 Personal Privacy
Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.
As far aspricing. It is interesting to me to note that since Costco paid for passage of an initiative in 2011 to privatize the liquor business prces on hard liquor and beer have gone up, and not declined. Although th proponents are still claiming the markets will sort it out and prices will drop to the regulated era price levels.
I already did.
Andy: please stop replying to spam.
I’ll delete our racist troll’s comments as soon as I can. With everything wrong in the world, we won’t tolerate this creep; there’s too much more important stuff to talk about.
“Aryan Barbarian Carryin’ in Darien // Dec 26, 2012 at 8:20 pm
There’s a bunch of niggers and spicks glorifying getting doped up thanks to the Jew owned media.”
So whites have never used drugs or alcohol before this. Wow, that’s news to me (sarcasm).
“There are some flaws in them, sure, but from the overall standpoint of the perception that the tide of prohibition has turned, I think the Washington and Colorado initiatives are actually a pretty huge step, not a baby step.”
Oh yeah, certainly. I was referring more to the casino gaming initiatives than the marijuana initiatives in Washington and Colorado.
“I understand that seven other states are believed to be likely to pass similar laws in the next 2-4 years.”
Assuming that this sets off a brushfire to where other states pass marijuana legalization, I hope that the versions that pass in the next states are more libertarian than the ones that passed in Washington and Colorado.
“43 Aryan Barbarian Carryin’ in Darien // Dec 26, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Once again the Zionist overlords are leading our country astray. We need to have clean minds and clean bodies to break ourselves out of slavery to the Jew power structure. Not clouded with drugs and alcohol. Stop watching zionist media and Jew Hollywood and acting like a bunch of monkey rappers on MTV. We need to remember the heritage of our race, train with weights, hand to hand combat and weapons, stay clean and sober and have lots of White babies.”
What the hell does this have to do with anything that is being discussed on this thread?
“True. However, I would still vote yes on one of those initiatives as opposed to voting or campaigning against it. It is not perfect but it’s better than a complete ban. Also, once you get some casinos you end up having more and more as time goes on and hopefully, eventually it will no longer be a big deal to open a new one.”
Yeah, I agree, but it needs to be pointed out that these initiatives are not really libertarian, they are quasi-libertarian at best, and we should still push for the libertarian view on these issues.
I’ve done petitioning work in Washington on 5 occasions (and I did NOT work on this marijuana initiative, not because I would not have worked on it, because I would have, but rather because I had better paying work elsewhere when the petition signatures were being collected on it), and the last couple of times I was up there, which was in 2010 and 2011, there were initiative petitions to privatize liquor stores. Washington was one of 18 states (I believe that this is the correct number) that had a state government monopoly on liquor stores. There were two competing liquor privatization initiatives in 2010 put out by different groups. Both made the ballot, but neither of them passed. There was one liquor privatization initiative in 2011 that made the ballot and passed. Liquor store privatization sounds like something that libertarians would support, but these initiatives were not completely libertarian, because they required that liquor could only be sold in big corporate stores like Wal-Mart, Costco, Fred Meyer, Winco, Safeway, Albertsons, etc… There was an exception if it was in a rural area where there were no big box stores around, then a small town general store type of place could sell liquor, but that was it. The initiative also included other taxes and regulations, but I don’t think that it was anything worse than the taxes and regulations that they already had. These initiatives were written to end the state liquor stores, which was a good thing, but then to grant a monopoly on liquor sales to corporate big box stores, and to heck with small business owners, and this was not a good thing. The corporate big box stores are all in bed with the state as they receive all kinds of benefits from government, plus a good chunk of their stock is actually owned by various government entities (go to http://www.CAFR1.com for more details on this). I saw the liquor privatization initiatives in Washington as a step in the right direction, but they still were not truly libertarian.
Paulie it is pretty much an unregulated market now.
Prohibition is not an unregulated market. People should learn the difference.
Paulie I don’t have all the answers.
Well, you campaigned against it.
Maybe someone else can explain to me why it wasn’t a step in the right direction?
“Michael H. Wilson // Dec 26, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Paulie I don’t have all the answers. In my opinion the initiative did not fit in with our ideas. We will have to see what happens.”
A hardcore libertarian marijuana legalization initiative would probably not have passed.
Given that this was probably the case, are there any regulations that you would have accepted which would have allowed yourself to still endorse the initiative?
There are some flaws in them, sure, but from the overall standpoint of the perception that the tide of prohibition has turned, I think the Washington and Colorado initiatives are actually a pretty huge step, not a baby step.
I understand that seven other states are believed to be likely to pass similar laws in the next 2-4 years.
True. However, I would still vote yes on one of those initiatives as opposed to voting or campaigning against it. It is not perfect but it’s better than a complete ban. Also, once you get some casinos you end up having more and more as time goes on and hopefully, eventually it will no longer be a big deal to open a new one.
“However, one of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys said they they will continue to enforce the law. We will see what happens in the next couple of months.”
This is one of the reasons that jury nullification should be a major issue that is pushed by libertarians and other marijuana legalization advocates.
The 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution should be pushed more as well.
Paulie I don’t have all the answers. In my opinion the initiative did not fit in with our ideas. We will have to see what happens.
Good. Maybe it will help lead the way to better laws in other states.
Again, why oppose 502? Seems like a step in the right direction, albeit an incremental one.
“The licensing limits. As of now I understand that just 300 or so permits to grow will be approved.”
So this means that the lucky 300 who get the licensing permits to grow marijuana will be in a position to make a lot of money legally, and the heck with everybody else.
This reminds me of those casino gaming initiatives that allow one group to open up a casino some place and have a monopoly on casinos in that area.
I see these types of changes in the law as baby steps towards freedom. Sure, there’s a little bit more freedom from before the new law was passed, but there are still some major flaws in them from a pro-liberty stand point.
So? Most enforcement is state and local, not federal. The feds have only a small fraction of the budget in drug law enforcement, maybe 1 or 2%.
So word will spread that it’s not completely legal. Doesn’t sound like a compelling reason to oppose the measure.
“I agree that driving represents a loophole to keep harassing people, but I’ve yet to hear anything to lead me to believe the situation for cannabis users who drive will be made any worse than it already was by the new law. ”
I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people in Washington, or who travel to Washington, will not know about this aspect of the law. They’ll think something like, “Weed is legal here, so I’m OK.” So they smoke weed one day thinking that it’s legal in Washington, and then the next day, or a few days or weeks later they get pulled over by a cop. The cop decides to mess with them and it leads to them having to be tested for marijuana (and if they refuse to be tested, I’d bet that there are other penalties). The cops find THC in their system, and even though it was from the day before, or the week before, or even several weeks before, they get fined and lose their license. The person wasn’t even stoned at the time they got pulled over, and they may not have even done anything wrong. The police pull people over all the time for no legitimate reason.
Why? It reduces the risk involved with possession and very small time dealing which tends to drive the price down.
And there still will be. Only difference is a few will be “legal.”
Paulie it is pretty much an unregulated market now. Most of the people I know are expecting the price to go up once the state gets involved and there are way more than 300 growers in the state now. A lot more.
Here is the law I was referring to Mullan Gage Act.
Frankly we don’t know yet. It is too early to tell what will happen. However, one of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys said they they will continue to enforce the law. We will see what happens in the next couple of months.
The one thing going for I-502 was that the press stepped up its coverage and took the position that marijuana had been legalized which is not the case. The perception changed.
Black market imposes a huge de facto “tax” due to increased risk = artificially limited supply = higher prices.
I don’t think a tax that is imposed on products that are going from black market to regulated is likely to be copied to products that are already regulated.
That’s not making things worse than before.
DUI of controlled substances is prohibited where those substances are prohibited. Again, not making things worse.
By definition those exist with prohibition.
Did 502 make things better or worse?
As far as I know better, but if you have information to the contrary please share it.
Let me be clear. I opposed I-502 because it is unlibertarian with the taxation, licensing laws and the unscientific DUID provision. At least that is my opinion. My job as a member of the state committee is to uphold the ideals of the party and not let them be watered down.
Three things.
1.a 25% tax at each level of production would, in my belief, be a bad idea that might get copied with other products.
2.The licensing limits. As of now I understand that just 300 or so permits to grow will be approved.
3. the DUID issue which has no science to back it up as I understand.
4. restrictions on home growing.
Without going into all the previous work what we needed and was suggested was repealing the state enforcement legislation which would have left only the Feds to enforce prohibition in the state. This is what was done in the 1920 with alcohol prohibition. The effort in the 1920s was led by New York State and as soon as I think of the name of the law they repealed I’ll post it. I believe that 14 other states then followed doing the same until the Congress decided to repeal prohibition in 1933. I hope that is the right date.
Please explain why.
I agree that we ideally don’t want regulation either, but how did 502 make things worse than they were before, rather than better?
Please compare it to what we had before 502, not to the ideal situation which wasn’t the case then and isn’t the case now.
Steve @ comment # 1 I wrote, regulate cannabis like dandelions. I actually mean that. That is my short hand way of saying cannabis does not need to be regulated. To the best of my knowledge dandelions are not regulated anywhere by anyone. If so they are doing a real poor job.
At the LPWA state convention I and a couple of others stopped the effort to endorse the initiative I-502. I also wrote a piece for the news letter against I-502.
I am actually working with others to improve the situation and earlier today I was following up on some points related to the issue and did not have time to reply at any length.
We do not need any regulations outside of laws that hold people responsible when others are harmed or theft or fraud occur for what my opinion is worth.
Some of us are working on the issue but unfortunately a huge divide in the community was created by the sponsors of I-502 and those who were against it.
Steve,
I am against any limits on our rights. I am in favor of taking whatever steps we can take in that direction until we can make that happen. Not doing so is actually allowing more people to have their rights violated more often and in worse ways. Have an awesome 2013!
Andy,
I agree that driving represents a loophole to keep harassing people, but I’ve yet to hear anything to lead me to believe the situation for cannabis users who drive will be made any worse than it already was by the new law.
Deran,
I agree that fly by night operators who might sell moldy or defective products can be a problem, no less so with cannabis than any other product. I don’t think [government monopoly] regulation is the ideal way to deal with this problem – regulators can’t be everywhere, can be negligent or corrupt, and give people a false sense of security.
Instead I think a better approach would be increased consumer information, including competing rating systems for suppliers (ebay has a pretty decent system for this, for example). Voluntary regulators such as Underwriters Laboratories can provide superior ranking of trusted providers, and the voluntary and competitive nature of such free market regulation renders it superior to what government can offer.
Even black markets have this to some extent. For example, there are any number of review sites rating prostitutes and escorts, allowing providers and consumers to air complaints as well as compliments, etc. The fear of getting busted makes these rankings somewhat less effective, but they are still functional.
Providers have an incentive to provide a quality product or service: word of mouth and return business.
It is true that some people care only about the short term.
For such negligent individuals, I believe full liability (as opposed to limited liability) provides the best answer.
I’ve resigned from marijuana activism, but not as a Libertarian — which is more like a religion to me, so dropping out isn’t an option. As a Libertarian, I continue to speak out on issues of liberty. However, Mises is dead and nobody else on this list has argued against accepting any limits to our inalienable rights, so I will politely excuse myself and wish all my friends a wonderful new year.
“Steve Kubby // Dec 26, 2012 at 5:00 am
Actually, Washington illustrates my point quite well, since they just voted to make it illegal for people like me to drive in their state. That’s because in order to pass their new law, they made a huge concession to law enforcement that they can arrest anyone who drives with any amount of THC in their blood, even if it is a month old, and obtain an automatic DUI conviction, regardless if there is no impairment. That is NOT legalization, it is regulation and it will only serve to further endanger growers and sellers, while assuring the Feds have a easy to follow paper trail of evidence.”
I’m surprised to see Steve Kubby on here. I thought he dropped out of politics and moved to Canada to manage a ski resort (or something like that).
Anyway, I agree that the thing about driving is a major flaw in the Washington cannabis law (hey, that rhymes). This part of the law is completely unreasonable, because a person could have THC in their blood from days or weeks before they got pulled over, and get busted for driving under the influence. I don’t think that a person should drive and smoke weed at the same time, or drive right after smoking a lot of weed to the point where they are impaired, but penalizing people who smoked weed the day before, or the week before, or the month before, is just plain ridiculous. This aspect of the law is basically making it so anyone who ever smokes weed is at risk of losing their driver’s license. I can see this causing major problems for a lot of people, and it would be bad for the economy as well, because it will have a negative effect a lot of people’s ability to earn a living and to do lots of other things.
Ideally, marijuana should be legalized with no regulations, however, politically this is more difficult to pass, so I can see why most marijuana legalization initiatives and bills throw in some regulations, but a lot of thought needs to be put in these regulations, because depending on what the regulations are, they can lead to a whole new set of problems (as evidenced by this no driving with THC in one’s blood regulation in Washington).
I know a person who lives in a different state (not Washington or Colorado) who got pulled over by a cop and accused of drunk driving. This person said that they did have some alcohol that evening, but that they don’t believe that they were over the legal alcohol limit, however, this individual refused the breathalyzer test and blood test. Why? Because they had smoked marijuana a few days before this incident happened, and they were afraid that if the police found out that they had also smoked marijuana, that they’d face additional penalties. So, for refusing to be tested, they lost their driver’s license for a year, they had to pay a fine, and they have lost, or are at risk of losing their right to carry a firearm (I’m not sure if it effect their right to own a firearm or not, but this incident may effect this person’s permit to carry).
I guess I was thinking abt growers who’s crops have problems with mold, and they sell it anyway. Things like that.
I don’t think there has been any problem with safety other than due to prohibition, e.g. paraquat.
Actually, I misspoke, I prefer regulation that keeps legal cannabis clean and safe to consume.
I would prefer no regulation, but I don’t care abt Mises if regulated legalization keeps people out of jail. And if we look at WA State, even if you inclue people using a medical reason for cannabis use, in this state, many of those people were using that to access cannabis for recreational purposes. The number of people in actual medical need in WA State is far smaller than the number of people who are arrested, prosecuted etc for personal possession. So, I think it is only logical to support an inferior abolition/regulation if it keeps a fairly large number of people out of jail. Simple as that. This isn’t a theoretical discussion, large numbers of actual people’s lives are at stake.
More so than under prohibition? I don’t see that being the case.
What nobody seems prepared to discuss is my assertion that passing regulations on cannabis will ease the pressure on white guys, allow affluent white folks to make money, but end up targeting the poor, the uneducated and, most of all, people of color.
It depends on what you are comparing it to.
If you are comparing regulation to full legalization without regulation, I think you will find many of us agree that regulation is not needed.
If you are saying that regulation is worse than prohibition and a black market, I don’t agree, and I think most of us don’t agree with that.
Regulation is a good step away from prohibition, and hopefully over time we can work to deregulate. But I would not wait to get rid of prohibition until that time.
Yes, we all understand the tactical advantages of accepting regulations, but is this strategically in our best interests? Are Mises and I alone in the assertion that we should never ever agree to allow the state to interfere in any questions touching on the individual’s mode of life?
Alaska has de facto legal grow and smoke at home if you do not have a commercial grow operation.
As of right now only Colorado and Washington State have legal recreational use that is state regulated and taxed. In Arizona simple possession is a felony, but Oklahoma and Texas have the harshest laws against cannabis.
Which states have marijuana legal and taxed?
Which ones have strictest laws on the books?
The above should read “So far I have not seen any bills prefiled”, but I bet you could figure that out. 😉
I am working with a group of people here in Olympia to monitor the bills related to this issue. We hope to be able to influence the legislators to some extent on the issues such a personal grows, use by people younger than 21 and see if we can’t get that reduced to an infraction as well as the driving issue and a host of other ones that are in the pipeline. There may not be much we can accomplish this session since the law as I understand it allows the initiative to be in effect for two years before the legislature can change any part of it. That of course may be up for interpretation. So far I have not seen and bills prefiled. That may change as soon as Jan. 2nd get here.
There are plenty of other people working on this. Unfortunately one big obstacle is that too many people have little or no idea how the legislative process operates. I think I have a better idea than most and I am still lost.
If it becomes normal to mix synthetic chemicals with marijuana, then regulation will be necessary. Similar to alcohol regulation, there will be a demand that the state ensure that the marijuana being sold is safe….and this demand will need to be tempered with reason.
In a legalized environment, weed would be pretty cheap and its hard to predict the long-term consequences of that. Society might be better off taxing it (keeping prices up and stoners working) and putting that money to good use. Of course, overly high taxes would lead to mass home-growing and black market activities.
I thought you were retiring because of the recent victories Mr. Kubby. I’m glad to see you back fighting the good fight.
That being said, I don’t disagree with the premise of your article, but I have to say that I would prefer regulation over prohibition any day.
I agree abt the initiative being imperfect. And still, even this imperfect abolition of prohibition has already kept several hundred people out of the clutches of the police.
And the Washington State Patrol has already said it will not be changing it’s pattern of stopping people in cars unless they are driving in an unsafe manner. And if it is true the medical users can drive just fine, they will not be stopped at any higher rate than before the initiative was passed.
Last July a young man, who had been arrested for simple posession, died in the county north of me when he missed a hearing and had to one night in county jail, the next morning he died in jail from a food allergy. Had the initiative already been in effect, this young man would not have died.
In WA state, when you look at busts for grow ops, the vast predominance of arrests are of white people.
It’s early days with the new law, and something could go bad, but so far it has been a positive thing.
Actually, Washington illustrates my point quite well, since they just voted to make it illegal for people like me to drive in their state. That’s because in order to pass their new law, they made a huge concession to law enforcement that they can arrest anyone who drives with any amount of THC in their blood, even if it is a month old, and obtain an automatic DUI conviction, regardless if there is no impairment. That is NOT legalization, it is regulation and it will only serve to further endanger growers and sellers, while assuring the Feds have a easy to follow paper trail of evidence. Furthermore, there are plenty of state penalties if you screw up in attempting to following the new law. True, you can possess an ounce legally, unless you toke up in public, in which case you only get a ticket, just like in California. However, if you violate their rules for cultivation or sales, you will still get hit with felony convictions and incarceration. I can assure you, most of those who are found in violation will not be affluent whites, but poor and minority folks instead.
First, Mr. Kubby, who I admire for his cannabis activism throws around accusations of racism pretty freely. And it seems to me falsely. In Washington State we just passed a state initiative taxing and regulating recreational use of cannabis by 21 and olders. In several counties the county prosecutors have dropped further action on several hundred cannabis possesion cases. It has been shown time and again that enforcement of penalties for posesion of cannabis is more vigorously excersized against young men of color. I don’t have the numbers, and WA is pretty white, but I would be interested to see the percentage of people of color who just recently had the cases against them dropped.
And in the case of NYC, if posession of small amounts of cannabis were completely legal there would be no basis for the NYPD’s racist “stop and frisk” program.
In WA state the liqor control board has calculated that cannabis sold via the state would price at roughly $12 a gram. That’s abt the same or lower than the blackmarket is offering.
The blackmarket is not a free or open market. Prohibition creates all sorts of restrictions and pressures on prices and production that legalization would not impose.
I would also suggest that even an imperfect abolition of prohibition of cannabis wil keep many good people out of jail, out of the legal system generally and save them the costs of attorneys etc.
Already state legislators here are talking abt amending the new law to permit home growing for non commercial recreational use.
Again, I respect Mr. Kubby a great deal, but he seems wrong in this situation.
Regulate cannabis like dandelions!