Posted on 09/23/2002 8:56:33 AM PDT by Commie Basher
===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: September 23, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================
Libertarians urge California Gov. Gray Davis to protect medical marijuana patients from federal agents
SACRAMENTO, CA -- Should California Governor Gray Davis call out the National Guard to defend medical marijuana patients from federal agents? That's the question Libertarians will be asking today as thousands of medical marijuana advocates descend on the state Capitol in Sacramento to send the federal government a message.
"The National Guard is charged with defending lives and property when disaster strikes and the federal raids on medical marijuana clinics have been a complete disaster," said Libertarian Party Political Director Ron Crickenberger, who is attending the rally.
"These DEA bullies with badges have ransacked clinics, brutalized helpless, dying people, and trampled state law. Now the only question is whether Davis will live up to his responsibilities as the state's chief law enforcement officer or continue to kowtow to the federal government."
Agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration have raided dozens of marijuana clinics over the past few months, despite the fact that the possession, use, and cultivation of medical marijuana was legalized statewide with the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996. But now Californians are fighting back. Santa Cruz and other localities are making "medipot" available during public rallies at City Hall as protesters chant, "DEA, go away!"
Monday's Medical Cannabis Freedom Day rally, which kicks off at noon on the south steps of the Capitol, was created as a way for medical marijuana supporters statewide to demand an end to federal interference.
But will calling out the National Guard be necessary? Libertarians hope not.
"No such confrontation would be needed if Davis and Attorney General Bill Lockyer had the backbone to speak out more forcefully against this unwarranted federal intrusion," Crickenberger said. "Davis has asked the federal government to stop the raids. And last week, Lockyer sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and DEA head Asa Hutchinson 'questioning the ethical basis' for the raids.
"But meekly asking the DEA to stop hasn't worked. Davis and Lockyer should publicly and unequivocally demand that the raids stop. They should remind Ashcroft and Hutchinson that their boss, President George Bush, pledged during the campaign to 'respect states' rights' on medical marijuana. And they should inform the federal government that any future harassment of medical marijuana patients will be treated as an assault under state law.
"If Davis lacks the courage to stand up to the federal bully when lives are at stake, he should have the decency to resign."
Other groups participating in the rally include the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP); the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML); Students for a Sensible Drug Policy; and the Drug Policy Alliance. Organizers are also demanding a federal pardon for Bryan Epis, a Libertarian Party member who faces 10 years in prison for cultivating medical marijuana.
This is a conclusion; what are your premises? The statement "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" seems not unlike "Do not initiate force or fraud against others."
RIGHT! Government is an off shoot, of civilized society. It is part of our civilized society. Liberatarians are opposed to government and are generally opposed to civilized society too. Libertarians would be very satisfied if mankind returned to the jungle mentality and survival of the fittest. Liberatraians lack the intellectual and emotional capacity to live in an organzied existence and an orderly society, where the rule of law limits their desire for chaotic behavior.
>>>...the increasing social breakdown which you see all around you...
I don't see the level of social breakdown you libertarians see. I happen to live in the blue area.
LIST OF JUST SOME OF THE REASONS LIBERTARIANS WANT GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE ABORTION ISSUE
The government is the problem, not the solution, including in this issue; it's my body and the government should keep its laws off it; people can decide this issue in their private, contractual communities; only voluntary means of convincing a woman to have a child are libertarian; the fetus is not a human being with rights until it is born (based on a number of rationales); even if the fetus has rights, and abortion is murder, the rights of the mother to evict trespassers -- for whatever reasons -- through abortion are greater (based on a number of rationales); the decision on whether it is murder is based on political power and adult women have more power; it is wrong to force a deformed baby or unwanted child to come into the world; OTHER???
Libertarians are well aware that the protection of our nations children is an excuse used by politicians to increase their political power. The Drug War, the virtual nationalization of our countrys school systems, welfare systems, Medicaid, anti-obscenity laws, Internet controls all of these political crusades depend wholly or in part on the sentimental rhetoric of child protection.
The abortion issue is no different. To grant the legal premise that two individual persons with equal rights can exist in the same body lays the foundation for unprecedented government power. There is no ambiguity here. The Libertarian principles of non-initiation of force and property rights - when applied to adult fertile women direct us to oppose laws which would interfere with womens freedom of action and support laws which protect womens rights to do what they choose with their bodies.
Womens Rights and Abortion (additional language proposal)
We recognize that different moral codes and religions have many different opinions about human intervention in the natural processes of human reproduction, ranging from a total ban on any form of interference -with sometimes severe physical or social punishments for deviations from orthodoxy - to a willing acceptance of any and all scientific and medical techniques and advancements. We therefore make no judgements about whether violations of sexual taboos, birth control, genetic manipulation, abortion, or other forms of reproductive intervention are morally right or wrong. We are concerned only with the consequences of an important legal presumption to the freedom of women.
If an embryo developing inside a pregnant woman is presumed by the law to be a separate person, then the consequences for women's freedom is potential disaster. Such a presumption lays the legal foundation for laws that could subject fertile women to such things as monthly pregnancy testing, strict diet control, involuntary medical treatment, and criminal and civil liability for fetal injury caused by ignorance, accident, negligence, or the purposeful termination of pregnancy, all in the name of protecting the unborn child.
Regarding abortion, we hold that the law must presume that women are competent to make decisions concerning their own reproduction, and that the potential child inside a pregnant woman is not a separate person, but a part of the woman, and, absent some prior contract with the father, her property to do with as she will, until the moment at birth when the umbilical cord is cut and she is no longer providing it with nourishment. We further urge the repeal and prohibition of any and all laws that would restrict a woman's right to determine her own course of nutrition and treatment during pregnancy, to terminate her pregnancy either chemically or surgically, or to transfer her embryo for medical research. Women who are pregnant must be free to judge for themselves whether or not to carry a pregnancy full term, since only they are competent to judge whether or not they and their children will be loved or unloved, cared for or abandoned, free agents or resources for the State.
History shows that the suppression of women's rights to life, liberty and property was tied for centuries to the fact that women had no dependable control over their reproductive cycles. It was only with the technological development of dependable birth control in the mid-twentieth century that women could truly act on their claims to equal political rights with men. As Libertarians, we cannot stand in the way of reproductive freedom, even if that freedom means that some women will decide to end the potential life within them. We should encourage education programs to aid women in determining the best course for their own reproduction.
>>>This is a conclusion; what are your premises?
Not a conclusion, rather a fact! A reading of the Libertarian Party platform and the libertarian philosophy makes their agenda crystal clear.
A libertarian society is a hard society with hard people--like the US under the Articles of Confederation.
I, too, fear a civil war is our last resort and becoming more of a possibility year-by-year. We have too many illegal immigrants flooding our nation and creating a natural divide between what "is" and "isn't" American. Meanwhile, we've got a growing population of welfare-fed ghetto children that believe "whitie" is responsible for all of their ills and challenges. The best way to overtake a country is to divide and conquer it from within. The communists are working their manifesto to a "T".
So I ask again, is not the statement "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" equivalent to "Do not initiate force or fraud against others?" If not, why not?
That is semantic sophistry. Will you answer his question without obfuscation, or are you unable to?
Well I oppose the free entry of individuals into the US as to do so would be quite insane. Most immigrants do not enter the US with the intention of obtaining welfare. Once they get here and find out how easy it is to get then they sign up. I do not blame the immigrants for obtaining it either, I blame the government who gives it to them.
But that is quite beside the point. The free entry of persons would end this country as we know it in short order. There are BILLIONS of people around the world who be here tomorrow if they could and not for the welfare. How long would you stay in Pakistan if you could get to and stay in the US?
Remember what happened when Carter indicated that he would not deport people arriving from Haiti. Now imagine that on a planetary scale and you would see what an open border policy would result in. This country would resemble Bangladesh or India within a year. Crime and civil war would shortly follow.
I agree with a few positions of the libertarians but as long as this is in their platform they lack all credibility and can't be taken seriously.
If you'd like to be added or taken off of this ping list FReepmail me
I never said anything like that. But I do prefer a society based on law and order, to a society based on the libertarian standards of anything goes, as in chaos and anarchy.
>>>A libertarian society is a hard society with hard people--like the US under the Articles of Confederation.
Libertarians are hard headed, inflexible individuals who cherish a world without government, thus enabling them every oppotunity to run wild and cause all manner of problems. Libertarains believe in open borders and unlimited immigration, the legalization of all drugs and prostitution. And libertarians support dismantling America's criminal justice system and its military capabilities for defense, protection and security of its citizens. I think thats a prescription for failure and ultimately would see an end to the United States of America. The Founding Fathers had nothing like that in mind for the American people and the future of our Constitutional Republic.
Besides which, both Bush and Gore are socialists, so the reds and blues voted for the same thing.
This is simply factually untrue, and indicates that you are speaking about libertarianism w/out knowing a thing about it.
Libertarains believe in open borders and unlimited immigration, the legalization of all drugs and prostitution.
Some do, yes.
And libertarians support dismantling America's criminal justice system and its military capabilities for defense, protection and security of its citizens.
Again, this is simply untrue. Please cite your sources for this information, especially in light of you claiming to be familiar with what libertarians believe.
I think thats a prescription for failure and ultimately would see an end to the United States of America. The Founding Fathers had nothing like that in mind for the American people and the future of our Constitutional Republic.
Nor did they have in mind anything that even remotely resembles the gov't we see today.
Likewise, if you didn't want to rent your apartment complex to Bangladeshis who'd try to move ten family members in and slaughter goats in the courtyard, you would not have to.
I submit that a libertarian society would have immigration, but no immigration "problem."
So long as we have public, as opposed to private, ownership of entry into the US, then in my opinion, the public's will in this regard should be followed and the fact is the majority of ALL racial and economic groups OPPOSE the current level of immigration. Thus, unlike the LP, I agree that immigration should be curbed, if not eliminated entirely, so long as the points of entry are "publicly" owned.
Some do I don't.
the legalization of all drugs and prostitution.
Yes the government does not have any good reason to be involved in either of those let the addicts kill themselves and the gals make a living on something besides welfare
And libertarians support dismantling America's criminal justice system and its military capabilities for defense, protection and security of its citizens.
Lies libertarians see the courts and military as legitimate function of government though I think the current court system needs a total overhaul.
Republicans, Democrats, and Greens call it "balancing of equities" and "not going to extremes" and "moderation." The concept of standing by principles -- consistently -- is unthinkable to Demopublican Green socialists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.