Skip to comments.Libertarian Party: National Guard Should Protect Medical Marijuana Users from DEA Thugs
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
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.
But you have to realize, your convoluted rhetoric is no substitute for honest intellectual discourse. Such gibberish will get you nowhere. May be a refresher course, starting with a proper grade school education will help you handle the challenges of debating on FreeRepublic.
You libertarians never cease to entertain me. LMAO
Reagan, Thom is a flame thrower in his own mind, but what else should one expect from the Libertarians.
Then you produce the quote.
Big suprise for ya. Most 'little l' libertarians don't agree with the Libertarian Party platform. Mainly because the 'big L' libertarian types have as much relation to libertarian philosopy as NOW does to the viewpoint of most women, or the NAACP does to most black folks. Which is, not much.
Your above italicized paragarah should be included as a certainty in life.
Once you attack the screen name, you've lost the argument.
Congratulations. You lose.
That sums it up, Dane. TJ is NO TJ!
You have not provided a logical deconstruction of a single argument, nor advanced a single premise in support of your conclusions this entire thread. The closest you came was the assertion that libertarianism was a failure because so few people vote for it. (An ad populum fallacy, BTW.)
Yep, and one must not leave out the hallucenogenic influenced romanticizing of the Founding Fathers that the Libertarians do with relish.
"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson
You used this argument in the context that none of our Rights are anything more than government whims.
You also posted this little tid-bit:
Nations have rights, societies have rights, anarchists have noise.
Once again advocating group rights, instead of individual Rights.
In post #170, you throw out this gem:
"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson
Your selective usage of qoutes would've seen you called out to the "feild of honor" in thier time for such slander. It'll avail you not much more here either.
Not your type at all.
>>>Big suprise for ya.
Not at all.
>>>Most 'little l' libertarians don't agree with the Libertarian Party platform.
Here we go again!
Then why call yourselves "libertarians"?
Come up with a new moniker and end all the confusion.
Yep, and they didn't have to deal with the scourge of the "60's" Liberal/Libertarian pro-drug culture, either.
Good quote. Our Constitution restricts federal infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Another crash and burn, Dead Corpse.
Btw, you can't dismiss the truth and in this case, you can't dismiss the failure of the the Libertarian Party platform and the libertarian philosophy in general. The libertarian agenda is of no consequence in modern American politics. Just saying its relevent, while having absolutely no proof to back up such an outlandish remark, is wild eyed rhetoric at best.
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.