Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legalize, Tax Marijuana? (Libertarians Say Yes)
Fox ^ | 02/26/2009 | Glen Beck

Posted on 02/28/2009 8:55:36 AM PST by Responsibility2nd

GLENN BECK, HOST: Marijuana brownies, anyone? This is the worst — the people in our green room, I'm happy to say it's clear they've never been high.

I'm going to ask you what's wrong with this picture. Chicago is trying to fix $50 million budget — their budget gap by taxing car rentals in suburban areas. And now, California is talking about legalizing marijuana and taxing marijuana to solve their budget problems.

Rob Kampia is the executive director for the Marijuana Policy Project.

How are you doing — how are you doing, Rob?

ROB KAMPIA, MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT: Doing well.

BECK: All right. Do you smoke marijuana? Do you have any those marijuana's...

KAMPIA: Occasionally.

BECK: Occasionally?

KAMPIA: Yes.

BECK: It's against the law, you know.

KAMPIA: Yes. So, is speeding, a lot of people do that, also.

BECK: Wow. OK. You used to work for NORML, did you not?

KAMPIA: Yes.

BECK: Yes?

KAMPIA: Fourteen years ago.

BECK: Fourteen years ago. And is it true that you quit working with NORML because they were stoned all the time and that's all they really wanted to do was get high? They weren't serious about changing the laws?

KAMPIA: No, everyone there is very serious about changing the laws.

BECK: Really? OK.

KAMPIA: And the reason that — the reason that I left and started up the Marijuana Policy Project because I wanted to focus almost exclusively on lobbying and ballot initiatives.

BECK: OK. So, tell me because — look, I'm a libertarian. You want to legalize marijuana; you want to legalize drugs — that's fine.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: beck; liberaltarians; lping; marijuana; potheads; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-246 next last
To: Responsibility2nd
And I am not a Libertarian, btw... I am a Reaganite.
121 posted on 02/28/2009 1:58:51 PM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

A 35 year old quote - in light of the bastardization that leftists have made of his definition - no longer applies.

Sorry. But thanks for playing.


122 posted on 02/28/2009 2:04:40 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: avid
What I wrote is a fact. Holland has a big problem with “drug tourists” from the surrounding countries which is why cities close to the borders want to (or already did) further regulate the selling of cannabis.

What I have read, and granted, it is likely to be coming from Christian Conservative sources within Holland (where my family is from), it is national legislation which is being offered, and a national push to rid themselves of their liberal thinking. Their social system is all but collapsed under the weight, and their welfare system cannot keep up. It is not local cities (I had no idea).

123 posted on 02/28/2009 2:13:08 PM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

> push to rid themselves of their liberal thinking

I’m all for that myself but whether pot is legal or not doesn’t matter in that regard. That are bigger wheels which have to be turned. Legal pot just frees up the police a bit and provides the government with some taxes (not a lot as only few people smoke it and usually only when they are young).


124 posted on 02/28/2009 2:22:07 PM PST by avid ("DU DUMME SAU!" - Klaus Kinski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Let me ignore the immoral viewpoints about turning America into a Nation of stoners for a moment.....

And focus on the huge Governmental Machinery that would be placed in effect to run the Department of Dope...

I would exchange the War on (Some) Drugs machinery for the Department of Dope machinery in a heartbeat. The War on (Some) Drugs is responsible for untold encroachments on our liberties from no-knock warrants to asset forfeiture to Know Your Customer banking regulations.

125 posted on 02/28/2009 2:31:32 PM PST by ksen (Don't steal. The government hates the competition. - sign on Ron Paul's desk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

” I won’t say pot killed him, but it sure as hell didn’t help. “

It wasn’t pot that ruined his life. It was, unfortunately, his own personality. If he couldn’t have gotten pot, he would just have gotten something else, with the same likely result.


126 posted on 02/28/2009 2:33:45 PM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Your point illustrates why we need to invade Mexico.

Another reason to get rid of the WoSD. Are you seriously advocating the invasion of Mexico by the US . . . just to stop people froom enjoying a bong hit every now and then?

127 posted on 02/28/2009 2:33:59 PM PST by ksen (Don't steal. The government hates the competition. - sign on Ron Paul's desk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
A 35 year old quote - in light of the bastardization that leftists have made of his definition - no longer applies.

What is funny about your statement is who you will find standing with those libertarians- Many of the Hunterites, the Keyes crowd, the Tancredo folks, and *some* of the Thompson set. IOW, the rock-ribbed Reaganites are the ones who stand with them and defend them. It is the "Big Tenters" that threw the Libertarians under the bus. And it is a shame.

128 posted on 02/28/2009 2:35:45 PM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
The war on drugs funnels a lot of tax money into local police forces, which are too powerful already. We do not need stronger police forces with psuedo-military swat teams making no-knock raids based on unreliable tips, nor do we need police confiscating private property if it is tied to drug use, because then it becomes too tempting to manufacturer drug violators.

The goal of the War on Drugs must be clearly articulated. Is it to have every American become as healthy as possible? That's a dangerous premise. Is it to minimize welfare rolls? There are easier ways to achieve this than to empower a police state. Where is its federal interest? If it's at the border, then put it at the border.

Let states decide the legality/illegality of growing pot for private use, of using pot, and of selling pot. See what happens in states based on the laws they enact. Perhaps some lessons will follow, for good or for ill. But keep the FedGov out. The WoD is just an excuse to keep local police addicted to federal money, which is itself a drug. It is a drug that gives recipients overweening pride, diminishes sympathy with one's fellow citizens, and removes one's independence. It creates jackboots and opportunists.

129 posted on 02/28/2009 2:39:51 PM PST by Puddleglum (Freedom works/socialism steals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Right, anarchy is ALWAYS the very best form of society to strive for. Let everyone do what ever they feel is right so long as they aren’t hurting someone else. Right?

But what you fail to see, is the long term damage and apathy that hedonism creates. It usually winds up in an Oligarchy of some form or another.

I don't know how I'd survive without people like you telling everyone else how to live their lives.

I thought this was a site dedicated to freedom and liberty and the Constitution?

130 posted on 02/28/2009 2:46:38 PM PST by ksen (Don't steal. The government hates the competition. - sign on Ron Paul's desk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
It wasn’t pot that ruined his life. It was, unfortunately, his own personality. If he couldn’t have gotten pot, he would just have gotten something else, with the same likely result.

You and I are in agreement on this point. It is the unfortunate result for anyone with an "addictive" personality type. It is, in the end, a weakness in the spirit.

But here is also where I must part ways with you too- As I said upthread, it is the nature of things that one gets more of what one endorses... The damage already done within our society by legalized means of getting high are already boundless- Those of "weak spirit" far outnumber those who are strong enough to handle their vices with decorum, as I am sure you can agree.

And that effect does impact us as a nation- in destroyed lives, destroyed families, injuries, bastard children, and etc... For that reason, I am loathe to add to the problems that do already exist by sanctioning any other means as being "legal".

131 posted on 02/28/2009 2:53:00 PM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

“What do you see as the role of government, and how does making Marijuana illegal apply to that role?”

I don’t think marijuana should be illegal.


132 posted on 02/28/2009 3:02:18 PM PST by SmallGovRepub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
I will rise to defend this point to a degree. Some of the greatest, most imaginative minds I have ever known have been dope smokers their entire life.

You're right. I'd say half of the most successful and influential people I know like to smoke fairly often.

Like alcohol, some folks have a natural propensity to handle it's effects without any real addictive traits, beyond a certain jittery shortness of temper if denied the opportunity to imbibe...

Right again. Everyone is different. Anyone I tell that I smoke doesn't believe it and I have to pretty much smoke in front of them to prove I'm not joking. The propaganda is so strong they cannot believe what they see. I've quit instantly for federal contracts with no side effects. Quitting coffee after a few late nights gave me night sweats, pain and jitters though. Alcohol makes me feel sick and stupid for days. So again, everyone is different. The law should be based on what people do. Not what species of herb they hold.

By the same token, I have known plenty of people who have been the epitome of the "stupid pothead" stereotype. One of my good friends was such a pothead. He could barely keep his life together, and lived for getting high. He died at 50, broke and out of luck. I won't say pot killed him, but it sure as hell didn't help.

I'm sorry about your friend. Maybe he was stupid before being a "pothead"? This is the case in the few potheads I know. Some live for getting high, but why should the state dictate what victimless entertainment productive, law-abiding citizens could enjoy? Whats next, watching too much TV? Video games? Donuts? Promiscuous sex? All addictive, dangerous and possibly fatal to certain people. If your friend was really addicted, he was hurt enough by addiction. Why add jail, fines and a criminal record to put a nail in the coffin? Do we give criminal records to nonviolent alcoholics? No, we treat them. Your friend needed help and not a criminal record hanging over his head.

I just don't get it. Maybe all you drug warriors don't realize that pot is easier to buy than cigarettes(no ID needed). Prohibiting a plant is only possible in a 24/7 surveillance police state. Maybe not even then, since it is also commonly available in prison.

133 posted on 02/28/2009 3:02:18 PM PST by varyouga (People silently freezing in Kentucky. Obama doesn't care about white people!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

LOL>


134 posted on 02/28/2009 3:08:23 PM PST by Recovering Ex-hippie (" IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT !" ( just getting a head start..hee.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: varyouga
I'm sorry about your friend. Maybe he was stupid before being a "pothead"? This is the case in the few potheads I know.

No. He was an exceptional person before his love affair with the bud began- Good ol' boy from Texas too... Pot just took all his "want to" right away from him. He still held jobs fairly well, but went downhill all along. Classic pothead story, really. Went from being a pretty good nail-bender to working the late shift at the 7Eleven. From building his own house to living in a travel trailer. "Wasted" potential.

I don't mean to demean my friend's memory here, I just want to show that there is truth to both sides of this debate, and probably alot of gray in-between.

why should the state dictate what victimless entertainment productive, law-abiding citizens could enjoy? Whats next, watching too much TV? Video games? Donuts? Promiscuous sex?

Promiscuous sex is victimless? That is a statement I cannot agree with.

Your friend needed help and not a criminal record hanging over his head.

I agree with you to a degree, but a less permissive and accommodating culture would have helped him far more.

I just don't get it. Maybe all you drug warriors don't realize that pot is easier to buy than cigarettes(no ID needed). Prohibiting a plant is only possible in a 24/7 surveillance police state. Maybe not even then, since it is also commonly available in prison.

I probably know more about the street than most folks here, and I probably know more about prison too. I know how things work. I can get anything, anywhere, anytime.

And as to the "You Drug Warriors" thing, I am not your average "drug warrior". I agree with the principle. As I said a couple times upthread, one gets more of what one endorses. IMHO, we already have enough legal ways to get high. IMHO, I do not want any legal entity saying it's "OK" to get high at all. It is *not* victimless. Adding more "OK" ways adds to the problem.

Having said that, I am *not* happy with the federal scope of the drug war, nor am I happy with it's performance. I do believe the feds have the right to control interstate trafficking, and to wholly prevent international trafficking, especially across that damnable southern border. But I do not agree with the length to which they have subverted states rights, nor the ability of the state to control what happens within it's own sovereign borders.

As to the control of marijuana itself, I find legalizing it in order to tax it to be as unpalatable as legalizing gambling was- What an onerous, and stupid mistake. Compromising such a moral principle can do no one any good, and true libertarians should rightly be against it on both counts. Lending credence to yet another intoxicant leads to more moral terpitude, which leads to more laws to prevent the moral terpitude, which gives the state more control. This has been he state of our decline for the last 50 years.

135 posted on 02/28/2009 4:05:42 PM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: varyouga
So again, everyone is different. The law should be based on what people do. Not what species of herb they hold.

By the way, This is not an entirely unreasonable point of view. I don't know how it could be applied specifically, beyond already existing DUI/DWI laws...

136 posted on 02/28/2009 4:26:45 PM PST by roamer_1 (Proud 1%er... Reagan Conservatism is the only way forward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
The irony that taxing anything leads to bigger government; yet taxing dope is OK seems to escape them.)

It is only an "irony" because you mischaracterize. This libertarian and many others, including Ron Paul, favor legalization but DO NOT advocate a tax on the product. Now...perhaps you will find a better argument for your position.

137 posted on 02/28/2009 4:30:17 PM PST by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
Dutch drug policies do not increase marijuana use, first rigorous comparative study finds

-snip-

The study was funded by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Dutch Ministry of Health.

http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html

_____________________________________

I've seen government figures that show The Netherlands had a lower rate of heroin addiction than Singapore or the U.S. in the mid to late 1990's. I'll try to dig them up if anyone requests.

138 posted on 02/28/2009 6:03:34 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Pelagius of Asturias
“100 years ago our society was more religious and more moral.”
You can believe whatever you want to, all I will agree to is that more people went to church.

Even IF people weren't more religious or moral and they only went to church they at least recognized that there was a standard to live up to. This standard permeated culture and society. It was an authority higher than man. Once removed the standard became whichever lawyer could make the cleverest argument and who could appoint more judges that agreed with their viewpoint.

139 posted on 02/28/2009 7:06:04 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
I’m seeing many replies on this thread that say in effect “Well, in 1909 we had no drug laws.....”

I've seen that argument too. It's like saying that laws against pornography are wrong because they did just fine without all those laws in the 1700's. It's crazy logic.

140 posted on 02/28/2009 7:12:13 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-246 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson