Get with the times, Rip tp Winkle.
Posted on 09/08/2002 9:22:43 PM PDT by doug from upland
The evening started innocently enough for Brian Whitman, Sunday evening talk show host on KABC in Los Angeles.
He had on his show four minor candidates running for governor of California. Three were on the phone and the fourth, Libertarian candidate Gary Copeland, was in studio.
The conversation eventually turned to illegal immigration. Copeland did not like Whitman's position and called him a racist. Although Whitman kept trying to answer, Copeland kept talking over him and would not let him speak.
Just as Whitman puts callers in "timeout" on his show when they won't let him have his say, he told the engineer to cut off Copeland's microphone. Copeland became incensed and started packing his things to leave the studio.
Then, in great FReeper tradition, Whitman told Copeland not to let the door hit his ass on the way out. He also called Copeland a lunatic.
Then the rain came. Copeland walked over to Whitman and spit in his face. Whitman couldn't believe it. Two others on the KABC staff couldn't believe it.
Whitman had the station call the police and is considering filing assault charges.
Poor Copeland. He may no longer be the Libertarian candidate for governor. An official high ranking representative of the party called in to Whitman and told him that Copeland would be receiving no more backing and they were going to see what they could do to take him off the ballot.
Now that was classic talk radio. The unbelievable happened. A candidate for governor actually showed himself to be a bigger jackass than Gray Davis. Davis has spit on the law but never on Whitman, at least not yet. Brian, get him in studio.
Point out one person in California in the past 29 years who was ever charged under Federal law with felony possession of marijuana on their own property.
[[crickets]]
Which accounts for his endless frustration.
Let me know if he comes up with even one.
Residence is sufficient to establish consent.
You know, I think I'm going to have to stand corrected here as much as it galls me.
Even so, I'm not sure why even a fine is appropriate for those who aren't bothering anyone else.
Probably :-) Although, I'm not sure how much of a LP Libertarian I am anymore. I seem to be adjusting some veiws, but most are still annoying Libertarian.
Get used to no sleep. It is the norm for that job these days.
I don't sleep much now. The only way I know that it's possible to make it through med school is, amazingly enough, people seem to keep graduating every year.
For folks to get busted doing drugs, distributing drugs or developing drugs, they have to be less than quiet, so it's their own fault in that regard as well.
All I'm asking for here is a bit of reasonablness. For the same reason I don't feel it should be a crime to sit at home and smoke some weed, I also don't think it should be a crime to grow and give some of your "stash" to your friends - no harm no foul. I would suggest using similar criteria to what we use with alcohol. You make some "home brew," it's not illegal to give some to your friends and enjoy the fruits of your labor. On the other hand selling in any sort of businesslike fashion should require a liscense. Let the communites and states decide the specifics.
Is this really so very out of line?
I don't think I've ever taken the position that pot is completly harmless. My position is that pot is no worse than alcohol, and probably less so. In my mind then, it is just plain silly to go after what is no worse than what we can legally get in the first place.
I don't want to duel "reports," and I'm not even out to "convince" you pot is good for you. I just want to try and find some middle ground with you guys - perhaps from there we could find compromise. This entire debate around here has degenerated and become a quite bitter and sometimes vicious. This has closed the lines of communication and I'm as guilty as anyone else of stirring the fire.
Perhaps this discussion can begin a reasonable discussion of the drug problem in this country and how to rightly help and or solve it.
If that were the case we'd see a few posts extolling self-destruction, in contrast to the DOI-enshrined human rights which is the whole foundation of successful self-governance. In other words, the tyrants waiting in the wings salivate whenever the people despair of the value of human life. "Who cares about others?" is music to their ears.
I'm serious about a dialouge here. Where, in your mind, is the flaw in my reasoning here?
You seem to have missed the point of my post.
Until passage of the XVIII defined manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, or exportation of alcoholic beverages as crimes, those actions were not regarded as criminal at all. In legalese, these actions are not "malum in se", but for a time became "malum prohibitum".
Once that happened, the strong persistent popular demand for beer, wine, and spirits led to the rise of criminal organizations who were motivated to serve that demand by the opportunity for immense profit created by the attempt to legally prohibit the commodity. It further led to murderous turf wars, tainted products, corruption of law enforcement (who could also be enticed by handsome payoffs), and the injury or death of innocent bystanders.
Once prohibition was repealed, the systemic conditions that gave rise to the criminal gangs also disappeared, and the attendant violence and corruption was largely abated. Like it or not, this is how the world works. Ignoring this reality, as we do today with our INSANE "War on [some] Drugs", literally causes the violence and corruption that we incorrectly associate with the "illicit" trafficking rather than with the prohibition itself.
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.