How I Came to Love Ron Paul: The Story of a Self-proclaimed Libertarocrat Turned Republican Supporter…well, at least of one Republican anyway

I've been voting for 10 years now and have only voted outside of the Democratic or Libertarian parties twice. One of those times is irrelevant for this story, and the other is of course, in this election season's primary. What possessed me, the girl that everyone assumes is a hardcore liberal simply because she's the product of lower-middle class, single-parent household and lives as an enviro-friendly vegetarian with two gay best friends and a fondness for diversity and tolerance of it, to vote for a Republican? Well, it all started January 9th, in a simple conversation that I was having to become reacquainted with an old friend. We were exchanging pleasantries when he asked me, rather out of the blue, who I was voting for in the presidential election.

Now, ordinarily I don't care to discuss politics or “hot-button” issues with someone that I want to get along with as I am all-to-aware of my own ability to become aggressive and/or defensive. I recalled this kid as being one of the nicest boys I knew though, it was just on-line, and I was bored at work so I said to myself, "why not?", and acquiesced. My reply was basically that it was still too early for me to say, that I felt, often you don't get to see the best or ugliest until it was closer to election time, that admittedly I hadn't researched enough detail yet to make a final decision and was aware that I needed to get on it, but with that said, I replied that I was leaning toward Obama. Well, little did I know that my friend was/is one of the largest Ron Paul supporters out there, nor did I know what a gift he has for setting you up just take you down. Yep, he baited and I bit; the boy only asks who you're voting for and why so that he may then offer up reasons as to why your choice is not a good one, and that really there is only one sound choice: Ron Paul.

He inquired, "why do you like Obama?" I responded that for starters: 1.) I worked in healthcare and could find things that I liked in his plan and 2.) I liked where he stood in foreign policy with respect to the war in Iraq. I mean, his health plan wasn't nearly as extravagant as Hillary's, and I liked his proposed changes for private companies. He opposed the war and proposed a fairly quick return of troops. I said my friend has a gift right? Here is why I believe that he does: at this point he could have just criticized me, told me why I was wrong, etc., but instead he took more of an, "uh huh, I see," approach and proceeded to explain that there was only one person that he could comfortably and in good conscience vote for because there was only one person that was a true adherent of the Constitution, a pursuant of liberty, freedom....Ron Paul.

Of course, he wanted to know my thoughts on the man, and all I could offer was that I knew very little other than that I thought he was a proponent for homeschooling, something with which I had concerns. A litany of reasons as to why Ron Paul is awesome was delivered quickly, and I found myself promising to research him as a viable option for my vote before deciding on anyone. Never let it be said that I am close-minded because I am always open to research and to learn. Not only did I proceed to read pretty much everything on www.ronpaul2008.com I also looked for newspaper articles and political commentary on the man. I was enthralled with much of what I was reading, as there was quite a bit that I agreed with, and I'm pretty sure my friend knew it was happening as he just continued to nudge more Ron Paul my way. I was coaxed into watching ridiculously long clips from YouTube on the Federal Reserve, from which I was inspired to write a blog that sent my collective group of heavily left-leaning friends into a frenzied mess. Honestly, it threw me a bit off-kilter as well but was welcome as I had been suffering from a bit of apathy toward writing, something I once loved. Never did I expect to actually be wooed by a Republican, but Dr. Paul has his ways.

I bought and read Freedom Under Siege and fell even more smitten with this little Constitutionalist as he truly seems to always stand his ground. It's not Obama's foreign policy or healthcare plans that I agree with; they're Ron Paul's. The man acknowledges our obscene overspending and wants to stop it. He refuses to treat the Constitution as a simple piece of antiquated paper, open to interpret as we see fit. His diligence and strict adherence to his beliefs and to the Constitution move me, and it turns out that he's not so far off from many of the Libertarian ideals that I have often agreed with over the years. He speaks with honesty about limiting a big government that has far overstepped its prescribed role and about restoring our personal freedoms as they were intended to be protected in the first place.

The more Paul I read, the more I liked, and the more of everyone else I read, the more I disliked and identified them as trespassing against the Constitution. With Ron Paul there are no surprises; his policies and future actions are found in one place. Any reluctance or hesitance? You need only look at his voting record. The man does not waiver. What about the rest? Well, they will pander and weave whatever story they think the public is buying. James Madison once said, "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." James Madison = founding father and soothsayer ;-) I decided that I no loner want anything to do with this bastardized form of government and that I would seek to only further advance my knowledge of Ron Paul and what he stands for.

I desperately wanted to hear Ron Paul speak, and I wrote the following to my friend in explanation as to why I would very much like to go with him: “I would like to listen (in person) to someone that impresses me with his ability to recognize that not all human problems are capable of solutions (at least not via government solutions), that resists unnecessary government spending (especially given the current state of our economy), that holds a watchful eye over big Washington power, that I can respect for his faith even if I don't fully grasp it and respect even more for what seems to be the ability to know there is a point where religion and politics simply do not mesh, that promotes self-reliance and cultural pluralism and most of all freedom.” Ron Paul did not disappoint; if anything I like him even more. Previous viewings of his speeches and debates had left me wondering just how personable he was and whether or not he was a very good speaker. Concerns were put to rest on Friday night as I listened to him deliver an excellent speech, peppered with humor and filled with a more than personable demeanor. It was an absolute honor and delight to hear him speak and to share in the company of approximately 1500 other impassioned Ron Paul supporters. I thank my friend not only for taking me but for introducing me to someone that is truly the kind of candidate I can support.

What’s not to love about Ron Paul? He favors sound money, non-interventionist foreign policy (keeping our tax dollars here), increased trading and friendly interaction with other nations, personal responsibility, repealed income tax, free market healthcare, small government, personal freedom and so on…:-) I encourage you to consider not only his platform but his level of respectability: he is consistent, and he doesn't take money from criminals like the other three big names in this race as they are all guilty of business with the likes of Soros, PACS and Goldman Sachs.

I believe that he means what he says as voting actions speak louder than any campaign propaganda. An administration headed by Ron Paul would result in a better United States, one much more economically stable and in healthier relationship with the rest of the world. Current administration and our ballot choices take a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world. I’m tired of it, and I will not vote for someone just because he is the lesser of two evils. I will wear my Ron Paul button. I will help spread his message of freedom and liberty, and I will vote in November the same way I did in February.

The Constitution is the sine qua non to a healthy U.S., and Ron Paul is the only candidate that knows this. In closing I leave you with a commercial whose Haloesque animation I sincerely enjoy in addition to the content as well as some words from Barry Goldwater that seem as though they could just as easily be spoken by Ron Paul today; truly great ideas and principles do not expire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK4BzVsAgtY



"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom." - Goldwater

I eagerly await my copy of The Revolution: A Manifesto.

Stimulating headline has nothing to do with O face

I had to take a break from Excel spreadsheets, etc., and in "flipping" through the news I came across this headline, "Multiple Orgasms in Parliament" from The Sydney Morning Herald. You know I had to read the article. Of course, I was a bit disappointed at the topic ;-) The article has nothing to do with orgasms, rather it's about GMOs.

Now, I'm aware that there's potential for a blog on genetically modified crops and the political and economic effects they have (remember that Zambia biz several years ago?) Sadly, I haven't the time for that today, but I thought you all might get a laugh out of this gentleman's blunders. Props to the article's author for working the word "climax" in to the story...oh, how I do love a clever writer!

Multiple orgasms in parliament

June 3, 2008 - 12:07AM
Advertisement
A Liberal backbencher had multiple orgasms on the floor of parliament last night.

Victorian MP Jason Wood was supposed to be talking about genetically modified organisms when he ran into trouble.
And just in case anyone missed him talking about "genetically modified orgasms" the first time, he repeated it.

"I support the member for McMillan's call for the government to conduct an independent broad-ranging scientific investigation into the genetic modification of food and biotechnology to assess not only the health of the crops and the food, but also the potential for contamination, the commercial implications for Australian primary industry, and the benefits and risks associated with genetically modified orgasms, orgasms," Mr Wood said.

The La Trobe MP, who did not have the hallmarks of a great orator, sounded a little confused about the word, so tried pronouncing it two ways.

He did not correct his mistake, instead moving on rather hurriedly to the climax of his speech.
Later in the speech he did refer to "genetically modified organisms."

Perhaps fortunately for Mr Wood, who hails from Melbourne's outer east, he gave his orgasm speech at 9.25pm when the house was almost empty.

He was speaking in support of a motion moved by fellow Liberal Russell Broadbent during the adjournment debate, raising concerns about genetically modified crops.

AAP

(sigh) Or well...now what?

This was originally posted on my MySpace April 7, 2008. Look for a brand new blog tomorrow (maybe not until the evening.) I'm thinking the new one's title is: How I Came to Love Ron Paul: The Story of a Self-proclaimed Libertarocrat Turned Republican Supporter…well, at least of one Republican anyway

I’m alone and bored friends so sorry for another lengthy one (I also wasn’t sure how many of you were already familiar so had to give the details too.)

A new law expanding the government’s spying powers gives the Bush Administration a six-month window to install possibly permanent back doors in the nation’s communication networks. The legislation was passed hurriedly by Congress over the weekend and signed into law Sunday by President Bush.

The bill, in keeping with the typical "slap a pretty name on it, and the people will go for it" is known as the Protect America Act, and removes the prohibition on warrantless spying on Americans abroad and gives the government wide powers to order communication service providers such as cell phone companies and ISPs to make their networks available to government eavesdroppers.

The Administration pushed for passage of the changes to close what it called a "surveillance gap," referring to a long-standing feature of the nation’s surveillance laws that required the government to get court approval to capture communications inside the United States.

While the nation’s spy laws have been continually loosened since 9/11, the Administration never pushed for the right to tap the nation’s domestic communication networks until a secret court recently struck down a key pillar of the government’s secret spying program.

The Administration argues that the world’s communication networks now route many foreign to foreign calls and emails through switches in the U.S.

Prior to the law’s passage, the nation’s spy agencies, such as the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, didn’t need any court approval to spy on foreign people so long as the wiretaps were outside the U.S.

Now, those agencies are free to order services like Skype, cell phone companies and arguably even search engines to comply with secret spy orders to create back doors in domestic communication networks for the nation’s spooks. While it’s unclear whether the wiretapping can be used for domestic purposes, the law only requires that the programs that give rise to such orders have a "significant purpose" of foreign intelligence gathering.

The law:

• Defines the act of reading and listening into Americans’ phone calls and internet communications when they are "reasonably believed" to be outside the country as not surveillance.
• Gives the government 6 months of extended powers to issue orders to "communication service providers," to help with spying that "concerns persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States." The language doesn’t require the surveillance to only target people outside the United States, only that some of it does.
• Forces Communication Service providers to comply secretly, though they can challenge the orders to the secret Foreign Intelligence Court. Individuals or companies given such orders will be paid for their cooperation and can not be sued for complying.
• Makes any program or orders launched in the next six months last for a year after being authorized.
• Grandfathers in the current secret surveillance program (sometimes referred to as the Terrorist Surveillance Program) and any others that have been blessed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
• Requires the Attorney General to submit to the secret surveillance court its reasons why these programs aren’t considered domestic spying programs, but the court can only throw out those reasons if it finds that they are "clearly erroneous."
• Requires the Attorney General to tell Congress twice a year about any incidents of surveillance abuse and give statistics about how many surveillance programs were started and how many directives were issued.
• Makes no mention of the Inspector General, who uncovered abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI after being ordered by Congress to audit the use of powerful self-issued subpoenas, is not mentioned in the bill.

In short, the law gives the Administration the power to order the nation’s communication service providers (which range from Gmail, AOL IM, Twitter, Skype, traditional phone companies, ISPs, internet backbone providers, Federal Express, and social networks) to create possibly permanent spying outposts for the federal government.

These outposts need only to have a "significant" purpose of spying on foreign people, would be nearly immune to challenge by lawsuit, and have no court supervision over their extent or implementation.

Abuses of the outposts will be monitored only by the Justice Department, which has already been found to have underreported abuses of other surveillance powers to Congress.

In related international news, Zimbabwe’s repressive dictator Robert Mugabe also won passage of a law allowing the government to turn that nation’s communication infrastructure into a gigantic, secret microphone.

So, hey America, we’re not the only ones being screwed by our government? We can start a club with Zimbabwe…maybe get t-shirts made up, maybe with a somewhat gruesome image on the front of a corpse face up in a coffin and on the back the corpse face down with a tagline, "Orwell turning in his grave as we speak and they listen." Or maybe something more direct: just the number 4 with the big NO symbol over it because really who needs the 4^th amendment anyway? Whatever, we can vote; it’s not like I want to be president of the club or anything.

Be outraged with me people! This is direct undermining of the Constitution, of our rights and has very little to do with what the politicians purport it to. It’s retroactive ass-covering for those involved in illegal spying. It’s future permission to spy. It’s crap. Anyway, while I doubt it’s happening, I suppose it’s possible…GW if you’re reading this, I’d like to apologize now for any words you didn’t understand.

In closing I leave you with a little Benjamin Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

I know...ouch...

Not completely rasa today

This was originally posted on my MySpace April 5, 2008.

I am so bored. Reread some Locke last night and today. Because we’ve been looking at real estate, and I have a friend that’s stressed over moving I decided a good focal point in the reading would be private property. Mr. Locke sure did have a lot to say so let’s see if I can’t share what he proposes ;)

The survival of each person requires that he be able to use material objects to sustain his life. Because God wants each individual person to live and prosper, he instituted the right to property as a corollary to the right to life. Locke’s supposition is that God gave the earth and its fruits to all men (sorry sir, but I like to think if there is a God giving it is to all humans not just men so that’s how I’ll be putting it peeps – I mean, come on it’s 2008 not the 1600s) in common. It follows that in the state of nature property was common in that every person had the right to gain subsistence from whatever nature provided. Originally, nobody had a private domain exclusive of the rest of humankind. God not only gave the world to humans in common, he also gave them reason to make use of it. The problem that Locke faced was to explain how commonly available resources can become legitimate private property to the exclusion of the right of other people. Locke employs the principle of individuation in the world to explain how collective property can become individual private property. He says that a person transfers his or her individuality into matter through his or her own labor. This individuates and decommunalizes property.

Private property does not and cannot come about by universal consent. According to Locke, natural man/woman enjoys property in his/her own person which is the foundation of all other property. This concept of self-ownership is the cornerstone of individualism and personal freedom. Every man/woman owns not only his/her own person but also his/her own labor. It follows that people can legitimately turn common property into private property by mixing their labor with it thereby using and improving it. Because individuals mixed their bodies in the form of their labor with unowned (free) resources, they created something new that was their property. What a person does when he/she applies his/her labor to a natural object is to endow it with certain attributes belonging to one’s own mode of existence. The Lockean view is that the quality of the owner’s very personality is embodied in his property. The right to private property arises because by labor man/woman can extend his/her own personality into the objects created (those of you that have been in my house know all too well that my personality is quite abundant in my property.) This natural right to private property exists even in the primitive society of the state of nature. The right to private property precedes civil law and is grounded in natural moral law.

Nature itself severely limits property in the state of nature. The natural fact of spoilage drastically limits property in the state of nature and acts as a type of rule to maintain a fair distribution of goods in the state of nature. This leads Locke to proclaim that spoilage limits the right of clear and exclusive acquisition in the state of nature. Private property is thus limited to as much as anyone can make use of before it spoils. People should not allow things to go to waste in the state of nature. We could say that nature has put both a moral and a practical limit on the amount of property that anyone can accumulate. The limit is not defined by the amount of what is owned but only by the consequences of the ownership. As long as nothing spoils in one’s possession, it makes no difference how much property he/she owns (I’m about sick of "owning" two pieces of property right now.) Property ownership is thus qualified to as much as anyone can make use of to any advantages of life before it spoils. This is known as the "Lockean proviso."

Locke believed that greater productivity of some would raise the general standard of living. He says that a person is wrong to think that another person deprives others by enclosing land and cultivating it for his/her own use. It follows that all his/her neighbors benefit because cultivated land is more productive. The poor frequently gain as an unintended consequence of the acquisitive actions of others. Because the productive use of resources by one person tends to enrich everyone, we could say that people’s interests are not in conflict and that wealth is not a static quantity – one person’s gain is also everyone else’s gain.

Locke recognized that spoilage is a necessary, applicable and effective means toward fair distribution only in the case of a scarcity of perishable goods. The invention of money renders the accumulation of property essentially harmless and avoids the disadvantages inherent in the original natural limits to property ownership in the state of nature. The invention of money, which does not spoil (ha!), made it desirable and reasonable for a person to produce more than was required for his/her family’s immediate needs (i.e., more than they could consume before it spoiled). People could exchange money for perishable and other goods. There would be no limit to the private acquisition of wealth if held in the form of money. Without money, a person had no incentive to expand his/her holdings and produce a surplus.

Money came into existence through a natural mutual consent process in the state of nature. Through this process the most durable and easily tradable commodity ultimately becomes acceptable as a money commodity. Locke’s theory of the origins of social institutions provided the framework for his consent theory of money. Money allows the more talented, rational, and industrious to create more, to accumulate the products of their labor, and to increase their wealth relative to others. According to Locke, money makes possible a benevolent form of property accumulation that enriches some without making others poorer.

Locke thought that labor was the major creator of economic value but that the market or relative value or the price of an object depended upon its usefulness and scarcity rather than the amount of labor embodied in it. In Locke’s system one earned property through his/her own efforts, but the value of that property was determined by the market. It follows that Locke’s writings implied no theory of labor exploitation. There is no evidence that Locke believed there would be a relationship between the amount of labor that goes into a product and its market price.

Locke explains that money so transformed the conditions of the state of nature that it was no longer desirable for people to live together without greater protection for their possessions. Lockean human therefore quits the state of nature and forms into civil society for the protection of his/her life, liberty, and estate. Locke sees the economy as logically prior to government and explains that government arises to remedy inconveniences that occur in the state of nature. The purposes of the government are to protect property, to keep order, and to provide a peaceful environment in which each person can freely pursue his/her own ends (sorry just had to make that point abundantly clear). Locke says that some government regulation of trade is necessary to protect and foster commercial interests. Here he is talking about procedural rather than substantive regulation. Permissible regulation for Locke includes contract enforcement, dispute adjudication, and the registration of deeds and titles. As an advocate of free markets, he is against the regulation of interest rates on both economic and moral grounds.

So anyway, it was entertaining and a nice break from the current news I started out reading. Basically, Locke states we have rights to life, liberty, health and property. These are natural rights, that is, they are rights that we have in a state of nature before the introduction of civil government, and all people have these rights equally. Just some old school thinking to feed your thoughts that left me wondering how it is then that we as a society have become the children of a mother (government) with Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome? Don’t ask me why this crap comes into my head at 2:00 in the morning or why I find it imperative to write it down to share with you thirteen hours later; it just does, and I just do.

Off to soak up the sunshine on my deck and to read something funny and light. Mr. Sedaris, I believe that means you and I have a date.

Maintaining

This was originally posted on my My Space on April 3rd, 2008. It's not called Maintaining, that's just what I happened to be doing when I posted it and also how I feel today so for those of you that have already seen it sorry. For those that it's new to, I hope you enjoy. I've been working on my Ron Paul blog for a while now, and there is no way that I am going to finish it tonight. I promised two people that I would have something besides report of my melancholy so in addition to this you are getting two other posts from April because while neither one is specifically about Ron Paul, they're appropriate for an RP theme.

I want to unfold.
I don’t want to stay folded anywhere,
because where I am folded,
there I am a lie.
And I want my grasp of things
true before you. I want to describe myself
like a photograph that I looked at closely for a long time,
like a verse that I finally understood,
like the lotion I use every day,
like the face of my dearest friend,
like a breeze
that carried me safely through the wildest storm of all.

I'd be lying if

I said I didn't cry this weekend, but I'd also be lying if I said the weekend sucked. In general it was good, but yep: tears all three days.

Friday, I maintained pretty well and only had a short bout around 12:30p or so and again at 10:30p. Dave, you suck for not being there for me when I needed you, but I suppose you can't always be so I need to learn how to deal. Seth, you rock for keeping me distracted. Blythe and Nicole, you chickees both brought me smiles thanks to you too.

Saturday didn't start out so well, but I composed myself and faced the world and even felt rather jubilant for part of the day. Then the sadness came back, and I tried desperately to fight it; I even managed to bite back tears sitting just inches from someone else without him noticing: yep, I can be that good at swallowing the sad when I try hard. Then as I waited for Todd to get off of work and sat alone in the house the waves took over me again, but this time I let them win. Thank goodness I had multiple phone calls from my Elizabeth to cheer me up. Of course, then I log in to check two days worth of missed My Space, and I see my Elizabeth's blog which brought me to tears as well.

Relief came when Todd got home, and we ventured into the rain for the Death Cab for Cutie concert. The concert was awesome, but admittedly made me tear up a little. I can barely listen to "I Will Follow You Into the Dark" on my iPod without tearing up so I'm pretty pleased with myself for holding it together as I listened to it live. I had a blast at the concert: thanks Todd, Elizabeth and posse, Nicole, Brandon, boys from Chamber Booze cruise, boys that love Ron Paul and boys that work at Smokin' Chicks. The Smokin' Chicks boys were exceptionally awesome to me. Anyway, the concert was AWESOME!!!! I had so much fun with my peeps.

After a great night why did I end up in tears again today? Well, my poor, sweet pregnant Blythe called me crying which then made me cry a bit for her and reopened emotional floodgates for me. Together she and I were a mess. It doesn't help that today (and for most of the last several days) I feel fat and unattractive.

Okay, sorry, I just needed to vent a bit. If you haven't noticed though, I'm steadily coming back around to happy Karen. Anyway to cheer myself up and to hopefully feel pretty again I am going to buy myself a cute hat from Urban Outfitters and a bossy corset and thigh highs from lalalingerie.com. Yeah for comfort shopping!

I am torn as to which hat to get and also whether I should get a corset and thigh highs or just the thigh highs that look like a corset up the back. What I do know is that I need a pick me up so I am getting something.

Damn it feels good to be the cop that knows a gangsta…or the mayor, or the gov, or the President (an encore post)

Originally posted on My Space March 16, 2008. As just stated in the post prior to this you will receive a shiny brand new something or other, original for Blogger tomorrow or later in the week. Thanks for your patience in the interim. This will be new for some peeps anyway.

Okay so I know that I said my next blog would be on healthcare, and trust me it’s coming. Right now it’s hitting a little too close to home, and I just don’t have it in me. Additionally, I promise sometime I’ll blog during the day when my thoughts are more cohesive, and I can write with clarity. Sorry, you’re just going to have to deal with another mess for now.

Tonight, I finally watched American Gangster. You know the one with the unfortunate-looking Denzel Washington portraying the real-life character of drug lord Frank Lucas. It was a long but entertaining movie that has inspired me to indulge in a little War on Drugs complaining tonight, and I hope it will help to tire me out soon as I have a 4:30a.m. wake up call tomorrow (blerg!)

Now, let’s see what was I thinking as the credits rolled…mmm, Denzel is a good-looking man…um, the War on Drugs is as backwards now as it was then…

Not only does the "War" on Drugs undermine our fundamental civil liberties, but there are very few public policies that have negatively impacted public or societal health to such a degree as this so called war. Were Foucalt alive to see this mess he’d probably say it was a biopolitical war. The War on Drugs is a war started by the Government against its own people.

The War on Drugs is the botch job of countless politicians and an utter waste of taxpayers’ dollars. Public health problems like Hepatitis C and HIV are only escalated by laws that restrict access to clean needles. US-backed aerial fumigation of drug-growing operations in third world countries is causing the deterioration of an already fragile environment, not to mention the direct negative health impact the fumigation has on the inhabitants of those areas.

Social concerns include the costs associated with funding a War on Drugs. Like any actual war it is pricey. It was estimated that in 2005 after factoring in incarcerating drug law offenders, police protection, legal adjudication, etc. that $45.5 billion was spent on the War on Drugs. Drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal or harm to support their high priced habits. Additionally the War on Drugs plays a negative role in society with its seeming promulgation of racial inequities in a country where minorities still face discrimination. How so? African American and Latino groups are stereotyped as the big drug lords when let’s be realistic: the big drug lords are oft the White House backed corporations that supplied Central American countries with the materials necessary for manufacturing narcotics, not the 14 year old slinging crack (he’s small potatoes.) This War is yet another means for the government to further separate people from each other and from their liberties. Shamefully, the War is causing a vicious cycle that will only be perpetuated in the children of inmates; inmates serving time for distributing marijuana, cocaine, non-prescribed pharmaceuticals, etc. Those children are at risk of educational failure, joblessness, addiction and delinquency.

You would think that we had learned our lesson with alcohol prohibition, but no; here we sit idly by while the government forces a non-Constitutional prohibition of drugs. I’m not saying that I promote all drug use. Admittedly drug abuse is bad, but the drug war is worse. Illegal drugs foster speciously high profits that fund groups such as the Taliban and other similar groups involved in civil warfare across the globe. Despite its opium sales funding their war against the U.S. we still offered somewhat of a reward to the Taliban to abate some of its poppy fields. What is wrong with that scenario? Puhleeze, I only have so much time here before I must attempt slumber.

So what was I saying? Oh yeah, drug prohibition is a Constitutional no no, and since its start has only succeeded in an increase of drug use in all categories. Just for fun though let’s look at marijuana. Once thought in the U.S. as a drug used only by Mexican immigrants and a handful of musicians, since the first hindrance of its availability and use in 1937, it is noted in some places to be used by up to 50% of our nation’s youth at least once. (1937 is when the government passed the Marijuana Tax Act to curb distribution / use of marijuana.) Again, this is a misuse of government. Specifically though, I am concerned with the federal government regulating medical marijuana. Legalization of medical marijuana is a states’ rights issue. The federal government doesn’t have a constitutional foot to stand on when it comes to this issue.

I would like to see us venture away from the War on Drugs and into a world of Harm Reduction. Harm Reduction is rooted in the following tenets: 1. people should not be punished for what they put into their bodies and 2. people should only be punished for crimes committed against others. It acknowledges that no society will ever be free of drugs. It holds that drug policies should seek to reduce the negative consequences (principally death, disease, crime and suffering) of both drug use and the policies themselves.

Okay, seriously I am tired, but there is so much more to say. I didn’t even get to start on the benefits of medical marijuana...another time perhaps. Sometimes I wonder if it’s worth it anyway. I love you people, but why do I waste my time sharing my thoughts to only have 29 of you read them? Then again, I guess none of you asked so really I can’t complain. Thanks to those that venture into my late night jumbles.

More info (not that it's all perfect either):
War on Drugs Basics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs
Money Spent http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
Harm Reduction http://www.harmreduction.org/