USMJ Website Gets a Facelift

Because I’m outspoken on marijuana issues, a lot of people tell me to tone down on this cause because it makes the Libertarian Party look bad. Let me make something perfectly clear: I don’t smoke marijuana. I have – and I did – inhale. However; a good cup of coffee, post-coital endorphins, a great cigar and Maker’s Mark are my drugs of choice. It’s a personal preference thing.

Disclaimers aside, the War on Drug Users is currently the greatest violation of civil liberties this country has ever seen. The Patriot Act may end up being worse – but if one counts the dollars spent, arrests made, lives lost, and civil liberties violated in this war against Americans the objective measurements are clearly met.

With this background in place, I’m going to mention another political party on a website where people expect me to be promoting the Libertarian Party: The U.S. Marijauana Party. I’m not promoting them because I think they’ll win elections. They can’t, as they are too focused on a single issue. But we need to look at that one issue a bit more deeply.

I’ve been watching them grow for a few years and would like to announce they’ve managed a facelift on their website. I e-mailed their acting president, Richard Rawlings, and he says they are using Joomla for their site. I also asked him why people should take a look at the USMJ Party. His response: “Yesterday we cannot change, Today WE can. Tomorrow WE Will GROW!”

I certainly hope they do, at least until there is no longer a need for them.

posted Apr 23rd, 2006 by Stephen Gordon
  • http://usmjparty.com Richard Rawlings

    Thanks Stephen, for being a friend of the US Marijuana Party, a friend of Loretta Nall’s, and one hell of a Libertarian!

  • http://www.frankworley.com Frank Worley

    Hey Richard!

    One thing that has always interested me is the fact that somewhere (Officially) about 50% of all adults have smoked pot or used some kind of drug in their life time. If ZERO tollarence was actually a reality, half of us would be in prison. Yet, but the same token, if all of those people woke up to the madness , they would represent a major political force. Pipe dreams I’m sure (Maybe bong dreams?)

    I agree the war on drugs is bad policy. And I also don’t think it makes us look that bad. The media does make us look bad by trying to play it down as a silly idea, but I have and do support, the LEGALIZATION

  • http://www.phillies2008.org Jake Porter

    And I also don’t think it makes us look that bad.

    When I first mention the idea of making marijuana legal, people first talk about the children. Once you explain to them that if drugs are legal, they are regulated. If drugs are regulated, they are not on playgrounds. If drugs are legal then they are no longer profitable. If drug dealers can’t make a profit, they won’t sell.

  • Michael H. Wilson

    Lot of issues with this one. The corruption with the police, deaths of innocent people, loss of scientific information due to lack of study, but the one that gets me most is the acceptance by those in the legal arena of the deaths of innocent people often due to bad information from paid informants. Knock down the wrong door in the middle of the night and shoot someone in the process. Too often that is okay.
    M.W.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    Jake, why regulate it? Regulation doesn’t keep, say, Xanax out of high schoolers.

  • http://libertyforsale.com Timothy West

    i can say with complete truth that I have never smoked pot or inhaled. I did catch a whiff of second hand smoke from someone who was tho.

    I just never saw the need for doing drugs. I got high off life. :D

  • http://radgeek.com/ Rad Geek

    Stephen: Disclaimers aside, the War on Drug Users is currently the greatest violation of civil liberties this country has ever seen.

    … Chattel slavery?

    Nigel: Jake, why regulate it?

    Nearly all “legalize and regulate” arguments are more or less explicitly made from fear that a principled stance against drug regulation as such is going to make us look bad, not going to fly with the electorate, etc. Maybe that’s not Jake’s idea, but the appeal to people’s hand-wringing responses isn’t reassuring.

    The problem with this sort of argument is that it treats public opinion and people’s reactions to a suggestion like some kind of inert mass that you have to move around, rather than conclusions that can (should) be changed by giving reasons. I think pandering to people’s terror of unregulated markets is a moral and strategic mistake posing as “reasonableness;” better to emphasize the principled moral case against assaulting drug users (or peddlers), as Stephen does above.

  • http://www.phillies2008.org Jake Porter

    I just don’t think that a ten year old should be able to go into a business and purchase drugs. That is why I think some regulation is needed, but not a lot.

    I am not talking about high taxes on drugs, or a license to use drugs. Anyone over 18 should be able to do what they wish with their body.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    A ten year old wouldn’t go into a business and purchase weed, because, well, can you imagine that happening?

    Even if one wanted to, no smart business would sell the kid the stuff, because a responsibly parent would get pissed off.

  • Stephen Gordon

    RAD — re: slavery — that’s why I used the word currently

  • disinter

    Here we go with wanting the government to play the role of partent…. Where the hell are the parents if/when this 10 year old buys pot in the store? On second thought, what is it your business if they do?

    Perhaps it isn’t against that family’s morals to smoke pot – no matter the age. Do you feel the need to force your morals on everyone?

  • Stephen Gordon

    Mike — that makes me think of a song by Sublime:

    I don’t get angry when my Mom smokes pot, hits
    the bottle and goes back to the rock
    Fuckin and fighting it’s all the same
    Livin’ with louie dog’s the only way to stay sane
    Let the lovin come back to me

  • http://usmjparty.com Richard Rawlings

    Jake – I just don’t think that a ten year old should be able to go into a business and purchase drugs.

    The way things are setup now, we got 10 to 12 year old kids standing on the corners selling drugs in our inter-cities

    The drug war is 80 years old, billions of dollars have been spent waging this war on our own citizens, and we have more drugs, drug deals, and more people using drug right now then ever before in America’s history. Current drug policies are not working.

    The hammer of truth is, the only way we are going to clean up the streets and make them safe is to legalize all drugs.

  • Jake Porter

    Stephen,

    I am actually listening to Sublime right now. But I am listening to “Get Ready.”

    Some folks say smoking herb is a crime,
    if they catch you smokin they’re bound to drop the dime
    Insufferable informa crazy fools wait
    with their fingers crossed for you to break the rules

    Mike saidPerhaps it isn’t against that family’s morals to smoke pot – no matter the age. Do you feel the need to force your morals on everyone?

    Then why don’t they go and buy it for the child.

    I support the right to keep and bear arms. I do not support giving a five year old a gun. A five year old is not responsible enough to make certain decisions. Another example would be if a 10 year old agreed to have sex with an adult. The 10 year old in not able to make that decision where an adult is.

  • Jake Porter

    The way things are setup now, we got 10 to 12 year old kids standing on the corners selling drugs in our inter-cities

    I agree. That is why I support ending the war on drugs and support local communities setting up age limits for purchasing drugs.

  • http://libertarianyouth.blogspot.com Nigel Watt

    Jake, age limits don’t work. I’m 16 and could get any drug I wanted for the right price.

  • disinter

    Then why don’t they go and buy it for the child.

    I am not sure what this has to do with you wanting the government to enforce vicitmless morality laws?

    I support the right to keep and bear arms. I do not support giving a five year old a gun. A five year old is not responsible enough to make certain decisions. Another example would be if a 10 year old agreed to have sex with an adult. The 10 year old in not able to make that decision where an adult is.

    Then you, as a parent, have every right to prevent YOUR child from participating in these activities. Government regulation is not necessary.

  • http://www.bigheadpress.com Scott Bieser

    Something that bears repeating:

    http://www.adrugwarcarol.com

  • http://360.yahoo.com/pong_god Robert Mayer

    Scott, “A Drug War Carol” is absolutely the most compelling anti-drugwar piece I’ve ever seen. I think there are lots and lots of people out there who would take a new perspective on this issue if only they were exposed to your excellent work. You deserve a Nobel Prize (or something equivalent) for that masterpiece!

  • http://radgeek.com/ Rad Geek

    Stephen: RAD — re: slavery — that’s why I used the word currently.

    Well, you also used the phrase “has ever seen,” which would seem to suggest that it’s currently the worst seen either now or in the past, but it could be topped by something even worse later. If this is just a matter of miscommunication, though, never mind.

    Jake: I just don’t think that a ten year old should be able to go into a business and purchase drugs.

    Take it up with the parents or the shopkeep, then, since they’re the ones other than the kid who have a stake in the matter. What’s this got to do with whether or not the government should have the power to regulate or prohibit drug sales ex ante?

  • Pingback: Truth in Tech