Steve Kubby 4 POTUS

Steve Kubby is a Libertarian Party presidential candidate. The following is excerpted from his 2008 campaign site.

This is no more about drugs than the Boston Tea Party was about tea. It's about freedom:

Freedom to look after your own health without a bureaucrat snooping around in your medicine cabinet.

Freedom to choose the substances that you're going to eat, drink, smoke or otherwise ingest without having to fear that midnight knock at the door and the shout of "police!"

And, yes, freedom to "get high" without risking arrest and imprisonment.

You may not use drugs. As a matter of fact, I don't care whether or not you use drugs. It's still not about drugs, it's about freedom. Your freedom, whether you use drugs or not.

If you don't think the drug war limits your freedom, it's time to think again.

You may not use drugs, but you shouldn't have to urinate into a cup to prove to the government that you don't ... and neither should your son or daughter.

You may not use drugs, but hundreds have Americans have learned — sometimes at the cost of their very lives — that that doesn't matter when the police break down the wrong door because an informant lied or a typist got the address wrong on the warrant.

You may not use drugs, but your government still spends tens of billions of dollars of your money every year unsuccessfully trying to prevent everyone else from using them.

More than 800,000 Americans were arrested last year for possession of marijuana. Our prisons are filled with individuals convicted of non-violent "drug-related offenses." America, land of the free, now imprisons more of its own people than any other nation on earth. In many American cities, "driving while black" might as well be a crime, because it's nearly certain to get you pulled over so that your car can be searched for drugs. Many of our neighborhoods are free-fire zones where gangs of crooks battle for dominance in a black market that would not exist if anyone could stop by their local drug store and pick up their drug of choice for use in the privacy of their home.

Everywhere you turn, the war on drugs pervades our social fabric. Everywhere, that is, except the one place you'd expect to find it: The Constitution. Go ahead, look. Try to find any authority in the Constitution for this kind of perpetual nationwide dragnet. You can't find it, because it's not there.

If you read the Constitution, you'll see that our politicians realized they had to amend it in order to prohibit alcohol. They did — and they repealed that prohibition after a 15-year national nightmare that included a nationwide rise of organized crime, street violence and ... drinking! Before alcohol Prohibition, less than one in five Americans consumed alcohol. By the end of it, one in three Americans were boozing it up.

Our politicians forgot the lessons of alcohol Prohibition almost immediately as they moved to crack down on other drugs. They also forgot that they needed a constitutional amendment to make that crackdown legal.

We could argue all day long about the virtues and vices of drug use, and you might be surprised at some of the facts that your government doesn't want you to know ... but it really isn't about virtue or vice. It's about the destructive effects — far more destructive than drug use itself — that the drug war has on our society. It's about the wise limits that our forefathers put on the power of government and which are now being ignored. And it's about your freedom to live as you see fit, so long as you refrain from aggression against others.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our own Libertarianz spokesman on drugs is a man of few words.

All adults, as the legitimate owners of their own lives and bodies, have the right to ingest whatever substances they please, on the condition they do not violate the rights of others and they take responsibility for their actions.

Libertarianz will repeal laws prohibiting drug use.

All laws against victimless "crimes" involving consenting adults will be repealed. All people currently incarcerated for victimless "crimes" will be immediately released.

RIP Beer Croggles

Beer Croggles's days are numbered. But it would be such a shame to lose this post that I reproduce it here in full (sans comments and sans permission).

Drug related harm August 1, 2007

I was watching Police 10-7 the other night, and most of the episode consisted of a view into the “war on drugs.” It seemed like they were getting all the facts right and coming to the wrong conclusions.

Here’s a list of the drug-related harms/problems they came up with:

• Lucrative income for gangs and organised crime
• Drug-related violence (including murder)
• Dangerous drug manufacturing labs
• Financial ruin for addicts
• Addiction-fueled theft/robbery
• Difficulty in seeking help
• Drug taking has rebellious, underground image
• Adverse individual health effects from drug use
• Healthcare resources consumed

Before I put forward this perspective, I’ll preface by saying that I limit my drug use to Caffeine and Alcohol (the good stuff, in moderation No Tui, thanks). Drugs have never really appealed. So no need for comments regarding such.

It seems that a hell of a lot of drug related harm stems from the fact that the supply chain for illicit drugs is run by criminals. It seemed bizarre for the Police to be talking about how harmful the gangs and P labs are, then come to the conclusion that we need to keep on acting as normal, putting more money into stopping drug production and import. That can at best reduce the problem, but the undeniable demand for drugs means police actions will never eliminate gang involvement in drugs.

There are a few simple facts that point to an obvious solution:

1. There is considerable demand for mind altering substances. Always has been, always will be.
2. Criminal organisations have no incentives to a) Apply rigorous quality control b) Be honest about the composition of a substance c) Refrain from selling to children d) Develop better or safer drugs
3. Addicts who can’t afford drugs will steal in order to purchase them
4. Law enforcement can only ever affect the price of drugs (supply/demand) and it is futile to have access prevention as a goal
5. Change in drug price (see 4) will have little/no effect on usage levels (see 3)

The Police are fighting an unwinnable war. Any success they have at limiting supply simply drives up prices, which drives up crime. Addicts have to associate with gang members (providing them income in the process), are limited in their ability to get help and face financial desolation due to the high street prices. They are also limited to using the drugs which the gangs choose to produce/import. The gangs’ incentives are to supply a drug that is cheap to produce, addictive and easy to manufacture/smuggle. Harm reduction doesn’t factor.

Think about an alternative solution for a moment. Legalise all drugs. Yep, all of them.

I know this probably provokes an outraged emotional response from you. I firmly believe in the rational reasons behind such a move, yet even I sometimes struggle with the idea emotionally.

It seems clear that most opposition to legalisation of drugs is based on these wishes and emotions, not any rational thought as to how harm can actually be minimised. Lets face it, what we are doing now isn’t working. I’m a middle class, clean-cut white boy, but I’m sure I could get my hands on any drug you’d care to name, given a bit of time. Despite the best efforts of law enforcement, drug access simply isn’t difficult.

Most opposition to these ideas stems from a denial of the fact that what we have tried, for a long time now, simply isn’t working to significantly reduce harm.

So how would the “legalise” alternative work?

A few points to think about:

• A free market, like in all industries, would produce competition. Pharmaceutical firms would engage in research to develop newer, better drugs. Again, suppress your emotional reaction and think about it. Who would choose to take P (nasty shit that it is) after a company had developed a drug with few side effects, low overdose risk and a safer high? Users don’t like the adverse affects of drugs, they are after a certain feeling. So a company which could provide that feeling, without all the negative aspects, would be in to make a profit.
• Importantly, and related to the above point, companies are held responsible for their actions by the court system. A drug supply company would have to produce drugs which were consistent and in keeping with their label. “Bad batches” = lawsuits. Putting consumers in hospital = lawsuits.
• Another result of competition would be a fall in prices. Street prices for drugs are kept artificially high by the restriction on supply. While having a large range of low priced drugs might seem like a bad idea to you, ask how it would be worse that what we have now? At the moment, high prices just mean increased crime. I doubt anyone has ever said “Well I’m broke now, guess there’s no more P for me”
• An argument is always put forward that drug users consume health resources, funded by the taxpayer, so legalisation would force us to pay for their habit. Privatisation of the health system is a matter for another day, for now consider that we’re already paying for their habits. With safer drugs (see above) there would be a lower burden on the health system.
• Drugs are cool. No doubt. How cool would it be to go past your local pharmacy, talk to the old bloke behind the desk and be handed a small brown bottle with administering instructions? Not so cool. Yes, undoubtedly, there would be “cool” drug boutiques. I’m not arguing that the idea of drug use would become completely boring. But it’s bound to become less attractive.
• Drug outlets would have a lot less incentive to sell to minors than the gangs do currently. And as for the drugs that do fall into the hands of minors, I’d rather some teen’s older brother brought them some weed from the corner store than they go to a gang house and buy a tinny cut with P.
• Gangs lose a huge revenue stream. You can’t compete turning cough lollies into nasty drugs when the pharmaceutical company is mass-producing a superior drug with some decent economies of scale. There’s no need to kill other dealers, or initiate retribution over deals gone wrong. No dangerous labs exploding in peoples’ houses.
• Police and the courts gain a massive effective boost in resources. I don’t know how much Police and Court time is used up on the war on drugs, but I’m betting it would be a lot. Implementing this change would be an effective increase in budget for our justice system, with no additional budget allocation required.

I’d love a few comments on this proposal.

Before you do, consider the following:

• Are you commenting on rational (i.e. solution based) or emotional grounds?

• If you have an objection or prediction, would it be worse than what we have now?
  • (e.g. “But companies will make highly addictive drugs!” - The drugs currently pedaled by the gangs are addictive. We couldn’t be much worse off than with Heroin or P.)
  • (e.g. “But legal drugs would mean the usage rate would go up” - Since drug availability is so high now, I doubt it would be a significant change. Any change would be easily offset by the increased safety of the drug supply.)

If you have any points, it would be great to hear them.

Hope this is food for thought for some of you!

Cheers,

Craig

Fireworks, prohibition doesn't

The double standard on display in yesterday's Herald editorial didn't pass unnoticed.

Sure, we need a ban on imbeciles, not on the fireworks they use - but, as MikeE and Rick Giles point out, this comes from the same newspaper which has been inciting public opinion against BZP. If fireworks shouldn't be banned, then neither should BZP, and for exactly the same reasons.

Thank God for fireworks. Every 5 November brings a fresh opportunity to highlight the double standards of those who would keep recreational explosives legal, but ban recreational drugs.

Here's last year's press release from Peter Dunne, with mods by Will de Cleene. Click here to toggle between the two not so different versions.

Dunne: fireworkMarijuana ban a step too far

Wednesday, 8 November 2006, 10:12 am4:20 pm
Press Release: United Future NZ Party
Media statement
For immediate release
Wednesday, 8 November 2006
Dunne: fireworkMarijuana ban a step too far

United Future leader Peter Dunne says a total ban on fireworksmarijuana sales to the public would be a step too far.

He was commenting in the light of calls for such a ban in the wake of this year's Guy Fawkes eventsharvest.

"An outright ban will not work.

"It will simply encourage people to makegrow their own fireworks – which would be far more dangerous to public safetymarijuana.

"The formulasseeds are available on the internet and every school chemistry laboratoryplant shop is a source of the raw materials.

"Only the naïve, or the killjoys in our community could seriously imagine that such a ban would work," he says.

Mr Dunne also asks what sanctions there would be against those who either madegrow their own fireworksmarijuana, stored them upshared it out, or even imported themit directly.

"Where will it end? FireworksDrugs police doing snap raids on people's homes to check they are not illicitly holding fireworksde stinky 'erb?"

Mr Dunne says it is time some balance was introduced into the debate.

"Most New Zealand homes let off fireworks at Guy Fawkeshave at least one marijuana smoker.

"While not condoning individual irresponsible behaviour or damage to propertythe lungs, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of Kiwi families enjoy their backyard fireworksmarijuana fun without any danger or risk.

"Why penalise them for the irresponsibility of a few?" he asks.

Mr Dunne says he would support an age restriction on the sale of fireworksmarijuana, and limiting the period of sale to the week before Guy Fawkesany day ending in a Y.

ENDS

Barrels, bottles and beads

When Glen Adams and Kaelib Hansen imported fantasy in 220 kg barrels from Japan, they were busted by Customs.

When Justin Rys and Robert Stark imported fantasy in wine bottles from Romania, they were busted by Customs.

We don't know, yet, who the masterminds are behind the importation of fantasy in Bindeez Beads. No doubt they could have continued indefinitely with this cunning scheme, but one thing was overlooked: the propensity of children to swallow small parts.

A children's toy that turns into the deadly date-rape drug fantasy when swallowed... oh, why didn't somebody think of the children!

Bumper sticker of the day

Legends of America

Every day the paper boy brings more

More dire warnings that binge drinking causes brain damage.

Arbias [Alcohol Related Brain Injury Australian Services] chief executive Sonia Burton, whose Australian organisation treats people with alcohol-related brain damage - said 785,000 New Zealanders were at risk because of the sheer amount of alcohol they were drinking.

"It's critical New Zealand wakes up to an issue that will become a major crisis in the next 20 years, with health services being swamped with people with alcohol-related brain damage," she said.

As usual, the announcement has brought out all the usual suspects, including the denialists and the conspiracy theorists, according to whom this news is the latest in

the relentless campaign by Nanny State and her media lickspittles to ban every enjoyable activity and make every boring one compulsory.

Which is not to say that Lindsay Perigo doesn't have a good point. He does. ARBIAS's Sonia Burton is, indeed, an alarmist and a statist who thinks that it is the government, rather than the people who are actually doing all the drinking, who should do something about the problem.

Ms Burton said the Government must urgently implement a national education campaign to warn people of alcohol-related brain damage.

Nonetheless, Ms. Burton's critics are missing the real point. The real point is that excessive or prolonged use of alcohol causes brain damage. Per capita consumption of alcohol in New Zealand has been rising steadily since 1998. We already have an estimated 80,000 binge-drinkers with undiagnosed brain damage at large in our communities, and now this number is set to rise. Alcohol is a leading cause of death, disease and disability with huge social and economic impacts.

Just say no to alcohol-related brain damage.

Aspirin satirist

Ben Wilson has posted a great piece of satire in a comment at DPF's Kiwiblog. Surely it deserves a post of its own.

It is an outrage that Aspirin is not banned. It has a lot of quite bad known side effects for a lot of people. It is often taken to induce an alternate state of consciousness, namely 'not having a headache'. To many this effect is a potent uplift in alertness, particularly in people who are prone to headaches for whatever reason. Such people exhibit clear signs of dependency in many cases on Aspirin and its analogues.

Children, in particular, should be protected from this insidious drug, which they shouldn't need. Every child should by nature not have a headache, and if they do have one, there is almost always a cause. Just curing the headache doesn't address the cause.

But even consenting adults shouldn't be allowed...

Read more...