Legalize Drunk Driving

by Jeffrey Tucker

Most people have been there: a few drinks at a restaurant or bar and then into the car to get home. Am I over the legal limit? Hard to say. Is my driving impaired? It doesn't seem to be. But what if I get stopped? Will I lose my license, go to jail, and be disgraced in front of the community? It's a frightening prospect.

What's especially strange about this is the reason I fear. My arrest and punishment would not be for driving recklessly or for endangering other drivers. It would be because I failed a test of something that is not materially related to my actual driving.

The law is arbitrary and shifts with the political season. The perpetrators can't really be sure if they are over or under the limit. And we all have vast experience with people who drink surprising amounts of liquor and drive all the time, but never get in accidents and do not seem to be driving in an unsafe way.

Then there are the frequent cases in which cops arrest people for DUI who are stopped for something else, like a burned-out tail light. I've known of people who have been arrested in their own driveways, having gotten home safely and harmed no one. They are arrested and imprisoned, a humiliating and terrible experience for anyone to go through.

Clearly, this DUI enforcement has been a boon to the police but has it really curbed drunk driving? You might consider staking out your local bar, following how much people drink, and observing how many get in cars after. I'll just state what most everyone knows but hardly anyone says: drinking and driving is a national sport in the U.S. In the vast, vast majority of cases, no harm is done.

Murray Rothbard once told me that he thought drunk driving should be legal. I was stunned and shocked that anyone would say such a thing. But over time, I began to see his point. It is not outrageous at all.

He was exactly right.

With laws against DUI, what's being criminalized? Not reckless driving as such. Not aggression against anyone. What's being criminalized is the chemical make up of the blood in your body. That itself should be no crime. To make having a certain blood content illegal is essentially totalitarian.

But you say that drinking is associated with bad driving. Well, enforce the laws against reckless driving. Many more people drink and drive than drive recklessly. Some people drive even more safely after a few drinks, correcting for their delayed responses. We do this all the time, e.g. after a workout, when we are sleepy, when we are angry, whatever. Human beings adapt with rationality.

And you know what happens on New Year's some other holiday. People always say "be careful, there are lots of drunk drivers out there." Just the prospect alone makes everyone drive more defensively.

Regardless, the law has no business criminalizing associated peaceful behaviors rather than real crimes against person and property.

For example, grudges are associated with murder in the sense that a vast number of murderers are carrying a grudge. Do we make grudges illegal? That would be crazy and unenforceable, even if there were some chemical way to measure what constitutes a grudge. But we make driving under the influence illegal though it is roughly the same thing. It targets an associated condition rather than the crime itself.

Laws against drunk driving have vastly expanded police power and done nothing to stop the practice. The best prevention against unsafe driving from drinking has been provided privately: friends, services offered by bars and restaurants, community interest groups, etc. This is the humane and rational way societies deal with social risks. The police have only messed up this process by adding a coercive element that targets liberty rather than crime.

And we can see where this is heading. Texting is now illegal in most places. So is talking on the phone. Maybe talking itself should be illegal. Some communities are talking about banning eating. All of this is a distraction from the real issue.

As Radley Balko has said:

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.

Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't about making the roads safer. It's about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.

_
Jeffrey Tucker is Chief Liberty Officer of Liberty.me, a subscription-based, action-focused social and publishing platform for the liberty minded. He is also distinguished fellow Foundation for Economic Education, executive editor of Laissez-Faire Books, research fellow Acton Institute, founder CryptoCurrency Conference, and author six books. He is available for speaking and interviews via tucker@liberty.me

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.0"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Ron Paul: "Reality Is Now Setting In For America... It Was All Based On Lies & Ignorance"
- The Unintended Consequences of Banning the "World's Oldest Profession"
- Should the State Decide What You're Allowed to Eat?
- Statelessness: They Say it Like it's a Bad Thing
- If the FBI Says It, It Must Be True
- Cops Can Enforce Non-Existent Laws With Impunity
- The Sickening Torture Report
- Wendy McElroy - Fallacy of the Rape Culture

As I understand, the major force promoting DUI punishments is MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It's so powerful that Google put MADD as the 1st hit as soon as I typed word "mothers", think about it. From what I heard, political pressure by MADD far exceeds anything that could be subject of the logic and common sense. MADD is famous for spending basically nothing on actually pushing their cause and almost everything on "expenses," aka salaries etc.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Poll Finds Texans Ready to Legalize Marijuana

by Phillip Smith

Voters in Texas are among the latest to hop on board the marijuana legalization bandwagon, according to a poll released this week. The Public Policy Polling survey had support for marijuana legalization at 58%, support for medical marijuana at 58%, and support for decriminalizing small-time possession at 61%.

The poll was commissioned by the Marijuana Policy Project. The survey of 860 randomly selected Texas voters was conducted September 27-29 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3%.

"Marijuana prohibition has been just as big a failure as alcohol prohibition," said MPP executive director Rob Kampia, a part-time Austin resident. "Most Texans agree that marijuana sales should be conducted by legitimate businesses instead of drug cartels in the underground market."

The poll's legalization question -- "Would you support or oppose changing Texas law to regulate and tax marijuana similarly to alcohol, where stores would be licensed to sell marijuana to adults 21 and older?" -- was the only question that allowed respondents to qualify their support as "strongly support" or "somewhat support." Some 41% strongly supported legalization, with another 17% somewhat supporting it.

Unusually, support for legalization was stronger among women (59%) than among men (56%). Also going against the grain, support was stronger among blacks (61%) and Latinos (60%) than Anglos (56%). In most polls across the country, men and whites are more likely to support legalization than women, blacks, or Latinos.

By political affiliation, legalization won strong majority support among Democrats (70%) and independents (57%), while even nearly half of Republicans (48%) also favored it. Legalization also won majority support across all age groups, with even those 65 and older coming in at 52%.

The poll also found that 61% of state voters support removing criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana and replacing them with a civil offense punishable by a fine of up to $100 with no possibility of jail time. Only 30% said they were opposed to that. Under current Texas law, it is a criminal offense for a person to possess a small amount of marijuana, and he or she can be sentenced to up to a year in jail and fined up to $2,000.

"Law enforcement officials' time would be better spent addressing violent crimes instead of adults simply possessing marijuana," Kampia said. "No adult should face potentially life-altering criminal penalties for using a product that is significantly less harmful than alcohol."

Most Texas voters (58%) support changing state law to allow seriously and terminally ill patients to use medical marijuana if their doctors recommend it. Just 31% said they are opposed.

"There is ample research demonstrating the medical benefits of marijuana in the treatment of several debilitating conditions," Kampia said. "People suffering from cancer and multiple sclerosis should not face the threat of arrest for using medical marijuana if their doctors believe it will help ease their suffering."

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest General
- From Conspiracy to Anarchy: James Corbett on Anarchast
- US Supreme Court Rejects Marijuana Reclassification Appeal
- Polls Find Maryland, Florida Ready for Marijuana Reform
- Urban Innovation Exchange: The Mower Gang in Detriot
- Essential Government Worker In Action [Video]
- Adam Kokesh's defense fund stolen while in jail, operation sabotaged
- Has Adam Kokesh Been Robbed of 50k?
- California Volunteer Marijuana Eradicator Falls to His Death

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Is Pot too Potent to Legalize?

by Mark Thornton

Slate reports in an article titled "Not That High: Today's marijuana is too strong, and that's bad for new business," that the potency of marijuana is now "too high." Writer Emma Marris's brother is a professional chemist who tests the composition and potency for growers and medical marijuana dispensaries. Based on the information she obtained from her brother, Marris writes:

Marijuana is much stronger than it used to be. Lots of the strains for sale at medical marijuana dispensaries are approaching 25 percent THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, the compound in the plant known for getting you wicked high.

The research for my book The Economics of Prohibition shows that the average potency of marijuana was less than 4 percent in 1984 with the highest potency samples testing near 10 percent. The average potency was less than .5 percent in the 1970s. This indicates a long term trend of higher potency of marijuana.

Marris continues:

"Our potencies here are off the scale," confirms longtime grower Todd Ellison, co-founder of Colorado Marijuana Marketing, a one-stop shop for weed-related entrepreneurs in search of marketing help. "I have a guy who taught me to grow, who has been growing since the '60s. And this stuff blows him away." And Ellison agrees. "I am almost 40. I've got three kids. You don't want something that is going to lay you out and make you stupid all day."

In her research Marris found that many marijuana consumers consider marijuana to be too potent and even dangerous. She relates stories of adults passing out at dinner parties or experiencing paranoia. "I heard a woman in her 60s tell a story about her husband taking a tiny toke on a joint that was going around a dinner party, only to pass out in his chair."

A recent study in the British journal Lancet confirms that marijuana is considered more dangerous now, surprisingly ranking it the seventh most dangerous drug, legal or illegal. Such rankings are inherently problematic, but in past scientific rankings marijuana would not be in the top 10. In this study, marijuana's ranking rose entirely on the impact of "harm to others" and prevalence of use, otherwise it would have been difficult to break into the top 20.

So why has marijuana become "too potent"? Has Marris found a "market failure" because she sees that growers are just maximizing profits by growing more potent marijuana? "Plus, the people who grow it and sell it also smoke it, and they've got high tolerances and a deep fondness for its effects. They like it strong." Clearly the author is making a case that the market is being driven by the supply side and that the consumer is being harmed as a result.

Super potent pot is not a market failure. It is simply the result of government prohibition. In fact, it is one of the best examples of the iron law of prohibition. When government enacts and enforces a prohibition it eliminates the free market which is then replaced by a black market. This typically changes everything about "the market." It changes how the product is produced, how it is distributed and sold to consumers. It changes how the product is packaged and in particular, the product itself. The iron law of prohibition looks specifically at how prohibition makes drugs like alcohol and marijuana more potent. The key to the phenomenon is that law enforcement makes it more risky to make, sell, or consume the product. This encourages suppliers to concentrate the product to make it smaller and thus more potent. In this manner you get "more bang for the buck."

During alcohol prohibition (1920-1933), alcohol consumption went from a beer, wine, and whiskey market to one of rotgut whiskey with little wine or beer available. The rotgut whiskey could be more than twice as potent of the normal whiskey that was produced both before and after prohibition. The product is then diluted at the point of consumption. During the 1920s all sorts of cocktails were invented to dilute the whiskey and to cover up for bad smells and tastes.

Therefore, the current high potency of marijuana is not a market phenomenon, nor is it a market failure. It is primarily driven by government's prohibition and the odd incentives that this produces on the sellers' side of the market. Under these conditions consumers may prefer higher potency marijuana, ceteris paribus, but it is not primarily a consumer driven phenomenon.

When marijuana is legalized we should expect the market to reemerge and to commercialize the product. In fact, we should expect to see a variety of products offering different potencies. Individual brands would be expected to emerge offering a relative stable potency along with other product attributes, such as, taste, flavor, smell, and packaging.

Marijuana is typically smoked, but the dominant approach to consumption could change with legalization. Evidence from medical marijuana dispensaries indicates consuming marijuana, as an ingredient in food products, increases in these semi-legal environments. We might expect this type of change when marijuana is legalized.

We should also consider that marijuana is a type of hemp and that different varieties of hemp can be grown for the fiber of the plant or the seeds it produces. In both of these cases, the potency of marijuana is nil. It is only the two medical strains, cannabis sativa and cannabis indica that produce tangible levels of THC.

Legalization of marijuana would do many things. It would certainly expand the medical use of marijuana and research into its medical potential. It would also open up two large agriculture and product markets for hemp fiber and seed oil. Finally it would fix the so called "market failure" that should be properly blamed on government's prohibition.
_
Mark Thornton is a senior resident fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and is the book review editor for the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is the author of The Economics of Prohibition, coauthor of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, and the editor of The Quotable Mises, The Bastiat Collection, and An Essay on Economic Theory. Send him mail. See Mark Thornton's article archives.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Commentary
- Ron Paul: Shutdown After Boston Bombings More Frightening Than Attack Itself
- What's Bad About a House-to-House Search?
- 'Boston Strong': Marching in Lockstep with the Police State
- The Day the Music Died for Good
- Government Should Stop Its Own Violence First
- Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
- The Rodney Dangerfields of the Ideological Universe
- The Company That Owns Your Genes

There is no 'market-failure' here .
Weed is mostly getting stronger because the growers are getting better
at their job. Both the growing-methods and the quality of the seeds has increased tremendously over the last 10-15 years .
This has happened everywhere else in agriculture, so naturally
pot-growers also want to maximize their yield/earnings .

The actual problem here is that 'modern weed' often ONLY contains THC
and no, or very little, Cannabidiol (CBD), documented to have a 'anti-psychotic' effect . This is especially the case with hydroponically pot .

The obvious solution the stronger weed is - make smaller joints !

A couple of typing-errors :
"This is especially the case with hydroponically grown pot ."
"The obvious solution to stronger weed is - make smaller joints ! " I graduated from HS in 1977 and they were telling us this back then...oh, the pot now (in the 70's) is sooo much stronger than what your big brother was smoking in the 60's.... In the 1970s, the Government sponsored a program called "Paraquat Pot" in which they sprayed the very harmful herbicide paraquat on marijuana fields in South America, which were distributed mostly to Americans. It was called Paraquat Pot. They must have mixed nitrous oxide into the crop dusting crews' noxious chemical cocktail today - everything is funny. "Paraquat Pot," gives a whole new meaning to "weed control."

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Slim Majority of New Yorkers Say Legalize Marijuana

Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); by Phillip Smith

A Quinnipiac poll released last Friday has New Yorkers supporting marijuana legalization by a narrow majority. The poll found 51% supported marijuana legalization, with 44% opposed.

That puts New York in line with the rest of the country, where most post-election polls are showing support for legalization at over 50%. Those polls come in the wake of victories for the Amendment 64 and Initiative 502 marijuana legalization initiatives in Colorado and Washington, respectively.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been pushing marijuana decriminalization, but the Quinnipiac poll suggests New Yorkers are ahead of their political leaders on the issue of marijuana reform.

New York City has achieved notoriety as the marijuana arrest capital of the world, with the NYPD arresting tens of thousands of mainly young black and brown men each year. Despite recent reforms, those numbers have yet to significantly decrease.

In a report released last month, Human Rights Watch found that between 1996 and 2011, the NYPD arrested more than 563,000 people for possession of marijuana in public (typically after police intimidate them into emptying their pockets and revealing their baggies), including nearly 100,000 in 2010 and 2011 alone. Neither Mayor Michael Bloomberg nor the NYPD "has ever provided a detailed justification for the high number of marijuana arrests, suggesting only that the arrests improve public safety," the report noted.

But the report also examined the subsequent criminal histories of the 2003 and 2004 cohorts of New York City pot possession arrestees. It found that more than 90% of them had not subsequently been arrested on a felony charge.

The Quinnipiac poll found majority support for legalization in New York City (54%) and its suburbs (50%), and a plurality (49%) for legalization upstate. Majorities supported freeing the weed in every age group except seniors, while majorities of Democrats (56%) and independents (57%) also favored legalization. Only 33% of Republicans did.

Men were more likely to support legalization (56%) than women (47%), while people with college degrees were more likely to support it (58%) than those without (47%). People who identified themselves as belonging to a religious denomination had levels of support ranging from 46% to 48%, while 70% of those who said they had no religion supported legalization.

Gov. Cuomo has been talking decriminalization. Given last month's election results and this month's polling, perhaps he should raise his sights.

The poll contacted 1,302 New York state voters between December 5 and 10 and asked"Do you think that the use of marijuana should be made legal in New York State, or not?" The poll has a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percentage points.

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest General
- Georgia Town Ordering Gun Ownership Undaunted by Massacre
- Penn Jillette discusses gun control on "The Wendy Williams Show"
- Pier Morgan Debates Gun Owners of America's Larry Pratt
- Raging Union Goons Assault Man At Rally
- Majority Says Feds Should Stay Out of Marijuana Legalization States
- Modern Education [Pic]
- AVTM Asks Black Friday Shoppers If They Know How Many Countries Obama Has Bombed
- Confidential Police Docs Found in Macy's Parade Confetti Spark Investigation

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy

View the original article here

Mexico Should Just Legalize Drugs

by Jacob G. Hornberger

According to a front-page article in today?s New York Times, Mexico?s top presidential contenders are signaling a shift in how Mexico intends to fight the drug war. While the movement is in a positive direction, unfortunately it still doesn?t go far enough. Mexico should just end its entire participation in the drug war. It should legalize drugs.

Six years ago, the newly elected Mexican president, Filipe Calderon, decided that he was going to really crack down in the drug war, apparently with the aim of finally winning the war. Since the president is limited to one six-year term, Calderon figured that he had that period of time in which to defeat the drug cartels, the drug lords, and the drug gangs.

Calderon figured that to win the drug war, he had to rely on much more than just the police. And who?s best at waging war but the military? So, Calderon deployed Mexican troops to wage the war on drugs, especially in the northern region, along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Needless to say, U.S. officials were ecstatic.

Now that Calderon?s term is coming to an end, can he claim victory in the war on drugs? Has his fierce military crackdown been successful?

Nope. It?s the exact opposite. The drug dealers, drug cartels, and drug gangs are still smuggling and distributing drugs, just like they were six years ago. In fact, the lack of victory is reflected by the fact that U.S. officials are saying that it?s more important than ever that the war on drugs continued to be waged into the indefinite future.

Of course, there is one big factor that the Mexican presidential candidates and the Mexican citizenry have to consider: Some 50,000 people are now dead who were alive six years ago.

Yes, 50,000 people. Think about that. That?s almost the number of U.S. soldiers killed during the Vietnam War. And they?re dead owing to Calderon?s fierce, six-year military crackdown in the war on drugs.

Now, that?s not to say that Calderon?s forces didn?t kill, arrest, jail, and destroy plenty of drug lords and drug gangs. Sure they did. But as soon as they?d knock off one drug dealer, ten more would pop up to take his place.

You see, the more they cracked down, the greater the risk for drug dealers. The increased risk caused drug prices and drug profits to soar. The soaring drug profits lured new people into the drug trade.

In other words, the more successful Mexican forces were in killing or capturing drug dealers, the further away from ?victory? Mexico found itself.

All this should be a lesson for American drug-war proponents, especially those who say that the problem is that the U.S. government really hasn?t truly cracked down in the war on drugs. They ought to bring the U.S. military to the border, the American drug warriors have long exclaimed, especially combat-hardened troops who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It shouldn?t surprise anyone that the Mexican military, in its fierce quest to win the drug war within 6 years, was notorious for violating the civil liberties of the Mexican citizenry. Military forces trying to win wars are never too concerned about civil liberties. Many Mexican citizens began demanding that the troops be withdrawn from their cities, preferring to take their chances with the drug lords.

Mexico apparently has had enough. According to the Times, ?The candidates, while vowing to continue to fight drug trafficking, say they intend to eventually withdraw the Mexican Army from the drug fight. They are concerned that it has proved unfit for police work and has contributed to the high death toll, which has exceeded 50,000 since the departing president, Felipe Calderon, made the military a cornerstone of his battle against drug traffickers more than five years ago.?

U.S. officials have been careful to stay out of the presidential race, to avoid the appearance of meddling in Mexico?s internal affairs, but there is no question but that they are seething over the probable shift in direction. Congressman Ben Quayle, an Arizona Republican, reflected the mindset of the Washington establishment with his pointed exclamation: ?Will there be a situation where the next president just turns a blind eye to the cartels, or will they be a willing partner with the United States to combat them? I hope it?s the latter.?

Mexico has paid a big enough price for the U.S. government?s failed, immoral, and destructive decades-long war on drugs. Mexico should reject halfway measures in the war on drugs. It?s time to have the courage and fortitude to openly admit, no matter how angry U.S. officials become, that the drug war is evil, immoral, deadly, and destructive. All the drug war has done is enrich the bank accounts of drug dealers and government officials, including those in the United States.

It?s time Mexico went its own way in the drug war. The best thing Mexico could ever do is dissolve its drug-war partnership with the U.S. government by fully and completely legalizing the possession and distribution of all drugs. As the front-runner in Mexico?s presidential race, Enrique Pe?a Nieto, put it, Mexico should not ?subordinate to the strategies of other countries.?

And who knows? By fully and completely ending its participation in the U.S. government?s war on drugs, Mexico could lead the world, including the United States, out of the drug-war morass of death, destruction, violence, and corruption.
_
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

View the original article here

Congress may legalize online gambling

By JOSH KOSMAN

Americans appear closer than ever to being able to gamble online -- as a bill aimed at legalizing Internet casino gaming could find its way before Congress by the end of the year, people close to the matter tell The Post.

The confidence over the federal legalization of online poker and other games comes as momentum in Washington builds behind the effort.

?I think there is becoming a feeling in Congress that this is something that needs to be regulated and be done,? a source close to the discussions said. ?I believe there is a possibility a bill will pass towards the end of the year.?

?The only question is how it is structured,? according to Roger Gross, the publisher of Global Gaming Business magazine.

Read More

Latest Economy
- Status Change: Gold Moves From Investment To Money
- Ron Paul: Investing Genius
- Shades of FDR! Socialist Chavez Nationalizes Gold
- "A Wolf In Sheep"
- On the Brink of Inflationary Disaster
- Marc Faber Explains How Even The "Greatest Bear On Earth" Gets It Wrong
- Peter Schiff Debunks Barron's Hit-Piece On Ron Paul's Portfolio
- CBO: Federal deficit will hit $1.3 trillion

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Why Legalize Now?

by Mark Thornton

Suddenly the world is abuzz with talk about legalizing marijuana and other drugs. Political candidates, politicians, former presidents, interest groups, and even the Global Commission on Drug Policy are all calling for drug-policy reform. Given that we are in a worldwide economic and fiscal crisis, why is everyone interested in drug policy? Have we all suddenly regained our senses and realized that prohibition is irrational?

No, the more important reason for the interest in this issue is economic sense. Drug prohibition is a burden on taxpayers. It is a burden on government budgets. It is a burden on the criminal-justice system. It is a burden on the healthcare system. The economic crisis has intensified the pain from all these burdens. Legalization reduces or eliminates all of these burdens. It should be no surprise that alcohol prohibition was repealed at the deepest depths of the Great Depression.

Two Republican presidential candidates, former governor Gary Johnson and Congressman Ron Paul, support legalization. Ron Paul and Barney Frank have introduced legislation that would allow the states to legalize marijuana without federal interference. Former president Jimmy Carter recently published an editorial in the New York Times calling for an end of the global war on drugs, a position he has held since he was president.

The organization LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, has recently released a report entitled "Ending the Drug War: A Dream Deferred" on the 40th anniversary of the War on Drugs. They are critical of the war and point out that President Obama is actually making things worse. Finally, and maybe most importantly, the Global Commission on Drug Policy has issued a report that declares the war on drugs a failure and provides recommendations for reform.

The economic crisis is speeding up the realization that the war on drugs has failed and cannot be won. Taxpayers have long been slow to recognize the economic burden of drug prohibition. They have been told for decades that we only need to spend a little more and remove a few more constitutional protections of our rights to win the war against drugs. With decades of broken promises, busted budgets with trillion-dollar holes, and a teetering economy in crisis, more and more people are saying no to the war on drugs.

Drug prohibition is the single biggest burden on the criminal-justice budget. It is also a large burden for more than a dozen budgets within the federal government, and it is a growing burden on state and local budgets. The incarceration of hundreds of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders often leads to the breakup of families and the loss of breadwinners, placing additional burdens on social services.

The criminal-justice system is overwhelmed, and the prisons are filled far beyond capacity. As a result, violent criminals are receiving early release from their sentences. Other measures of crime and violence are also disturbing. Street gangs use the illegal-drug business to finance and expand their activities. It has been estimated that the United States now has nearly 800,000 gang members. Organized crime continues to grow in numbers and sophistication ? as well as the level of violence. The Mexican Army has replaced local police along the border in order to restore order and reduce the more than 10,000 prohibition-related murders last year. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, the war on drugs is undermining civilization.

People are also realizing that fighting the war on drugs (i.e., prohibition) only makes social problems worse. The number of drug-related emergency-room visits in the United States now exceeds 2 million per year for illegal drugs and nonmedical use of prescription drugs. The progression of drug use from marijuana to cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth is clearly negative for health; and that progression is increasingly and correctly seen to be the result of prohibition, not addiction.

As I demonstrated, the failure of California's Proposition 19 legalizing marijuana should not be seen as a discouraging sign. Rather, it should be seen as a sign of things to come. All over the world, drug prohibition and its repeal or reform is now a matter of debate. In many areas of the world, the drug war has been rolled back.

Portugal is a good case in point. They were not winning the war; they were losing it. They were also losing the more general war for prosperity. In desperation, they de facto legalized all drugs. The result was not rampant, widespread drug abuse. Drug use and addiction actually declined, as did violence and disease.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, DC, libertarian think tank.

Most Americans have been told that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a great president and one of the most popular presidents of all time. However, most people ? even most historians ? do not know that the reason for his popularity was the repeal of Prohibition. He won the Democratic nomination for president at the 1932 convention by switching from being a Dry to a Wet (that is, by siding with repeal). The repeal of Prohibition was the most popular plank in the Democratic Party platform, and it was FDR's number-one issue and campaign promise. He made it his number-one priority when he was in office. (He also cut federal worker pay by 25 percent).

The results from repeal were both immediate and amazing. Taverns, restaurants, breweries, distilleries, and wineries reopened for business. Jobs were suddenly and noticeably available for the first time in years. The unemployment rate plunged from its historic high level of 25 percent. Crime and corruption sank, with the murder rate falling to its pre-Prohibition level in a manner of a few years. For politicians and government employees, repeal meant a new source of tax revenue and an end to budget cuts. Tax revolts, which had sprung up all across the country in opposition to government, sadly faded away. The people rejoiced that "Happy Days Are Here Again."

A similar opportunity lies in our future as the economic crisis continues to widen and worsen. We need to continue to learn and teach the real lessons of prohibition, some of which can be found in this free book. To unmask the true nature of government control and to demonstrate the superiority of individualism within a classical-liberal environment, we must make ending the war on drugs a priority.
__
Mark Thornton is a senior resident fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and is the book review editor for the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is the author of The Economics of Prohibition, coauthor of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, and the editor of The Quotable Mises, The Bastiat Collection, and An Essay on Economic Theory. Send him mail. See Mark Thornton's article archives.

Latest Commentary
- The Private Fireworks Show Of My Dreams
- Independence Day Propaganda
- Innovations in Technology | Jeffrey A. Tucker
- Show Love to the Merchant Class
- Conspiracies
- Fireworks: Taxpayer Money, Up in Smoke
- The Grand Holiday
- The Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution

I think the real reason to legalize marijuana is because Big Pharma have a vested interest in it. As you cannot patent a plant companies like Monsanto will GM a hemp seed and claim it as 'intellectual property', and they will lobby for it to be legalized as they're not ones to turn their noses up at a profit. something similar has happened here in blighty but what the junta fronted by cameron and similar actors like blair, mendelson and obama do isn't the point, what they claim are laws are fiats, fiats that contradict the laws of thermodynamics which as far as i know still hold. rather it is the real law that is shutting down the government.

the common good game

- Jean Sismondi

- Niccolo Machiavelli

by historical record, doing what banks and their governments say clearly is not in the interest of anyone other than those who profit from war, e.g. businessmen vs people. compound interest, tending to infinity, gees, that game sure has limits and it seems we have hit them. fortunately that is the fictional world, how it impacts people is up to people as always it was.

who is representing the labour that is harvesting much of the opium? from here that seems to me to be the british and american army but they can't answer for themselves, they are officials (under orders - fiats), so any opinions they do have is contradicted by their jobs.

- Philip Smith / Manfred Max-Neef

don't panic, everything is under control a gov would say. if that were true personally i would find it a reason that one should.

It's the same rhetoric used countless times by politicians in order to get elected to office, on the premise that they represent the people's voice.
Those that are now advocating the legalization, have always know the true purpose of the drug war was to marginalize common sense and history in order for the government, of which they were a part, to gain more control over the people.
Jimmy Carter got elected because he advocated an end to marijuana prohibition. Once elected, he did nothing. By advocating the end of the prohibition now he is advocating a government solution and faith in the government.
Political creatures are not coming to their senses, as they would have the public believe, but continuing the age old practice of telling the people what they want to hear at election time.
The problem is not drug prohibition, the problem is the government that introduced, and enforces drug prohibition.
As for Ron Paul, the government allows him to stay in congress as a beacon of hope. He is controlled opposition, nothing more. If you will notice he's never laid bare the true scope of the corruption in Washington. He is one of them playing the "good cop" role.

i did contact Ron Paul's office years back over political issues running very much counter to that of the lot of the american people. the response was compatible with a politician and was totally psychopathic to the difficulties of inhabitants.

i presume he was elected in britain before being foisted on americans

Dave, I would make Ron Paul public enemy #1. He's being postured for not only the Patriots and Nationalists, but with aid from Bill Maher, to the Socialists as well. If there is one politicians that could unite the people for more war, it's Ron Paul.

Given Ron Paul's stance on war, if he were to become president -- an attack on U.S. soil is a certainty. Good thing we still have gun rights. We wouldn't want to fail the Motherland, by refusing to war ourselves into slave-hood.

I'll continue to stand by my ideal -- that we should surrender our politicians as peace offerings, when China declares war. Of course, this will not come without a great sense loss, but I'm sure we'll manage to carry on.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

View the original article here

Legalize Milk, Real Milk

by Mark Thornton

Got Milk?

Most Americans think they drink milk on a regular basis. In fact, virtually all these people are consuming pasteurized milk, not milk. Milk in its natural state ? raw milk ? is consumed by very few Americans, because it is illegal in many states and thoroughly discouraged by federal health organizations, regulators, and the Big Dairy lobby.

Raw milk is prohibited in Canada and Australia, although raw milk and raw-milk products are legal almost everywhere else. In fact, in countries with the best cuisines, such as France, raw milk and raw-milk products are considered the high-quality choice.

No wonder. Raw milk is fresher, better tasting, and more nutritious. It is fresher because only refrigeration is used to prevent spoilage, and you immediately know when it is going bad because of the smell and taste. It has to be produced locally or quickly shipped and consumed.

Raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized milk. Raw milk has living white blood cells, mammary-gland cells, various bacteria (i.e., probiotics), and several active enzymes, which are all destroyed in pasteurization.

There are some European studies that indicate -- although nothing is yet definitive -- that raw milk might be useful in reducing allergies, asthma, and eczema. Raw milk is also more likely to come from "pastured" cows, which only eat their natural diet: grass. Therefore, the cows are less likely to have been regularly treated with antibiotics and growth hormones.

While we are on the topic of nutrition, it should be pointed out that even though the protein component of milk is one of the best available, the most nutritious part of milk might be the fat component. Butterfat is naturally beneficial. It also contains the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K, in which many Americans are deficient. So stop buying skim and low-fat milk.

Raw milk is much better tasting, because it does not have the "dead" taste of pasteurized and ultrapasteurized milk. Some people who don't like pasteurized milk like the taste of raw milk, and many people who are lactose intolerant can tolerate raw milk. I think raw milk even smells better. If you have never consumed raw milk, get some and a few Oreo cookies to go with it, because you are in for a treat ? that is, only if you don't live in North America and Australia, where raw milk is often illegal and considered dangerous.

Here, pasteurization is imposed by Big Dairy and enforced by the state. Now that the raw-milk movement has started taking off, the state is cracking down on the small dairy producers who are trying to earn a living by bringing the product to market. Law enforcement has even gone so far as destroying milk, much like the keg and still busters of the Prohibition era.

Getting raw milk is difficult. In my case, I had to join a cooperative that arranged for the milk to be shipped in from a state where raw-milk production is still legal. We all meet at a certain date and time at a location off the beaten path to receive and pay for our orders. Other dairies only sell their raw milk and raw-milk products for "nonhuman" consumption. Come on! Chocolate raw milk for nonhuman consumption?

The Food and Drug Administration claims hysterically that raw milk is unsafe to consume, and they make some statements that are clearly untrue. The Center for Disease Control also sees this as an issue that is "black and white." They say raw milk is bad for you, citing four "outbreaks" since 2000. It should be pointed out that pasteurization does not kill off all the illness-causing contaminates, and this has led to a much-larger number of such outbreaks.

With raw milk, the number of people becoming ill is over 100 per year, and 2 people are said to have died after consuming raw milk over the last decade. So there are real risks, just as with any real food, such as spinach, cantaloupe, and hamburger. At-risk populations, such as the sick and elderly, should probably stay away from raw milk. All the raw-milk dealers I know warn customers of the risks of their products, while pasteurized-milk dealers do not.

I'm sure that some of these reported cases of raw-milk illness should be attributed to the fact that raw milk is illegal. Notice that my raw milk has to be shipped halfway across the country! What happens if the refrigeration unit on the delivery truck fails and goes unnoticed for several hours during transit?

Legalizing raw milk would reduce the risks caused by prohibition. It would also further reduce risks over time by bringing competitive forces to bear on them. The increased numbers of raw-milk producers could result in new discoveries for preventing cows from being exposed to disease. As the market expands, other companies might find it profitable to sell testing equipment so that cows or their milk can be tested before going to market. Over time this could become a very large market associated with very little health risk and substantial health benefits.

The most general point is that government authorities should not be making these decisions for us. They should not prohibit something that has been going on for more than 8,000 years of human civilization. There is no public interest here that might justify government intervention at all.

There is, however, a private-interest elephant in our glass of milk ? Big Dairy. Raw milk is a competitor, however small, to the big corporate and co-op companies that dominate the milk industry. Big Dairy is a powerful special-interest group that is well funded and well organized to maintain its government subsidies.

In the old days, your milk came from cows that you might even see on your way to work. The dairy farmer would have a relatively small number of cows. The farmer would either milk the cows and process the milk himself or sell it to a small co-op, which would process it and deliver to your door the same morning.

Today, dairy farming is organized on a greater scale. The cows are milked and the milk is sent much longer distances to larger processing facilities. The milk is then distributed, not to your door but to supermarkets and grocery stores. The modern approach is a "more roundabout" production process, in the words of Ludwig von Mises's teacher Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. The process is more roundabout and much more productive and efficient. More milk is produced using fewer resources per gallon. Therefore, the modern process produces cheaper milk. However, it takes more time and therefore requires pasteurization to increase the shelf life.

Raw milk would not work like that; it could not work like that. You basically have a limited time between milking and drinking. Raw milk is much better than processed milk, but there is a catch: it is about twice the price and you have to drink it within a few days.

Therefore, we can let the market decide the issue. You can buy expensive raw milk or inexpensive pasteurized milk. The problem is that Big Dairy does not want you to have this choice. They push legislators, regulators, health officials, and law enforcement to prevent people from having the choice.

When Big Dairy answers the question ? Got Milk? ? the answer is always no.
___
Mark Thornton is a senior resident fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and is the book review editor for the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is the author of The Economics of Prohibition, coauthor of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, and the editor of The Quotable Mises, The Bastiat Collection, and An Essay on Economic Theory. Send him mail.

View the original article here