Libertarians Say “It’s NOT about Legal Pot” — Johnson Says Legal Pot will “Change the World”

I know this will draw a lot of fire, but I really don’t care. I see your Libertarian attacks against my arguments as little more than shooting at a tank with BB guns.

I have said it many times before, now this story leads me to say it again: the “Libertarian” movement is about 2 things, the first and most important is the legalization of pot. It is so important to the Libertarians that their Presidential candidate has said it will “change the world:”

Gary Johnson Believes Colo. Pot Legalization Will ‘Change the World’

“Colorado legalized pot — do you believe it? I do. I think it’s going to change the world. This is the first state that has outright legalized marijuana,” said Johnson.

“The world’s going to be a better place when the police go out and enforce real crime, and victimless, nonviolent criminals maybe get out of jail,” he added.

In the video clip in that story, Johnson mentions the police State, then launches into legalizing pot.  At first, you might think he was speaking out against other intrusions of the police State, but then you read his quote and you see he is connecting the police State to “harassing victimless crimes like the use of pot.”  With everything that this govt is doing, POT IS THE PRIMARY EXAMPLE JOHNSON FOCUSED ON!  Gee, if I cared about liberty, I think I would have focused on the the assassination and warrantless, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.  But nope, Johnson sees legalized pot as the way to “change the world.”  Ergo, just as I said, Libertarian == GIVE ME LEGAL POT!

The second primary motivation of the Libertarians is to have all other legal restrictions on personal behavior removed as well — especially anything dealing with sexual immorality and anything associated with religion.  But this is a different argument.

As much as they may like to argue otherwise, the primary flaw in the Libertarian platform is their desire to be released from any and all personal responsibility. Yes, yes, they will argue otherwise, but — just like with the Liberal/Progressives — it is what they DO that matters, not what they say. And Johnson is celebrating the legalization of pot. In so doing, he has helped to make my case, and I am happy to tell you Libertarians “I told you so.”

OK, let the arrows fly. I promise, they won’t hurt me one bit :-)

About these ads

26 thoughts on “Libertarians Say “It’s NOT about Legal Pot” — Johnson Says Legal Pot will “Change the World”

  1. Here come arrow number 1! OK, its an arrow from Cupid :-)

    You are SPOT ON! Libertarians are the essence of the opposite spectrum of the radical Left. The good thing is, we now know where TOO FAR is for both sides.

    Now let us get to work on a responsible LEGAL and Constitutionally Conservative society. The one the founders so perfectly defined for us.

    • PoliTec,

      You see, you keep trying to claim the founders’ mantle for the modern Libertarian movement, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! You hold an ideology to the RIGHT of the founders: one banana peel slip away from anarchy.

      Then, I have heard it said that a Libertarian is nothing more than a liberal/progressive who has read AND UNDERSTOOD an economics book ;-)

      • I’m not sure I understand this comment;
        “You see, you keep trying to claim the founders’ mantle for the modern Libertarian movement, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! You hold an ideology to the RIGHT of the founders: one banana peel slip away from anarchy.”

        The truth is, the founders WERE “one banana slip away” from anarchy. That is were true freed is and the most limited government is.

        Libertarians are right of that line – they are on the other side of the line “anarchy”. I AM NOT.

        So I know you stated before you have a strange sense of humor, maybe this is what your comment is but either way the record should be corrected. Consider that done :-)

        • PoliTec,

          This is not me being funny; this is me looking at history and learning the lesson — just like the founders did. You said:

          The truth is, the founders WERE “one banana slip away” from anarchy. That is were true freed is and the most limited government is.

          And that was true, and that is why THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION failed!

          After that, the federalists argued fro a stronger federal government — an won (to all our lament). But they had a point: without a stronger control than that of true libertarianism, a nation is impossible to hold together. The mistake our founders made was in NOT making provisions against the very dangers the Anti-Federalists cautioned again — and they did not do so because that would have required less “libertarianism.”

          I am NO Progressive?Statist, but I DO understand the need for certain controls over society. Without them, you do not and never will have a society at all. You have Hobbes’ “Pure State of Nature” where we are all at war with each other.

          • To whom’s lament? Not mine either. We were creating a legit government and law had to be supreme (no pun). While it was replaced it was replaced with a Constitution. That did NOT change the limits placed on government – quite the contrary. It went further to restrict the use of taxes etc. They created (what has been altered and watered down) the difficulty to create taxes.

            The founders, in their papers, wrote about this struggle before the Articles and after/while creating the Constitution. You could say their papers were the articles but I digress. Laws must be established for order but those were to be determined BY THE PEOPLE thus the separation of powers (slowing down the process), federalism (states power supreme to fed) and blah blah blah… all mute today right? :-|

            At least until the next revolution where we Conservatives better be ready to reestablish our founding!

            [I know I rambled here, sorry… short on time]

            • PoliTech,

              So you do not lament the fact that the Federalists ignored the anti-federalists objections? Is that what you are telling me?

              If so, have you ever read the anti-Federalists? Do you know what their objections were? Or why they made them?

              if not, then all your ranting about building a constitution and what not is little more than tilting at windmills, my friend.

              Finally, do you understand the differences between the terms “conservative,” “Classic or Jeffersonian Liberal” and “Libertarian” in American politics? They DO have lose definitions, and — though they have some overlap — they are NOT the same: they are not even equivalent ideologies. Many may think this nit-picking on my part, but, if we do not start with common definitions, then we’re just chasing our tails.

              • Look… I am not a historian, I am an IT guy. I am more of a history buff and compared to my own IT community I am a historian to give you some perspective. :-)

                To be honest you are “nit-picking” and if you are attempting to get “common definitions” based on your own understanding of history – my friend you are DEFINATELY chasing your tail. When you form a modern US convention let me know, we can better duke it out there.

                Lets stick with the KISS method here. The Constitution I KNOW we can both agree on is… a primary attempt to LIMIT government despite the federalists. Jefferson won and Hamilton won the compromise while it gave more restrictions to restrain government power it also opened the door for its manipulation and here we are after that result. We the people lost.

                Now what do we do.

                • I am not trying to be combative, but I am NOT “nit-picking.” If you do not understand the history here, then you are already ensnared in the Progressive trap: defining the constitution according to what YOU want — not what was originally intended.

                  And to accuse me of being the one trying to define all this stuff after I have told you I have read the founders and you admit you have not…

                  Well, as I say: I do not want to engage a “should-be” ally, so I’ll just let you run with it. I no longer have the passion to fight lemmings.

  2. I’m not a pothead because I’m with M. and he bogarts all the joints. I agree with Johnson. What’s so criminal about getting the munchies? You do realise that there was a time when hemp was legal, right?

    I’d love to chat, but M.s hungry for some spicy red-pepper hummus with naked pita chips. Let’s face it, B.; that’s healthy!

  3. indefinite detention? You mean the thing those evil bastards on the far left have been railing against for over a decade? Welcome to the party…finally. But let’s see- where were you when Bush put this into play? Where where you Congress codified it until law- attaching it to the Defense Authorization Bill and handing it to a veto proof majority- with other then Ron Paul (who is, despite the tag, a libertarian and a vocal supporter of marijuana- ad indeed drug, legalization) only democrats voting against it?

    And of course, within the past 24 hrs the senate, Led by democrats and opposed by only republicans, have passed legislation to deny indefinite detention of americans. But I’m sure as happened last year when indefinite detention of americans was first codified into law, it will be the republicans who kill it.

    And yes, evil marijuana. in 2011 86.5 arrests per hour. 750,000+/- arrests. Most recent statistics from FBI indicate an arrest 42 seconds. Between 1996-2011 NY City alone arrested in excess of a half million people for simple possession of marijuana.

    Marijuana- a substance that the US has violated its own laws in making illegal for over 4 decades. Wasting billions and ruining millions of lives in the process. That the scientific panel set up to study the issue at the time said it should be decriminalized. That does not meet the legal requirements for Schedule I.

    Marijuana- which research is increasingly proving can end pain and suffering without the serious side effects of opioids. That is increasingly found to slow or halt numerous cancers. To be able to control certain forms of epilepsy. To offer unprecedented relief from MS and control tremors in Parkinsons. Whose prohibition and government blocking of legitimate research for decades has denied millions of americans safer and more effective treatments.

    Millions of americans arrested for non-violent crimes. Arrests which can cause loss of a job. Inability to find a job or housing. Loss of student loans. Loss of voting rights. Loss of gun rights.

    Marijuana- which can bring in billions in taxes and create millions of jobs. Which costs the nation billions in terms of enforcement, eradication,

    Marijuana- which by nature of being illegal hands the mexican cartels a major revenue source. And hence the violence and corruption in both Mexico and the US.

    Marijuana- which in the states that have legalized medical marijuana we have seen a drop in fatal car accidents and DUI’s, while states that have not increased.

    Yes- Johnson is right. Legalizing marijuana can transform not only the US, but laege swaths of the world for the better.

  4. @Joe_Bakanovic: If you are seeking to ruin what most would see as Libertarian objectives, you are doing a good job of it. No one I know is interested in getting mired in definitions. To my knowledge – Jeffersonian Libertarianism suits most Republican-Libertarians. If you are a supporter then make the case for Libertarianism instead of fighting everyone who comes on this web site about Libertarian objectives. If you are not a supporter then as far as I am concerned your blog isn’t the one to follow. I do not care to watch you undermine the only political ideology that has any chance of working to restore our country’s economic health and freedoms.

    • AW,

      I have made the case for the founders on the RNL — many times — and I was told it won’t work in our world. I was told I was being unrealistic, archaic, or whatever.

      Now I am told to not worry about definitions and work for solutions. OK, you win. Let me make your case the way you are telling me to make it — the only way that will work.

      I AM FOR CONSERVATISM LIKE THE FOUNDERS WANT.

      I say we spend $4 trillion more than we have in 8 years to expand Mediare part D and SCHIP.

      I say we go to war in 2 different nations without any clear objective or exit strategy, and use that war to enact the Patriot Act, DHS and TSA.

      I say GM and Chrysler are too big to fail, so we need to bail them out.

      I say the banking system needs help, as well as the insurance and securities industry. bail them out, too.

      I say the best way to help the economy is to abandon the free market and pass a giant stimulus bill.

      I say we allow the housing bubble to continue until it pops because people deserve affordable housing so they can own their own homes.

      I say we just keep going with the other entitlements because it is the compassionate thing to do.

      OH! And, this time, let’s pass the dream act and make sure we keep the borders open. Again, that’s the compassionate thing to do and is totally conservative.

      OK, AW, hows that for starters? Tell the conservatives and republicans to double down on that agenda and push it — HARD! It got the WH, House and Senate once before so surely it will work again. And the beauty is, it is conservative, therefore, totally in line with the founding fathers.

      I will not buck the system again. You have put me in line. I see the reasoning behind Boehner and crew caving to the tax hikes. In fact, I think we should go one further. If we are going to keep to the conservative agenda I just outlined, we need even more money than Obama has asked for. Tax the rich at 91% again. They can afford it.

      I’ll see what else I can think of, but I promise to never get out of line again. I will just accept the definitions that I have been given — and you have told me I have to use.

      • So what do you want to do Joe… fight? Fight for our principals which CLEARLY GOT DEFEATED? Se AW has a point and you and I both know that radical Left as well as Radical Right has one goal: destruction. I know these people, I work with at least 3 and 4 years ago they were FULL BORE Obama. All of a sudden in the republican primaries they were for Johnson.

        Why the shift I asked myself… conclusion? Anarchy comes in two forms – Left & Right!
        Destruction has its purpose and these people will take whatever avenue they can to reach that goal!

        So how about this…

        GIVE THEM ALL THEY WANT! Let this thing tank and let them all lay in their own piss without a diaper! You see, R’s are going to be blamed if they stand in the way and their going to be defeated if they compromise. So GET OUT OF THE WAY!

        What do you think.

        • No, PT, my solution is to just step back for a while and watch. I understand you are trying to figure things out for yourself and I can respect that. I guess I just see things from a different vantage point. For instance: when you say there is anarchy on the Left & Right, you tell me that you and I understand things so radically different that it is unlikely we’ll be able to see eye-to-eye any time soon — especially since you have already told me you see no use in history or definitions.

          I guess I will just have to leave the saving of the world to those who have a better idea how to do it than I. Besides, I fought my war already, and the scars I earned from it are actually starting to get harder to deal with. It could be that I AM dead weight.

          Go get ‘em, tiger :-)

          • Well that is what I am doing as well… but I do take offence to your talking down to me and others as if you know history so well and come off as the only arbiter of history. I understand you have a history background but that does not make you an expert. You also have to write from a perspective of authority to command respect for your readers but WATCH IT cause you’re coming off as an ASS!

            CORRECTION!
            I did NOT SAY nor should you have read into my words other than what I stated; “you see no use in history or definitions” FALSE!

            This is NOT what I said and I won’t even waste my time anymore correcting you cause you are not reading which also makes me question what you actually know about our founders history. I sir have taken the Constitution 101 and 201 from Hillsdale so DO NOT patronize me with your lack of comprehension of text. I write fairly direct, to the point, but also thoroughly enough so I KNOW it isn’t a lack of info that causes you to make dumb statements like that.

            Now you have done this before, I would suggest you do take that break SOON. You need it.

            After this I AM DONE. While I will continue to read and occasionally reply (far more thoroughly so you are not making an ass out of yourself) I will no longer engage you on this “history”. We are about to face our own history that will need to be righted so we can try to get back to at least pre Willson. I too am regrouping, getting right with God, putting my family in prep for the coming chaos and working with two Tea Party groups to take full advantage of the coming turning point and make damn sure we turn back Right!

  5. Your characterization of the Libertarian party couldn’t be more comical. Have you even read the platform that Gary Johnson ran on? Or are you just spouting horse shit for the fun of it and a couple of views. Judging by most of your work on the site, I’m going with the latter.

    The Libertarian party is about one thing; Liberty. You don’t need a load of intellectual masturbation with philosophical reading to get that. The maximum amount of individual liberty insofar as it does not conflict with others liberty. If you enjoy polluting your body with drugs and you can do it without harming anyone else, have at it. Personally, I don’t need the federal government to make the decision for me. I’m also not fond of paying for police to harass those who do, (those oh so dangerous pot heads) and then flip the bill for their vacation in county jail. Prohibition doesn’t work. It hasn’t in the past, and here’s some fresh news — it still doesn’t.

    You mention Libertarians wanting to dismiss personal responsibility. That couldn’t be further from the truth, in fact if you had read the parties positions you would know it advocates ending social welfare. Ending it puts the responsibility for finance and health back in the hands that deserve it – the individual! The same goes for prohibition of drugs, hookers, and everything else you and your pastor would like to legislate onto your fellows. The individual decides if he wants to be party to these things, because he matters more than the welfare of the state, more than any crummy collectivist organization.

    Looking at the site, you’re a bit of an anomaly to me. A fundamentalist Christian who claims to be a student of the Constitution, yet would gladly allow the government to enforce his version of morality on the individual. You claim to be a Christian, but you’ve openly told others they are dishonest, or that they don’t have the proper brand. Or that they’re “in for a surprise” in the afterlife. You’re the kind of person who, deep down, seems to love putting people in groups and then wholeheartedly condemning them, and that’s collectivism in it’s ugliest form despite your attempts to cloak it.

    • Wow! And I thought the republicans were self defeating! While your argument SOUNDS good, you fall flat right out of the box.

      “The maximum amount of individual liberty insofar as it does not conflict with others liberty.”

      This sounds a lot like Constitutional Conservatism but I digress…

      This is why we are a society of laws not lawlessness. Libertarianism is lawlessness or pretty dam close to it. Too close for most which makes it as dangerous as the left. We don’t live in a utopian society, not everyone can control themselves. For example, You may be to stupid to get high and not drive your car so I want your ass arrested and off the street so you don’t kill me, my family or anyone else. You want simple – there you go! It is that simple. Giving everyone total liberty is destructive just as taking it all away.

      Do me a favor, stop disciplining your kids (if you have any) AND TELL US HOW YOUR LIBERAL BS WORKS OUT FOR YOU! LOL

    • Looking at the site, you’re a bit of an anomaly to me. A fundamentalist Christian who claims to be a student of the Constitution, yet would gladly allow the government to enforce his version of morality on the individual. You claim to be a Christian, but you’ve openly told others they are dishonest, or that they don’t have the proper brand. Or that they’re “in for a surprise” in the afterlife. You’re the kind of person who, deep down, seems to love putting people in groups and then wholeheartedly condemning them, and that’s collectivism in it’s ugliest form despite your attempts to cloak it.

      I defy you to find where I have told someone they WILL have a surprise in the afterlife. I am careful to suggest it, but never to decree it.

      I do not want the government to be a theocracy as you have inferred. What I want is the government to govern according to natural law. Now, granted, this would be very much akin to the morality taught by Christ and in His Gospel, but then, there is a good reason for it: that is how this universe was designed to function. If the pagan, Cicero, could derive the same basic understanding of natural law that Locke drew from the book of Romans, then I should think this was “self evident.”

      People generally DO fall into one of two categories: either constrained or unconstrained. There are many flavors within the two, but ALL people fit into one or the other. For me to ignore this is to ignore reality, but better yet: for anyone to deny this is to deny the Party politics that so many seem to be advocating here as of late. After all, if we are not part of a “group,” then how do you propose that ANYTHING is going to get done in the face of the Leftist’s group mentality?

      And finally, calling me a collectivist only tells me you have not read my posts, have not understood them, or simply refuse to grant me the truth of my plain language.

  6. From the American Spirit Political Dictionary:


    libertarianism – the belief that government should not interfere in the lives of citizens, other than to provide police and military protection. Libertarianism cannot easily be placed on the left-right scale that is usually used to analyze political philosophies. Libertarians are strong supporters of capitalism and free trade and yet also tolerant on social and lifestyle issues, which are considered none of the government’s business. The basic philosophy is “live and let live.” For example, libertarianism would remove the ban on consensual activities, often called “victimless crimes,” such as drug use and prostitution, which do not harm the person or property of another. A Libertarian Party was formed in 1971 and regularly contests presidential elections, winning just over half a million votes in 2008, amounting to 0.4 percent of the vote.

    The primary problem with these so called “victimless crimes” is that they are no more “victimless” than the progressive tax rate is “fair.” Given that this is among the best definitions of Libertarian available (at least in my opinion), it seems that quip about a Libertarian being a liberal/progressive who read and understood an economics book is not such a quip after all.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s