In the four previous elections I supported the Libertarian presidential candidate, however, in 2008 I felt the party disrespected Dr. Ron Paul and what he had accomplished, so I did not cast my ballot for their contender. Instead, I voted for Ralph Nader because every time I saw him on television he talked about our wars saying things I very much agreed with. After reading Nader’s thoughts on George Bush’s recent reemergence in to the public spotlight in an article titled Bush at Large I said to myself I do not regret that vote.

The author notes that Bush has no remorse about invading Iraq in 2003 quoting him saying that “the world was undoubtedly safer with Saddam gone.” Nader then asks” but was it safer for over a million Iraqis who lost their lives due to the invasion, over 4 million refugees, 4500 American soldiers lost, 1100 amputees, tens of thousands injured, sick and tens of thousands more GIs coming back with trauma to lost jobs, broken families and permanent damage to their health.”

On the October 5th episode of the Colbert Report the comedian did a story on the drug war in Mexico. The piece highlighted the fact that Mexican journalists are being intimidated by the drug cartels and featured a discussion with National Public Radio correspondent John Burnett. Judging from what Burnett had to say maybe it would be a positive development if journalists stayed out of decisions about drug policy.

First Burnett made the argument that consumers of Mexican drugs were responsible for the violence instead of putting the blame where it certainly belongs on those who support drug prohibition. Unlike Mexican cocaine there is no economic violence associated with Mexican tequila, the difference being that one is illegal and the other is not. The users are not the ones who created the black market with its attendant mayhem.

It is the people who support the current policy, like Burnett, who have the blood on their hands because the bottom line is that if drugs were legal tens of thousand of people recently killed in Mexico would be alive today. Drug prohibition does not actually keep people from using drugs; in fact there is considerable evidence to suggest that it encourages greater consumption, therefore in reality the laws are merely a symbolic statement. Anyone who says drugs should remain illegal is in effect saying that my symbolic declaration of disapproval is more important than the lives of those people killed by the policy.

The NPR hack also says repealing alcohol prohibition in 1933 did not end organized crime. However he neglects to mention the ending the ban on spirits dramatically lowered the amount of violence associated with their use and criminals were able to shift their activities to narcotics only because those substances remained illegal. Burnett’s contention seems to be that the measure legalizing marijuana in California will make things much better but it will not make things perfect therefore it should not be passed.

Lastly, even though there is absolutely no evidence that using marijuana impairs cognitive ability Burnett still repeats that slander. Unfortunately in the coming weeks before Californians vote on whether or not to legalize Marijuana we can look forward to many more examples of shoddy journalism, ignorant prejudice and spurious claims. As Jacob Sullum points out some very intellectually bankrupt arguments to oppose the measure are already beginning to appear. These include among others the ludicrous idea that it will not produce any revenue, the false contention that it will change the present laws against impaired driving, and the absurd notion that employees will have the right to use marijuana on the job. Sullum concludes by reminding us that, “if the nightmare scenarios described by Proposition 19's opponents come to pass, the rest of the country will learn from California's example. And if they don't, that also will be instructive, which is why federal drug warriors are so determined to defeat the initiative.”

Cross posted on The Trebach Report

The firing of the Agriculture Department's director of rural development in Georgia, Shirley Sherrod, for allegedly making racial remarks reminds me of something from my childhood. In my twelfth year we went to a family gathering in the Finger Lakes region. There, because I was studying German at the time, parental pressure resulted in a brief Teutonic conversation with an older distant cousin who had emigrated from Germany during the 1930s. I never saw the man again but later learned that he had been a Brownshirt who had to flee for his life when Hitler decided to eliminate Ernst Röhm and his followers on the last day of June 1934.

Now, I am not comparing Shirley Sherrod to my cousin, nor am I comparing the Obama Administration to Hitler’s regime, but I do believe that the situations are similar in that they both teach the same lesson. Just because you are part of an organization or culture pursuing evil policies does not mean that you are immune from the consequences of those malevolent practices. There are, of course, important differences between the two cases. First and foremost my cousin joined an organization that persecuted Jews and used violence to advance political ends, while Shirley Sherrod did absolutely nothing wrong.

When the victim of your supposed racial bias comes strongly to your defense it seems to me you have been wrongly accused and punished. Barak Obama should apologize to Sherrod and give her job back immediately. However, plenty of other people and groups also share responsibility for her plight. For example, the reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who both work so assiduously to maintain a climate of hyper-racial sensitivity. Also, the website, biggovernment.com who essentially manufactured this controversy. There is nothing wrong with exposing the very serious problem of real incidents of racial discrimination committed by the Obama Administration, such as the Justice Department’s decision to drop the charges of voter intimidation against New Black Panther Party members, though, when you create them yourselves, as in this case, you are no better than Jackson or Sharpton.

However, just as my cousin should not have been surprised when the violence his party espoused became an instrument to be used against him, neither should Sherrod be taken unawares when an accusation of racial bias, comes from her organization, which uses this political tactic on a regular basis.

Monsanto wants to help the Haitian people by donating proven hybrid seeds which will result in higher yields and greater crop diversification. However, because they are a corporation mindless activists with no personal stake in the issue are strenuously opposing and lying about this on the grounds that anything a corporation does has to be evil. In his excellent article about the situation Paul Driessen points out that anti-hybrid activists have the right to reject hybrid seeds but “thousands of other Haitian farmers want to plant Monsanto seeds. Their right to choose must also be respected – not denied by intolerant protesters, who are largely funded and guided by well-fed First World campaigners.”

Throughout its history drug prohibition has been an immoral, violent, and costly failure. It simply does not accomplish its stated purpose of preventing people from using illicit drugs while at same time it vastly increases the harm caused by the use of those drugs. Now the Associated Press is finally acknowledging these already well known facts in a scathing indictment of the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs.

Naturally this AP report has caused a great deal of reaction most of which is positive. However, former drug czar John P. Walters laments the article arguing that “to say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous.. It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcement, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

Moreover, this is precisely the point made in the preface to Fatal Distraction: The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror four years ago. One of the main story lines of the book “deals the many reasons why drug prohibition and the war on drugs fail because of their own internal contradictions and the immense harm they cause.” The book goes on to contend that “the war on drugs is based on many cherished myths. Such cherished myths die hard. Destructive cherished myths die even harder. Yet, in this book I argue that thinking people everywhere should work, as an urgent matter, to seek to accomplish that very objective – the killing of a cherished destructive myth. That myth is so destructive because it is so seductive – and also because it has been allowed to grow to gigantic proportions by the enthusiastic worldwide support of millions of well meaning and sincere people.” (page 14)

We must hope for all of our sakes that this AP analysis is a significant step forward in the dismantling of the ignoble canard that drug prohibition is both necessary and good.

Cross posted on The Trebach Report

The most important election in the history of drug policy will take place this fall in California where voters shall decide whether or not to legalize marijuana. A recent SurveyUSA News Poll reveals that 56% of the electorate supports the measure while only 42% opposes it. An interesting aspect of the data shows a gender gap with 65% of males in favor but only 46% of females approving. Clearly those who wish a change in policy must develop arguments designed to appeal to women. Perhaps this line of reasoning would have results: if you want to protect your children from marijuana use then legalize it for adults. Under a legal regime you know where cannabis is being sold, you know who is selling it, and there are very strong incentives not to sell it to young people. The way it is now you do not know where marijuana is being sold, you do not know who is selling it, and the dealers, sometimes children themselves, do not care how old the buyers are.

Cross posted on The Trebach Report

During the next election the voters in California will have a chance to improve the quality of life in their state by casting ballots to end marijuana prohibition. The office of the Secretary of State has certified that proponents of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 have gathered enough signatures to make it part of the poll in November. According to an article posted on the Drug War Chronicle the measure would “legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults and allow for personal grows of up to 25 square feet. It also provides for the taxed and regulated sale of marijuana by local option.”

That this much needed reform has come into the hands of California voters is merely a first step, as there will be strenuous opposition from parties with a strong self interest in its defeat. By now we are all too familiar with the litany of exaggerations, half truths and outright lies which will comprise the rationale for voting no on this legislation. However, if past elections like this are any guide precious little will ever be said about what those who oppose this act are voting for.

First and foremost people voting against the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 will be voting for increased alcohol use with its attendant domestic violence, highway fatalities, liver disease, and broken families. From the very beginning of marijuana proscription in the 1930s those most affected by the change, jazz musicians, told us about this consequence. The 1936 song All the Jive is Gone contained the lyric “All the jive is gone, so come on in and drink some gin” while in The “G” Man Got the “T” Man Cee Pee Johnson lamented “They have to drink their lush and stagger, even though they know its wrong.”

Secondly those voting no will be voting for extending financial benefits to lawyers and state prison guards at the expense of teachers, students, librarians, health care professionals, firefighters, park rangers and a whole host of other people also performing more useful work. In addition, they will be voting in favor of cutting off economic opportunity for entrepreneurs, agricultural and otherwise, as well as their potential employees wanting to get involved in a growing cannabis culture.

A vote against legalizing marijuana is also a ballot for continuing the high levels of violence in Mexico. The profits from illegal marijuana sold in California are a most important source of income for the brutal Mexican drug cartels. Stop these funds from flowing in and you greatly reduce their ability to create mayhem. Also, it is a vote for reducing the resources available to apprehend and jail murders, rapists, and thieves here in the United States.

Lastly, a no vote sends the message to our children that sustaining the lies of the past, promoting ignorance and hatred of those different, as well as the welfare of a very small special interest are more important than reality and good public policy.

Cross posted on The Trebach Report

The American government has accomplished many things in Iraq; however, improving the conditions of the people living there is not among them. This is especially true when it comes to the lives of women.

It is very difficult to find any aspect of the Obama Administration that most libertarians would view in a positive light. Here, however, is an exception to that situation.