Looks like the recent influx of paleoconservatives to the party is having an effect, beginning to rein in the wackjob stuff and embrace a more mainstream agenda....



"The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not perfect guides to the final goal that the libertarian movement desires – a truly Free Society.

The ultimate Free Society can exist only while the vast majority of citizens have a high sense of responsibility and self-reliance, and that is certainly not the case in today’s America.

The Constitution is, however, nominally still the Supreme Law of the Nation. If it were rigorously enforced based upon an Originalistic method of interpretation, the United States would be a vastly freer country than it is today. Our posterity would then have a better chance to extend freedom to a still higher level.

The Libertarian Party platform should seek to bring our government back into full compliance with the US Constitution, and embrace the strict enforcement of enumerated Federal powers as an intermediate goal on the path to instituting Libertarian principles.

That goal is difficult to attain when our platform proposes policy that prohibits even the reasonably limited role of government that is, in fact, authorized by the Constitution.

With that in mind, we recommend the Platform be aligned with existing enumerated powers.

A number of the planks in the 2004 LP Platform advocates the repeal or abolishment of federal powers that have been granted to the federal government by the US citizenry.

Each plank listed below has at least one clause that should be revised to remedy the inconsistency:

I.17: Conscription & the Military (Transition section) – Revise to allow military discipline. Conflicts with U.S. Const. I:8:16 (Rules of Military Discipline).
I.18: Immigration (Transition section) – Revise per minimal congressional authority. Conflicts with U.S. Const. I:8:10 (Law of Nations).
II.2.: Taxation (Solution section) – Delete “Repeal all Taxation.” Conflicts with U.S. Const. I:8:1
II.3: Inflation and Depression (Solutions section) – Delete “eliminate all government minted coins.” Conflicts with U.S. Const. I:8:5 (Coin Money).
II.5: Government Debt (Principle section) – Delete “not incur debt.” Conflicts with U.S. Const. I:8:2 (Debt).
II.5: Government Debt (Principle section) – Delete “not hold assets.” Conflicts with U.S. Const. I:8:1,2; IV:3:2 (Assets).
II.8: Trade Barriers (Solutions section) – Delete “abolish all trade barriers." Conflicts with U.S. Const. I:8:1,3.
III.6: Transportation (Solutions section) – Delete “privatize national highway system.” Conflicts with U.S. Const. I:8:7 “Post Roads.”
III.13: Postal Service (Solutions section) – Change “abolish” to “privatize”, and provide details. Conflicts with U.S. Const. I:8:7.
Upon election, our victorious candidates take an oath to comply with and defend the U.S. and/or state Constitutions, which prescribe binding contracts between those elected and the citizens they would serve. We damage our candidate’s credibility by asking them to advocate the immediate curtailment of powers currently authorized by the Constitution.

Such advocacy directed toward citizens who do not yet grasp Libertarian theories makes us appear naive, incompetent in the affairs of government, and therefore not trustworthy to be handed the responsibilities of public office.

By consistently pointing out the unlawful basis of government action, our candidates will be perceived as more knowledgeable in the affairs of government.

A public office is granted by the electorate, and the power of elected Libertarians to affect change should and would be limited. Being elected to an office does not give one license to impose one’s will with reckless abandon.

Before the people will grant the LP broad powers to reshape American society, we as Libertarians must earn their trust and their affection. We must demonstrate good sense, and demonstrate competence in areas relevant to the offices we seek.

We must also recognize that large segments of society have come to rely on departures from U.S. and state constitutions. These “reliance interests” have to be accorded some regard until Libertarian reforms are in place.

When such reforms are proven to work, they will pave the way for more far-reaching reforms as compared to what’s politically possible today.

Libertarians elected as public officials should be willing and eager to comply with strict limits on their powers.

This novel approach could become our competitive advantage as our fellow citizens grow weary of politicians who have abandoned the rule of law. Eloquent Libertarian candidates, expressing mature opinions about the Constitution, will build credibility when demonstrating knowledge in areas relevant to the offices they seek.

Such credibility, together with sensible plans to reinstate limits on the power of public officials, will build trust with voters. If these opinions are delivered with humor, the electorate will begin to admire us for our integrity and competence. As we begin to implement real, positive change, they will learn to entrust us with elected office.

We have an opportunity in 2006 and 2008 to become something more than a minor political party. We must develop a migration path based upon current laws, and use modern marketing techniques to sell that plan to our customer, the American electorate.

Principles without an effective method to apply them are impotent, but political principles, practically applied, can save our nation. Now is the time for the Libertarian Party to use our principles to save this proud nation, our home, the United States of America.

(The Platform Committee seeks your feedback on this DRAFT proposal, so your input can be considered prior to the start of the Convention. Please email feedback about this article, with subject line “LP Platform Feedback”, to guy-at-mclendon.net, or join the review at our website: http://www.lpconvention.org/platform/.)

About the authors: This collumn was written by members of the 2006 Platform Committee, namely Guy McLendon, Tim West and Brian Holtz."

Immigration

About time?

Nice thought to have but whether we as Libertarians are for drug leglization and utterly minimal government the druggies are still the first thing people think of it is a stigma/stereotype that needs reversing.  Out the druggies and make the Dims look like what they are big-governmert Socialists to the public and we will grow.

Quoted: Immigration

A libertarian view is to open borders to most and all commerce.  In otherwords in terms of legals or illegals no change and economicly a true open market.  True capitolism is not practiced here (Bans i.e. 89 and Chinese guns and ammo, tariffs, and embargos) if you have yet to catch on to that.  INS needs to keelhauled and made more efficient.  

Quoted: Immigration

Second thing on the list, right after UCMJ.

Quoted: Immigration

Get rid of the welfare state and nobody will even want to come here.

LP changing its policy on immigration will never happen, and for good reason.

I see a lot of good ideas above.

As someone who's been a registered Libertarian for over 20 years, was a member of the Libertarian club in college, went to local party meetings after college, I have no hope for the party.  You can be "right" all you want, but I've finally come to the conclusion that most of society is too stupid and lazy to live under a truly market system that the libertarians call for.  And to me it looks like the change is pushing toward becoming another Constitution Party.  

Well, the Libertarians will never get anywhere as a party.  Sure, they get some sympathy votes, but will never win a real election.  Our best bet is to take the Republican party back from the Big Government "conservatives".  We need more Ron Pauls in govt., though truly I believe we are lost.  

Govt. is a cancer that keeps growing and expanding and can't be stopped.  Sure, some victories can be had, but our lives are pretty much touched by govt. in every area and that is not going to change.  Our schools are ruining our children's minds and growing a nation of people who believe govt. is there to take care of them.  As a free nation we are lost and I'm content to seek whatever freedoms and comforts I can.  I'm more now in the original Harry Browne mode of thought.

Do away with the "open borders" ideology, I'll vote accordingly.

--VT

Quoted: As someone who's been a registered Libertarian for over 20 years, was a member of the Libertarian club in college, went to local party meetings after college, I have no hope for the party.  You can be "right" all you want, but I've finally come to the conclusion that most of society is too stupid and lazy to live under a truly market system that the libertarians call for.  And to me it looks like the change is pushing toward becoming another Constitution Party.   Well, the Libertarians will never get anywhere as a party.  Sure, they get some sympathy votes, but will never win a real election.  Our best bet is to take the Republican party back from the Big Government "conservatives".  We need more Ron Pauls in govt., though truly I believe we are lost.   Govt. is a cancer that keeps growing and expanding and can't be stopped.  Sure, some victories can be had, but our lives are pretty much touched by govt. in every area and that is not going to change.  Our schools are ruining our children's minds and growing a nation of people who believe govt. is there to take care of them.  As a free nation we are lost and I'm content to seek whatever freedoms and comforts I can.  I'm more now in the original Harry Browne mode of thought.

+1 The Libertarian party is a good idea on paper (Not for me but better than democraps) but will never fly.

Our founding fathers would be libertarians if they were alive today.  I don't think it's as impossible as you guys think.  This government will be badly bankrupt within a few years, and people are tiring of the republicans and the religious right.  That said, they're certainly not looking to the Democrats for any help.  They will never be in power again in this country.

Very interesting rpoposal, and I think if they do make those changes they may go a long way toward having a stronger influenece in future races. Most notably it will be harder for the Republicans to dismiss them, and they may sway the GOP platform closer to thiers if they feel a new, revemped, more GOP-like libertarian party can take away what would otherwise be core GOP voters................

Quoted: Our founding fathers would be libertarians if they were alive today.

No, they most certainly would not.  They might create their own party, but I doubt they would be satisfied with any existing party.
That said, what SHOULD happen is the Libertarians SHOULD try to merge with the Constitution Party---it would increase their relevance and get them heard more by the Republicans.

Quoted: Quoted: Our founding fathers would be libertarians if they were alive today.   No, they most certainly would not.  They might create their own party, but I doubt they would be satisfied with any existing party. That said, what SHOULD happen is the Libertarians SHOULD try to merge with the Constitution Party---it would increase their relevance and get them heard more by the Republicans.

Not a bad idea Rick.....don't know if they could get together on core issues though....

People who want to make radical political changes don't realize the politics isn't just making a decision, it's a moving process of cause and effect.

For example the comment "eliminate the welfare state".  That's a nice idea, save tax dollars and force people to be self reliable...but what about the effect caused by the MILLIONS of people who now have no place to live and no food to eat?  Not your problem you say?  When you have beggars on every street corner, people stealing from you every time you turn around, having your wife and kids approached constantly by people who are looking for a target just so they can get by...then yes it does become your problem.  With crime going through the roof, homeless and beggars everywhere, are you then going to increase the police force to combat the crime?  You'll need more police stations, more cars, and more equipment.  Where are you going to house all the new criminals?  Are you going to build new jails?  With all the new adults going to jail what are you going to do with all the kids?  Put them in foster care?  What about all the new juevenile deliquents?  Are you going to build new detention centers for them all?  The effects go on and on and on and when it's done how much better off is everyone and exactly how many tax dollars will you have saved?

Politics isn't as simple as saying "I'm going to do this".  Until the Libertarians or any other third party learns that they will always be looked at as a fringe group because the one small action they want to take alienates a large portion of the country and leaves them without a plan...and people don't vote for those who don't have a plan.

Libertarians: Liberals who have seen the light but still want to smoke pot.

The only hope for the Libertarian party is that they will provide a wakeup call to the GOP that this Big Government thing isn't going to fly.

I'm sorry, but I can't go along with the legalizing drugs thing....Here in Ohio where I live, the big thing with the druggies is Heroin....2 deaths in the area from OD's so far, and more expected. The kids using are in the 18-24 year old group and it's use is spreading..you want to legalize this?? You'll NEVER get my vote!!!

Quoted: I'm sorry, but I can't go along with the legalizing drugs thing....Here in Ohio where I live, the big thing with the druggies is Heroin....2 deaths in the area from OD's so far, and more expected. The kids using are in the 18-24 year old group and it's use is spreading..you want to legalize this?? You'll NEVER get my vote!!!

OK, so you have never read the research on the subject. Try reading Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs  The first several chapters explain how the heroin problem started.  This is probably the best single overall review of the subject ever written. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other thousands of documents available online.

Also, read the Short history of the marijuana laws  This is fairly short (about twenty printed pages) and quite humorous at points. Lots of interesting stuff in there that I am sure you never heard before.

When you get done with those, if you want to do some more extensive reading, you can find the full text of most of the major government studies of the subject at Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy  You can read them and draw your own conclusions. But I have never met anyone who has read them and agreed with your position.

Years ago I read a book called "Genetic Studies of Genius". One of  the things the authors did was to survey IQs and try to decide which ranges were suitable for which jobs. For example, they found that you had to have an IQ of over 160 if you seriously wanted to compete as a great writer or nuclear physicist. On the other hand, famous painters and generals were completely average. The smartest painter in history was supposed to have been Velazquez, with an IQ of about 145. (They estimated Leonardo at 135 -- ascribing his talents to exceptional creativity.) If you want to be a general, you probably won't make it if you are much above average in IQ.

For politicians, they figured the optimum range was about 125-140. That is, a couple of standard deviations above the average, but not so far up that the common clod on the street can't understand them.

The problem with the Libertarian party is their high concentration of PhDs. If you go to one of their conventions, there are a hell of a lot of smart people there -- maybe too smart to be appreciated by the average man. Perhaps the biggest political problem they face is that, by averages, fully half of the voting public is mentally retarded.

Immigration is the major flaw in their platform and will prevent them from ever having any chance at power.  I would never trust them to do otherwise at this point no matter what they say.

Welfare?
Severely limit to only short term, help people get back up on their feet, etc.
More beggars?
Screw 'em. Don't give 'em a thing. Let them fucking starve. I am serious and stepping over their bodies on the street corner wouldn't bother me one bit. Scum. Entire planet is better off without them.
More crime?
BANG!

Drug use?
Yeah, drug use sucks. But this is America and the gov't should have never gotten involved. Personal freedom. And personal responsibility.
A few OD and die. I call it natural selection.  10,000 years ago, these idiots would have been eaten by a big cat. We are better off without them also.


It is all bullshit anyhow. As soon as they got power, if they did, they would eventually revert to the same shit.  Same shit, different party.

I don't know what the answer is.
I think a Const Amend restricting Entitlements is the only hope for this country and I just don't see that happening.  I could go on for a long time about why this is what has, and is, destroying this country.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm sorry, but I can't go along with the legalizing drugs thing....Here in Ohio where I live, the big thing with the druggies is Heroin....2 deaths in the area from OD's so far, and more expected. The kids using are in the 18-24 year old group and it's use is spreading..you want to legalize this?? You'll NEVER get my vote!!! OK, so you have never read the research on the subject. Try reading Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs  The first several chapters explain how the heroin problem started.  This is probably the best single overall review of the subject ever written. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other thousands of documents available online. Also, read the Short history of the marijuana laws  This is fairly short (about twenty printed pages) and quite humorous at points. Lots of interesting stuff in there that I am sure you never heard before. When you get done with those, if you want to do some more extensive reading, you can find the full text of most of the major government studies of the subject at Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy  You can read them and draw your own conclusions. But I have never met anyone who has read them and agreed with your position.

My wife is the Director of the County's drug and Alcohol abuse program..She has a Master's degree. I see the other side that most of you Don't see... The late night phone calls,  her having to go the the hospitial because some druggie has OD'ed and now wants help, Detox centers always full, druggies who want to stop can't get the help they need because there is nowhere to send them, So, they go back to using, since they can't get a job because they can't pass a drug test, they resort to crime to support their habit, dealing,  B&E, armed robbery, shoplifting, This hurts all of us as it raises prices on everthing. I see it all... Within the last 6 months the drug of choice in the area went from meth, pot, to heroin, as it's cheap..$5-10 a bag usually snorted, later they start shooting up when the start that they never go back to snorting, it's the needle from then on. You can cite whatever "study" you want. Long term drug use has No benefits whatsoever, Show me a country that has benefitted from drug use by it's people... If you want to hide behind a "study" to validate your drug use..fine, keep bullshitting yourself.. but don't tell me I'm wrong. If you're using, then you're part of the problem...Legalizing this shit isn't the answer........

Quoted: Years ago I read a book called "Genetic Studies of Genius". One of  the things the authors did was to survey IQs and try to decide which ranges were suitable for which jobs. For example, they found that you had to have an IQ of over 160 if you seriously wanted to compete as a great writer or nuclear physicist. On the other hand, famous painters and generals were completely average. The smartest painter in history was supposed to have been Velazquez, with an IQ of about 145. (They estimated Leonardo at 135 -- ascribing his talents to exceptional creativity.) If you want to be a general, you probably won't make it if you are much above average in IQ. For politicians, they figured the optimum range was about 125-140. That is, a couple of standard deviations above the average, but not so far up that the common clod on the street can't understand them. The problem with the Libertarian party is their high concentration of PhDs. If you go to one of their conventions, there are a hell of a lot of smart people there -- maybe too smart to be appreciated by the average man. Perhaps the biggest political problem they face is that, by averages, fully half of the voting public is mentally retarded.

I guess people are just too fucking stupid to be libertarians.

Al Capone had  an IQ of 200, The Unabomber had an IQ of 170.  They'd make great libertarians too

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm sorry, but I can't go along with the legalizing drugs thing....Here in Ohio where I live, the big thing with the druggies is Heroin....2 deaths in the area from OD's so far, and more expected. The kids using are in the 18-24 year old group and it's use is spreading..you want to legalize this?? You'll NEVER get my vote!!! OK, so you have never read the research on the subject. Try reading Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs  The first several chapters explain how the heroin problem started.  This is probably the best single overall review of the subject ever written. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other thousands of documents available online. Also, read the Short history of the marijuana laws  This is fairly short (about twenty printed pages) and quite humorous at points. Lots of interesting stuff in there that I am sure you never heard before. When you get done with those, if you want to do some more extensive reading, you can find the full text of most of the major government studies of the subject at Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy  You can read them and draw your own conclusions. But I have never met anyone who has read them and agreed with your position. My wife is the Director of the County's drug and Alcohol abuse program..She has a Master's degree. I see the other side that most of you Don't see... The late night phone calls,  her having to go the the hospitial because some druggie has OD'ed and now wants help, Detox centers always full, druggies who want to stop can't get the help they need because there is nowhere to send them,

Total BS.  They don't want to stop. Not really. If they did they would.
Our county has such a facility. None of them want to go there. None of them want to quit.
The ones who come in for detox are a crock of total bullshit. They just want free drugs, free room and board until their next welfare check or SSI check comes in. Or until some family member relents and hands them some cash.  They are the lowest forms of life but have a right to be so.  They, however, have NO right to demand I pay for their bullshit and screw their detox bullshit because that is just what it is.  I have detoxed plenty of these people.  None of them were their to quit their respective drugs. Not one in 15 years of practice.  But I see this from a different POV. I am a physician, not a social worker.

So, they go back to using, since they can't get a job because they can't pass a drug test, they resort to crime to support their habit, dealing,  B&E, armed robbery, shoplifting, This hurts all of us as it raises prices on everthing.

Oh, those poor creatures....

I see it all... Within the last 6 months the drug of choice in the area went from meth, pot, to heroin, as it's cheap..$5-10 a bag usually snorted, later they start shooting up when the start that they never go back to snorting, it's the needle from then on. You can cite whatever "study" you want. Long term drug use has No benefits whatsoever,

Of course it doesn't but that isn't the point.
You could say the same about all sorts of activities humans engage in.
The question is whether you are free to do as you please without harming others.  And paying more for your insurance or whatever, is not harming you.  If that is your definition then I will just about guarantee that you do things that raise some cost for others. We all do. Some are worse than others of course.

Show me a country that has benefitted from drug use by it's people...

There are none. Of course not. Never have been, never will be.  That won't prevent their use however, nor will it justify draconian infringements into our liberties.

If you want to hide behind a "study" to validate your drug use..fine, keep bullshitting yourself.. but don't tell me I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

If you're using, then you're part of the problem...Legalizing this shit isn't the answer........

I agree. It isn't the answer. I am not sure there is one.  Creatures have always sought the effects of various drugs and I see no end in sight.
But we are not talking about an answer to the problem. We are talking about whether we want to live in a free country or not.

Quoted: Quoted: Years ago I read a book called "Genetic Studies of Genius". One of  the things the authors did was to survey IQs and try to decide which ranges were suitable for which jobs. For example, they found that you had to have an IQ of over 160 if you seriously wanted to compete as a great writer or nuclear physicist. On the other hand, famous painters and generals were completely average. The smartest painter in history was supposed to have been Velazquez, with an IQ of about 145. (They estimated Leonardo at 135 -- ascribing his talents to exceptional creativity.) If you want to be a general, you probably won't make it if you are much above average in IQ. For politicians, they figured the optimum range was about 125-140. That is, a couple of standard deviations above the average, but not so far up that the common clod on the street can't understand them. The problem with the Libertarian party is their high concentration of PhDs. If you go to one of their conventions, there are a hell of a lot of smart people there -- maybe too smart to be appreciated by the average man. Perhaps the biggest political problem they face is that, by averages, fully half of the voting public is mentally retarded. I guess people are just too fucking stupid to be libertarians. Al Capone had  an IQ of 200, The Unabomber had an IQ of 170.  They'd make great libertarians too

I would also say that we really don't have a good way of accurately measuring inteligence. Most IQ tests measure knowledge, spatial orientation skills etc.  These are useful abilities/skills of course, but are not a great measure of reasoning ability.
Their estimation of Da Vinci speaks volumes, not that anyone who thinks they can estimate the IQ of someone long dead has much credibility, as they note "creativity" is not measured.  Seems like something important to genius IMO.  

The longer I have been involved in science, academics, and medicine, the less ueful I find IQ tests in measuring someone's abilities.  I scored 97th percentile taking the MCATs to get into med school which palces me about 2 standard deviations from the mean for those trying to get into medschool.  Where that places me with respect to the average human I don't know.  4 standard deviations? I am pretty bright but not that much smarter than the average human.  Hmmm...some days I am not so sure. Perhaps....

J/K

Interesting. I'm not sure this is addressed, but their (previous at least) notion that there shouldn't be a standing army is a big one that I don't support. And IIRC they wouldn't support Israel either. I know handouts aren't part of the Libertarian plank but it's one I feel strongly about. I disagree with their liberalization of drug laws as well.

A few more tweaks (I'd have to see their entire agenda, in English, not Lawyerese ) and I could ignore some of their shortcomings and get behind these guys.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm sorry, but I can't go along with the legalizing drugs thing....Here in Ohio where I live, the big thing with the druggies is Heroin....2 deaths in the area from OD's so far, and more expected. The kids using are in the 18-24 year old group and it's use is spreading..you want to legalize this?? You'll NEVER get my vote!!! OK, so you have never read the research on the subject. Try reading Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs  The first several chapters explain how the heroin problem started.  This is probably the best single overall review of the subject ever written. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other thousands of documents available online. Also, read the Short history of the marijuana laws  This is fairly short (about twenty printed pages) and quite humorous at points. Lots of interesting stuff in there that I am sure you never heard before. When you get done with those, if you want to do some more extensive reading, you can find the full text of most of the major government studies of the subject at Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy  You can read them and draw your own conclusions. But I have never met anyone who has read them and agreed with your position. My wife is the Director of the County's drug and Alcohol abuse program..She has a Master's degree. I see the other side that most of you Don't see... The late night phone calls,  her having to go the the hospitial because some druggie has OD'ed and now wants help, Detox centers always full, druggies who want to stop can't get the help they need because there is nowhere to send them, Total BS.  They don't want to stop. Not really. If they did they would. Our county has such a facility. None of them want to go there. None of them want to quit. The ones who come in for detox are a crock of total bullshit. They just want free drugs, free room and board until their next welfare check or SSI check comes in. Or until some family member relents and hands them some cash.  They are the lowest forms of life but have a right to be so.  They, however, have NO right to demand I pay for their bullshit and screw their detox bullshit because that is just what it is.  I have detoxed plenty of these people.  None of them were their to quit their respective drugs. Not one in 15 years of practice.  But I see this from a different POV. I am a physician, not a social worker. So, they go back to using, since they can't get a job because they can't pass a drug test, they resort to crime to support their habit, dealing,  B&E, armed robbery, shoplifting, This hurts all of us as it raises prices on everthing. Oh, those poor creatures.... I see it all... Within the last 6 months the drug of choice in the area went from meth, pot, to heroin, as it's cheap..$5-10 a bag usually snorted, later they start shooting up when the start that they never go back to snorting, it's the needle from then on. You can cite whatever "study" you want. Long term drug use has No benefits whatsoever, Of course it doesn't but that isn't the point. You could say the same about all sorts of activities humans engage in. The question is whether you are free to do as you please without harming others.  And paying more for your insurance or whatever, is not harming you.  If that is your definition then I will just about guarantee that you do things that raise some cost for others. We all do. Some are worse than others of course. Show me a country that has benefitted from drug use by it's people... There are none. Of course not. Never have been, never will be.  That won't prevent their use however, nor will it justify draconian infringements into our liberties. If you want to hide behind a "study" to validate your drug use..fine, keep bullshitting yourself.. but don't tell me I'm wrong. You're wrong. If you're using, then you're part of the problem...Legalizing this shit isn't the answer........

I agree. It isn't the answer. I am not sure there is one.  Creatures have always sought the effects of various drugs and I see no end in sight.
But we are not talking about an answer to the problem. We are talking about whether we want to live in a free country or not.[/quote

I'm sorry but your defintion of a "free country" that includes addicts lying on the sidewalk is a bit much for me, that's not my idea of a "free" country...." I've never met a physician who thought the use of illegal drugs was a "freedom".... That line of thinking alone has me wondering if you really are a physician. If you truely believe that it's ok to use illegal drugs, then maybe you should turn in your license to practice... As far as doing what you want without hurting others..What a crock of B.S.....Breaking and entering? shoplifting, armed robbery? to support a drug habit? stealing MY things, to be pawned, and the money generated to be used to buy more illegal drugs? But, hey, it's a "free" country... But nobody got "hurt"..that's the impotrant thing.  We ALL pay for this... Higher insurance rates?  My insurance will run out in March..I can't afford the preimums,so, I'll go without, but that's ok, it's not "hurting" anybody, just part the price paid so the druggies can enjoy their "freedom".. What a crock of shit!!!  They have NO RIGHT TO DEMAND that they be allowed to puke on the sidewalk, leave their needles lying on the ground, panhandle, openly use their drugs in public, This line of thinking is why the Lib party will NEVER get elected.... I don't buy into this idea of "freedom" and you're wrong Doc, (if you really are one..)

Quoted: I'm sorry, but I can't go along with the legalizing drugs thing....Here in Ohio where I live, the big thing with the druggies is Heroin....2 deaths in the area from OD's so far, and more expected. The kids using are in the 18-24 year old group and it's use is spreading..you want to legalize this?? You'll NEVER get my vote!!!

Then you need to start supporting a new Phohibition on alcohol since medically an addiction, is an addiction, is an addiciton, to ANY mind altering substance, and may druggies started with just drinking.

Maybe I am not a doc.
Maybe I was never a Marine.
Maybe I am just a figment of your imagination.

On the grand scale it matters not one iota to me what you think. About me or my views.  Or anything else for that matter. Nothing personal, just my overall impression of the stupidity and folly with which the human species conducts itself. Dopers and yourself included.

Quoted: Quoted: My wife is the Director of the County's drug and Alcohol abuse program..She has a Master's degree. I see the other side that most of you Don't see... The late night phone calls,  her having to go the the hospitial because some druggie has OD'ed and now wants help, Detox centers always full, druggies who want to stop can't get the help they need because there is nowhere to send them, Total BS.  They don't want to stop. Not really. If they did they would.

Most ignorant comment I've seen on this site in a long time.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My wife is the Director of the County's drug and Alcohol abuse program..She has a Master's degree. I see the other side that most of you Don't see... The late night phone calls,  her having to go the the hospitial because some druggie has OD'ed and now wants help, Detox centers always full, druggies who want to stop can't get the help they need because there is nowhere to send them, Total BS.  They don't want to stop. Not really. If they did they would. Most ignorant comment I've seen on this site in a long time.

I've treated plenty of these people and have yet to see one who really wanted to stop. Not fucking one in 15 years of medicine. But I am the one who's ignorant? LMAO.

Quoted: I've treated plenty of these people and have yet to see one who really wanted to stop. Not fucking one in 15 years of medicine. But I am the one who's ignorant? LMAO.

In fifteen years of medicine you've never treated someone addicted to a substance that wanted to stop but couldn't? You must be awesome at your job. Or you must have a pretty narrow definition of "really wanted to stop".

If its just a matter of wanting to, how come some therapies work better than others? By your analysis, either they want to stop, in which case they do, or they do not want to stop, in which case they don't. It that's the case, then every therapy should work equally well (including no therapy at all). Since that is provably not the case ...

I like talking to the Libertarian Party guys at the gun shows.  They always encourage me to register as one of them, and I tell them I can't, even though I agree with a lot of their positions (except immigration).  They always seemed shocked when I tell them they simply can't win, so there's really no point.

The problem we have today is that so many people depend on direct or indirect handouts from the .gov, and none of those people would continue to get those handouts if the Libertarian party got it's way, so they simply cannot get enough votes to win.

I think it's a great idea for them to change their platform, eliminate the more goofy ideas on unrestricted immigration, no taxation, no USMJ, etc.  If they simply focused on the fact that both the Democraps and Republicrooks are big gov't monsters, and all they want is a return to the proper, limited government actually allowed and authorized by the Constitution, they'd get a lot further along than they do now.

If they ran ads like this:

Republicans support big government.
Democrats support even bigger government.
The Constitution allows for only limited government - and the Libertarian party supports the Constitution.
Vote for our guy and we'll reduce .gov instrusion in your life.
Vote for our guy and we'll only do what the Constitution says we can do.

Maybe they'd have a chance.  Right now, anything is better than the garbage we have in office.

Quoted: People who want to make radical political changes don't realize the politics isn't just making a decision, it's a moving process of cause and effect. For example the comment "eliminate the welfare state".  That's a nice idea, save tax dollars and force people to be self reliable...but what about the effect caused by the MILLIONS of people who now have no place to live and no food to eat?  Not your problem you say?  When you have beggars on every street corner, people stealing from you every time you turn around, having your wife and kids approached constantly by people who are looking for a target just so they can get by...then yes it does become your problem.  With crime going through the roof, homeless and beggars everywhere, are you then going to increase the police force to combat the crime?  You'll need more police stations, more cars, and more equipment.  Where are you going to house all the new criminals?  Are you going to build new jails?  With all the new adults going to jail what are you going to do with all the kids?  Put them in foster care?  What about all the new juevenile deliquents?  Are you going to build new detention centers for them all?  The effects go on and on and on and when it's done how much better off is everyone and exactly how many tax dollars will you have saved? Politics isn't as simple as saying "I'm going to do this".  Until the Libertarians or any other third party learns that they will always be looked at as a fringe group because the one small action they want to take alienates a large portion of the country and leaves them without a plan...and people don't vote for those who don't have a plan.

Quote from the draft proposal:

"We must also recognize that large segments of society have come to rely on departures from U.S. and state constitutions. These “reliance interests” have to be accorded some regard until Libertarian reforms are in place"

Most of you guys don't seem to realize what a paradigm shift this document represents for the LP, hell most of you don't seem to have bothered to read it.

Lets keep the drug debate to a minimum OK? It's an arguement that's been beat to death, and unless I miss my guess the LP is moving towards a more moderate position on the subject, at least as an interim position.

The LP has been more of a philosophical debating society than a viable political party since its inception, this changes that, and it's just the beginning unless I'm very much mistaken. The dissatisfaction among conservatives is swelling the Libertarian ranks with Paleos, (l)ibertarians, and constitutionalists, and Mike Badnarik (a constitutional law professor) has become the leading figure in the party, and looks like he may actually have a shot at a seat in the house this year. These amendments seem to bring the party platform into line with the positions of Badnarik/Paul, which is a very good thing IMO.

The LP received more votes in 2004 than all other third party presidential candidates combined, this proposal, though it's unlikely to bring the constitution party core into the fold immediately, will kill the CP and position the LP as the alternative to Dem/Rep.

I've always known the LP would have to back off its more extreme positions if it was ever to become a viable party, it was inevitable, as the authors pointed out the first thing an LP candidate does if elected is swear to preserve and defend the constitution.

Several of you have brought up the power the LP could have to influence the GOP, and I agree with that, one poster seems to feel the LP could become a viable party in its own right, seeing as how the Republocrats seem determined to destroy the republic, I agree with that too, however it would take a huge crisis, a major failure of the current system, for that to happen IMO. I'd rather that didn't happen, but I think the possibility it could in my lifetime is real enough I'm very pleased to see a serious alternative party forming, because if it isn't the LP in that circumstance it will cetainly be something, likely something not concerned with liberty at all.

merging the CP and LP might be difficult.  banning abortion is a CP platform plant, while the LP wants to keep it legal.  going to be hard to unite the parties with that being such a wedge issue.

Quoted: merging the CP and LP might be difficult.  banning abortion is a CP platform plant, while the LP wants to keep it legal.  going to be hard to unite the parties with that being such a wedge issue.

I think they could reach a compromise.  Maybe something along the lines of:  abortion is a state issue and should be decided at the state level without federal interference.

Quoted: Quoted: merging the CP and LP might be difficult.  banning abortion is a CP platform plant, while the LP wants to keep it legal.  going to be hard to unite the parties with that being such a wedge issue. I think they could reach a compromise.  Maybe something along the lines of:  abortion is a state issue and should be decided at the state level without federal interference.

works for me.  but the parties run candidates at the state and local levels too.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: merging the CP and LP might be difficult.  banning abortion is a CP platform plant, while the LP wants to keep it legal.  going to be hard to unite the parties with that being such a wedge issue. I think they could reach a compromise.  Maybe something along the lines of:  abortion is a state issue and should be decided at the state level without federal interference. works for me.  but the parties run candidates at the state and local levels too.

Well, there are pro choice and anti abortion GOP candidates on local and state levels...why should LP/CP candidates be any different?

Quoted: Maybe I am not a doc. Maybe I was never a Marine. Maybe I am just a figment of your imagination. On the grand scale it matters not one iota to me what you think. About me or my views.  Or anything else for that matter. Nothing personal, just my overall impression of the stupidity and folly with which the human species conducts itself. Dopers and yourself included.

On this point we agree..I could give a rat's ass less what you think about me or my views. (one of the beauty's of "freedom of speech") However, I Do stand by my comment on your returning your license to practice medicine. The last thing the dopers in this country need is an enabler with a license to practice from the AMA... Nothing personal, that's just how I feel when it comes to illegal drugs and their use.

very true.

Quoted: Quoted: I've treated plenty of these people and have yet to see one who really wanted to stop. Not fucking one in 15 years of medicine. But I am the one who's ignorant? LMAO. In fifteen years of medicine you've never treated someone addicted to a substance that wanted to stop but couldn't? You must be awesome at your job. Or you must have a pretty narrow definition of "really wanted to stop".

Yeah, my definition is that they show some effort.  That they don't keep going from doctor to doctor trying to score drugs or blowing their life out their ass spending all of their time working on their next score.

I had one guy last year who I actually thought might make an effort.  He came back the following week, said he saw a differnet doc, might have been a counselor of some kind, and said he was told the problem was that I wasn't giving him enough narcotics or he wouldn't feel the need to seek them!  What is fucked up is I believe some asswipe told him that.

I told him the asswipe was full of shit, that he ought to do something else for a living, and that he wasn't getting any more from me.  He agreed with me completely. And then I never saw him again.
NEVER ran out of drug seekers. NEVER. But once I told them no, I never saw them again.

I am awesome at my job but IMO my job does not involve enabling others drug habits, or giving them time off work for nothing. My job involves taking care of the sick and injured. Period. If you want someone to actually make a proper diagnosis and form a proper treatment plan than I am the doc. If you want someone to rubber stamp your Rx and time off work slip I am most definitley not.  Sounds like you fall into the latter group.  

You have no idea how often people come in thinking they are "entitled" to time off work and drugs just because they say so.  And a lot of that is because so many docs will do that for them.  I won't.

If its just a matter of wanting to, how come some therapies work better than others? By your analysis, either they want to stop, in which case they do, or they do not want to stop, in which case they don't. It that's the case, then every therapy should work equally well (including no therapy at all). Since that is provably not the case ...

They don't stop.
Some do on their own, I have no doubt. The ones that come in for detox are BS. Every fucking one of them. I have had call weekends where I have detoxed as many as 7.  None of them had any intent of stopping. Just using the system to get what they want. Free bed, free food, free drugs and soemone to wait on them hand and foot.  Funny how they were always ready to leave by Thurs afternoon or friday morning and the majority always came in on Sunday night after bar closing. Always an influx towards the end of the month also.  Once that check came though, it was another story.


As for treatment programs, they are a joke.  And how do they determine whether their program works?

They DON'T.
If these people are out there telling them they are clean they are blowing smoke up their ass.

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe I am not a doc. Maybe I was never a Marine. Maybe I am just a figment of your imagination. On the grand scale it matters not one iota to me what you think. About me or my views.  Or anything else for that matter. Nothing personal, just my overall impression of the stupidity and folly with which the human species conducts itself. Dopers and yourself included. On this point we agree..I could give a rat's ass less what you think about me or my views. (one of the beauty's of "freedom of speech") However, I Do stand by my comment on your returning your license to practice medicine. The last thing the dopers in this country need is an enabler with a license to practice from the AMA... Nothing personal, that's just how I feel when it comes to illegal drugs and their use.

LMAO.
To one of you I am an enabler to the other I am Hitler. You're both a couple of retards.

Quoted: Quoted: Maybe I am not a doc. Maybe I was never a Marine. Maybe I am just a figment of your imagination. On the grand scale it matters not one iota to me what you think. About me or my views.  Or anything else for that matter. Nothing personal, just my overall impression of the stupidity and folly with which the human species conducts itself. Dopers and yourself included. On this point we agree..I could give a rat's ass less what you think about me or my views. (one of the beauty's of "freedom of speech") However, I Do stand by my comment on your returning your license to practice medicine. The last thing the dopers in this country need is an enabler with a license to practice from the AMA... Nothing personal, that's just how I feel when it comes to illegal drugs and their use.

What I do is not your call. That is what liberty is. If I want to do heroin all day, my call. It only becomes your problem if I harm another or go on the dole and take your money. Eliminate the nanny state and we can all go back to being free. Not to mention the assload of money, freedom, and law enforcement resources we'll all have by not supporting the "war on drugs." Then maybe we will have room for all those killers, thieves, and child molesters we keep releasing. We used to call it the justice system. Now it’s just the legal system.

anyone who thinks that the gov't should throw people in prison and strip them of their rights just because they choose to ingest a plant or substance which the government does not approve of is a fascist.

Quoted: Quoted: Immigration A libertarian view is to open borders to most and all commerce.  In otherwords in terms of legals or illegals no change and economicly a true open market.  True capitolism is not practiced here (Bans i.e. 89 and Chinese guns and ammo, tariffs, and embargos) if you have yet to catch on to that.  INS needs to keelhauled and made more efficient.

Above that, border issues need to be treated like property tresspass. Ie; shoot them unless they come in at a controlled border crossing. No more trashing ranches along the Rio Grande.

Quoted: merging the CP and LP might be difficult.  banning abortion is a CP platform plant, while the LP wants to keep it legal.  going to be hard to unite the parties with that being such a wedge issue.

Keep it legal, but kick it back to the States as there is no provision in the FedCon for enforcing said mandate on the States.

Over turning Roe V Wade does that. Both CP and LP members should at least be able to get behind that idea.

Quoted: Interesting. I'm not sure this is addressed, but their (previous at least) notion that there shouldn't be a standing army is a big one that I don't support. And IIRC they wouldn't support Israel either. I know handouts aren't part of the Libertarian plank but it's one I feel strongly about. I disagree with their liberalization of drug laws as well.

80 million gun owners. Every one of them with the full force of their Second Amendment Rights. Subject to volutnary local militia duty. Privateers under Letter's of M&R or for hire.

Now imagine you could hit the lottery and sink it into a privately own F-22 Raptor or M1A tank.

Considering the billions that the Private sector would save and be able to re-invest... this isn't such a far out idea.

Quoted: anyone who thinks that the gov't should throw people in prison and strip them of their rights just because they choose to ingest a plant or substance which the government does not approve of is a fascist.

Exactly.  I don't care if you do drugs. Just stay at home and leave me the hell out of it.

My problem, from the standpoint of a physician, is that there are a fair number of drugs that people can get from me, essentially free, if I will write a scrip for them. As a result plenty of these losers think they should just come in and I should fill their fucking order.  They are the most obnoxious forms of scum and poison the entire planet by their presence. A certain number also just see me as a wholesaler for their business opportunites.  There is a gutter with their name on it just waiting for them.  I don't see why anyone should stand in the way of the appointment they have with it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm sorry, but I can't go along with the legalizing drugs thing....Here in Ohio where I live, the big thing with the druggies is Heroin....2 deaths in the area from OD's so far, and more expected. The kids using are in the 18-24 year old group and it's use is spreading..you want to legalize this?? You'll NEVER get my vote!!! OK, so you have never read the research on the subject. Try reading Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs  The first several chapters explain how the heroin problem started.  This is probably the best single overall review of the subject ever written. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other thousands of documents available online. Also, read the Short history of the marijuana laws  This is fairly short (about twenty printed pages) and quite humorous at points. Lots of interesting stuff in there that I am sure you never heard before. When you get done with those, if you want to do some more extensive reading, you can find the full text of most of the major government studies of the subject at Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy  You can read them and draw your own conclusions. But I have never met anyone who has read them and agreed with your position. My wife is the Director of the County's drug and Alcohol abuse program..She has a Master's degree. I see the other side that most of you Don't see... The late night phone calls,  her having to go the the hospitial because some druggie has OD'ed and now wants help, Detox centers always full, druggies who want to stop can't get the help they need because there is nowhere to send them, So, they go back to using, since they can't get a job because they can't pass a drug test, they resort to crime to support their habit, dealing,  B&E, armed robbery, shoplifting, This hurts all of us as it raises prices on everthing. I see it all... Within the last 6 months the drug of choice in the area went from meth, pot, to heroin, as it's cheap..$5-10 a bag usually snorted, later they start shooting up when the start that they never go back to snorting, it's the needle from then on. You can cite whatever "study" you want. Long term drug use has No benefits whatsoever, Show me a country that has benefitted from drug use by it's people... If you want to hide behind a "study" to validate your drug use..fine, keep bullshitting yourself.. but don't tell me I'm wrong. If you're using, then you're part of the problem...Legalizing this shit isn't the answer........

So how has making drugs illegal made the situation better? Has the fact that drugs are illegal ever stopped a person who chooses to do drugs from becoming addicted?  Do you think there might be a few dollars to spend on treatment centers and such if the government did not spend billions of dollars every year on prosecuting the ridiculous drug war- not to mention massive costs of incarcerating folks whos only "crime" is possessionof whatever substance they choose to partake of?
NOBODY IS ARGUING that drugs aren't bad for you, or that it's a good idea to do them- the problem is making them illegal. Remeber alcohol prohibition? How well did that work?
Really read the studies- you are missing the point entirely.