Dude, 99.9% of libertarians want to decriminalise heroin and crack. Every Libertarian presidential candidate has held this belief, and every Libertarian candidate we select in the future ought to hold this belief.

It would be a horrible mistake for libertarians to only talk about pot, since that would simply make the voters think we’re a bunch of pot-heads who want to get high. When you tell them that the entire war on drugs doesn’t work, that makes them listen—they realise you’re not just holding that position because you want to get high, but because there must be something wrong with the status quo.

Besides, we’re here to promote libertarianism. We’re here to promote, among other things, ending the war on drugs—because that’s what we believe in. To promote it, we have to talk about it. Avoiding it won’t promote it.

“It sounds good stating it that way, but people will then ask if you are for legalizing hard drugs.”

So we tell them, “Yes, abolutely and without remorse.” Then we explain why.

“Like I said, I don’t think the majority of Americans are ready for that.”

And they’ll never be ready for that if there aren’t people (e.g. the LP candidates) talking about it and promoting it.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

Dear Dr. Mary Ruwart, you were smeared, yes. Let the smear die. You’re keeping it alive by continuing to refer to it. You’re letting your opponent define you. This is bad campaigning.

I am thoroughly disappointed in Dr. Ruwart’s first video. Look at what Kubby and Barr have been doing with their videos.

I expected the quality of Ruwart’s campaign to be much better than it has been. At this point, I think I’ll have to switch support to Kubby, until Ruwart gets around to doing better campaigning.

Respectfully,
Alex Peak

(hint: republicrats suck!) ;o)

...’legalization’ is a term used by goddamned republicrat ignoramusses!

...hint: there won’t be a proposed law to ‘legalize’ drugs..(‘oh please mr. republicrat politician, will you ‘legalize’ drugs for me?)

...knowledgeable people understand these goddamned laws denying people OBVIOUS, inalienable rights to self-medication, ingestion, etc.. ought to be REPEALED..

REPEAL, not ‘legalize,’ you Rush Limbaugh-ish Republican idiots/parrots.. ;o)

May 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
That is a ridiculous accusation to say I’d rather stay a small party. This isn’t an either/or choice. I will say this . . . if it was either/or, I would just go be a Democrat or Republican. I can have the biggest parties of all!

And if it was either/or (again, which it isn’t) I’d rather stay a small, principled party, than become a large, corrupt one.

The only way becoming a larger party means anything, is if it remains principled in the process. Otherwise it is just Republican and Democrat all over again. That my friend, is how you define a waste of time. Why reinvent the wheel, the Democrats and Republicans have invented that one already!

What is the point of having a political party if you don’t want it to grow large enough to eventually win seats in an election?

THat isn’t what it means at all. It means turning people onto the Libertarian ideals of freedom and protecting civil liberties. Americans aren’t going to further investigate Libertarian ideals if they hear from the beginning we want to legalize every drug. You are in the extreme minority of Americans who think this. Thus, why would you put it out there to immediately be rejected.”

Hey, there’s some guy posting under my name!:)

Not once, that I recall, did anyone in the audience take me to task for this. I got negative responses on many OTHER issue stands: immigration policy, ending the war in Iraq, privatizing Social Security – but no flak whatsoever on the drug issue. From my experience this is about the LEAST scary issue that Libertarians have to deal with. And Bobarr is wussing out. Pathetic, really.

There are a number of different views of how a political party should pursue its agenda.

One is that it should work hard to get people to agree with it, after which those people will vote for its candidates.

Another is that it should work hard to get people to vote for its candidates, after which those people will agree with it.

For a party based on an ideology like the LP, the former course makes more sense. Most parties start off with some kind of core ideological convictions (for example, the Republicans came together to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, and to support the imposition of a protective tariff), and start falling into “whichever blocs we can put together to get a majority” patterns AFTER they’ve secured some measure of success.

Do I think that we should run on “legalizing crack?” No, because that issue is far from ripe—but I don’t think we should deny it either. We’re for it, and saying we’re not for it won’t get us any lasting benefits.

Incrementalism? Sure. But we should only run on things we actually support, and we should run on the things we actually support that are most attractive to voters.

The 44% of Coloradoans who voted yes on legalizing marijuana represent about 100 times the percentage of Coloradoans who usually vote for the LP’s presidential ticket. They’re probably easier to get than the 56% who voted against medical marijuana, they’ll probably be more inclined to stick with us later when marijuana is legal and we’re ready to talk about legalizing crack … and 44% in a three-way race for public office is quite likely a winning vote tally.

Of course, there’s an issues “mix,” and an LP candidate probably isn’t going to get 44% on that issue alone. Some of that 44% will abandon the candidate over other issues. Others from the 56% may support the candidate over other issues.

Not that that’s either here or there. While I expect that an LP candidate might get some positive media for supporting marijuana legalization, none of the candidates—including Kubby—have tried to make that their single issue. Ruwart or Kubby will, for the most part, be talking about the same issues that the other parties’ candidates are talking about: Iraq, the economy, health care, etc. They’ll be talking about those issues from a Libertarian policy perspective, and I think we have some opportunities to pick up enduring support on those issues because of it.

In any case, we could argue this all day, and it’s hard to do so without getting simplistic. Suffice it to say that I think Libertarians should target large, libertarian-leaning issues constituencies which don’t get good representation from the major parties. A large minority supporting one party—if that can be pulled off—is better than a bare majority split between two parties.

I know the numbers for legalization of marijuana. 44% still leaves another 56% of the country who does not want it legalized. That is a lot of people.

My point was, if that many people are still against the legalization of marijuana, what do you think they will say about a candidate who wants to legalize crack?

Actually compromising is how politics work. My way or no way only works in an oligarchy or dictatorship.

Again, your views are only good if you want to remain a small party that gets no national attention.

No, the LP is viable only as a principled political party. If large is the goal regardless, then nothing will change . . . the Democrats and Republicans have that market cornered. Persuasion, patience and principles . . . the three P’s is what will take the LP to where it needs to go. The three “C’s”, compromise, coercion and curt will never get us to where we want to be . . .unless it is just to be “big”.

Who said the goal is large regardless? The goal is to put the Libertarian message out there. One that people will embrace, and reasearch further. You don’t say legalize all drugs or else. You say we are for legalization of marijuana, and then if they come on board tell them why we want to legalize all drugs.

You only need to look at the success of the LP since ‘71 to see if your marketing strategy has worked.

I’m not sure where you think that I gave the LP in particular any “credit” at all for taking on the drug war. It is part of a broad anti-drug-war coalition, but I made no statement as to how important a part of that coalition it is—just a statement that it should be part of a pursuit rather than of a retreat.

It’s probably safer to stick to criticizing things I actually say than it is to just make something up and pretend I said it. I may not catch you at that latter one every time, but I usually will.

The only way becoming a larger party means anything, is if it remains principled in the process. Otherwise it is just Republican and Democrat all over again. That my friend, is how you define a waste of time. Why reinvent the wheel, the Democrats and Republicans have invented that one already!

What is the point of having a political party if you don’t want it to grow large enough to eventually win seats in an election?

THat isn’t what it means at all. It means turning people onto the Libertarian ideals of freedom and protecting civil liberties. Americans aren’t going to further investigate Libertarian ideals if they hear from the beginning we want to legalize every drug. You are in the extreme minority of Americans who think this. Thus, why would you put it out there to immediately be rejected.

Sheesh! Sales 101: Have a marketing plan that works.

May 14th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Joe Buchman, if you teach marketing, why aren’t you on the LNC??? We need talent like that!

Ya, that’s exactly what the LP needs. You genius radicals just keep searching for the way to polish the turd (your ideas); I’m sure you’ll come up with the method some day. Maybe with a big bow or something.

The real success has come from organized groups outside the LP.

Just once it would be refreshing if you could get something right.

You write:

“It isn’t even widely accepted that marijuana be legalized.”

Bullshit.

Outright marijuana re-legalization has passed in large cities—including, as it happens, Denver. “Lowest law-enforcement priority” for marijuana has passed in others. Outright legalization of Marijuana got, if memory serves, 38% of the popular vote in Nevada and 44% of the popular vote in Colorado last year despite underfunded campaigns for it and federally-funded ONDCP campaigns against it.

Medical marijuana has been adopted in 12 states, it would have been adopted by a 69-31% margin in DC if Bob Barr hadn’t managed to prevent the votes from being counted, and even in conservative states it passes or comes close to passing wherever proposed.

The wall has been breached, the enemy is in full retreat—and you’re whining that instead of pursuing and completely routing them, we should retreat and pretend it never happened.