Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Speaking of Drugs

Expand Messages
  • westmiller@aol.com
    Good analysis from Jeff Palmer of the RLC position on drugs. From: Jeff Palmer I think it s safe to say that most RLCers favor at least
    Message 1 of 27 , Dec 11, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
         Good analysis from Jeff Palmer of the RLC position on drugs.
      From: "Jeff Palmer" <jap@...>
      I think it's safe to say that most RLCers favor at least substantive
      legalization but would prefer that we not allow ourselves to lead with our
      chin on the issue to the detriment of our broader objectives...
          The Statement attempts to apply the Principles of the prefix to
      current topics, without itemizing "platform positions", where
      there can be an honest dispute of the facts and proper law. Note
      that it applies to *all drugs*, not just hallucinogens or narcotics.
      The position is just as applicable to alcohol, cigarettes, and
      prescription medicines as it is to marijuana or cocaine.
      "We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes..." is a "Ransberger Pivot".
          I haven't heard the term "Ransberger Pivot", but all of the
      Positions start by granting legitimate social or political concerns,
      then articulating a principled response.
      ... Flexible alternatives could include legalization, decriminalization, availability by
      prescription, elimination of unconstitutional means of enforcement, etc.
          ... as well as the "radical" position that would only support
      laws protecting minors (who can't give informed consent), fraud
      (adulteration or fake chemical products), and copyright.
      Such inspecificity has the advantage of being inclusive of all of our
      members' thinking and, thus, non-divisive to us an organization.  It also
      has the advantage of clearly placing us on the side of the issue calling for
      a change in our current drug policy while not placing us so "in your face"
      of the prevailing social conservative opinion that we compromise our ability
      to act as a force within the GOP.
          Exactly correct. It allows us to support "interim steps" that
      conform with our principles, such as legalized medical marijuana,
      the abolition of rigid minimum drug sentences, and FDA dictates
      on "safe and effective" licensing.
          Since the purpose of this eGroup is to discuss RLC *Action*,
      not debate issues, our chapters use the "World's Smallest Political
      Quiz" from the Advocates (self-gov.org), which includes the issue
      statement: "Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of
      drugs?"
          Now, as to doing some serious work, we have an agreement
      with the Marijuana Policy Project [MPP] to exchange mailing
      lists - from over a year ago - but haven't had anyone who had the
      time and interest to compose a solicitation to their members.
          If anyone is willing to take on this outreach project, please let
      me know ASAP.
       
      Bill Westmiller
      RLC Chairman
    • Kevin Boyd
      Bill, I m off from university until late-January. I can at least get started on soliciting the MPP mailing list. So count me in. Kevin Boyd Interim Coordinator
      Message 2 of 27 , Dec 11, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill,

        I'm off from university until late-January. I can at least get started
        on soliciting the MPP mailing list. So count me in.

        Kevin Boyd
        Interim Coordinator
        RLC-Louisiana

        --- In RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com, westmiller@a... wrote:
        > Good analysis from Jeff Palmer of the RLC position on drugs.
        > From: "Jeff Palmer" <jap@h...>
        > I think it's safe to say that most RLCers favor at least substantive
        > legalization but would prefer that we not allow ourselves to lead
        with our
        > chin on the issue to the detriment of our broader objectives...
        > The Statement attempts to apply the Principles of the prefix to
        > current topics, without itemizing "platform positions", where
        > there can be an honest dispute of the facts and proper law. Note
        > that it applies to *all drugs*, not just hallucinogens or narcotics.
        > The position is just as applicable to alcohol, cigarettes, and
        > prescription medicines as it is to marijuana or cocaine.
        > "We recognize the harm that drug abuse causes..." is a "Ransberger
        Pivot".
        > I haven't heard the term "Ransberger Pivot", but all of the
        > Positions start by granting legitimate social or political concerns,
        > then articulating a principled response.
        > ... Flexible alternatives could include legalization,
        decriminalization,
        > availability by
        > prescription, elimination of unconstitutional means of enforcement,
        etc.
        > ... as well as the "radical" position that would only support
        > laws protecting minors (who can't give informed consent), fraud
        > (adulteration or fake chemical products), and copyright.
        > Such inspecificity has the advantage of being inclusive of all of
        our
        > members' thinking and, thus, non-divisive to us an organization. It
        also
        > has the advantage of clearly placing us on the side of the issue
        calling for
        > a change in our current drug policy while not placing us so "in your
        face"
        > of the prevailing social conservative opinion that we compromise our
        ability
        > to act as a force within the GOP.
        > Exactly correct. It allows us to support "interim steps" that
        > conform with our principles, such as legalized medical marijuana,
        > the abolition of rigid minimum drug sentences, and FDA dictates
        > on "safe and effective" licensing.
        > Since the purpose of this eGroup is to discuss RLC *Action*,
        > not debate issues, our chapters use the "World's Smallest Political
        > Quiz" from the Advocates (self-gov.org), which includes the issue
        > statement: "Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of
        > drugs?"
        > Now, as to doing some serious work, we have an agreement
        > with the Marijuana Policy Project [MPP] to exchange mailing
        > lists - from over a year ago - but haven't had anyone who had the
        > time and interest to compose a solicitation to their members.
        > If anyone is willing to take on this outreach project, please
        let
        > me know ASAP.
        >
        > Bill Westmiller
        > RLC Chairman
      • westmiller@aol.com
        Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 04:01:20 -0000 From: Kevin Boyd _kevinboyd1984@yahoo.com_ (mailto:kevinboyd1984@yahoo.com) ... Excellent. The primary task is
        Message 3 of 27 , Dec 12, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
             Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 04:01:20 -0000
             From: "Kevin Boyd" kevinboyd1984@...

          >
          I'm off from university until late-January. I can at least get started
          >
          on soliciting the MPP mailing list. So count me in.
           
              Excellent. The primary task is composing the solicitation letter
          and other materials that would go into the mailing. We have to get
          approval of those materials from MPP before we get the list for
          mailing. The package also needs to be reviewed by the RLC Board
          before submission to MPP. To start, draft a letter that you think
          would be appealing and motivate their members to join the RLC.
          Suggest an enclosure that would directly address the issue,
          perhaps from some prominent RLC advocate (I'm not sure that
          we can reach Gary Johnson, but Lyn Nofzinger is on the RLC
          Advisory Board and certainly well known).
           
          Bill
        • Barry Moore
          Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline? Answer: I think it was a high point of
          Message 4 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            "Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?"
             
            Answer: I think it was a high point of consideration.

            F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
            The original point was that we were only liberating oil rich nations, a point I took issue with.  I think the discussion is now a bit off topic, so you can respond to me personally at worley_f2003@... if you wish. 
             
            Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?
             
            Frank

            Barry Moore <b_moore@...> wrote:
            Frank,
             
            "We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there."
             
            Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan where there IS oil.
             
            --- Barry
             
            "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson, 1801
             
            "�It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.�
            - George Washington, 1797

            F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
             

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

          • bill Jambura
            Binary arguments work well in spin machines. But I don t see it as an either or , but an and too . Please go back a few e-mails in this series to read my
            Message 5 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Binary arguments work well in spin machines.  But I don't see it as an "either or", but an "and too".  Please go back a few e-mails in this series to read my e-mail of 10 Dec 04 reprinted below: 
               
              "Well said Barry! 
               
              Also, we went into Afghanistan to get the Taliban and Bin Ladin who sponsored attacks on America--no doubts there.  We have every right to be there.  Some people still like to blur Afghanistan with what we're doing in Iraq. 
               
              As a foot note, we didn't and won't  touch the poppy fields in Afghanistan--never mind our War on Drugs.  Yet, we're told that illegal drug traffic is a major funding source for terrorists.  So who really controls Afghanistan, the new president or the drug lords who sponsor the terrorists?  A question that extends to many of  the "democracies" in South and Central America.  Maybe it's time to invent a new term:  DINO--Democracy In Name Only."
               
              (In real time, I'm pleased to hear that we are now going to go after the opium lords in Afghanistan.  The sooner we send them to Allah, the better for all!  I just wish we were more aggressive in South and Central America, instead of pursuing the end users in our own country at the peril of everyone's civil rights.)
               
              Bill Jambura
               
               
               
              On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:21:46 -0800 (PST) Barry Moore <b_moore@...> writes:
              "Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?"
               
              Answer: I think it was a high point of consideration.

              F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
              The original point was that we were only liberating oil rich nations, a point I took issue with.  I think the discussion is now a bit off topic, so you can respond to me personally at worley_f2003@... if you wish. 
               
              Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?
               
              Frank

              Barry Moore <b_moore@...> wrote:
              Frank,
               
              "We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there."
               
              Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan where there IS oil.
               
              --- Barry
               
              "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson, 1801
               
              "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
              - George Washington, 1797

              F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
               

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com

              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

              Get unlimited calls to

              U.S./Canada

               
            • Chuck Seberg
              I see lots of binary logic on this list. But you must know the government figures everything six ways from Sunday before they make a move. If the invasion of
              Message 6 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                I see lots of binary logic on this list.  But you must know the government figures everything six ways from Sunday before they make a move.  If the invasion of Afganistan accomplished a major goal (neutralizing the terrorists), and had half a dozen beneficial side-effects, so much the better.  Nothing surprising in that.
                 
                I have a book recommendation for you guys.  It's "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid.  He's a Pakistani journalist who got inside the Taliban, and does a good job of laying out Afghanistan before the US invasion.  It was far from a simple situation then, so I doubt our involvement is anything but simple now.  Not really something which lends itself to simple analysis.
                 
                BTW, what does any of this have to do with RLC-Action?
                 
                Chuck Seberg
                 
                 

                Binary arguments work well in spin machines.  But I don't see it as an "either or", but an "and too".  Please go back a few e-mails in this series to read my e-mail of 10 Dec 04 reprinted below: 
                 
                "Well said Barry! 
                 
                Also, we went into Afghanistan to get the Taliban and Bin Ladin who sponsored attacks on America--no doubts there.  We have every right to be there.  Some people still like to blur Afghanistan with what we're doing in Iraq. 
                 
                As a foot note, we didn't and won't  touch the poppy fields in Afghanistan--never mind our War on Drugs.  Yet, we're told that illegal drug traffic is a major funding source for terrorists.  So who really controls Afghanistan, the new president or the drug lords who sponsor the terrorists?  A question that extends to many of  the "democracies" in South and Central America.  Maybe it's time to invent a new term:  DINO--Democracy In Name Only."
                 
                (In real time, I'm pleased to hear that we are now going to go after the opium lords in Afghanistan.  The sooner we send them to Allah, the better for all!  I just wish we were more aggressive in South and Central America, instead of pursuing the end users in our own country at the peril of everyone's civil rights.)
                 
                Bill Jambura
                 
                 
                 
                On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:21:46 -0800 (PST) Barry Moore <b_moore@...> writes:
                "Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?"
                 
                Answer: I think it was a high point of consideration.

                F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
                The original point was that we were only liberating oil rich nations, a point I took issue with.  I think the discussion is now a bit off topic, so you can respond to me personally at worley_f2003@... if you wish. 
                 
                Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?
                 
                Frank

                Barry Moore <b_moore@...> wrote:
                Frank,
                 
                "We brought democracy (already) to Afghanistan, no oil there."
                 
                Nope, just building a pipeline across Afghanistan to Khurzikstan where there IS oil.
                 
                --- Barry
                 
                "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none" - Thomas Jefferson, 1801
                 
                "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.
                - George Washington, 1797

                F Worley <worley_f2003@...> wrote:
                 

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com

              • Guy McLendon
                Why only send in Agent 007 with a letter of marque when you can instead send in the Marines, and have the pipeline as a bonus? ... From: Barry Moore To:
                Message 7 of 27 , Dec 13, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Why only send in Agent 007 with a letter of marque when you can instead send in the Marines, and have the pipeline as a bonus?
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:21 AM
                  Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Our Constitution

                  "Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?"
                   
                  Answer: I think it was a high point of consideration.

                • F Worley
                  I think being cynical (forgive my early morning spelling) is probably a good thing. But there is a limit. We harm our own credibility, when we allege
                  Message 8 of 27 , Dec 14, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I think being  cynical  (forgive my early morning spelling) is probably a good thing.  But there is a limit.  We harm our own credibility, when we allege things as silly as this.  It really is irresponsible to say or even allege that the US invaded afghanistan for the sole purpose of getting a pipeline or with that in mind or as a primary benifit. 
                     
                    The Taliban were given an opportunity to hand over Bin Laden and could have done so and kept their control over the country, they refused. 
                     
                    Our ability to be effective in actions we support or take, is directly affected by how people perceive us.  If we make wild accusations, with lilttle or not basis in fact or relevence to the issues of the day, we cannot hope to have an impact.
                     
                    You may believe these accusations are based in fact, but are they really relevent to what is going on in our nation? 
                     
                    More importantly, it implies that, were we in charge, we would not have invaded Afghanistan in order to avoid the perception that we might be trading blood for oil.
                     
                    And who would vote for someone afraid to defend the nation because it my be misinterpreted as a drive for oil?
                     
                    Frank

                    Guy McLendon <guy@...> wrote:
                    Why only send in Agent 007 with a letter of marque when you can instead send in the Marines, and have the pipeline as a bonus?
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:21 AM
                    Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Our Constitution

                    "Are you suggesting with this post that we invaded Afghanistan, not to get the authors of 9/11 but to build a pipeline?"
                     
                    Answer: I think it was a high point of consideration.


                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.