Liberty Pen: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner- William F. Buckley: 'Drug Legalization'

Source:Liberty Pen- William F. Buckley Jr, on The Open Mind With Richard Heffner, in 1996.

"Buckley makes a compelling case for legalizing drugs to Richard Heffner (Open Mind, 1996). Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

How has the War on Drugs in America has failed, well where should I start because people could write books answering that question and there have been books written answering that question. 

The answer to why the so-called War on Dugs has failed is fairly simple to me: because we've treated narcotic addicts like criminals instead of patients that they they are. Drug addicts who have just broken narcotic laws, like possessing or using narcotics, heroin, cocaine, etc, and I'm not talking about narcotic dealers are treated like criminals and sent to jail and prison for only hurting themselves and not other people. 

When someone can go to a bar and get wasted on alcohol and get a ride home because they are drunk out of their mind, but wake up with a hangover the next day and go about their lives. Even though they've committed the same action as someone who smoked one joint, but are actually worst off by getting drunk and losing brain cells, felt a little different, but didn't lose their senses at all. But the pot smoker could end up in jail and perhaps doing 3-5 in prison just for smoking and possessing a joint or perhaps both crimes. And let's say the drunk makes a bad call and decides to drive home instead, they would be arrested for drunk driving obviously, but not getting drunk. 

Part of my point here is that the whole so-called War on Drugs is nonsense because of how hypocritical it is. Sending drug addicts to prison, first of all for just hurting themselves, sends the message that Uncle Sam knows best and has to protect the people from themselves. Instead of treating adults like adults and letting us live our own lives and making these decisions for ourselves. 

Drug addicts end up in prison where they get no help for their addiction and if anything are more addictive from the time they spent in prison. And have access to other narcotics in prison and get out more addictive and end up back in the prison with the same addiction. You want to know why we have 2M people in prison in America, just look at the population: a lot of them are in there for narcotics related crimes and a lot of them are in there for using and possessing. 

So this is what I would do: first decriminalize marijuana and treat it like alcohol, with the same regulations and taxes. This alone would save our Federal, state, and local budgets on law enforcement because they would stop having to throw people in jail for doing something to themselves and not to others. And would free up valuable resources for law enforcement to go after actual dangerous criminals who hurt innocent people. 

I wouldn't decriminalize heroin, cocaine, meth, etc because of the damage it would bring to our health care system and economy. With all the damage it would bring and the health care costs that would come from it. And people who don't use these narcotics would end up paying for the health care costs of the people who do use these narcotics. And a lot of them wouldn't be able to cover their own health care costs. 

We shouldn't throw these narcotics addicts in prison either, they would be forced into drug rehab and be able to keep themselves out of prison, if they complete rehab successfully. And not have it on their criminal but medical record. And they would pay for their rehab one way or the other not tax payers. This would save our corrections system a lot of time, money and resources that they could concentrate on inmates who need to be in prison. 

Classical Liberal Economist Milton Friedman once gave a speech about what he called Bad Laws and Bad Laws are laws that are written to protect people from themselves and not protecting innocent people from the harm of others. The War on Drugs in America and in other countries are the perfect example of Bad Laws, because these are laws designed to protect people from themselves and why they don't work.

Euro News: 'President Putin's Main Tasks'

 

Source:Euro News- President Vladimir Putin (Nationalist) Russian Federation.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (but not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia 

"Vladimir Putin on his way back to the Kremlin comes as little surprise. The mentor of current President Dmitri Medvedev never lost his de facto title of strong man of Russia. This coming March Putin intends to begin a third term in the highest office. Addressing some of his most faithful supporters, Putin said: "I would like to express my gratitude for your positive reaction to my candidacy for the post of president of the country. This is for me a great honour." 

From Euro News

Vladimir Putin's rise back to the presidency in the Russian Federation looks like corruption to me. That President Dimitri Medvedev was basically just keeping the seat warm for. Vladimir Putin when Mr Putin was Prime Minister because under the RF Constitution, the President is term limited and has to leave office after eight years, but then can come back to power after sitting out one term. Which is exactly what happened here. 

President Medvedev was President from 2007 until now after being Prime Minister and then switched roles with Mr Putin. And now they are switching job titles back, the President being the Head of State in Russia and the Prime Minister being the Head of Government. The President the Chief Executive and the Prime Minister the Chief Operating Officer. 

It looks very similar to what happened in Alabama in I believe 1966 when then Governor George Wallace was term limited and then got his wife of all people to run for Governor. And then after four years George Wallace ran to get the governorship back. 

This doesn't look different from what happens in authoritarian regimes in the Middle East where a President or Monarch there before he's ready to step down from power, passes their job down to a relative. Normally a son like what President Hosni Mubarak tried to do in Egypt by passing the presidency down to his son. President Mubarak basically sparked the democratic revolution that brought and end to his regime. And is one of the things that led to the democratic revolution there. 

This looked exactly of corruption which is almost exactly what's going on in Russia right now. President Putin never had any attention of stepping down from power in Russia and to some extent can't blame him. Its a great job and you are President of a great country with a great population with a lot of natural resources in the largest country in the world physically. 

My point about Russia being is that he should earn reelection there with free and fair open multi-party general elections there and earn the votes of the Russian people in Russia in order to be President of the Russian Federation. 

I believe President Putin is a talented and very intelligent leader that wants to restore the greatness to Russia not only as a military power but as an economic power like in the United States, European Union, Japan, and the Peoples Republic of China. And what they are moving to, he just doesn't want to be held accountable for what he does. 

Going forward with the next Putin Administration in Russia, they've come a long way in twenty years but still have a long way to go to become a real developed nation, Russia is so damn big, basically the size of a large continent as well as country of 150 million people with a large middle class and educated class. With also perhaps the most natural resources in the world and not just oil and natural gas but minerals as well. 

But a lot of Russia is still very poor similar to China, India and Brazil and they have a long way to go to fully develop their country. They need a lot of infrastructure investment as well as developing a health care system that can take care of the whole country. 

Russia has lost something like 10 million people in population because they have a third world health Care system. So they need to develop that as well as their roads, highways, buildings, waterways, airports, and other things. As well as cut down on crime and corruption and then they can become a true developed nations. 

What's going on Russia right now with its two President's to me looks like one dictator passing the torch to another. But at least Russia will have a dictator that will actually use Russia's vast resources to develop its country. Where most of the country can benefit from, instead of using those resources to just stay in power. And Russia could look more like China but freer than Iran. 

Euro News: 'Women Get The Right To Vote in Saudi Arabia'

Source:Euro News- women finally voting in Saudi Arabia.

"Euronews is a pan-European pay television news network, headquartered in Lyon, France. The network began broadcasting on 1 January 1993 and aimed to cover world news from a pan-European perspective.

It is jointly owned by several European and North African public and state-owned broadcasting organizations, and is currently majority-owned (88%) by Media Globe Networks, led by Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, who is the chairman of the supervisory board. It is also a provider of live streaming world news, which can be viewed in many countries (e.g., not in the USA) via its website, on YouTube, and on various mobile devices and digital media players." 

From Wikipedia  

"It has been described as an extraordinary development. Women in the ultra-conservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia are to be given the right to vote and stand in municipal elections. The announcement was made by the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah, at the opening of a new session of the Shura council. He also said women would be allowed to join the advisory council as full members and the changes will take effect from next year. Euro News" 

From Euro News

This is a big step forward for the Saudi Kingdom. (Thats basically a combination of a monarchy and a theocracy) The Kingdom made up of their ruling family and their laws based on Islamic law (or an interpretation of it) with women not allowed to be in public uncovered, they until their next elections not able to vote, and not even able to drive and of course sub-servant to the men in Saudi Arabia. (Which is what Christian-Nationalists want in America)

Saudi Arabia have a very sexist government and culture (at least by Western standards) but these new reforms by King Abdullah is a big step forward in Saudi Arabia and definitely progressive (progressive in its classic and real sense) change especially for a country and a region up until recently has been very slow to progress, but they are now are going through a big revolution. And I believe the democratic revolutions that have gone on in the Middle East (Iran a few years ago) and I believe that movement effected what happened in Tunisia. 

The democratic movements that happened in Egypt and Libya as well as Yemen, because all of the countries can get access to the others countries news (whether the government's allow it or not) especially in this information age and social networking, these different Arab democratic revolutions have played a role in each others country. 

The Egyptian Revolution that ousted former President Hosni Mubarak and ousted the President of Tunisia and hopefully the President of Yemen as well and of course the democratic revolution thats going on now in Syria that will hopefully oust President Bashar Al-Assad, ,but he seems to have an upper hand in holding on to power right now. 

But the Saudi Kingdom sees what's going on in these other Arab states with these other authoritarian regimes falling and they don't of course want the same thing to happen to them. They obviously want to stay in power indefinitely, but I believe the Saudi Kingdom understands and they are more progressive than Syria and Egypt with the development of their economy and are basically a developed nation, in the heart of the third world surrounded by countries that live in poverty like Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and others. And know that they have to change and progress to stay in power. 

Hopefully this is just a sign of things to come as far as progress in Saudi Arabia and that the Kingdom moves even forward and allows women to run for office, has an elected multi-party legislature that represents all of Saudi Arabia. And independent judiciary and looks more like a federal republic in the future, instead of a theocratic monarchy where women and people who speak out against the government are oppressed. But we'll see in the future.

CBS News: 60 Minutes- Mike Wallace Interviewing The Shah of Iran (1976)

Source:CBS News- the Shah of Iran being interviewed by CBS News investigative correspondent Mike Wallace, in 1976.

“In 1976, Mike Wallace revealed to the Shah of Iran that the CIA considered him a dangerous megalomanic and an uncertain ally.”

From CBS News

Source:Aryuo Padafand- The Shah of Iran, talking to CBS News's Mike Wallace, in 1976.

"60 Minutes M. Valles with Shah 1976. Shah Bozorg Mard Iran dar 60 Minutes."

From Aruyo Padafand

What Iran had in the Shah was much better for the America and Europe than what Iran has now in the Islāmic Republic. Because with the Shah we had an ally that would work with, that we would trade with and we could rely on for our energy needs.

With the Islāmic Republic, we have a state that sponsors terrorism and is now attempting to get nuclear weapons. But as valuable as an ally as the Shah was to the West, he wasn’t that great for his own people.

Which was a big reason for the Islāmic Revolution of 1979 and he and his monarchy being kicked out-of-power. Even though the Shah did some positive things to develop the Iranian economy and military, to a certain extent. He was an authoritarian dictator with a secret police that would pick people up off the street. As well as torture inmates, close down publications that seemed unfavorable to the Monarchy.

What’s going on in the Islāmic Republic today, but the difference being that the Islāmic Republic, is bad for its people, but also bad for the Middle East and West. With its sponsorship of Islāmic terrorism groups that have killed Americans as well as our soldiers. Like with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. the Islāmic Republic did replace the Monarchy.

But Iran left in a lot of the authoritarian policy’s that the Monarchy had, as well as probably having some of their own. And they haven’t done much to advance Iran economically in its thirty-two years despite its vast resources in energy and its well-educated public and its middle class. Iran has all the resources that they need to be a first world country, but they’ve mismanaged them so badly. That they are still a third world country.

What the Shah should’ve done and had he done these things, I believe he could’ve saved his Monarchy, was as he continued to build up the economy, education and infrastructure and the Iranian military, then liberate his people. Let them live their own lives which would’ve put them ahead of everyone else in the Middle East. Except for Turkey and maybe Israel, but Iran and Turkey are so much bigger than Israel. But the Shah of Iran would’ve been a very popular leader in Iran had he done these things.

And then maybe with all of these progressive reforms, Iranians wouldn’t have looked to theocrats, the most conservative of Religious Conservatives, to save them and save their country from the Shah. Who in some ways on economic and foreign policy, was a fairly liberal leader, as Middle Eastern leaders go.

The Shah of Iran, I believe would’ve lasted as the Leader of Iran, had he liberalized his large country and became President of Iran instead. With a federal legislature, independent judiciary and of course his people to answer too. And turned the Monarchy into more of a ceremonial institution like in Britain. But he didn’t do those things and was kicked out-of-power.

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Marijuana Community: Dylan Ratigan- 'Legalizing Marijuana is Number One Issue At the White House GOV Website!'

Source:Marijuana Community- MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan, talking about marijuana legalization, being talked about at The White House.

"Legalizing Marijuana is Number ONE Issue At the White House GOV Website!" 

From Marijuana Community

The White House is clearly not interested in decriminalization of marijuana as far as decriminalizing it. Just one issue that I disagree with them on, but there are plenty of people who are in the country who are interested in it, which is why we are now seeing measures on ballots in states to decriminalize marijuana. California being one in 2010 and Colorado will be at least one in 2012. 

Now the question will be will the Obama Administration if they were to get reelected (and thats a big if at this point) would not get in the way of Colorado and not force anti-marijuana laws in that state. I doubt it, they don't seem to be a big believer in states rights and federalism (Letting states pass and enforce their own laws) I hope they would stay out of the way of Colorado and let them mange their own laws and enforce their own drug policies. 

Drug enforcement from the Obama Administration, which is a big disappointment to me because Barack Obama is clearly a very intelligent man with a great legal background. Along with Attorney General Eric Holder and they must be able to see that our War on Drugs is not working and has failed and that it's time we try something else. And decriminalization of marijuana would be a way to reform our drug policies, letting people decide for themselves whether to use a drug thats about as dangerous as alcohol, instead of arresting people for smoking or possessing pot. 

Decriminalization of marijuana is a bi-artisan issue with bipartisan support in Congress with Representative Ron Paul and Representative Barney Frank one of the oddest of odd couples having a bill together to do this. The lessons that we learned from alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and 30s, can be applied to marijuana prohibition from 1937 up till today, that if people want to do or use something bad enough, they'll find a way to do it whether it's legal or not. 

People have been smoking marijuana since 1937 and a lot of them have never been to prison for it. People who are smart with pot and don't get addicted to it, similar to alcohol prohibition. People still drank and organized crime made a lot of money off if alcohol by producing and selling it (tax free by the way) because they obviously weren't going to report those activities to government. 

So if we were smart (which is a gigantic if) we would decriminalize marijuana and treat it like alcohol. And regulate and tax it like alcohol to make it as safe s possible. Decriminalization of marijuana is clearly not the biggest issue that President Obama is facing today. But it's important enough because with our failed forty-year so-called War on Drugs. That they at least look at their drug policies and if anything step back and let the states try some different things here. And see what happens from them. 

Q R Legal: 'Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Benefits in Pennsylvania'

Source:QR Legal- attorney at law in Pennsylvania.

"The attorneys at Quatrini Rafferty help you apply for Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income SSD/SSI in Pennsylvania. The lawyers at the Greensburg office of Quatrini Rafferty will explore your case for filing for either SSD or SSI. If you have been seriously impaired and can no longer work you may be able to apply for Social Security Disability or Social Security Income. The attorneys at Quatrini Rafferty can help you with your claim and case and are members of the National Organization of Social Security Representatives. Working on a contingency fee, we get no fee if we don't win you case, no fee charged to you." 

From QR Legal

All this talk about Social Security reform I believe is healthy as long as the proposals are about reforming this critical social insurance program. As long as the proposals are designed to improve this program not to end the program or privatize the program. But whatever the proposal is, it has to include Disability Insurance which is also part of Social Security. So however we decide to reform Social Security, it has to be done in a way that doesn't hurt Disability Insurance. And if anything improves Disability Insurance to make that program as strong as it can be as well. 

My ideas for Social Security reform gets too, choice and competition, as well as decentralization. Not privatization which is a different concept. Privatization is about letting people take over with payroll tax investing it in Wall Street and anything else on their own. And if they make bad investments, too bad for them or they end up getting bailed out by taxpayers. Two options are horrible, as a country we are not going to let senior citizens starve and go without income. At least not anymore and we are not going to bail out people who made bad investments with their own money. 

We have to reform Social Security in a way to avoid both potential disasters. What choice and competition is about in retirement planning or as I would put it, freedom of choice in retirement planning is about, to give people for freedom and ability to plan their own retirements. Which is called Social Security Plus: keep the payroll tax intact, except raise it on people who can afford to pay more to fix the financing and that the current payroll tax would just be there to fund a base income for people on Social Security.  

What Social Security Plus is about, is an additional fund or tax that people could on their own or not set up for themselves to help them finance their own retirement, that they would pay into and their employer would match. That they could invest in the Stock Market as well as other business opportunities as long as they don't take that money out to spend until they are eligible to retire. And the money thats put into a personal retirement account (not my term, by the way) would be tax free, like an IRA or individual retirement account which are private retirement accounts as well. 

As far as decentralization and reforming Disability Insurance goes, this might be the only thing that I agree with Texas Governor Rick Perry and maybe immigration reform. Turn Social Security over to the states in this sense, each state would have their own version of Social Security with their own program. But they wouldn't run them just regulate them like the FEDS as well. Each State would have their own version Social Security that would be a semi-private, non-profit, supplemental pension program. And get the Administration and Congress's hands off of it. 

And with Disability Insurance, anyone physically and mentally capable of working at least part-time, would be required to or at least looking for work and getting trained for work. And Disability Insurance would be required to help them with that. Which would also be my approach with Unemployment Insurance. 

You can't reform Social Security without doing it in a way that doesn't hurt Disability Insurance because they are both part of the same program. And both have populations that depend on it in order to survive, pay their bills, eat, etc. So we have to reform Social Security as a whole in a way that can only make this critical program stronger. 

Mike Gardner: CBS Evening News With Walter Cronkite- 'President Richard Nixon Enlists Governor's Aid In The War on Drugs (1971)'

Source:Mike Gardner- The CBS Evening News, covering President Richard M. Nixon and his failed War on Drugs, in 1971.

"Nixon enlists Governor's aid in the war on drugs. Nixon's psychedelic film experiment." 

From Mike Gardner 

I'm not sure about the exact year of this newscast, but I believe it's 1971. 

President Nixon actually seemed to have some good ideas up front when he launched the fake War on Drugs in 1971. Programs designed that were about prevention and treatment. Teaching students the dangers of using narcotics and get drug addicts into treatment instead of jail. 

Now, had President Nixon actually followed through on those policy's in his five and a half years as President, maybe the so-called War on Drugs wouldn't be the failure and joke that it is today. Where if anything narcotics are more available forty years later than they were then. And where we now have 2M people in prison today, the largest prison population in the world. And we only represent about 6% of the world's population, both China and India have four times as many people as we do and we have more prison inmates than they do. 

We have so many prison inmates, that we have overcrowded prisons and jails all across the country. Where hundreds of thousands of these people are in jail for using or possessing narcotics. You can actually go to prison or jail in America "The Land of the Free" for possession of narcotics. We now have drug addicts taking jail and prison cells that would normally be operated by violent offenders, people who belong in prison and belong there for a long time. 

Actually, one good thing about our overcrowded prisons and cells, is that some states like California (to use as an example) are now releasing non-violent offenders like drug addicts (to use as an example) shoplifters (would probably be another one) hopefully to halfway houses and drug rehab where they can get help for their issues. And help finding a job so they can be productive and saving that prison space for people who need to be there instead. California also has a debt and budget crisis as well. 

What we learned the last forty years in the fake War on Drugs or what we should've learned is how not to fight the War on Drugs. That it's not smart to treat drug dealers the same as drug addicts. Drug addicts are patients with a disease, called addiction they are not able to tell themselves that they've had enough cocaine. Or whatever they are addicted to, similar to obesity or alcoholism, 

Drug addicts should be treated like patients: send cocaine, heroin, and meth addicts to drug rehab instead of jail or prison and put them on what's called a three strikes policy to get them off of their addiction, not cure them, but get them off of whatever narcotics they are addicted to. 

Strike one, voluntary drug rehab. Strike two, involuntary drug rehab in jail. Strike three, jail time as well as more drug rehab in jail. And make them pay for all of their drug rehab as well. 

Drug dealers though should be treated like the criminals that they are because they prey off of addicts in order to make as much money from them as possible. Including blackmail and extortion and these people need to be in prison doing long sentences. And of course give them a shot at building their lives so they can get a legal job once they leave prison. 

The fake War on Drugs is about supply and demand like anything else in our economy. If people want something bad enough, there's going to be somebody to sell them what they want. So if drug dealers have less customers wanting their dope, meaning fewer drug addicts, they'll make less money.