It would be very difficult for me to not support Johnson if he were to run for President in 2012. As of right now, In my view he is the best positioned candidate to carry forward the message of liberty within the Republican Party. He may not be perfect on specific issues here or there, but Ron Paulians would be hard pressed to find another Republican candidate with his record and political viability. He served as a Governor for eight years. He didn’t raise taxes as Governor once. He promoted private business and free markets over government corporatism and regulation. Finally, and perhaps most pertinent, he enthusiastically endorsed Ron Paul for President.

There has been very minimal evidence for a Johnson 2012 bid until now. Jason Pye at UnitedLiberty.org reports that Johnson has formed a PAC and is set to release a book in December entitled “Seven Principles For Good Government”.

A few web sites have been set up by supporters in an effort to coax Johnson into running for President such as JohnsonForAmerica.com.

With this latest news it appears that Johnson is warming up to jump in the fray. I can see it now at the first GOP primary debate sometime in 2011:

Fox News Debate Moderator: Governor Johnson, you’ve been an outspoken critic of the drug war and support the decriminalization of marijuana. These positions don’t seem like Republican positions. This raises questions about your electability. Do you have any sir?

Gary Johnson: Who am I, Ron Paul?

Let us hope so, but this time, let us hope he wins.

Even so, we must keep asking such questions. The more we ask, the more nervous Congress will become. Eventually, they will be forced to either answer our questions or admit publicly that they don’t care what the Constitution says.

We believe Congress’s refusal to answer our questions underscores the need for the Enumerated Powers Act (EPA). We urge you to demand that Congress pass this bill.

Since we last resported on the EPA in September, the House has increased the number of co-sponsors from 48 to 52, and the Senate increased its co-sponsor list from 21 to 22.

You can find House co-sponsors of the EPA here.

And co-sponsors of the Senate version are here.

If any of your House or Senate representatives has co-sponsored the bill, send them your congratulations and urge those who haven’t to do so.

In my personal comments, I also asked more questions . . .

“Two weeks ago I asked you about the Constitutionality of the War on Drugs, and you haven’t answered my questions. But the issue is larger than drugs. Congress is considering legislation that affects what food people can grow on their own land. Congress is also considering legislation that can force people to purchase health insurance against their will.

Do people not have a natural right to control their own person and property?

Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to regulate commerce between the states and with other nations, but I see no provision that empowers Congress to control my life and property directly. Do you think I’m incorrect? Maybe I am. But if so, how?

If Congress presumes to tell us what to do with our own lives, shouldn’t it at least cite where it gets the authority to do so?

The Enumerated Powers Act is not a complicated proposal. If you believe the bills you support and sponsor are Constitutional, EPA won’t be a problem. That’s because all it requires is for Congress to specify the constitutional authority for the laws they pass.

But the longer you dodge these Constitutional questions, and the longer you avoid sponsoring the Enumerated Powers Act, the more I’ll be forced to conclude that you believe most bills you support are unconstitutional.”

You can send your message here.

And we encourage you to share this message with friends: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/more-questions-for-congress

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Quote of the Day: “I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.” — DownsizeDC.org co-founder Harry Browne (1933-2006)

You can read our response here.

What we didn’t mention in the previous Dispatch was the Constitutional problem of the War on Drugs. That’s because . . .

Many people seem not to care what the Constitution requires. Today’s message is for those who do care.

Drug control is NOT a Constitutional power of the federal government. At the very most the federal government could, perhaps, ban the importation of drugs, and prohibit their sale across state lines under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.

But nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to prohibit the sale or possession of any item within state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment dictates that whatever Congress is not empowered to do must be left to the States, or to the people. This means Congress cannot . . .

* forbid the personal possession or use of drugs
* prohibit drug sales within the same state
* intervene in other countries with money or troops to fight undeclared drug wars

This means that drug prohibition laws can only exist at the state level. Imagine what could happen if some states had no prohibition laws, while other states had prohibition laws of differing severity. Competing claims about drug prohibition could be tested, in the real world. As it is . . .

Federal prohibition laws not only prohibit the sale and use of drugs, they also prohibit us from learning what would work best.

The 10th Amendment’s Constitutional restrictions on federal power used to be well-known and understood. For instance, those who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the 1910’s knew that the Constitution didn’t give Congress the power to do this. So they had to pass the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

If prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment?

It’s an important question. To ignore the Constitutional process is to ignore the rule of law. No matter how one feels about drug use, the rule of law, especially as applied to government power, is essential to protecting our lives, freedoms, and property. With this in mind . . .

We want to ask you to do something different today. We’ve changed the message to Congress for our “Help End the Mexican Civil War” campaign. For today’s action item it reads . . .

“You’ve sworn an oath to protect the Constitution, so could you please answer three questions. 1. Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to wage a War on Drugs? 2. If alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment? 3. Shouldn’t we be allowed to learn what works best by having states with different drug laws, or NO drug laws, in keeping with the 10th Amendment? I would appreciate an honest, thoughtful response.”

If members of Congress receive enough of these messages, some will feel compelled to reply. We want to see what form these responses take, and we’d like to compare the names of those who respond with the list of those who have co-sponsored the “Enumerated Powers Act.”

Remember, the “Enumerated Powers Act” would require Congress to cite its Constitutional authority for every law it passes. This would be impossible for them to do in the case of most drug prohibition laws, except those provisions that might squeeze through under the Commerce Clause.

If you receive a response could you please forward it to us, so we can publish it on our blog? Please let us know if you want us to omit your name to protect your privacy. Or, you can post the response in the Comments section of this blog post:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/don-t-read-this-if-you-care-about-the-constitution

You can send your Constitutional questions to Congress here.

Please share this Dispatch with any friends who care about Constitutional requirements.

James Wilson
Assistant to the President
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

& Downsize DC Foundation

Quote of the Day: “While few would argue that criminals ought to be able to keep the proceeds of their crimes, civil forfeiture allows the government to seize and keep property without actually having to prove a crime was committed in the first place. . . . Proceeds from civil forfeiture at the state and local level usually go back to the police departments and prosecutors’ offices, giving them a clear and unmistakable incentive to seize as much property as often as possible.” – Radley Balko

Such outrages are nothing new in the War on Drugs, but we’re seeing more abuses as criminal law becomes increasingly federalized. For instance, federal agents are now exploiting the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to seize bank accounts and computers.

The leader of a new Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering task force admits that unlike criminal cases where the suspect is presumed innocent until proved guilty, in civil asset forfeiture cases . . .

* if you lose property to an asset forfeiture seizure you must prove your innocence in order to get it back
* you have no 5th amendment protections — even your silence can be used against you

Civil asset forfeiture is also alive and well at the local level, where police steal money from citizens in order to pay for new equipment.

Under Illinois law, the state can withhold cash, cars, or other property for six months without even a preliminary hearing! Under the law, three innocent people had to wait over a year to get their cars back. They, along with three innocent people who had money stolen from them, have argued the Constitutionality of the Illinois law.

The “good” news is that this law will be argued in the Supreme Court this month in Alvarez v. Smith.

The bad news is that the most positive outcome is likely to be only a reduction of the time you must wait before a preliminary hearing. The Court isn’t expected to strike down the law, even though civil asset forfeiture proceedings clearly violate the 14th Amendment provision that no state “can deprive any person of . . . property, without due process of law.”

Congress can do what the Court will not. Tell your representatives to abolish Civil Asset Forfeiture using our Educate the Powerful System.

Use your personal comments to mention the example of the widow who may lose her home because her now dead husband grew marijuana that he used to ease his pain from cancer.

You can send your message here.

And don’t forget to share this message with your friends:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/whatever-happened-to-quot-presumed-innocent-quot

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

& Downsize DC Foundation

CLINTON, Indiana – When Sally Harpold bought cold medicine for her family back in March, she never dreamed that four months later she would end up in handcuffs.

Harpold bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of pseudoephedrine in a weeks time. Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law.

Read the whole story.

Share this with your friends: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/is-drug-prohibition-worth-it

Quote of the Day: “Those who suffer from the abuse of drugs have themselves to blame for it. This does not mean that society is absolved from active concern for their plight. It does mean that their plight is subordinate to the plight of those citizens who do not experiment with drugs, but whose life, liberty, and property are substantially affected by the illegalization of the drugs.” — William F. Buckley

• In February, Attorney General Eric Holder said the Administration would stop medical marijuana raids in states where it’s legal
• In  May, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case arguing that California’s medical marijuana law was in conflict with federal law
• The Obama Administration did not object when Mexico liberalized its drug possession law last month

But as America takes baby steps toward Drug War reform, statesmen south of the border are suggesting something bolder.

• Former Mexican President Vicente Fox is proposing an end to prohibition
• Three other Latin American ex-Presidents have called on the nations of the hemisphere to rethink prohibition

This week, the Global Public Policy Forum on the U.S. War on Drugs  was held on the front lines of the Drug War, in the border cities of El Paso and Juarez. The Forum was organized by the University of Texas-El Paso, but the idea originated with the El Paso City Council. The Council also unanimously called for “an honest open national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics” (although that resolution was vetoed by the mayor under the threat of losing federal funds).

Regrettably, Obama’s “Border Czar” and “Drug Czar” chose not to attend.

But we agree with the El Paso City Council.

• Drug prohibition breeds corruption. 80 law enforcement officials have been convicted of drug-related corruption on the U.S.-Mexico border since 2006.
• Drug probition breeds violence, endangering the innocent. Violence related to drug trafficking is spreading to new areas such as British Columbia
• Drug prohibition is killing U.S. soliders in Afghanistan. The Taliban is being funded by drug profits, and the war is now less about ideology and more about drug profits

Indeed, prohibition can cause the retail price of drugs to be as much as 25 times higher than the production costs. Even if 75% of drug shipments were intercepted, the trade would still be profitable for drug lords.

Today, only a fraction of drug shipments are intercepted. This means the only way to “win” the War on Drugs is to lose the Bill of Rights and our way of life by substantially increasing arbitrary searches and seizures at home, and employing a much larger military as a narcotics police force across the globe.

In order to accomplish . . . what, exactly?

• Illicit drug-related deaths are one-fifth the rate of alcohol deaths and less than one-twenty-fiftth of tobacco-related deaths
• Three-fourths of all illicit drug use is marijuana use, and marijuana accounts for 0% of the deaths
• Most of the other illicit drug use is the recreational use of legal prescription drugs
• Just 0.7% of the population over 12 used cocaine in the past month, and 0.4% used hallucinogens. One in a thousand used heroin.
• According LEAP, in 2006 1.3% of the population was addicted to drugs, the same as in 1970 when the War on Drugs began, and the same as in 1914 when the first federal drug laws were passed.

Drug prohibition costs hundreds of billions in both direct costs and opportunity costs such as the lost wages of the imprisoned. It endangers the lives of innocents caught in turf wars. It promotes chaos and instability in much of the world — and all of this in a futile attempt to save a tiny fraction of the population from themselves.

But if we lifted the prohibition on drugs . . .

• Drug prices would fall to a fraction of what they are now, meaning hopeless addicts would be less likely to rob you to pay for their fix
• The Taliban would lose their revenue stream
• We would have safer streets in America and much of the world

Please tell Congress to end the chaos in Mexico, in Afghanistan, and on our streets. Tell them to end drug prohibition. In your personal comments, explain how prohibition has created such huge profit margins that the government can’t stop the flow no matter how hard it tries. You can send your comments here.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how fast your Army is growing, please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

KEEPING SCORE REPORT

Your Downsize DC Army shrank by 4 net new members yesterday. This brings our total growth for the year to 3,883. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 28,231, 23% of the way between 28,000 and 29,000.

YOU can make the army KEEP GROWING by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

We can also grow faster by spreading the word through the media. Please help us do this by starting a monthly credit card pledge — it can be as low as $5 a month (which is just 17 cents per day). You can start your pledge using our secure online contribution form.

Please let us know if its okay to advertise your support here:

NEW MONTHLY PLEDGERS IN SEPTEMBER: Gerry Benton, Henrik Pedersen, James Spaller, John Houghton, Poul Petersen, Mark Wilczek, Mann Page Ciesemier, Leslie Thomas-Rieser, Jim Lorenz, Chelsea Moller, 3 unlisted — (12 new pledgers total) PLEDGERS FROM AUGUST: Glen Ihrig, Gary J Leidy, David Bergland, Gary T Gorski, Don J Crites, 8 unlisted — (13 new pledgers total)

Or, you could make a one-time donation. Please let us know on our secure contribution form if its okay to advertise your support here:

NEW ONE TIME DONORS IN SEPTEMBER: M. W. Baumeister, Pamela Sanderson, Brad Peters, Michael Lord, David D Segesta, John O’Donnell, Robert C. Jones, Jr., A.J. Stukenborg, Nathan Bailey, 4 unlisted — (13 new donations total) DONORS FROM AUGUST: Sharon Mears, John Matthews, Patricia Barnum, Brian Travis, Sarah Franke, Dirk Doebereiner, James Wahler, Meredith Weaver, Stephen Moffett, Matthew Whitlock, Dan Litwin, Russell Kominski, Veronica Arnold, Michael Bayback, Ann & Todd Secoy (in memory of Julia Bitner), James Marranca, Kay Samalin, David Hyatt, Douglas Steinschneider, Lily Riker, Nicholas C. Beason, Mr. Marlin, Edward J. Krieger, Lynnette Thompson, 17 unlisted — (41 total)

If a tax deduction is important you can get one by contributing to the educational outreach efforts of the Downsize DC Foundation. Contribute at the Foundation’s secure contribution form.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

1. Tax it
2. Keep ‘harder’ drugs illegal

This is a losing position and I’ll tell you why. On the issue of taxation, wouldn’t it be OK if there was one thing in this world that the government didn’t tax? I mean, do some fat cat politicians in Washington really deserve a slice of every bit of productive activity in this country? The income that a person uses to buy any item in America has already been taxed multiple times – through corporate taxes, payroll taxes, income taxes, medicaid and social security taxes and the list goes on and on. What makes people think that the government needs any more money from us?

Also, assuming that it was legalized and taxed, why wouldn’t people still buy it off the streets at a discount, tax-free? Assuming an 8% minimum tax, which is the sales tax rate in New York, why wouldn’t people who already ‘get it from a friend’ continue to do so? In fact, I think it’s safe to assume that an 8% tax is probably much lower than what the government would actually institute. Tobacco manufacturers could be counted on to lobby government to make sure that marijuana taxes were as high or higher than tobacco taxes to make sure they didn’t loose further business to a cheaper (and more healthy) alternative.

Obama signed a law increasing the Federal excise tax on cigarettes to $1.01 per pack, while each state charges more on top of that. I’m fortunate to live in NY where we have the highest taxes of any state, including the highest per-pack excise tax of $2.75 per pack. Now do you really think the government would be content with an 8% sales tax rate? A higher tax on marijuana would only serve to prolong the negative effects of the Drug War as people try to avoid another tax. Marijuana already has an established underground distribution network so it’s conceivable that underground sales would continue.

More importantly, these supporters have forfeited their moral high ground by arguing that harder drugs should be kept illegal. This position is incompatible with the body of activism done to support legalization of marijuana as well as personal liberty. Either you own your own body and have the right to put into it whatever you please, or you don’t. There is no middle ground on this issue. Every argument against hard drugs has been used against marijuana as well. Until the pro-legalization crowd regains the moral highground they will continue to fight a losing battle on this one. It’s quite possible that pot could be legalized and taxed, but our basic freedoms would still not have been restored and the success highly compromised.

Ask yourself: do you take a principled position when it comes to drugs? Or do you pick and choose what other people should be able to use while keeping your choice of drug legal? If you support the continued legal status of the drug of choice of most Americans, alcohol, then you cannot oppose legalization of other drugs and still have a principled position. Only complete liberty and self-ownership of our bodies will set us free.

Originally published at riseuprochester.org.

From The Hill:

The leader of a congressional effort to reform the criminal justice system said Thursday that all issues — including drug legalization — need to be on the table.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who has made criminal justice and prison reform a signature issue of his this year in Congress, is the most high-profile lawmaker to indicate openness to drug decriminalization or outright legalization.

“Well, I think what we need to do is to put all of the issues on the table,” Webb said this morning on CNN if asked if marijuana legalization would be part of his criminal justice reform efforts.

“If you go back to 1980 as a starting point, I think we had 40,000 people in prison on drug charges, and today, we have about 500,000 of them,” the first-term Virginia lawmaker said. “And the great majority of those are nonviolent crimes — possession crimes or minor sales.”

Well, this all sounded great until I read the following:

“I think they should examine every aspect of drugs policy to see what’s working and what’s not working, and where the consistencies are and, quite frankly, where the inconsistencies are in terms of how people end up in the system with similar activities,” Webb explained, reiterating his call for a high-level blue ribbon commission to reform the criminal justice system.

Oh no! Not yet another “blue ribbon commission”! That is a Capitol Hill euphemism for a “political dog and pony show”. In the end nothing gets accomplished. I hope this one is different, but I have my doubts.

Listen via youtube below in two parts. Thanks to Tim Peck for sending us the video links.

He did seem to avoid the question on introducing legislation to legalize drugs (all drugs, not just marijuana), but overall it was a good appearance. The clip cuts off the results of the CNN poll where 49% of those polled thus far stated they wanted all drugs to be legalized. This gives me hope that someday, maybe in my lifetime, the insane war on drugs will be abolished.

Enjoy Ron Paul making sense below.

Quote of the Day: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

There’s a civil war going on in Mexico. It’s the drug cartels, funded by obscene black market profits, versus the government, funded by obscene taxes.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mexico this week. She’s from the U.S. Federal Government and she was there to help. She promised . . .

* More taxpayer money to fight Mexico’s war on drugs
* Gun control laws here in the U.S.A. . . .

. . .to stop the flow of guns to the Mexican drug cartels.

Ms. Clinton seems to think that gun prohibition is the way to enforce drug prohibition. She’s right about one thing. Drug prohibition and gun prohibition are the same issue.

Now, you might think drugs are bad. You might believe them to be so harmful you’d never use them. But you probably expect the politicians to keep their hands off your firearms.

On the other hand, you may think guns are evil. You might believe they’re so dangerous, you’d never own one. But you think you have every right to choose what substances you take into to your own body.

Both positions are correct. Guns and drugs are both dangerous to people who don’t use them prudently. But prohibition laws mean that no one is allowed to use them prudently. And the one form of prohibition ends up being used as a justification for the other, as Ms. Clinton made clear in Mexico this week.

We think it’s time to put the special pleading aside. Drug prohibition and gun control aren’t two separate issues, they are the same issue, and should be governed by the same principle. The only thing that should be prohibited is government prohibition in all its forms.

We don’t need to renew the Assault Weapons Ban, or give money to Mexico to fight the war on drugs.

What we need is less government coercion, not more.

Downsize DC! That’s the winning formula here.

Our government should end drug prohibition. That will defund the Mexican cartels (and the terrorists too), then they won’t be able to buy the guns. It would also reduce violent crime here at home and remove much of the supposed justification for gun prohibition.

If you see the wisdom in this please our free Educate the Powerful System to ask Congress to end prohibition.

Then, please help spread the word. Digg this message on our blog.

Thank you for being part of the growing Downsize DC Army, which has grown in two months time from 24,095 to 24,649.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

PS: We’re currently working to fix some technical difficulties on our website. In the meantime, if you trouble, try this . . .

* Log-in using the log-in button near the upper right hand corner of our home page
* Then go to our Help End the Mexican Civil War campaign to send your message to Congress

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation