Author Archives: Gene Berkman

Vote for Gary Johnson for Less Government

Posted on by Standard Reply

Just to be clear:a vote for Gary Johnson for President is a vote against Hilary Clinton – and a vote against Donald Trump.

Hilary Clinton promises new federal aid programs to deal with education, healthcare, and law enforcement. This will burden a federal government already 20 trillion dollars in the hole. In less than two decades, the Clinton brand has gone from “the era of big government is over” to Bernie on a budget.

Of course, Hilary Clinton has a record of support for big government. During her 8 years in the Senate, she voted for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and the bank bailout – initiatives by President Bush intended to give the federal government new powers for law enforcement, education, and financial control. As President she will continue to promote government as the solution to social and economic problems in America.

Hilary Clinton also favors active government in international affairs. In the Senate, she voted in favor of the Iraq War in 2002. She joined with 29 other Senate Democrats to vote in favor of George W Bush’s policy of pre-emptive war, based on faulty intelligence. In 2009 she left the Senate to become Secretary of State. As Secretary of State she pushed for interventions in Libya and Syria.

George W Bush’s pre-emptive war on Iraq resulted in more than 4000 Americans dying, more than 40,000 with life-changing wounds, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. The Iraq war has cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars, and the costs continue to rise – medical care for wounded vets, reconstruction in Iraq, and interest on the debt which resulted from the multi-trillion dollar war. The Iraq war has not made America safer and has not brought peace and order to Iraq, where fighting is going on today between Iraqi Shi’ite militias and the Islamic State.

The intervention in Libya has ended the tyrannical reign of Muamar Qaddafi, but it has also led to chaos and violence as constant companions for the Libyan people. The Libyan chaos has made room for extremists who may threaten nearby countries in the future, and an end to chaos is nowhere in sight.

Syria is engulfed in a civil war, with more than two sides. As Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton lobbied for direct intervention and aid to Syrian militias that might be induced to fight both the Assad regime and the forces of the Islamic State. Currently, the C.I.A. is supplying weapons to several rebel groups, including at least one with ties to Al Qaeda. The Pentagon is providing aid to several other extremist militias in Syria. US intervention in Libya and Syria is taking place after the disaster of the intervention in Iraq, and before any real plan to bring freedom to the Libyan and Syrian people has been developed.

Hilary Clinton has a record of support for active government at home, and military and political intervention in the Middle East. As President, Hilary Clinton will be guided by this faith in government, and all Americans will pay the price.

Donald Trump does not provide a real alternative. Mr Trump proposes costly new government powers to deal with illegal immigration. His plan to deport up to 11 million people would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and involve a massive increase in federal police powers. Building a wall along the border would cost more billions.

Mr Trump proposes very high tariffs – 35% to 45% – directed against America’s biggest trading partners. Donald Trump’s anti-trade policies would devastate American business, prompt retaliation, and throw many out of work.

Immigration restrictions, mass deportation, and limits on international trade form the core of Donald Trump’s campaign.

Donald Trump’s crusade against immigrants alienates Hispanic voters as well as liberals and conservatives who favor a liberal immigration policy. His calls for punitive tariffs directed at China and Mexico drives away business owners. Donald Trump cannot beat Hilary Clinton; conservatives need to look at another choice.

Gary Johnson has a record of cutting taxes and holding the line on government growth. He and Governor Weld have the experience to deal with the financial mess that is the federal government. American taxpayers cannot afford to pay for all the programs that the politicians promise. A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote in favor of downsizing the federal government, and a vote for two former Governors with the experience to cut the power and the cost of the federal government.

A vote for Gary Johnson and other Libertarian candidates will build America’s third party, and lay the groundwork for a real challenge to bipartisan statism in 2018, 2020 and beyond. Vote Libertarian, Tuesday, November 8!

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

California: Vote No on Debt and Taxes!

Posted on by Standard Reply

On Tuesday, November 8, Californians will vote on whether to issue 9 billion dollars in bonds to pay for school facilities, and whether to extend temporary tax hikes on high earners.

Proposition 51 authorizes the state to issue 9 billion dollars in bonds to pay for construction and repair of facilities for public schools, charters schools and community colleges. The bonds will cost the taxpayers 8.6 billion dollars in interest, for a total cost of $17.6 billion dollars. The state will have to collect a half billion dollars a year in taxes for 35 years to pay back these bonds.

Governor Jerry Brown opposes this new bond issue, because the state has too much debt already. Libertarians favor a system of private schools for all, with scholarships for those who need help paying tuition. This will guarantee access to education for all, while transferring the capital cost of school construction from the taxpayers to private and corporate educational businesses. Governor Jerry Brown and The Libertarian Party urge you to vote No on more debt, Vote No on Proposition 51.

Proposition 55 will extend for 12 years income tax hikes on residents earning $250,000 a year or more. Governor Jerry Brown promoted temporary tax hikes in 2012, and he favors letting the tax increases expire. California already puts a high cost on success, making the state less welcoming to successful individuals and successful companies. We must create a business climate that promotes economic growth in order to keep Californians working and productive. We need tax cuts for economic growth, not tax hikes. Governor Jerry Brown and The Libertarian Party urge you to vote against high taxes, Vote No on Proposition 55.

Proposition 53 is an amendment to the California Constitution that will require voter approval of revenue bonds if the issue exceeds 2 billion dollars. The Constitution now requires approval by the voters for bonds dedicated to funding specific projects, but does not require voter approval for general purpose revenue bonds. Proposition 53 will make it harder for the state to go more into debt. The Libertarian Party urges you to Vote Yes on Proposition 53.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Protect Medical Marijuana: Vote Yes on Proposition 64

Posted on by Standard Reply

On Tuesday, November 8, Californians will vote on a proposal to legalize possession of marijuana for adults, and, finally, legalize production and sale of marijuana. Proposition 64, The Adult Use of Marijuana Act, will legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and over; it also establishes a regulatory framework for the legal production, distribution and sale of marijuana and marijuana products.

Proposition 64 embeds in the California Constitution the rights of medical marijuana patients as established by Proposition 215 and Senate Bill 420. Proposition 64 states (Section 4.6,11362.3(f) that rights of medical marijuana users established by Proposition 215 and subsequent legislation will not be abridged. This includes the right of medical marijuana users to grow marijuana beyond the six plants allowed for recreational users. While medical marijuana users will have to pay the 15% tax on retail sales of marijuana, they are exempt from paying the 7.5% sales tax.

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act also embeds in the Constitution the privacy protections for registered medical marijuana users that were established by SB 420.

In 1996 California voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, allowing individuals arrested for possession of marijuana to invoke a “medical need” defense. The Compassionate Use act provided than anyone wanting to invoke a “medical need” defense would need a recommendation from a doctor licensed to practice in California. Individuals who did not have a doctor’s recommendation could not invoke the medical defense.

In 2003, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 420 to clarify the scope and the application of Proposition 215. SB 420 created a state-wide registry of medical marijuana users, and a California medical marijuana ID card. SB 420. Signing up for the registry and getting a medical id card is voluntary, but individuals who are not listed on the registry might not be able to invoke the medical defense that 215 established.

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act retains the California registry of medical users, and the medical id card, and embeds in the Constitution the privacy provisions set forth in D SB 420. But if Proposition 64 passes, an individual who uses marijuana for therapeutic purposes will not need a doctor’s recommendation or a medical id card to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, or to grow up to 6 plants. People who want to protect their privacy will appreciate this.

If Proposition 64 passes, an individual who does possess a doctor’s recommendation and a medical id card will be exempt from California Sales Tax when buying marijuana, and will be able to grow more than 6 plants. Signing up for the Medical Marijuana Registry and obtaining a medical id card will be completely voluntary, with the promise of added benefits not available to recreational users of marijuana.

Proposition 215 expressed support for the use of marijuana as medicine. SB 420 provided a means for medical marijuana users to guarantee their status, at the cost of being on a government list. The Adult Use of Marijuana Act guarantees the right of adults, 21 and over, to possess and use marijuana for recreational or therapeutic purposes. People who benefit from the health effects of marijuana will have access without needing a doctor’s recommendation, and without being on a government list. AUMA means for freedom for all marijuana users. Join Rep. Tom McClintock, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, Rep. Tom Campbell (Ret) Judge Jim Gray (Ret) and me in voting YES on Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Vote Yes on Proposition 64:Legalize and Tax Marijuana

Posted on by Standard Reply

On Tuesday, November 8, Californians will vote on a proposal to legalize possession of marijuana for adults, and, finally, legalize production and sale of marijuana. Proposition 64, The Adult Use of Marijuana Act, will legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and over; it also establishes a regulatory framework for the legal production, distribution and sale of marijuana and marijuana products.

Proposition 64 establishes taxes on the cultivation and retail sale of marijuana. AUMA sets a $9.25 per ounce tax on cultivation, and a 15% tax on retail sales of marijuana and marijuana products. This 15% tax will be collected in addition to the California 7.5% sales tax, except that medical marijuana patients will be exempt from paying California sales tax. Libertarians and others object to these new taxes on principle, and for practical reasons.

Taxes on marijuana will lead to higher costs for consumers. This higher cost will be mitigated over time as a legal market will tend to drive prices down. Production and distribution will be more efficient, and people engaged in licensed marijuana businesses will not face prosecution and resulting costs of legal defense, fines etc. A legal marijuana market, with federal legalization, will provide quality products at competitive prices, so total costs even with taxes will be lower than in the current black and gray markets for marijuana.

Libertarians also object to new taxes because it gives more money to governments. Since California government is already having problems paying for existing programs, mandates and entitlements, the existence of new revenue streams will not itself promote government growth. One can hope that money from marijuana taxes can fund relief from other taxes. At least it might prevent hikes in other taxes that Democrats and Progressives might push in coming years.

Production, distribution and sale of beer, wine and liquor are regulated and heavily taxed. Principle and experience both tell us that a legal market in alcohol, even with taxes and regulation, is better for individuals and society than Prohibition.

Before production and sale of beer, wine and liquor were banned, alcohol taxes provided 30% to 40% of the revenue of the federal government. In order to make Prohibition possible, Prohibitionists joined with Progressives to pass the 16th Amendment, authorizing the federal government to tax incomes. The lesson from this is that government dependence on alcohol taxes protected the legal status of alcohol for many years. Marijuana taxes will provide a money source for government that politicians will not want to interfere with.

85% of California adults do not use marijuana. Many have resisted previous attempts at legalization, including Proposition 19 in 1972 and Proposition 19 in 2010. The prospect that marijuana might save them from tax hikes, or even make possible tax relief, gives these people a reason to vote for legalization. Even with taxes, the costs of marijuana will go down in a competitive legal market. And, of course, libertarians can campaign for lower marijuana taxes, with marijuana users a receptive audience for tax relief that they never needed before.

For freedom and for a legal marijuana market, join Governor Gary Johnson and me in supporting Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Vote Yes on Proposition 64:Legalize & Regulate Marijuana

Posted on by Standard Reply

On Tuesday, November 8, Californians will vote on a proposal to legalize possession of marijuana for adults, and, finally, legalize production and sale of marijuana. Proposition 64, The Adult Use of Marijuana Act, will legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and over; it also establishes a regulatory framework for the legal production, distribution and sale of marijuana and marijuana products.

Polls show that more than half of California voters support legalization of recreational marijuana. With support from Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, the Democratic Party, the California Medical Association, the NAACP, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and more, Proposition 64 is expected to pass. As noted by California NORML, Proposition 64 is supported by every major drug law reform organization, but opposed by a vocal minority of backyard growers and libertarian purists.

Libertarian “purists”-and others-object to the body of regulations embedded in the AUMA, and to the imposition of taxes on cultivation and sale of marijuana.

AUMA legalizes possession by adults of one ounce (28.5 grams) of marijuana flowers or leaves, or 8 grams of concentrate. Current law provides that possession of one ounce or less is subject to a civil fine: citation rather than arrest, no jail, no criminal record. So AUMA seems like little progress. But full legalization, even limited as it is, changes the fundamental legal position of someone who possesses marijuana.

AUMA reduces penalties for possession of large amounts, for unlicensed cultivation, transport, and sale. All are reduced from felonies to misdemeanors. AUMA also provides that individuals in prison, on parole or on probation for marijuana offenses can petition to have their sentences reduced in accordance with the lower penalties set by AUMA.

Unlike Proposition 215, the AUMA provides a framework for licensing legal producers, distributors and retail outlets. Since Proposition 215 did not address cultivation and sale, growers and dispensaries have operated in an unclear legal environment. Many cities have refused to allow dispensaries to operate, and some have closed down dispensaries who tried to operate while waiting for legal procedures to be established.

In addition to establishing a legally sanctioned market for marijuana and marijuana products, Proposition 64 embeds in the Constitution a legal right to grow 6 plants for personal use.

Proposition 64 states that rights of medical marijuana users established by Proposition 215 and subsequent legislation will not be abridged. This includes the right of medical marijuana users to grow marijuana beyond the six plants allowed for recreational users. While medical marijuana users will have to pay the 15% tax on retail sales of marijuana, they are exempt from paying the 7.5% sales tax.

The regulatory framework established by Proposition 64 is comparable to the regulatory framework for production and sale of alcoholic beverages. When Alcohol Prohibition was repealed, the government first legalized 3.2 beer – beer with an alcohol content of 3.2%. Stronger beverages remained illegal at first. But over time a large and varied legal alcohol industry has developed, and grocery stores carry large stocks of beer, wine and liquor, in competition with alcohol superstores and corner liquor stores.

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act marks real progress toward full legalization of production, sale and consumption of marijuana. Legalization of marijuana in California – the most populous state – will put pressure on the federal government to change its policies toward marijuana. Join Governor Gary Johnson and me in supporting passage of Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

Sullum:”Gary Johnson’s Refreshing Foreign Policy Skepticism”

Posted on by Standard Reply

One of the few appealing aspects of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has been his criticism of Hillary Clinton’s reckless interventionism. But the bellicose billionaire combines that criticism with promises of a gratuitous military buildup, a casual attitude toward the use of American weapons, and a disturbing tendency to view trade and immigration as acts of war.

To get a sense of what a more disciplined, consistent, and thoughtful critique of Clintonian warmongering sounds like, listen to Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for president. Notwithstanding the popular portrayal of Johnson as a foreign policy ignoramus based on his embarrassing “Aleppo moments,” the former New Mexico governor offers a bracing alternative to Clinton’s supposedly sophisticated yet consistently careless embrace of violence as a tool for reshaping the world.

Again and again as first lady, senator, and secretary of state, from Serbia to Syria, Clinton has supported military interventions that had nothing to do with national defense. Mindful of the damage done by the promiscuous use of America’s armed forces, Johnson promises a different approach: When in doubt, stay out.

“As president,” Johnson said in a recent speech at the University of Chicago, “I would not need to be talked out of dropping bombs and sending young men and women into harm’s way. I would be the president who would have to be convinced it is absolutely necessary to protect the American people or clear U.S. interests. I will be the skeptic in the room.”

Full column by Jacob Sullum @ Reason http://reason.com/archives/2016/10/19/gary-johnsons-refreshing-foreign-policy

Tim Kaine’s Bogus Antiwar Appeal

Posted on by Standard 1

Recent polls show that most Americans don’t trust Donald Trump, and most Americans do not trust Hilary Clinton. A current ABC/Washington Post poll indicates that 64% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Donald Trump, and 53% have an unfavorable view of Hilary Clinton.

Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate, continues to hold the support of 8 to 10% of voters nationally, and polling 15% or more in 15 states. Polls show that former Gov. Johnson draws support from both Mr Trump and Secretary Clinton. Clinton supporters are worried; progressive websites and Democrat politicians are attacking Gary Johnson and The Libertarian Party in hopes of insuring a Clinton victory.

The Hill reports that Sen. Tim Kaine is telling people that they should not vote for a third party, because it might throw the election to Donald Trump. He brings up the 2000 election, claiming that votes for Nader in Florida led to the victory of George W Bush, and that resulted in the Iraq War.

I am glad Sen. Kaine understands the Iraq War is a disaster for America. His logic implies that Al Gore as President would have undertaken a foreign policy based on peace. This is at odds with the record of Al Gore in the Senate, and the record of the Clinton/Gore administration.

CLINTON, GORE AND THE FIRST IRAQ WAR

The Iraq War authorized in 2002 was a sequel to an earlier Iraq War in 1991, during the reign of George H W Bush. Sen Al Gore voted to authorize the first Iraq War, along with Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid and 7 more Democrats.

At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton explained that in 1992, he picked Al Gore as his candidate for Vice-President, because Sen. Gore had crossed party lines to support President Bush’s policy in Iraq.

The Clinton Gore Administration continued the policy of sanctions on Iraq, along with a “no fly zone” to keep the Iraq air force from flights over the Kurdish north of Iraq. The “no fly zone” was enforced by retaliatory bombing raids. President Clinton ordered hundreds of bombing raids in Iraq during his time in office.

President Clinton also ordered U.S. Bombers to take part in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia had not attacked the United States; the bombing was a “humanitarian intervention” with unclear military objectives and too many non-military targets.

At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, Al Gore explained that he chose Sen. Joe Lieberman as his running mate for Vice-President because Lieberman crossed party lines in 1991 to support President Bush’s policy in Iraq. Lieberman was re-elected to the Senate as the Gore/Lieberman ticket was defeated. In 2002 Sen. Joe Lieberman voted to authorize President George W Bush to undertake military action in Iraq.

His vote for the first Iraq War and his loyal support through eight years of the Clinton policy of bombing Iraq and Yugoslavia show Al Gore was not a peace candidate.

IS HILARY CLINTON A PEACE CANDIDATE?

Sen. Kaine is correct that the election of George W Bush resulted in a disastrous war in Iraq. Yet Al Gore supported the policy of military intervention in the Middle East.

Sen. Kaine does not acknowledge Democrat responsibility for the passage of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in 2002, legal basis for the second Iraq War.

The Senate in 2002 included 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 1 Independent. The AUMF needed support from Democrats and Republicans. Blinded by party loyalty, 48 Republicans voted Yes; they needed 3 Democrat Senators to pass it. They got 29.

29 Democrat Senators voted for Bush’s war in Iraq. Sen. Hilary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards, Sen. Harry Reid and Sen. Joe Lieberman all voted for the Iraq War.

In 2000 there were strong third party candidates for U.S. Senate in only 2 states. In California, a Green Party candidate, a Libertarian and 3 more candidates received a total of more than 851,000 votes; Sen. Feinstein was re-elected.

In Washington State, Maria Cantwell was elected with less than 49% of the vote; a Libertarian candidate received 65,000 votes, and was blamed for the Republican loss. Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Cantwell, both Democrats, voted for the Iraq War that George Bush wanted.

Sen. Jim Jeffords (Ind-VT) and Sen. Lincoln Chafee (Rep-R.I.) both voted No. If all 50 Democrats had voted No, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force would have lost, 52 to 48. Sen. Kaine invokes the disaster of the Iraq War, then asks you to vote for Hilary Clinton, who voted to authorize that war.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN FOR ANTIWAR POLICY

Hilary Clinton did not give up her support for interventionism when she became Secretary of State. Secretary Clinton ha supported intervention in Libya and Syria, with the best motives. Muamar Gaddafi was an oppressive dictator, and Bashar al-Assad has undertaken violent repression to maintain a hold on autocratic power.

In Libya, the aftermath of the revolution is chaos, replacement of everyday repression with everyday violence. The most likely end to chaos will come with the seizure of power by a new oppressive regime, probably allied with extremists in Libya and beyond.

In Syria the Assad regime backed by Russia has resorted to extreme levels of violence to suppress all opposition groups. The more extreme opposition groups have grown stronger and more violent. U.S. strategy includes supplying guns to “moderate” rebel groups, but our weapons have gone directly to allies of Al Qaida; ISIS gets our weapons indirectly, by defeating rebel groups that we supply, and taking what they have.

Gary Johnson does not have the answer for how to end the human tragedy in Aleppo, and in Syria as a whole. President Obama does not have the answer either, nor does Secretary of State John Kerry. Their answers in the past helped create the chaos and tragedy that we see today.

For the foresseable future, Syria will be engulfed in a civil war pitting extremist groups against a repressive regime. As the violence escalates, each side will blame the other. The winner will either maintain an oppressive regime, or institute a new repressive regime.

Gary Johnson and The Libertarian Party call for an end to the Bush/Clinton policy of intervention in the Middle East. If you agree with Sen. Kaine that the Iraq War was a disaster, vote against Hilary Clinton and the other bipartisan politicians that made it happen. Vote Libertarian for Gary Johnson if you don’t want to elect a supporter of Bush’s war of choice in Ir\aq.

For more information, go to www.JohnsonWeld2016.com

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

Loretta Sanchez for U.S. Senate

Posted on by Standard 1

California’s recently implemented “Top Two” all party primary system has created an unusual situation in this year’s contest for U.S. Senate. With Senator Barbara Boxer retiring, voters selected as their top two candidates for November two Democrats. California Attorney-General Kamala Harris, endorsed by the California Democratic Party, faces a challenge from Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who represents Anaheim, Santa Ana, Orange and Garden Grove in the U.S. Congress.

Republicans and Libertarians are shut out of this Senate race by the top two primary; many plan to skip this race in November. But Independents, Republicans and Libertarians should consider Rep. Sanchez because of her record in Congress.

Rep. Sanchez voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The AUMF provided a legal justification for George W Bush’s war on Iraq. The pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was justified by claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and claims of ties to Al Qaida. Both claims have been proved false. The war has resulted in nearly 5000 American casualties, more than 40,000 wounded Americans, and trillions of dollars in new federal debt to pay for a war of choice.

In voting against a pre-emptive war on Iraq, Rep. Sanchez split with many leaders of the Democratic Party. Sen. Hilary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Sen. Joe Lieberman all voted in favor of Bush’s war.

In the wake of the 9/11 terror attack, The Bush administration proposed the Patriot Act, to provide new powers to the federal government to investigate questionable activity, in the hopes of stopping future attacks. Opponents, including Rep. Ron Paul, warned of the threat to the freedom of all Americans. Rep. Loretta Sanchez voted against the Patriot act, along with Ron Paul and a minority of Congress. Sen. Hilary Clinton joined with 48 other Democrats and 49 Republicans and one Independent to pass the Patriot Act in the Senate.

In the last year of the Bush Administration, a speculative bubble fed by low interest rates maintained by the Federal Reserve, posed a threat to major financial institutions that took part in the bubble. President Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson proposed a $700 billion tax funded bailout of major banks. Rep. Loretta Sanchez voted against the bailout of the banks, again breaking with Democrat leaders including Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hilary Clinton, Sen. Joe Biden and others who voted to give $700 billion in taxpayers money to badly managed banks.

In her votes against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the Bank Bailout, Rep. Loretta Sanchez sided with Rep. Ron Paul, and voted in opposition to Sen. Hilary Clinton. Rep. Loretta Sanchez is the best choice in California’s Senate race. We hope that Libertarians, Republicans and Independents will join with antiwar Democrats to elect Loretta Sanchez on November 8, 2016.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)

California NORML Explains Adult Use of Marijuana Act

Posted on by Standard Reply

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act is a marijuana legalization initiative that has qualified for the November, 2016 California ballot. AUMA will be listed on the ballot as Proposition 64.

AUMA is an elaborate, 62-page initiative which writes hundreds of new provisions and regulations into state law. Its basic thrust is to:

(1) allow adults 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to six plants for personal use;

(2) regulate and tax the production, manufacture, and sale of marijuana for adult use; and

(3) rewrite criminal penalties so as to reduce the most common marijuana felonies to misdemeanors and allow prior offenders to petition for reduced charges.

AUMA’s regulatory provisions are largely patterned on the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA), recently passed by the legislature and effective Jan 1, 2016. Licenses for medical and adult-use would be distinct, but managed by the same agency in the Department of Consumer Affairs (the legislature and agency may move to consolidate these two systems if AUMA passes).

Due to its extraordinary length and complexity, AUMA contains a number of glitches and inconsistencies that will have to be ironed out by the courts or the legislature. It also includes a number of restrictions and oversights that many users find objectionable (for example, it makes it illegal to consume in any public place except for specifically licensed premises; continues to let local governments ban medical marijuana cultivation and sales; bans vaporization in non-smoking areas; and imposes an unduly high, 15% + tax increase on medical marijuana). Fortunately, Section 10 of the act allows for most provisions to be modified by the legislature.

Full analysis by California NORML @ http://www.canorml.org/news/Cal_NORML_Guide_to_AUMA.html

Hilary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Does it Matter?

Posted on by Standard 2

In October of 2002, right before off-year elections for Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq. Not a formal declaration of war as required by The Constitution, the AUMF was used as the legal basis for a massive WMD attack – 2700 Tomahawk missiles and 20,000 precision guided weapons – followed by an invasion by U.S. infantry and armored divisions.

President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and other Republican leaders pushed for war on Iraq, with claims that the Hussein regime provided support for Islamic terrorists, like those who carried out the attack on the World Trade Center. The Bush team also claimed that the Iraqi government possessed “weapons of mass destruction.” Administration spokesmen defined WMD to include atomic weapons, but also chemical and biological weapons. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, admitting uncertainty about whether Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, warned that “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

The U.S. invasion of Iraq resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians losing their lives, more being wounded, and the destruction of many neighborhoods and public facilities. More than 4000 American soldiers and contractors lost their lives, and more than 40,000 Americans sustained life-changing injuries. The cost of the war to American taxpayers continues to mount, along with interest on the money borrowed to cover the costs that exceed the tax revenues collected.

In the lead-up to the vote on the AUMF, President Bush along with Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. John McCain and others used the Republican Party to push for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, a country which had not attacked the United States. When Congress passed the AUMF in October 2002, an overwhelming majority of Republicans voted in favor. Even so, Bush needed votes from Democrats to pass the bill.

At the time of the vote, the U.S. Senate included 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 1 Independent. 48 Republican Senators voted for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force; without Democrat votes, it would have failed. Democrats split, with 29 voting yes, and 21 voting against war; 1 Republican and 1 Independent voted no, so the result was 77 yes, 23 no.

Democrats who voted for war with Iraq included Joseph Lieberman, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards and Sen. Hilary Clinton. If Senate Democrats had voted solidly in opposition to the AUMF, it would have stopped the military intervention in Iraq. Unless, of course, President Bush had authorized intervention with an unconstitutional executive order. By voting “Yes” Senator Clinton, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Biden and other Democrats provided the margin of victory for Ameican’s first pre-emptive war.

Senator Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War does matter. Clinton and other Senate Democrats provided votes needed for Bush to get his authorization for a pre-emptive attack, for a war that we continue to pay for.

Hilary Clinton’s support for the second war in Iraq is in line with Bill Clinton’s support for the first war against Iraq, undertaken in 1991 under leadership of President George H W Bush. Then Governor Bill Clinton was so committed to the Iraq War that he picked Sen. Al Gore for Vice-President specifically because he had voted for the war. After taking office as President, Bill Clinton maintained the policy of bombing Iraq to punish it for violations of the 1991 cease-fire; observors noted that when the media reported on Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton would order a bombing run over Iraq or Yugoslavia to divert people’s attention from his ongoing scandal.

Sen. Gore was so committed to the Iraq War that in 2000, as the nominee for President, he picked Sen. Joe Liebermann as his running mate because he too supported the Iraq War.

A vote for Hilary Clinton for President is a vote to continue the Bush/Clinton policy of military intervention in the Middle East. A vote for Gary Johnson, Libertarian for President, is a vote against international interventionism, and for a foreign policy of peace and free trade.

(By Gene Berkman, Editor, California Libertarian Report)