The War on Drugs – The Libertarian Republic

Are Drug Addicts and School Shootings the Price of Liberty? (VIDEO)

Austin Petersen — Sat, 29 Oct 2022 20:20:00 +0000

What Is The Price Of Liberty?

This text was given as a speech at Missouri State University’s Turning Point USA student group on October 29, 2022.

What is the price of liberty? Many of you might be familiar with the full phrase

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

That quote adorns the entrance to the national archives in Washington D.C. and has sometimes falsely been attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

But the phrase itself comes from a quote by John Philpott Curran that was popularized later when it was repeated by Frederick Douglass who said that

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

John Philpott Curran

Meaning that liberty will only be protected if we are awake and aware and actively working to maintain it. Or in modern parlance, that we remain based and redpilled.

George Orwell once said that “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

What I have to say to you tonight will definitely fall under that purview. These topics I’ll breach are the kind of harsh truths that could prevent someone from being elected but since I’m already in that boat let’s go forward with the unpleasant truths.

Now when people think of the price of liberty, typically the first thing that comes to mind are our military servicemembers who sacrifice their lives and bodies to defend our freedom overseas. Or if not that then they think of police officers or other civil servants in some form or fashion.

Or perhaps they think of the oath that the Founding Fathers took, “Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor,” when they took a pact that could have seen them hanged for declaring Independence from Great Britain. “I regret that I have but only life to give for my country,” may come to mind.

But my speech tonight will focus in not on the government officials, the military, or the police. Instead, I will focus in on the price of liberty that’s paid for in the blood of the innocent. The civilian. The price that you, or even your infant children might pay in blood. And once I’m finished I will ask you to consider whether or not you’re ready to pay that price to protect liberty, or if you would prefer the safety promised to you by the proponents of big government.

Drug Addiction as A Price

Because I’m a secular libertarian Republican, and not a social conservative, I believe in the total abolition of all drug laws that punish recreational drug use for consenting adults. Emphasis on the consenting adults. I quite famously was booed at the 2016 presidential convention when I said that I believed there should be laws that protect children from having access to drugs. Anarchist gonna anarchy I guess.

And while I don’t condone recreational drug use, I don’t believe it’s the role of government to tell adults what to put in their bodies to alter their moods or behavior, provided that the drug user doesn’t harm anyone else.

This is not a popular position in my newly adopted Republican Party. In fact, it’s not a popular position with the Democratic party either. For all the talk from the left about my body my choice, they really only mean that when they want to slaughter the unborn out of convenience, but that’s a discussion for another time.

There’s a famous saying from before World War 2 that goes, say what you will about Mussolini, but he kept the trains running on time.

You see, part of the allure of fascism, is that its advocates can bring order and stability to society through centralizing power into the hands of a strong man. Whatever the ills of society are can be fixed by doing away with the chaos of liberty, and embracing the order of central planning and either national or democratic socialism.

In the 1920’s Mussolini needed to convince the people of Italy that fascism was indeed a system that worked to their benefit. Thus was born the myth of fascist efficiency, with the train as its symbol. The word was spread that Mussolini had turned the dilapidated Italian railway system into one that was the envy of all Europe, featuring trains that were both dependable and punctual. In Mussolini’s Italy, all the trains ran on time.

Mussolini may have done many brutal and tyrannical things; he may have destroyed human freedom in Italy; he may have murdered and tortured citizens whose only crime was to oppose Mussolini; but ‘one had to admit’ one thing about the dictator: he ‘made the trains run on time.’

Government’s promises regarding the War on Drugs amount to much the same thing. The ATF might shoot your dog. They might conduct no knock raids and murder you and your girlfriend while you’re asleep in your beds. They might hogtie you and leave you in a police cruiser that’s parked on a train track only to have a train come along and crush you like a recent incident… but at least they’ll stop you from getting high!

Drug and alcohol addictions are evil. But there are greater evils than drug addiction, much greater… Fascism, communism, all forms of socialism: All of these ideologies kill more people every year than any opioid or alcohol beverage. Governments kill more people than drugs, and it isn’t even close.

So, is drug addiction, opioid abuse, fentanyl, meth, and other drugs… is that the price of liberty? And if it is, are we willing to pay that price? Or will we accept the promises of politicians who will save us from drug addictions? They’ll shoot your dog and throw you in jail, but they’ll keep you from becoming a drug addict? They’ll protect your kids with their guns instead of yours.

They’ll keep the trains running on time!

North Korea has some of the lowest numbers of drug addiction in the world. But who would want to live in North Korea? In the Philippines they give the death penalty to drug dealers. Would you prefer to live in the Philippines than here?

Now what about Portugal? Portugal has engaged in a vast experiment with the decriminalization of all drugs, including hard drugs. Do they have drug addiction? Absolutely. Is it lower than, and still falling compared to the rest of the civilized world? Yes it is.

Defending drug users isn’t popular. But as H.L. Mencken once said,

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

School Shootings as a Price

A few days ago a young man in St. Louis took an AR-15 with over 600 rounds of ammunition into a school and killed two people, injuring seven others. Before the bodies were cold, anti gun politicians immediately stood on the corpses and began grandstanding about how the guns were the problem.

Never mind the fact that the shooter left us a statement with his motives. Let’s read them.

‘I don’t have any friends, I don’t have any family, I’ve never had a girlfriend, I’ve never had a social life. I’ve been an isolated loner my entire life.’

It’s almost as if the problems that this murderer had were irrespective of his access to weaponry. Never mind the fact that his parents had alerted the police to him. He was known to the authorities. They even tried to get him help, but to no avail.

On the day of the shooting, there were half a dozen school resource officers who were tasked with protecting the school. None of them were armed. Could more guns have solved this problem? The answer is quite clearly yes. We had a gun problem. There weren’t enough guns there to solve the problem. Apparently now they’re looking at actually arming the school resource officers there. Good idea, but too little too late for the victims of this latest tragedy.

In 2018 when I was running for senate here in Missouri I got into a back and forth with Shannon Watts the founder of Moms Demand action for gun control. Montel Williams also got into it but that’s a story for another day. Many a “you are NOT the father” and “Silvia the Psychic” jokes were had but I digress.

Shannon Watts and I were arguing because I was giving away an AR-15 for my US senate campaign, with the unfortunate timing that the school shooting in Parkland, Florida happened at the same time. Naturally there was a huge outcry and demand that I stop the raffle, and apologize for my insensitivity.

Instead I doubled down.

In a famous exchange, so famous that I sell fridge magnets of it on my online store. Shannon Watts took aim at the NRA and essentially argued they were responsible for the death of children. I responded simply tweeting: “the price of freedom.”

The backlash began: “Children’s gun deaths are the price of freedom?” she oinked.

I retorted affirmatively with a Thomas Jefferson quote where he said that

“timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty.”

Her response was to say that “other democracies understand that the right to own a gun isn’t a suicide pact. The bizarre belief that our children should be sacrificed on the altar of gun manufacturers’ profits is exactly why American moms are kicking the @NRA’s ass.”

And I tweeted a rhetorical question which I answered: “How many children have to die before I surrender my rights? The answer? All of them.

She then proceeded to tag and report me to the FBI, and I closed the conversation by saying “Call the cops I don’t give a fuck.”

Now despite that attempt at brevity. My claim was deadly serious, and is the main thrust of my premise here tonight. The price of liberty.

It’s safe and uncontroversial to suggest that those in service to the government may lay their lives down in service to liberty. Hearts will stir and people will faintly nod and everyone will agree with you and go on about their bland, boring, safe lives.

But isn’t the real price of liberty paid for by those who through possibly no fault of their own suffer the consequences of living in a free world? And if we are to keep our liberty, and not give in to statism and to big government. If we are to keep our guns, our drugs, and our free speech. Doesn’t that mean that there will be more innocent victims and that we must accept that as the price?

Are drug and alcohol addicts a price of liberty? Yes.

Are the victims of school shootings the price of liberty? Yes.

And if that’s the case, When the next incident occurs, and another school is attacked, and whether through typical govt ineptness, or gun free school zones, more bodies are lying cold and politicians stand on top of them demanding you give up your rights… will you still stand for liberty? Or will you shrink in fear when the big govt prostitutes and its useful idiots threaten you with reprisals or cancellation?

Will you be able to watch innocent lives dragged under into the boisterous seas of liberty, and drown there, knowing that human freedom depends on your ability to continue on into the tempest? And face the storm?

Or will you turn to the siren call of big government? Will you remove Odysseus’ honeycombs from your ears and turn and embrace the beautiful lies of safety on the rocks? Will you lay in the arms of whores who say they will protect you and our children if we only give them your money, your medicines, and your guns? Will you turn to their embrace? Or will you turn back and face Jefferson’s storm and accept that freedom truly isn’t free?

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism… to the boisterous seas of liberty.

What will you say when faced with the question of “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

As Dwight Eisenhower once said:

If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom.

As for me I’ll choose liberty, and I’ll face the storm and the sea. What will you choose?

The post Are Drug Addicts and School Shootings the Price of Liberty? (VIDEO) appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Is This the Beginning of the End for the War On Drugs?

Mikhail Timonin — Sun, 16 May 2021 17:08:38 +0000

When thinking of war, some recall being on a battlefield with the deafening sounds of gunfire and bombs exploding around them, while others remember the grief of burying a loved one who died defending this country. Many can only imagine what it may be like from movies, documentaries or video games.

However, for decades, a war has been waged in our own backyards that has only received public attention in recent years. The War on Drugs has accomplished little other than being a drain on the government’s budget, while incarcerating people mostly for non-violent offenses. One of the more important contributing factors to the War on Drugs was the ban on marijuana.

Historical Significance of Marijuana

Marijuana is not just known for getting people high; it is a plant with a variety of other uses. The term itself only relates to parts of the plant that contain large amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, which is responsible for affecting a person’s mental state. It is “cannabis” that refers to all products derived from the Cannabis sativa plant. “Hemp” refers to variations that have less than 0.3% of THC, while “marijuana” refers to plants that have a higher percentage of the chemical.

This differentiation is important when it comes to the context of the War on Drugs. Throughout human history, the plant itself has been used for a variety of purposes. In the American colonies, for instance, it was used to make products such as rope and textiles. At the end of the era of major cotton cultivation in the United States, cannabis became the dominant cash crop in the South. During this time period, the positive health effects it had were discovered. It was used to treat various ailments and was sold in pharmacies in the United States and Europe. Only in the early 20th century, however, was the plant used for recreational purposes.

In the 1930s, everything changed due to explicitly racist policies by J. Anslinger, who was the head of the Bureau of Narcotics. He claimed that the plant needed to be banned, as its usage had negative effects on minorities, or “degenerate races” as he called them. This was also done to reduce immigration from Mexico into the United States, using cannabis as a scapegoat. The various restrictions and subsequent bans did not occur during the War on Drugs, as many might believe, but during the Great Depression. In 1931, the plant was outlawed in 29 states spurred by the “reefer madness” propaganda promoted by the government with great public support, while in 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was passed which taxed the sale, possession or transfer of the hemp plant. This applied not only to strains which contained THC, but to all plants derived from Cannabis sativa, which hurt cultivation even for the creation of various products.

Marijuana’s Health Benefits and Common Misconceptions

When did the War on Drugs begin? In 1970, under the Nixon administration, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act, in which marijuana was listed as a Schedule I drug, along with other substances such as heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. This category classifies that specific drug as having no medical use with a high potential for abuse.

This is not true for many reasons. First, marijuana is often used as a pain reliever for chronic pain. Its main appeal is that it is not as strong or addictive as various opiates and is impossible to overdose on. It helps ease the pain of multiple sclerosis, while not causing the drowsiness that other drugs may that are used to treat the illness. Another important use is preventing nausea and helping facilitate weight loss, as well as reportedly helping to reduce tremors from Parkinson’s disease.

Beyond the health benefits, there seems to be no physical addiction from marijuana use, although there are signs that it can be psychologically addictive. While this may be true for some people, nearly anything can be psychologically addictive. America has an obesity problem, and although that is caused by a variety of reasons, one of them is that people may get addicted to sugary drinks. Why is marijuana treated differently? Even the non-THC strains are still illegal in many states and for what purpose? The government does not regulate how much food one should consume on a given day. Obviously, it would be logistically impossible , and is a violation of people’s liberty to do with their body as they please. If someone smokes marijuana, they should be responsible for their own actions, even if they were under the influence and hurt someone else. Yet, this drug became a major substance that many people were and are convicted of illegally possessing in the War on Drugs.

Impact of the War on Drugs

There are a few major things that happened as a result of the policy itself. During the 1990s, an average of three 500-bed prison facilities were opening up every week in the U.S.. They were filled with drug offenders. In 1979, 6% of all inmates were jailed on drug offenses. That figure rose to 21% in 1988. This disproportionately affected minorities and low-income citizens.

Under the Reagan and Bush administrations, mandatory sentencing laws were passed regardless of the circumstances, which in turn led to more arrests. There was an increase in border security to prevent traffickers from bringing over marijuana, yet Colombia became a major exporter of it during this time period. Ironically enough, the usage of the plant among teenagers continued at similar rates throughout the mid to late 1990s, and the enforcement of various laws did not help the government at all in reducing drug usage.

Today, the picture is not much different. One in five people are incarcerated for a drug offense. In 2019 alone, there were over 1.5 million arrests—87% of those were just for possession. Marijuana led as the most common drug to be found in the possession of those arrested. This means most of those people were arrested for a victimless crime and had their lives ruined as a result. If a college student, goes to jail on a possession charge, he would have great difficulty getting a job with that record, and would likely either end up in and out of jail and on welfare. In terms of finances, over $1 trillion dollars has been blown on these useless cat and mouse games with the government and its citizens. This is another drain on taxpayer dollars that could have been used elsewhere.

Solutions to the Problems Caused by the War on Drugs

How can the War on Drugs be brought to a close and the damage done repaired? There have been a few steps taken. Over the years, more and more states have decriminalized, and even legalized marijuana to certain capacities. As of June 2019, 29 states have legalized medicinal marijuana and a total of 11 permit recreational use. Yet, many other drugs remain illegal in the United States, contributing to the high incarceratino rate.

Oregon is one state that has taken a stand in decriminalizing the use of all drugs, including cocaine and heroin in 2020. To be more specific, criminal penalties have been removed for those possessing small quantities, and offenders would instead pay a $100 fine, or be required to get a “completed health assessment”. Yet the sale of these drugs is still illegal. The tax revenue from marijuana sales, however, would be redirected to fund drug addiction programs instead of spending them on incarceration. The impacts of the legal policy have yet to be studied, and will need to be revisited in the long-term. However, we do have data of a country that did end the criminalization of drugs more or less successfully—Portugal.

For many years, Portugal was riddled with crime and drug use. They began to institute new policies in 2001. Instead of jail time, offenders might receive a small fine, given a warning, or asked to appear before a local commission to provide support services to addicts. As a result, there was a large drop in drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates. HIV cases fell from 104.2 new cases per million to just 4.2 cases per million in 2015. One major thing to note, is that a cultural shift was required to help pass the law, as well as change the way citizens viewed drug addicts. Instead of treating them with disgust, they became viewed as people who needed help, just like anyone else with a medical condition. Portugal has been successful in its efforts to decriminalize not just marijuana, but drugs as a whole with positive outcomes as a result. The United States could borrow this idea, and try to pass it in Congress, though this seems unlikely due to the partisan attitudes toward drugs overall.

Conclusion

Although important measures to address the War on Drugs have been implemented, there is still a lot of work to do. Many states have not yet decriminalized marijuana, much less all drugs. With the success of the program in Portugal, there is a good chance it would work here in the United States.

Throwing people in jail for what they choose to do on their own time is a violation of their own personal liberty. Since they are not hurting anyone in the vast majority of cases, the government has only made things worse instead of better. While the future remains unclear about what will happen next, two-thirds of the public support marijuana legalization. Perhaps the country is now ready to acknowledge and correct the mistakes of 50 years ago.

The post Is This the Beginning of the End for the War On Drugs? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Government Fail: Missouri Legislature Contradicts Itself in the War on Drugs

Aaron A. — Wed, 12 May 2021 18:16:23 +0000

Tuesday, the Missouri legislature passed SB 63, which upon receiving Gov. Mike Parson’s signature, will create a state-run prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP). The push for such legislation has been a decade long crusade for certain legislators in the House and Senate. They argue that PDMP, despite evidence to the contrary, will help prevent opioid overdoses and addiction.

PDMP made into law will have Missouri joining the other 49 states in attempting to reduce drug overdoses and addiction through enforcement. However, it will also have Missouri joining other states around the country in a ridiculous contradiction.

The Contradiction

Missouri is one of many States with a Drug Court program, a voluntary but costly alternative to incarceration available to non-violent drug offenders. In Missouri, completion is rewarded with expungement of the drug offense related to a person’s participation in the program. Essentially, it’s the state’s way of acknowledging not all drug offenders are violent. It also acknowledges that non-violent offenders don’t deserve to be burdened with a criminal record, and kept in a system of incarceration and probation that negatively alters their future in society.

PDMP, on the other hand, is a state-run program specifically targeting non-violent drug offenses. Here we have two conflicting government systems—one criminalizing non-violent drug offenses with a subsequent system asserting non-violent drug offenses shouldn’t be criminal. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right one is doing.

The Hypocrisy

So which is it? Is non-violent drug use criminal? Or are only violent actions criminal? The state says both—unless the non-violent prove themselves worthy of not being treated as criminals by jumping through challenging hoops and paying large sums of money to the courts, strung out over a period of one to two years. Effectively, non-violent drug users are offenders because MONEY. And the revenue collected doesn’t even come close to alleviating the tax burden funding these wasteful programs.

If Missouri really wished to make a dent in addiction and overdose cases, it could at least try NOT to contradict itself. Sending mixed messages is the wrong message. In this wildly spun web of hypocrisy, only one message is clear—the War On Drugs is alive and well. PDMP is just a thinly veiled escalation, doomed to fail just as the rest of the Drug War has.

The post Government Fail: Missouri Legislature Contradicts Itself in the War on Drugs appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

First, They Came for the Cigarettes. Then, They Came for the Cigars.

Caleb Shumate — Tue, 04 May 2021 20:09:31 +0000

The FDA, under the Biden Administration, announced in late April that it would move to ban menthol-flavored cigarettes in an effort to curve health disparities between black and white Americans.

The proposed ban, however, has implications that reach far past its stated purpose and is set to be a far-reaching, all-out war on the civil liberties of the American people at large.

I have never smoked a cigarette, nor will I ever choose to partake in the practice due to the health risks associated with cigarettes. However, as an avid cigar and pipe smoker for around two years, I know all too well that government hates tobacco in all its various forms.

This regulation is no exception when it comes to the government trying to destroy the hobby of cigar and pipe smokers.

According to Cigaraficionado.com, the ban would also extend to flavored cigars.

“According to the FDA, the ban on flavored cigarettes inadvertently lead to increased use of flavored cigars.”

“Flavored cigars are quite different than traditional, handmade premium cigars that Cigar Aficionado rates on a regular basis. While this FDA ruling would not affect the premium sector directly, several companies that manufacture premium, handmade smokes also produce flavored cigars. Corporations such as Swisher, for example, the parent company of Drew Estate, make the best-selling flavored cigar in America, Swisher Sweets, an inexpensive smoke sold in convenience stores, not fine cigar shops. Drew Estate makes the unflavored Liga Privada and Undercrown brands but also makes the flavored (or infused) brand Acid.

European tobacco giant Scandinavian Tobacco Group would also be affected by the proposed flavor ban. STG not only owns General Cigar Co. and its portfolio of handmade cigars, but also makes flavored cigar and cigarillo brands including Flavours by CAO, Panter and Café Crème.”

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, the war on tobacco is a horrid example of government overreach, just like the war on drugs. The primary difference is that the war on tobacco doesn’t get a fraction of the amount of press that the war on drugs does.

The problem when it comes to legislation is that legislators lump all forms of tobacco in together when it comes to a proposed bill. What has come to be classified as a premium cigar is made up of three parts, a wrapper, binder, and filler. All three parts are made of tobacco, unlike cigarettes which contain more than 600 ingredients and more than 7,000 chemicals, according to the American Lung Association.

The guise of public health is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors game aimed at restricting the liberty of all smokers. If legislators cared about public health, they would take into consideration the fact that the FDA conducted a study in 2016 that concluded that an individual could consume two premium cigars a day and still not be at an increased risk for lung cancer when compared to non-smokers.

Legislators would also consider the fact that infused cigars such as Drew Estate’s popular “Acid” line are not chemically altered in any way but are naturally infused with botanical oils and extracts after being hung in “aroma rooms” for an extended period of time.

Where the confusion comes in for cigar smokers is the fact that infused cigars do not meet the current legal definition of what is considered a premium cigar in spite of meeting every single requirement except for “having a characterizing flavor that is not tobacco.”

According to Halfwheel.com, a premium cigar is defined as:

is wrapped in whole tobacco leaf;
contains a 100 percent leaf tobacco binder;
contains at least 50 percent (of the filler by weight) long filler tobacco (i.e., whole tobacco leaves that run the length of the cigar);
is handmade or hand rolled (i.e., no machinery was used apart from simple tools, such as scissors to cut the tobacco prior to rolling);
has no filter, nontobacco tip, or nontobacco mouthpiece;
does not have a characterizing flavor other than tobacco;
contains only tobacco, water, and vegetable gum with no other ingredients or additives
weighs more than 6 pounds per 1,000 units.

As it sits, I could also see this ban easily making it’s way into attempting to ban aromatic pipe tobaccos, which are blends with an added flavor casing intended to complement the natural flavors of the blend. Just like with infused cigars, the process does not add any extra chemicals to the tobacco.

It remains unclear what the future holds for the cigar or pipe, but I am sure there will be many lawsuits as the ban is yet another attack on the cigar industry.

The current administration should also be called out for its soft racism as it will disproportionately target black Americans, who, according to the FDA’s own statistics, consume menthol cigarettes more than any other ethnic group (85.5%). NBC.com reported that the ban would not seek to target black Americans for smoking menthols, but rather the manufacture of menthol cigarettes.

I don’t buy this. Remember, we are talking about politicians who have played an active role in passing and carrying out laws that have made black and brown people targets. Remember Eric Garner, who was killed by police simply for selling loose cigarettes? If we allow the FDA to get away with this ban, we can expect to see many more cases of innocent people killed or jailed simply for trying to enjoy a little smoke in whatever form they see fit.

2/4 can’t claim #blacklivesmatter while attempting to ban menthol cigarettes which are disproportionately consumed by black Americans. (85.5%) according to their own statistics. The implications of this would be to take steps to make innocent people criminals! Make no mistake

— Caleb Shumate (@freedomsbeard92) May 3, 2021

4/4 This should concern all Americans as it is a gross attack on personal freedom.

— Caleb Shumate (@freedomsbeard92) May 3, 2021

As a lover of the leaf, I call on my brothers and sisters in the cigar and pipe communities, as well as all my fellow countrymen, to rise up and oppose this ban on menthol cigarettes and infused cigars, because once they have effectively destroyed our hobby, they will come for all of the other liberties that were supposed to be protected by our Constitution.

In my experience cigar and pipe smokers tend to be limited government people. (At least in #America) Perhaps it’s because government tries to destroy our hobby like they do everything else. The war on tobacco is just as bad as the #WarOnDrugs, but doesn’t get nearly as much press pic.twitter.com/jyARIkBUUV

— Caleb Shumate (@freedomsbeard92) April 22, 2021

Whether you realize it or not, the cigar smoker is on the front lines in the battle against government overreach. If we allow the government to win this battle, you can bet our other freedoms may dissipate quicker than my cigar smoke.

The post First, They Came for the Cigarettes. Then, They Came for the Cigars. appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Forced to Become a Medical Refugee, Abby Rowe Can Finally Come Home

Shelby Wright — Sun, 02 May 2021 17:20:40 +0000

Eapen Thampy has worked in politics and advocated to legalize cannabis for years. But now, he is among those who need the policies he advocates for to become reality. Currently, he is facing federal marijuana charges to which he has pled guilty. Over the years, Eapen has built relationships with an incredibly diverse number of people. Abby Rowe is one of them. She met Eapen when they were both students at the University of Missouri in the early 2000s and they connected over politics, justice, and medical cannabis.

Abby suffers from a rare connective tissue disorder that causes progressive pain, fatigue, and more. She tells me, “In college, the physicality of going to class and studying in the library really started to take a toll on me. My doctors didn’t know how to treat me; it was a disease that they didn’t know much about.” She adds, “Now they know so much more, but at that point they didn’t.” Abby clarifies that at this point in her early college experience, she was confused and suffering without guidance or understanding from many. “I was really stressed out and struggling to keep up with everything when I met Eapen.”

A mutual friend suggested that Abby talk to Eapen and that is when she first considered medical cannabis. “Eapen was one of the first people to talk to me about medical cannabis and some of the options that other states were starting to legalize. I learned about things I grew up being afraid of because there is so much social construction around cannabis; especially negative connotations that have been made about it. He was someone that gently pushed me to educate myself because he thought I might benefit from medical cannabis.”

It did benefit her. In fact, she eventually got off the other drugs that she says, “I didn’t need anyway,” and that were lowering her standard of living, causing her to live in a haze. She replaced those drugs with medical cannabis. Abby credits Eapen with being the first person to seriously recommend medical marijuana, but shortly after, a doctor told her she needed to seek alternative medicine and suggested she move to Colorado.

Abby had to leave the state she loved so she could seek the medical care that she desperately needed. She recalls that people called her a “medical refugee” when she moved from Missouri to Colorado around 2013. After five years, she then moved to New Hampshire, where she has been for nearly two years.

She found legal and safe access to medical cannabis in a different state, but Abby looks forward to coming back to Missouri once marijuana is accessible. Abby’s voice softens in a dream of the past and hope for the future when she recounts, “Missouri is a special place; it has so much to offer as far as parks and amazing places to explore outdoors. When it comes to our cities: jazz, sports in KC and St. Louis, museums, food, and Missourians themselves who really care about their community and each other.”

Abby’s story of medical cannabis, advocacy, and justice coincides with Eapen’s. She reminds me that in over ten years of knowing him, she’s seen him work tirelessly and passionately on the things he cares about. “I really don’t think that the state needs to worry about him reoffending. He’s got a lot of things that matter more to him and is goal focused and cares more about the other projects he’s working on.”

Abby’s story doesn’t end here. Eapen’s journey is not complete. Neither has cannabis’ future been determined. Life moves ever forward. Missouri recently legalized medical cannabis and is slowly making progress. Abby hopes to come back to the state she loves once her needs can legally be met. Eapen continues to advocate for others who find themselves marginalized by the criminal justice system with Crossing Paths PAC, and works with The Weldon Project to bring attention and solutions to those suffering under cannabis laws. Both hope for the day when people will be free to choose.

Image: O’Dea at Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

The post Forced to Become a Medical Refugee, Abby Rowe Can Finally Come Home appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Inmate to Advocate: One Man’s Fight For Victims of The War On Drugs

Shelby Wright — Tue, 11 Aug 2020 17:09:33 +0000

Weldon Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison for a marijuana offense in 2002. In May of 2016, President Obama commuted his sentence. Angelos has never stopped in his fight for criminal justice reform since he was released. “I hit the ground running, I started working with the White House and the Koch brothers and Van Jones and other celebrities.”

Angelos launched the Mission Green initiative to bring attention to those imprisoned for cannabis offenses and to assist in getting them released through executive clemency from the president or the governor if they are state offenders. “We’ve got a few prisoners released from federal prison via executive clemency and compassionate release that was amended with the First Step Act.”

The Mission Green team brought a list of offenders that they believe deserve to be commuted to the White House. Angelos tells me that one of them is, “my friend Luke Scarmazzo.”

Scarmazzo is serving a 22-year sentence in prison for owning and operating a cannabis dispensary in California. Angelos adds, “he was following state law.” He notes that Scarmazzo’s operation was similar to many others in the area that were not targeted by law enforcement.

The team was well received by the White House when they hand delivered the list in February. They established a good rapport with senior advisor Jared Kushner. Angelos points to Kushner as one of the best hopes for the future of criminal justice reform. “This administration is being pulled in different directions by different individuals in the law and order Republicans and this Attorney General; Jared Kushner has a tough job balancing that out and getting more reforms.”

The fact that Mission Green is necessary shows that reforms are still necessary. The system now leaves room for extreme discrepancy based on judges’ personal beliefs. According to Angelos, one of the major flaws with the First Step Act is that it allows a judge to be merciful if they want to, but “when it comes to people applying for release, they should be released on a consistent basis rather than having judges in California and New York granting many releases whereas, judges in Texas grant few even though the cases are similar.”

Some opposed the First Step Act because it would give politicians an excuse to not advance any further on criminal justice reform. Angelos admits that concerns about progress slowing have come to fruition, but he still firmly supports the initial reform. “Thousands of people have been released because of it.”

“What we really need is cannabis reform; we need an end to prohibition”, says Angelos. However, not everyone feels that way and some of the disagreement about what should be the next legislative target is why progress has slowed. “No one agrees on what needs to be changed next.” But he is hopeful. “I think new reforms will happen in the next 2-4 years.”

Regardless of who is President, Angelos knows that states will keep legalizing cannabis and will take the lead in reform. He adds, “I’m not particularly confident in either candidate” because of Biden’s past of worsening the system and Trump’s inconsistencies on the subject. But his positivity is due to reform progressing through the states and Congress no matter who is in the White House.

The problem, as he sees it, is that federal cannabis prohibition gives authorities an excuse across the country to abuse their power. Angelos tells me that until cannabis is removed from the federal code of illegal drugs, “police are going to continue to use the odor of cannabis to justify exploratory searches. They’re going to continue wasting money in arresting people for cannabis where one state over, you’re an entrepreneur and the next you’re a criminal.”

Weldon Angelos was an emerging and compelling music producer when charged with selling marijuana in 2002. He suspects that authorities in Salt Lake City, Utah investigated and prosecuted him because of his connections to celebrities like Snoop Dogg. “They thought it would lead to an arrest of a famous rapper, which didn’t happen.”

Angelos hesitates when asked if he has any qualms with his defense attorney. “Here’s the thing: the government made it tough for us to mount an effective defense because they suppressed evidence that we didn’t see until years later; they indicted me on one factual narrative and we prepared a very effective defense to that narrative.”

The narrative was changed unexpectedly as they entered court. Under normal circumstances, he tells me, for 900 dollars of marijuana being sold over 3 transactions, “I wouldn’t have got any prison time.”

After the stacking and enhancement provisions, Angelos was facing 105 years in prison. His defense fought some of those and won, “we got it down to 55 years.”

The prosecution trumped up the charge with “gunstacking” enhancements. Something that Angelos adamantly argues was based on “fabricated” evidence. The original reports never said he had a gun on him during the drug trade and he says that is the truth. The legally owned firearm was found in a locked safe when the police raided his home.

He laments, “Although I wished it would’ve gone better, my attorney didn’t have much to work with.” Angelos is confident that if his trial hadn’t been manipulated, he would have walked out as a free man.

Angelos’ assets and money were seized by authorities shortly after charging him. “They took all my stuff that I had bought with my music industry money.” It left him with little to pay for his legal defense and the lawyer finished by working for free.

The prosecution was so aggressive, it caught the ire of a fellow attorney in the Utah DA’s office, Mike Lee. “When Mike Lee was elected to the Senate in 2010, he became one of my number one advocates.”

Angelos gives Senator Lee (R-UT) much credit for getting him released and helping pass criminal justice reform so far. Senator Lee and Koch Industries were instrumental in changing the political landscape of criminal justice reform and enlightening conservatives on the need for change on the issue.

Early into his appeals process, the only hope for legislation that would free him was Democrat control of both houses of Congress and the White House because Republicans were not allies of criminal justice reform. Angelos recounts, “In 2009, we got that and we didn’t get a thing; we got a band-aid approach.” It wasn’t until Republicans began to consider criminal justice reform as a conservative issue that substantial progress started. “Were it not for Republicans coming over on the issue, we would not have had criminal justice reform.”

Weldon Angelos has seen the progression of criminal justice reform from the inside of a prison cell and as a free man. He has been a benefactor of advancement on the issue, but he has been an advocate for those who are still hurt by the system. The First Step Act was a step in the right direction, but Angelos realizes that more is needed and he plans on being part of the progression.

Weldon Angelos – New Beginning from Arnold Enrique Huaiquil on Vimeo.

Image: screenshot from Weldon Angelos – New Beginning

The post Inmate to Advocate: One Man’s Fight For Victims of The War On Drugs appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Criminal Justice Reform: What System Needs Replaced?

Shelby Wright — Sat, 18 Jul 2020 21:50:26 +0000

Individual cops are good. The system is oppressive. That sounds cliché and can be taken to mean many different things.

We don’t need to replace our current system with anything other than a Constitutional Republic. The answer to our woes is to strengthen our commitment to individual liberty, limited government, and capitalism.

The US has unbelievably high incarceration rates. Many Americans that are in prison are there for nonviolent drug crimes that carry draconian mandatory minimums. Many judges vocally lament the prison lengths they are forced to sentence defendants to due to mandatory minimums.

Weldon Angelos

One famous example is Weldon Angelos who was sentenced to 55 years without the possibility of parole for selling small amounts of marijuana to a police informant three times in 2002.

This harsh sentence is due to something known as “gun stacking”. The informant saw a gun in Angelos’ possession when the drug trade went down. It was never used or brandished in a threatening manner. During the first trade, the informant simply saw it in Angelos’ car. During the second and third trades, the gun was in an ankle strap.

Therefore, Angelos qualified for a 5-30 year mandatory minimum for being a first-time drug offender with a gun. For the first instance when a gun was in his car, he received five years tacked onto his sentence. For each subsequent drug deal where a gun is present, 25 years are automatically added. He never used the gun in a violent way, but he did exercise his legal 2^nd Amendment right while selling a plant.

Breonna Taylor

Breonna Taylor was murdered in her home after police broke down her door in the middle of the night because of suspected nonviolent drug activity. She wasn’t the suspect, but her boyfriend dared protect her against the unknown intruders by firing his own legal weapon at them. The police shot and killed Breonna in bed while they were serving a no-knock warrant for a nonviolent drug crime that she was never even accused of being a part of. The authorities initially charged Breonna’s boyfriend with attempted murder for firing at the intruders, but then recanted (nice of them).

Steven Sutherland

In Steven Sutherland’s case, he was sentenced more harshly because he had a gun in the house. He never used it in a threatening or violent way in any instance that the authorities were involved in. He was merely a dying man that had a gun and marijuana in rural Missouri. He died in prison for it.

Duncan Lemp

A Maryland man named Duncan Lemp was shot and killed in March when a SWAT team entered his home in the middle of the night. They were attempting to serve a no-knock warrant for accused gun crimes. His family and their lawyer claim Lemp was sleeping when the officers killed him. The authorities argue that they were met with violence and a deadly booby trap that forced them to shoot Lemp. However, they have not released body camera footage from the raid despite calls from the Lemp family attorney and civil rights groups.

Police raided his home in the middle of the night for allegedly owning a rifle that he was banned from owning due to a juvenile offense—not because he was an immediate threat, but because he was allegedly practicing God-given rights and they had told him not to.

Charles White

Charles White was sentenced to 10 years in prison for growing marijuana plants in Missouri. He was sentenced to prison in 2017 and soon appealed under the First Steps Act because he was elderly and in bad health. However, the judge denied him release citing his health issues as not severe enough. The judge felt it was in the best interest of everyone involved to keep the nearly 80-year-old man with worsening macular degeneration (which made him legally blind) in prison for a plant.

There is good news. Early in 2020 as Covid-19 fears ramped up, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidelines for prisons across the country to release nonviolent, low-risk prisoners. White met the criteria for release and thus, is now a free 80-year-old man. Christina Frommer of The Canna Convict Project tells me, “If it wasn’t for Coronavirus, Charles White would not be out of prison.”

Marvin Louis Guy

Marvin Louis Guy was in his home in the wee hours of the morning when police raided it. They were serving a no-knock warrant for drugs and Guy met the unknown invaders with gunfire from his legal weapon. He claims he did not know the intruders were police and that is why he fired on them, but the authorities still charged him with attempted murder. The drugs that the police were searching for were never found. They did find a 9MM pistol, walkie-talkies, three cellphones, a laptop, a safe, a glass pipe identified as drug paraphernalia, and a grinder. Sound like sufficient findings to justify putting civilians and police officers in deathly danger while violating 4^th Amendment rights?

Corrupt Police or Systems?

There are many good individual police officers and, as a whole, they do a good job. There are legitimate purposes for police officers—like keeping the community safe from outside threats to their businesses and personal lives.

Read True Blue: Police Stories by Those Who Have Lived Them. Some stories will make you laugh, some will make you cry, and almost all of them will make you realize that it is a tough job to see the worst 20 minutes of individuals’ lives day-in and day-out. The stories in that book are written by police officers who have a love for people of their community that they are protecting.

Then, read The New Jim Crow and you will see a systemic problem with criminal justice laws. But the problem is that our system has forgotten respect for individual liberty and has replaced it with an ideology that government needs to nanny individual behavior.

The system needs reformed, but only in the way that American principles need to be restored and revered.

The post Criminal Justice Reform: What System Needs Replaced? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Terminally Ill Missouri Man Convicted of Marijuana Possession Dies Alone in Prison

Shelby Wright — Thu, 21 May 2020 22:58:42 +0000

Steven Sutherland was in the midst of a slow and painful death on the day authorities raided his rural Missouri home in 2015. Sutherland died alone in a prison cell on May 9, 2020. He was 59 years old with a birthday coming up on June 27^th.

He was found guilty of possessing marijuana and sentenced to ten years in prison. His son tells me at the time of arrest, he had high blood pressure, seizures, and used oxygen at the time of conviction. During the court proceedings, Sutherland was admitted to the hospital at least once.

The jury convicted him despite his argument that he used the marijuana to ease his failing health and despite the fact that Missouri had recently, voted to legalize medical marijuana. His son mentioned, ”I do believe his prison sentence was excessive, and I think taxpayer dollars going towards victimless crimes is ridiculous as a whole…especially while in the process of medicinal marijuana becoming legal in Missouri”.

However, he adds that his father was offered a guilty plea bargain that would have granted him probation of five years with random drug testing, “I told him to take that deal”.

Adela Wisdom is a judicial reform advocate with an emphasis on cannabis inmates, and a Congressional candidate. She argues that Sutherland’s case never should have been brought to court. “He never should have gone to prison in the first place and the fact that he died alone because he was in prison for a plant is horrendous”.

Wisdom has been writing to him for the last year while his sickness was worsening. She points out that Sutherland was growing his own cannabis because he was sick. He was a medical marijuana patient in the state of Colorado. It became expensive to buy from Colorado, so he started to grow his own plants.

However, Wisdom reminds me that even when you buy it legally from Colorado, another state does not have to respect your prescription. In other words, complying with laws in some states is still considered illegal behavior in other states. Therefore, “I believe the solution is to remove cannabis from the controlled substance act PERIOD.”

Sutherland was petitioning the court to release him from the time he was sentenced. It was obvious that 10 years in prison was a death sentence for the ill man. Christina Frommer of Canna Convict Project says, “The Parole Board had Sutherland’s medical release papers in their hands and they sat on it”. When she called, the officials told her the board couldn’t hear his case until August. She pleaded that he didn’t have that long to live, but they were not moved since it was likely he would not qualify for early release. He had not served 30% of his sentence which usually must be completed before parole is offered.

Sutherland finally succumbed to cancer which was found while he was in prison, about three months ago. By that time, the cancer was in Stage 4. He made the decision to decline treatment because he felt the cancer was too far along and it was pointless. Soon after, he fell into a comatose state.

Adela Wisdom views Sutherland’s case as another example of a legal system that is hindered by an obsession with marijuana plants, “Is the intent of our justice system to put a dying, sick man in prison for the last year of his life because he grew some pot plants?”

It is true that Mr. Sutherland was a repeat offender. He was found guilty of possessing and distributing marijuana in the 1990s, and because of that offense he was not allowed to legally possess a gun. A firearm was found in his home when police raided it. The weapon charge is one of the reasons for the length of the 10-year prison sentence.

Wisdom admits, “recidivism is high amongst cannabis offenders”. She believes the solution is multifaceted, but one of the main points is to stop the government from harassing citizens for cultivating a plant.

Sutherland had reports of violent behavior both officially documented in restraining orders and personal stories that I was told about. However, the marijuana charge is what sentenced him to prison for (what everyone knew) would be the rest of his life.

The state of Missouri nor the US government has acted to end the federally endorsed hysteria against the marijuana plant. Sutherland’s death was inevitable regardless of the government’s actions. The cancer was going to end his life naturally. But he could have been at home. Instead, the last days of his nearly 60 years of life were spent in a prison.

When Sutherland’s son looks at the greater picture, the lesson is clear that individuals are responsible for their personal behavior and faults. But the system could take measures to not exacerbate the problem. “Understand that so many people with mental illness do not get the help they need and they fall through the cracks all too often; drug offenders often time do not need to be in prison—they need quality rehabilitation and support.”

The post Terminally Ill Missouri Man Convicted of Marijuana Possession Dies Alone in Prison appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The (Unjust) Constitutional Basis for Restrictions on Marijuana Licenses in Missouri

Guest Post — Wed, 13 May 2020 19:09:34 +0000

This Constitutional reform created an entire system of personal and commercial medical marijuana licensing which has been the focus of significant controversy after almost 90% of applicants were denied applications for cultivation, manufacturing, or dispensary licenses due to onerous restrictions in the Amendment 2 framework (now Article XIV of the Missouri Constitution).

These restrictions are largely misunderstood. Many individuals and entities believe these restrictions exist solely through the discretion of the Department of Health & Senior Services and the bureaucrats charged with implementing Article XIV. This is false. The reality is that the restrictions on licensing are based on the text of Article XIV. The Article XIV drafters intentionally made this a difficult and confusing task so as to hide their intent; one has to read carefully and link several parts of the text to understand this.

The text of Article XIV provides (Section 1, Subsection 3, Paragraphs 15-17) first that licenses may be limited:

(15) The department may restrict the aggregate number of licenses granted for medical marijuana cultivation facilities, provided, however, that the number may not be limited to fewer than one license per every one hundred thousand inhabitants, or any portion thereof, of the state of Missouri, according to the most recent census of the United States. A decrease in the number of inhabitants in the state of Missouri shall have no impact. (16) The department may restrict the aggregate number of licenses granted for marijuana-infused products manufacturing facilities, provided, however, that the number may not be limited to fewer than one license per every seventy thousand inhabitants, or any portion thereof, of the state of Missouri, according to the most recent census of the United States. A decrease in the number of inhabitants in the state of Missouri shall have no impact. (17) The department may restrict the aggregate number of licenses granted for medical marijuana dispensary facilities, provided, however, that the number may not be limited to fewer than twenty-four licenses in each United States congressional district in the state of Missouri pursuant to the map of each of the eight congressional districts as drawn and effective on December 6, 2018. Future changes to the boundaries of or the number of congressional districts shall have no impact.

Further, Article XIV (Section 3, Subsection 1, Paragraph h) provides that the Department of Health & Senior Services shall:

(h) Establish a system to numerically score competing medical marijuana licensee and certificate applicants, only in cases where more applicants apply than the minimum number of licenses or certificates as calculated by this section, which scoring shall be limited to an analysis of the following….

In ranking applicants and awarding licenses and certificates, the department may consult or contract with other public agencies with relevant expertise regarding these factors. The department shall lift or ease any limit on the number of licensees or certificate holders in order to meet the demand for marijuana for medical use by qualifying patients.

This last part is important because it contains the functional criteria for raising the limit on marijuana licensees above the minimums set by Article XIV — “in order to meet the demand for marijuana for medical use…”

This means that to justify allowing more commercial marijuana licenses than the minimums, the Department has to make a determination that the demand for “marijuana for medical use” is not being met by the initial allocation of licensees. On a functional basis, this presents two significant problems:

1) this determination can only be really made after all licenses are certified and operational (time frame ~ at least a year after the program opens)

2) this requirement puts DHSS in the position of functionally deciding what the market quantity & price of medical marijuana should be (central control of the market)

The drafters of Article XIV intended for these limits to exist. In late 2018, New Approach Missouri campaign consultant Jack Cardetti participated in an open forum about medical marijuana initiatives sponsored by the University of Kansas City Young Republicans. At about the 1:02:00 mark in this video, Mr. Cardetti justifies the cap on marijuana licenses in Amendment 2: “Why put a limit at all on there? …It’s because of what’s called the Cole Memo from the USDOJ…If you follow these different rules and regulations we won’t go after you…one of these is oversupply. They don’t want more being produced than is going to be legally consumed…There has to be some kind of cap…”. This is an astonishing claim coming from a campaign that is directly challenging the federal prohibition on marijuana after at least two other states (Oregon and Oklahoma) had established free market commercial marijuana licensing programs.

To summarize, Article XIV establishes commercial marijuana licensing minimums, then creates an elaborate and onerous ranking system, and finally restricts the allocation of further licenses to arbitrary determinations that can’t happen until the program has been in operation for a substantial amount of time.

We at the Crossing Paths Political Action Committee are working hard to remove these corrupt and unAmerican restrictions on economic opportunity from the Missouri Constitution. For more information, email info@crossingpathspac.com.

Republished with permission from Crossing Paths PAC.

Image: Paul Sableman

The post The (Unjust) Constitutional Basis for Restrictions on Marijuana Licenses in Missouri appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Howard Wooldridge: Cops Say Legalize Heroin

Shelby Wright — Mon, 30 Mar 2020 18:41:09 +0000

“Let’s talk about heroin. I’m pro…legalizing” That will likely get you as many strange and concerned looks at your family gathering as coughing around the dining table. Facing the difficult topic of drug legalization is retired police officer and current criminal justice reform lobbyist, Howard Wooldridge. Howard wears a shirt that boldly proclaims “Cops Say Legalize Heroin” and spends his days lobbying Congress about drug reform. I talked to him for about an hour in an attempt to understand decades of justice blunders.

Police Officer or Nanny?

Wooldridge was a police officer for 18 years: 15 in patrol and 3 years as a detective. He worked throughout the late 70s, 80s, and early 90s. As the Drug War heated up, he saw a shift from police officers focusing on protecting the community from outside threats to protecting people from themselves, “I watched colleagues spend hours ripping apart a car to find a little bit of marijuana.”

The waste in taxpayer money, officers’ time and effort, and diminishing of good law enforcement motivated him to become a force in ending harsh drug policies. After retiring as a police officer, he became a lobbyist in the late 90s, “As a former police officer, I had some credibility on the issue.”

Future of Reform

Wooldridge tells me that the most realistic hope to reform drug laws is simply to go back to the Constitution. “The most impactful thing that could be done is to bring 10^thAmendment [state’s] rights’ back to drug policy.”

An example of this is the STATES Act,which was initially sponsored by Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma) and Cory Gardner (R-Co). Obviously, there is broad bipartisan support for drug reform and the states are showing this by legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing drugs. Wooldridge points out that extremely liberal California and conservative Oklahoma have something in common; “they both have legalized marijuana.”

“Eight to one of those I talked to at CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference] agreed –after I gave my explanation– that heroin should be legal.” However, he adds, “Probably 95% of people who didn’t hear my argument would answer no”. Wooldridge believes that this change in conservatives’ opinions on the Drug War is because drug addiction has hit all demographics, including those at CPAC. “Nearly everyone I talked to had a heroin overdose death in their family.”

He is clear that legalizing drugs does not mean that drugs are good. In fact, he knows exactly how deadly and harmful drugs like heroin are, and “that is why addiction should be treated in hospitals, not prisons”.

A prison only perpetuates the problem because “once you get out, you have lost rights like voting.” Wooldridge is referring to the black mark of a felony offense that dubs you a felon for the rest of your life, makes it difficult to find legal employment, and be a productive member of society.

Yet, CPAC denied Wooldridge an opportunity to present and explain why cops say legalize heroin. He tells me that about two years ago, he talked to Matt Schlapp at the American Conservative Union (the ACU runs CPAC). They reviewed his presentation and turned him down, “it is just my prejudice that makes me think my presentation [questioning the drug war] would outrage some of CPAC’s older donors”.

Packing Up His Horse

Wooldridge –who goes by the nickname “Cowboy”– makes it clear that the criminal justice reforms recently signed by President Trump are just a tiny part of what needs to be done. “I tell people on Capitol Hill, legalize all drugs and I’ll pack up my horse and go home.”

He refers to the Portuguese model as the ideal way to proceed. The Portuguese have legalized all drugs and treat addiction as a medical problem, instead of criminal. “There is a bill that will be introduced in Congress that is calling for something similar to Portugal.”

However, he is well aware that at this moment the bill is not going to pass, “but that’s how we start talking about things.” He knows that nothing is going to change dramatically by tomorrow, but he’ll accept incremental progress on the subject while fighting for the future… in his shirt that reads “Cops Say Legalize Heroin”.

The first major person in the modern era to call for legalization of heroin was in the mid-70s by the Baltimore Mayor Curt Schmoke. I stand on his shoulders.

– Howard Wooldridge

Follow Howard on Twitter: @CannabisCop

Lears more about his organization here: Citizens Opposing Prohibition

The post Howard Wooldridge: Cops Say Legalize Heroin appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.