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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are several songs within the band’s vast catalog spanning almost seven decades that fit within the libertarian lifestyle and our frustrations with the current state of the political climate.

So without further ado, let’s get stoned. Here’s a list of five songs by The Rolling Stones that lovers of liberty will appreciate.

1. “I’m Free”

This song should pull on the heartstrings of any libertarian as it’s theme revolves around being free to do whatever you want whenever you want to do it. Voluntary exchange is at the heart of the libertarian political philosophy, and this song is all about doing what floats your boat as long as you don’t sink someone else’s.

2. “Time is On My Side”

This song speaks of a woman who wants to run around on her man, and he tells her to go out and have her fun because he knows that he has the goods and that it is only a matter of time before she comes running back to him. As Mick Jagger says in the song, “Go ahead, baby, go ahead, go ahead and light up the town. And baby, do anything your heart desires. Remember, I’ll always be around. And I know, I know like I told you so many times before.
You’re gonna come back. Yeah you’re going to come back, baby. Knockin’, yeah knockin’ right on my door.”

The same could be said about those in the world today who have an infatuation with the economic ideas of Karl Marx. They can try to run from the invisible hand of the marketplace all they like, but sooner or later, they will come running back to Capitalism if they wish to thrive once again.

3. “I Just Want to Make Love to You”

This Blues classic was originally written and recorded by Willie Dixion, which The Stones recorded as the second track on their premiere album. This song talks about a man who doesn’t want to do anything but make sweet love to his lady all day. Sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll, man! That’s what we are – a bunch of wild sexual deviants who want society to go to hell in a handbasket because we want to decriminalize sex work, and say it’s none of the government’s business who consenting adults sleep with, right? That has been a familiar criticism libertarians receive from extreme social Conservatives and Theocrats, so why not have a little fun with it?

4. “Satisfaction”

Perhaps one of the band’s most popular tunes most accurately describes the frustration we feel in the liberty movement. Like the man in the song, it seems like we “Can’t Get No Satisfaction” no matter how hard we try in the current state of American politics. One could say that could be attributed to a number of factors that are too numerous to be discussed here. But as I mentioned before, whenever you get down, remember liberty will win the day because time is on our side.

5. “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”

Pardon my Captain Obvious moment, but the title says it all with this one. Both big ‘L’ and small ‘l’ libertarians can likely feel the pain in these lyrics. It’s very hard to be right when so many are wrong and don’t see their error. “We can’t always get what we want.” However, the liberty movement sure has what America needs.

The Rolling Stones legacy has undoubtedly left its mark on rock ‘n roll music and popular culture with some of the best music in the genre. Maybe we all need to relax and put on one of these classics and get a little “Stoned.” Fighting for liberty is a serious business, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun along the way.

The post It’s Time to Get Stoned: Five Rocking ‘n Rolling Songs For Libertarians appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

[Missouri Is Fighting Alone Against Drug Monitoring (And Why The Entire USA Should Thank Them)]

Although not a new problem in our society, drug overdose seems to have received a lot more attention since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, with state governments scrambling to come up with viable solutions to curb what is being called an opioid epidemic. Their strongest push for creating a government-related program to fix a government-related problem comes in the form of Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP). These programs promise to help prevent drug-related deaths by somehow curbing drug addiction – a feat not yet achieved despite decades of government intervention.

These attempts by governments to thwart addiction will continue to fail, as they have ever since New York implemented the first PDMP in 1918. If you think I sound overly sure of myself in making this claim, rest assured there is good reason – I am a recovering addict. On December 21, 2019, I celebrated 13 years being clean. This anniversary was especially momentous because it marked more years being clean than the years I spent in active addiction.

My experience with addiction comes not from studying from afar and in textbooks, but from firsthand experience dealing with my own addiction as well as my interactions with fellow addicts. The following is what I consider to be the top four reasons PDMP can’t battle addiction.

1. Chemical Dependence Does Not Equal Addiction

Conflating chemical dependence with drug addiction is, in my opinion, the most common misstep advocates of PDMP continue to make. You can find myriad sources stating that chemical dependency is the same as substance abuse; however, I would argue that is a misunderstanding.

There are many medical reasons why a person may develop a chemical dependence to a regimen of drugs. A common example is management of chronic pain which cannot be treated with a medical procedure. Many of these people don’t like their choices for pain management, and are always searching for alternative courses of action to take other than being chemically dependent on a substance. I would not call an individual in this situation an addict. After all, an addict would justify their drug use with medical necessity (among other reasons) rather than search for alternatives to substance use.

Another medical reason is a circumstance one of my own family members went through: treatable physical injury. Suffering from multiple degree burns in a house fire, this family member underwent several stages of treatment in the hospital – skin grafts to repair areas of their body too damaged to heal, followed with inpatient monitoring while the healing process ran its course. They were in severe pain the entire time, and pain management was required for the months they remained in the hospital.

This family member developed a chemical dependence on demerol, the drug chosen for pain management as they healed. A final stage of weaning off the drug was needed before treatment was complete, which was also done in the hospital under supervision. Sadly, this weaning process is more often not done in an inpatient setting, and this lack of medical supervision is where this form of chemical dependency can progress to substance abuse.

Herein lies a key difference, in my experience, between chemical dependence and addiction. Chemical dependence to drugs like Doxycycline 100mg seems to largely stem from medical necessity, whereas drug abuse and addiction, for the most part, does not have its origins with a physical medical purpose. PDMP laws are unable to acknowledge this distinction. They can only view all individuals in the same light. This is a disservice to medical patients and addicts alike, and it can push both away from safe medical treatment.

2. Dual Diagnosis Treatment

Dual diagnosis is a term describing a person with both a mental illness and a drug abuse problem. A preexisting mental illness, if left untreated, can lead to drug and alcohol addiction, and addiction can manifest a mental illness. In these situations, an addict needs to overcome their addiction and may need to be prescribed medication to treat the symptoms of their mental illness, which is a conundrum in itself without being exacerbated by government controls.

In a recent paper, researchers shed some light on how these individuals fall through the cracks of the US healthcare system, due in large part to drug policy and programs focusing on criminalization and incarceration rather than treatment. PDMP  is one such program which enables law enforcement in this endeavor, leaving these people untreated for both their addiction and their mental illness.

3. The Drug Of Choice Fallacy

Proponents of PDMP  also fall prey to another misunderstanding of addiction when advocating for these laws; the fallacy that addicts are addicts because of the drugs they use. Nearly every argument favoring PDMP I’ve encountered asserts that drug monitoring is effective in fighting addiction because it can be used to limit or restrict access to an abuser’s “drug of choice.” I can assure you, when in active addiction, I had no “drug of choice.” There were certain drugs I preferred, but I would have settled for whatever I could acquire soonest or easiest.

For an addict, the substance used is not as important as the craving to appease our addiction. I have known plenty of recovering drug like Accutane addicts who relapsed on alcohol, and even substances that aren’t considered drugs. I can relapse with what I can find in a grocery store, hardware store, gas station, or on the street corner. PDMP can’t do anything to address that. In fact, the very nature of this law will drive an addict to riskier, more dangerous substances.

4. Addiction Recovery Is Voluntary

This is going to be the hardest pill for drug control advocates to swallow. Seeking recovery from addiction is a voluntary choice. An addict cannot be compelled to quit. This renders legislators’ attempts to force addicts clean through required treatment and drug restriction by PDMP ineffective.

Nothing exemplifies this truth more plainly than the success of voluntary recovery programs. For more than half a century, a smattering of anonymous 12-step support groups have aided more people in recovery from addiction than all the government funded programs to date. Countless millions worldwide find solace from private community organizations, churches, and institutions that don’t even actively recruit. Just letting people know they are there is enough to attract those in need on a voluntary basis.

Perhaps that is part of the reason legislators think they need to compel individuals – so they can legitimize an ever-encroaching government co-opting what society can handle on its own when given the chance. Addicts don’t need government programs to hinder them. They need government out of the way so they can succeed.

The post Why Prescription Drug Monitoring Can’t Battle Addiction: An Addict’s Perspective appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

To add insult to injury, the head of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, Ed Mullins, claims that Majors was buying marijuana in the park and that is what put her in this dangerous scenario. He explains how he believes that recent limits on enforcement of marijuana laws in New York City contributed to this deadly situation.

What I am understanding is that [Majors] was in the park to buy marijuana….We don’t enforce marijuana laws anymore. We’re basically hands-off on the enforcement of marijuana. I understand the mayor made statements that this is surprising on how this can happen in New York City….I really have to question what world he’s living in to think that this is surprising, when we are watching the city slowly erode, with shootings, stabbings, an increase in homicides and, most importantly, a hands-off policing policy.

Majors’ family is taking offense to Mullins’ comments because, “…they intentionally or unintentionally direct blame onto Tess, a young woman, for her own murder.”

Nick Gillespie at Reason sees Mullins’ words as yet another reference to the old “reefer madness” hysteria, “…in which devil weed is the source of all forms of evil and criminality, even when it remains illegal.”

I can’t define what Mullins meant in his comments. I don’t read hearts and minds and, honestly, I don’t want to. But I did listen to the entirety of his radio interview. It doesn’t strike me as blatant victim-blaming. In actuality, he is taking way more swipes at NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio.

Furthermore, his comments are not textbook “refer madness” stuff because he never once says that these young teens went on a murderous rampage because they took a few too many hits of the devil’s lettuce. In context, Mullins blames the violence on the city (including Majors’ murder) – on somewhat of a lawless society that allows offenders to spin down a more violent hole.

There are many things that Mullins said in the interview that are questionable. Maybe he does hold to disproved parts of “reefer madness” and blames victims for being victims of violent crime, but I didn’t get that from this one radio appearance. He could be giving listeners a probable reason that an eighteen-year-old would be alone in a questionably safe park at night. But don’t take my word for it, listen to it here.

The problem is that NYC law enforcement might have given up on enforcing laws against marijuana consumption and trade, but it is still not legal to be bought and sold. (There is some liberalization on patients using it for medicinal purposes, but its effects are minimal).

In the same way alcohol prohibition enriched criminals, the marijuana black-market just proliferates and seedy characters take advantage of the fast cash they can make while providing consumers with a product that they demand.

The post NYC College Student Stabbing: Reefer Madness Murder? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

This bill made it out of committee and was passed on to the House of Representatives on November 19th. If  this tyrannical act makes it to President Trump’s desk, it would severely restrict the freedom of tobacco users, including pipe and cigar smokers due to the legislation’s vague language. In addition to outlawing internet sales of all tobacco and vaping products, it would raise the minimum federal smoking age to 21 and end the sale of all flavored tobacco products.

A tobacco product is “any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).
(2) The term “tobacco product” does not mean an article that is a drug under subsection (g)(1), a device under subsection (h), or a combination product described in section 353(g) of this title.
(3) The products described in paragraph (2) shall be subject to subchapter V of this chapter.
(4) A tobacco product shall not be marketed in combination with any other article or product regulated under this chapter (including a drug, biologic, food, cosmetic, medical device, or a dietary supplement).”, according to the section 201 of the “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

View this post on Instagram

‪I finally got a new pipe to replace my first (cheap $7)I upgraded to a Dr. Grabow “Grand Duke”. Much better in quality and a great smoker! Dr. Grabow pipes are actually made in Sparta NCwhich is about 45 minutes from where I grew up. They have been in Sparta since the 1950’s and was one of the most popular pipe brands in the heyday of pipe smoking. They were sold in drugstores all across the country.

A post shared by Caleb Shumate (@calebshumate1776) on Nov 17, 2019 at 1:39am PST

This means that were this bill to become a law that the government would severely restrict the sale of nearly all tobacco products. What is their justification for this tyrannical act? The proposed aim of this bill would be to stop children from vaping and buying cigarettes. Still, if you care to search through the babbling language of this bill, you will find that its implications would greatly restrict the liberty of cigar/pipe smokers and vapers were it to become law with language that could give the government power to restrict the sale of tobacco in what appears to be endless ways as the verbiage isn’t clearly defined.

As a cigar and pipe smoker myself, I am appalled, but not surprised that government officials could be gearing up to attempt a prohibition movement aimed at tobacco products using the public safety of children as a disguise for their tyrannical actions. Although the war on tobacco doesn’t seem to get as much press coverage as the war on drugs, it is very much alive.

View this post on Instagram

From Friday, this place is like a candy store for me. I love going into a humidor.

A post shared by Caleb Shumate (@calebshumate1776) on Dec 8, 2019 at 10:38pm PST

The claim that this act would better work to prevent nicotine addiction among children is nothing but a load of horse crap. Children do not smoke cigars or pipes, nor are cigars or pipe tobacco marketed to kids. When was the last time you saw a kid attempt to use the internet to purchase pipe tobacco? If our representatives think that the cigar and pipe communities are buying their snake oil pitch, they have another thing coming.

Some of you reading this may think I am just a mean man who would rather the children of America be nicotine slaves who die of lung cancer, and you’d be right! I would rather we all die as free individuals than allow ourselves to live as serfs under the illusion of security.

If you just read those last two sentences and thought I am nothing but a selfish, evil bastard, I say this only to emphasize that I will not allow the government to play me for a fool to infringe upon personal liberty. I care very much about my health as someone who hits the gym with a religious vigor and works hard to ensure I intake the proper nutrients each day I would never do anything that I knew would endanger my physical health. In fact, as I wrote in my article “Have a Cigar, the Government Hates it!”, the FDA released a study in 2016 that said a person could smoke one to two cigars a day without experiencing any statistically significant increase in a risk of cancer. A pipe can be included in this same category as well because, like cigars, there are no added chemicals and carcinogens, just pure tobacco.

As I said before, I am not a medical doctor so I will not make the claim that tobacco use is completely healthy. But I will say that based on my research, it is not the danger it is cracked up to be, and many people group all tobacco use in with cigarettes which isn’t honest or medically accurate.

Regardless of what one may think about tobacco, those of us who care about individual liberty and recognize the sovereignty of the individual can see this bill for what it is – a broad-reaching act in an ever-growing war on our freedoms. It is sad to think that we still have not learned that prohibition doesn’t solve problems. It only makes them worse. We cannot afford to stand by and allow bureaucrats to overstep their bounds. If we do, I fear our freedoms will dissipate quicker than the smoke from my pipe.

The post Up in Smoke: Prohibition of Cigars and Pipes is a War on Self-Ownership appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.