DREW CAREY CLASSICS

New Jersey Considers Medical Marijuana

New Jersey considers a medical marijuana law

Paying Off Debt Is Like Dying…

by Bill Bonner

Yesterday, George Osborne, Britain's Conservative Party finance minister-in-waiting, did something extraordinary. We can't remember anything like it. He told the truth.

"We are sinking in a sea of debt," he admitted. And on the very day when France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said he would not raise taxes, Osborne said that he would not lower them. In order to lighten Britain's debt, he'd leave Labor's 50% maximum tax rate right where it is.

Voters don't like hearing about debt. Politicians don't like talking about it. And economists don't want to think about it. And in a kind of collective suicide pact, they have all agreed not to worry about it. But debt is at the center of the world's financial troubles.

Paying off debt is like dying. You try to put it off as long as you can. But nobody runs an open tab forever.

This week brought news that Maine-based luxury yacht maker Hinckley, which has been building boats since 1928, is sinking. The problem is neither technical nor operational. It is philosophical. No one complains about the quality of the boats. Or even the prices (if you have to ask, you can't afford one). The company sailed along nicely until 1997. Then, the private equity hotshots from Boston took the helm. The old Hinckleys who ran the shop looked upon debt as though they were looking at a bottle of whiskey. A drink now and then did no harm. But watch out. Too much will sink you. In the 70 years they ran the place, they accumulated only $1 million of debt. But the new owners were dipsomaniacs; they multiplied Hinckley's debt 20 to 40 times. (Exact figures are not available.)

For much of history, failing to repay debt was regarded as not merely a breach of contract, but a crime. People who failed to repay their debts in timely fashion were thought to have stolen from their lenders; they were put in prison. In the Middle Ages even a dead debtor's children could be sent to prison.

Now, bankruptcy laws allow individuals and businesses to go to rehab. Then, they can stiff creditors again. Neither sin nor crime, debt is now just a cost of doing business. Read More

The Rise and Fall of Obama Marketing

NATURAL FOOD FIGHT: WHOLE FOODS AND HEALTH CARE

Separation of Church and Signs

by Pat Dixon

It is common for people to assume Libertarians hurt Republicans. They see us aligned with Republicans on economic issues and presume we split their vote. Wrong!

Besides serving as the Libertarian Party state chairman, I also am serving my second term on the city council of Lago Vista, TX. Last night at our council meeting we had a discussion about having religious advertising on a sign paid for with taxes. Can you guess what my position is?

I will add that this is one of the strongest Republican Party areas in the state of Texas. If you ask most city council members or voters around here what party they support, it will be obvious to you. I can tell you the predominant sentiment of our council is that we should not be afraid of the ACLU and that religious material is fine.

Well on this matter I am proud to stand with the ACLU. As a matter of fact I often stand with the ACLU where Republicans and most Democrats dare not go.

As is my custom, I have already posted my opinions at www.PatDixon.org. If I can’t bother you to go there and read it, let my summarize.

A few weeks ago we had a vote on whether to have a community sign provided by the city government, paid for with taxes. I cast the lone dissenting vote. While the amount of money is small relative to the overall budget, our budget is very tight and we made lots of cuts to avoid raising taxes. Therefore this expense, though small, should not stand while other more urgent causes are cut. However, the real problem is not financial. I warned that having such a sign would result in a fiasco of contention and rancor over policy. Last night’s council meeting proved my point.

Our city staff prepared a draft policy for the sign at last night’s meeting. It contained an exclusion for content of a religious nature, which I support. In order to clarify the interpretation of this policy I started the questioning by presenting several examples from the church I attend. A fellow councilman asked if a vacation bible school could be advertised. This went on a good long while with the mayor concluding he doesn’t have any problem with using taxpayer’s money for advertising items of a religious nature.

Let me set some further context here. We begin council meetings with a prayer to Jesus Christ. I oppose this. I haven’t actively done anything about it because I have so many other battles to wage, but I would certainly welcome a policy change here.

Why would a Catholic who goes to church twice every Sunday oppose religion in city politics?

Perhaps you are familiar with the first amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps you are aware of the inspiration the first amendment derived from Thomas Jefferson. Perhaps you are aware that Muslims, Jews, Atheists, and others have the same rights as Christians. Perhaps the Muslim, Jew, or Atheist wonders if they will get a fair shake on a zoning variance after the entire council prays to Jesus. Perhaps you are aware of the atrocities of the Taliban.

I take my faith seriously. I do not need George Bush, Bill Clinton, or any other politician being the middle man in my relationship with God. If we continue to empower politicians to take our money to promote their church, what happens when their church isn’t your church?

Now ask yourself, do I sound like a Republican to you?

Let me be more clear:

* I cast the lone dissenting vote against an ordinance allowing government to ban cell phone use in school zones
* I cast the lone dissenting vote to renew our curfew law

It is easy to stand on the sidelines and call yourself one thing or another. The true test of your identity is when you are outnumbered but refuse to compromise your principles.

So, do Libertarians hurt Republicans? Yes, when they are in power. We have had Republicans in power until recently and Libertarians have appealed more to voters that see their failure of leadership. The same will happen with Democrats. Research proves it

In conclusion, if you are wondering who will pay as much attention to your privacy and individual rights as your economic rights, don’t listen to what people say. Look at what they do. I am happy to stand with the ACLU and Jefferson. Are you?

Pat Dixon is a City Council Member in Lago Vista, Texas and is the Chair of The Libertarian Party of Texas.

JOHN MACKEY'S CONSCIOUS CAPITALISM: FULL INTERVIEW VERSION

Is Canada Really a Model for Health Reform?

BUDGET DEFICITS FOR DUMMIES: OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE $1.4 TRILLION

2008 LP VP nominee Root comments on Olympics and newspaper bailouts

Libertarians pleased by new federal marijuana policy

WASHINGTON - The Libertarian Party (LP) today expressed its approval of the Obama administration's new, more laissez-faire policy toward medical marijuana. The policy appears to end the practice of federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and providers in states where medical marijuana is legal.

Wes Benedict, LP executive director, commented, "This is a small step in the right direction. The federal government currently wastes tremendous resources in the War on Drugs, creating a huge, vicious, violent black market. This new policy will reduce the damage and destruction, and it will hopefully end some of the unjust prosecution of peaceful medical marijuana providers and patients."

The LP has long called for the repeal of laws that criminalize the medicinal or recreational use of drugs.

Benedict added, "We urge the Obama administration not to stop with this small step, but to take further steps to end the destructive, unjust, unconstitutional War on Drugs."

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP executive director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

Using Freedom to Fund Newspapers?

Posted on October 21, 2009, 9:32AM | Matt Welch

It's a Maureen Dowd column, so not to be taken seriously, but check out the latest Big Idea for Saving Our Newspapers:

Mortimer Zuckerman, who owns The Daily News and U.S. News & World Report, proposed to Forbes that the federal government could save newspapers by allowing sports betting on newspaper Web sites.

"It would take Congressional legislation and the willingness on the part of the government to confront gambling and casino interests that have blocked this," he said. "Newspaper owners have never gotten together to lobby for this because they have always been quite profitable. Those days are behind us."

I tracked down Zuckerman in Jerusalem on Tuesday to ask him about it. "Newspapers are so critical for public dialogue and holding public officials responsible," he told me. "And who's going to be able to afford original reporting in the next five years? Very, very few."

He said some British newspapers make millions on betting games like Bingo. "People are spending money on what is basically a social vice anyhow," he said. "So why not use it to preserve the First Amendment? It's not a perfect solution, but it is a solution." [...]

Nick Pileggi, who wrote the books and screenplays for "Goodfellas" and "Casino," sees no downside. "It would be a wonderful, huge blow against organized crime because the money would be taken out of what the mob gets," he said. "And every state has a lottery so nobody from the state is going to stand up and say 'We're against gambling.'"

He said that if newspapers would stop being so stuffy, they could set up A.T.M.-style machines in lobbies and at newsstands and "take over a business that the mob now does illegally worth $20 to $40 billion a year."

Or, you know, you could legalize online gambling because it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, regardless of how the newspaper industry is doing this year.

For the definitive piece about "the strangely selective and self-defeating crackdown on Internet gambling," consult this June 2008 piece by Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum. And watch here how Jesus himself disapproves of criminalizing nonviolent recreation.

Myocardial Infractions

A government-commissioned report promotes smoking bans by tweaking the evidence.

Jacob Sullum | October 21, 2009

Six years ago, when I asked an epidemiologist about a report that a smoking ban in Helena, Montana, had cut heart attacks by 40 percent within six months, he thought the idea was so ridiculous that no one would take it seriously. He was wrong.

Since then 10 other studies have attributed substantial short-term reductions in heart attacks to smoking bans, and last week an Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee endorsed their findings. But a closer look at the IOM report, which was commissioned by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suggests its conclusions are based on a desire to promote smoking bans rather than a dispassionate examination of the evidence.

Thousands of jurisdictions around the world restrict smoking. Some of them are bound to see significant drops in heart attacks purely by chance, while others will see no real change or significant increases. Focusing on the first group proves nothing unless it is noticeably bigger than the other two groups.

The largest study of this issue, which used nationwide data instead of looking at cherry-picked communities, concluded that smoking bans in the U.S. "are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction." It also found that "large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."

That study, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in March, suggests that publication bias—the tendency to report positive findings and ignore negative ones—explains the "consistent" results highlighted by the IOM committee. But even though the panelists say they tried to compensate for publication bias by looking for relevant data that did not appear in medical journals, they ignored the NBER paper, along with analyses that found no declines in heart attacks following smoking bans in California, Florida, New York, Oregon, England, Wales, and Scotland.

If smoking bans reduce heart attacks, the effect could be due to declines in smoking, declines in secondhand smoke exposure, or both. The IOM report settles on that last explanation, quite a leap given that "only two of the studies distinguished between reductions in heart attacks suffered by smokers versus nonsmokers." READ MORE REASON

'War on Terror' II

by Julian Sanchez

This article appeared in The Nation on October 19, 2009.

We know the rules by now, the strange conventions and stilted Kabuki scripts that govern our cartoon facsimile of a national security debate. The Obama administration makes vague, reassuring noises about constraining executive power and protecting civil liberties, but then merrily adopts whatever appalling policy George W. Bush put in place. Conservatives hit the panic button on the right-wing noise machine anyway, keeping the delicate ecosystem in balance by creating the false impression that something has changed. We've watched the formula play out with Guantánamo Bay, torture prosecutions and the invocation of "state secrets." We appear to be on the verge of doing the same with national security surveillance.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed to abandon hope of bringing any real change to the Patriot Act. A lopsided and depressingly bipartisan majority approved legislation that would reauthorize a series of expanded surveillance powers set to expire at the end of the year. Several senators had proposed that reauthorization be wedded to safeguards designed to protect the privacy of innocent Americans from indiscriminate data dragnets — but behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the Obama administration ensured that even the most modest of these were stripped from the final bill now being sent to the full Senate.

In September the Senate got off to a promising start. Only three provisions are actually slated for "sunset" this year: "lone wolf" authority to wiretap terror suspects unconnected with any foreign terror group; "roving" wiretaps that can follow a suspect across an indefinite number of phone lines and Internet accounts; and "Section 215" orders that can be used to compel third parties to turn over any "tangible thing" investigators believe may be relevant to a terrorism investigation. Yet several Democrats had signaled a desire to use the renewal process to undertake a much broader review of the post-9/11 surveillance architecture, including National Security Letters (NSLs) — a controversial tool that permits the mass acquisition of financial and telecommunications records without court order — and last year's sweeping amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permit the executive branch to authorize broad interception of Americans' international communications with minimal court oversight. Democratic Senator Russ Feingold proposed an ambitious and comprehensive reform bill called the JUSTICE Act — which still would have reauthorized roving wiretaps and 215 orders — while Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy offered a more modest bill that nevertheless sought to narrow the nearly unlimited scope of NSLs and Section 215. READ MORE @ CATO