U.S. Presidential Poll!

[Sinsemilla Jones]

If there was a runoff system, meaning that a candidate had to get more than 50% of the vote to be elected (If no candidate got more than 50% in the initial election there would be runoff election[s] between the top candidates.),

(Or, an instant runoff system, where you would vote for all candidates by order of preference. If no candidate got more than 50% of the top preference, candidates would be eliminated and individual preferences would be moved up for the next count, until a candidate had more than 50%. For example, you could vote for Nader #1, Kerry #2, ect., and if Nader was eliminated on the first count, your vote would go to Kerry on the second count.),


Who would get your Vote for President of the United States of America?


Feel free to add a post for your candidate on this thread!

Sinsemilla Jones Reviewed by Sinsemilla Jones on 09-18-2004. U.S. Presidential Poll! If there was a runoff system, meaning that a candidate had to get more than 50% of the vote to be elected (If no candidate got more than 50% in the initial election there would be runoff election between the top candidates.), (Or, an instant runoff system, where you would vote for all candidates by order of preference. If no candidate got more than 50% of the top preference, candidates would be eliminated and individual preferences would be moved up for the next count, until a candidate Rating: 5

[Sinsemilla Jones]

Vote for a candidate who favors ACTUAL REFORM OF US MARIJUANA POLICY and is ACTUALLY ON THE BALLOT in at least 48 of the 50 states.

You want to ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING????????

VOTE
BADNARIK

for President of the United States[/COLOR]


Medical Marijuana and the Federal War on Drugs

In the 2000 campaign for president, George W. Bush said that the federal government should not interfere with the medical marijuana policies of the several states. Like so many other promises, he went back on his word and has closed down medical marijuana facilities permitted by state governments.

This is an outrage. The federal government has no constitutional authority to interfere with state drug policies. When the federal government outlawed alcohol, it required a constitutional amendment to do so. Nonetheless it has assumed the legal authority to wage its "War on Drugs."

According to nearly every scientific study on the subject, including ones conducted by the government, medical marijuana provides unique relief to patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other illnesses, and the drug does not have the same addictive properties as alcohol.

The federally approved Marinol contains the psychoactive THC but lacks other cannabinoids crucial to marijuana as an effective medicine. This is one of the many insanities of federal drug policy, which categorizes a plant that has never been shown to kill anyone as more illegal than cocaine, and certainly more illegal than alcohol.

Though smoking marijuanaâ??just as smoking tobaccoâ??can cause harm to the lungs and respiratory system, the drug can also be ingested and vaporized so as to prevent such unwanted side effects.

On a fundamental level, Libertarians believe that it is the unalienable and constitutional right of individuals to medicate themselves and choose for themselves what to put into their bodies, as long as they live up to the consequences of their actions. The federal government has no proper say in the matter, and state governments violate the rights of the people in their own attempts to enforce morality. The decision to ingest, smoke or consume any drug should be up to the individual, under the advice of his or her physician, when appropriate. Locking people up for trying to relieve their pain is cruel and unusual punishment for an act that hurts no one.

The Drug War has led to some of the worst violations of the constitutional liberties of Americans, as well as to the worst wave of violent crime in American history since Alcohol Prohibition. It has been used to rationalize unlawful searches and seizures, corruption of the court system, no-knock raids, racial profiling, and "civil asset forfeiture"â??a policy whereby government officials can confiscate private property without even charging anyone with a crime. The War on Drugs, more than anything else, has served as a means of destroying the Bill of Rights. It has also led to excessive taxes and spending, costing more than 40 billion dollars a year to arrest, prosecute and imprison non-violent drug offenders.

Drug Prohibition has caused gang warfare and other violent crime by raising the prices of drugs so much that vicious criminals enter the market to make astronomical profits, and addicts rob and steal to get money to pay the inflated prices for their drugs. On average, drug prisoners spend more time in federal prison than rapists, who often get out on early release because of the over-crowding in prison caused by the Drug War. While violent criminals can usually have their sentences reduced, drug offenders are subject to "mandatory minimums," which strip away judicial discretion and force judges to put users and dealers in prison for decades. This has to stop.

The Drug War also has funded terrorists; providing them with opportunities for enormous profits, and even by giving foreign aid to such regimes as the Taliban as long as they promised to have "tough drug" policies.

The Drug War does not curb demand, it barely reduces supply, however it makes America much more dangerous and much less free.

A Libertarian president would order federal officials to cease and desist in harassing medical marijuana patients and would block federal spending on the War on Drugs. Nonviolent drug offenders would be released from federal prison, and each state would choose its own drug policy, just as each chose its own alcohol policy when alcohol Prohibition was repealed. Libertarians would hope and expect most states to come around and severely reform their policies to make them more humane and less at odds with the Constitution and the American way of life.

http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/MedicalMarijuana.php


Industrial Hemp

Government often prepares the way for oppressive legislation by exaggerating a current danger, or by rhetorically turning harmless people and things into bogeymen.

Certainly this has been the case with industrial hemp. Although it includes a technical exemption for hemp, The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 generally treats hemp like marijuana, its psychotropic cousin. Smoking industrial hemp to "get high" yields about the same result as smoking the evening newspaper; and while the government contends that hemp can be useful as camouflage for marijuana growth, even laymen can easily distinguish between the two.

What makes current federal policy so tragic is that industrial hemp is estimated to have 25,000 constructive uses. Indeed, until recently the qualities of perhaps the world's most useful plant were widely understood and utilized. Ironically, in early 17th Century America, laws existed REQUIRING farmers to grow hemp. Later, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both left glowing references to the plant in their writings.

Hemp even has a record of heroism: During WWII, the U.S. war effort needed hemp-based supplies so badly that it instituted the "Hemp for Victory" program. The beginnings of today's repressive policies were already in place by the late 30s, as a result of propaganda efforts waged against hemp by the petro-chemical and timber industries. However, when America's very survival was threatened, the government exempted farmers and their sons from military service if they'd agree to grow it.

The ahistorical perception that those interested in legalizing hemp cultivation are all drug users has far-reaching economic, ecological and humanitarian effects. Consider just a few of the benefits we're missing out on:

* According to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report, "Hemp Hurds as a Paper-Making Material" (Bulletin No. 404), the core of the hemp stalk produces more than four times more paper than trees in proportion to land area cultivated.

* Raw hempseed oil can be used, without any modification, to power diesel engines.

* Thousands of natural food products, including staples like cheese and milk, are made from hempseed. Its protein content is higher than any plant source except soy -- and is more usable than soy as well.

* Although anyone can manufacture and sell hemp products in the U.S., it is illegal to cultivate the plant. An untold number of income opportunities, which would easily be supported by the growing demand for ecologically friendly alternatives, are denied the American work force. Availability of overseas hemp is insufficient to meet demand. Jobs -- not just in cultivation, but manufacture of goods -- are lost.

If the War on Drugs is senseless and unfathomable in light of reality -- and it is -- the prohibition on cultivating industrial hemp is even more so. Canada and the European Union have more enlightened -- and economically sound -- hemp policies than the United States.

The Bush Administration has attempted to ban hempseed food products which were formerly exempt from the definition of marijuana; foods that have no harmful effect whatsoever, and which aren't even remotely associated with recreational drug use.

As your President, I would open the way for free-market exploration and exploitation of industrial hemp. I'd veto legislation funding enforcement of laws against it, and I'd lobby Congress to repeal those laws.

Isn't it time we had a leader who defended the economic freedom which so well serves the interests of the American people?

http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/IndustrialHemp.php


Military Policy and the War in Iraq

The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it. As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished.

More and more Americans are coming to oppose the war, the war hawks and high government officials are beginning to distance themselves from the president, and the U.S. seems more willing than ever to pull out of Iraq.

But this is not enough. We need to learn how this disaster happened, so we can prevent future disasters from happening.

First, allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.

The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results. It overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. After making Iranians the enemies of Americans, the U.S. government gave weapons, intelligence and money to Iran's mortal adversary, Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government also helped Libyan Col. Qaddafi come to power, propped up the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian regime, and gave assistance to Osama bin Laden.

Most Americans have forgotten these events. But the people of the Middle East will always remember.

It was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia, lethal sanctions on Iraq, support for states in serious violation of International Law, and siding with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians to the tune of more than $3 billion per year in taxpayers' funds that terrorist leaders were able to recruit those individuals who caused 3,000 Americans to pay the ultimate price on September 11, 2001.

The proper response would have been to present the evidence as to who committed the heinous act both to Congress and to the people, and have Congress authorize the president to track down the individuals actually responsible, doing everything possible to avoid inflicting harm on innocents.

A Libertarian president would not have sent the military trampling about the world, racking up a death count in the thousands, wasting tax money on destroying and re-building infrastructure, creating more enemies, and doing the kinds of things that led to 9/11 in the first place.

We cannot undo history, unfortunately.

The U.S. government has never succeeded in establishing freedom and democracy in any of its foreign adventures in the last fifty years. Freedom and democracy are blessings any people must establish for themselves.

Here at home, war leads to a decline in civil liberties, higher taxes, and wartime economic measures that blur the line between business and state, allowing politically favored corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

Libertarians understand the importance of adhering to the Constitution, because it is designed to limit the power of the state here and abroad. And we especially understand the danger of war, which expands the power of the government far beyond its constitutional limits.

The founders of this country knew that war should not be initiated at the president's whim, and so the constitutional authority to wage war rests with Congress.

James Madison, father of the Constitution, said, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." He also said, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . ."

In short, a libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, and not international offense. It would protect our country, not police the world.

http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/IraqWar.php


"I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questionsâ??to give you answers that really work!"


ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING!


VOTE
BADNARIK

for President of the United States

[Ed Ward MD]

Questions for the Libertarian Party/Candidate Badnarik


Dear Mr. Gordon,

As a writer/staff for The Price of Liberty, a writer for The People and Media Liason for The Price of Liberty (http://thepriceofliberty.org/), I request an interview with Mr. Badnarik or delegated staffer. The interview consists of 2 questions and may be answered by email.

1. Since many of the platform policies are very similar to the Rights granted by The Historical Background Constitution, the only ratified Constitution, would Mr. Badnarik/Libertarian Party be willing to be bound by the Rights granted government and The People, if elected.
For the Historical Background Constitution does way more than the platform policies of the current Libertarian movement.
Further information on the intent of the article is available at:
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/09/10/ward.htm
The US Is "a Distorted, Bastardized Form of Illegitimate Government."

Questions: Why Isn't That Enough to Unite the Minor Political Parties?

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --- James Madison.

James Madison, "Father of The Constitution", and all of the signers of The Constitution were adamant, or in agreement with the historical background interpretation. Without a historical background interpretation, our Constitutional Founders could not give The People their inalienable rights and protection from their own government. They made sure their intent was known via various quotes, manuscripts and Preambles...

Continued at: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/09/10/ward.htm

2. Would Mr. Badnarik ask these questions regarding the oppressed by this current distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/09/02/ward.htm

Questions "the 'crats" Will Not Answer.

Ask Them Yourselves!

"the 'crats" (demo, repub, & 'burro') will not answer these questions. Don't believe me? ASK "the 'crats" YOURSELVES!

Simply take this link <http://www.congressmerge.com/> to "the 'crat" government of your state. You need only contact the representatives of your state, as the majority of representatives will not even officially accept email sent from someone other than a state inhabitant. The site will send 1 email to ALL representatives of your state (as well as the super supreme ones, bush/cheney) with one click. Dear [Appropriate Salutation Will Be Inserted Here]: Will already be waiting for you.

I am contacting my members of Congress regarding an issue of concern to myself and a true Democratic Republic, "this Constitution " (Article VI., Clause 3.: States that ALL state/federal senators, representatives and judges "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;" of the US, which contains "The Bill of Rights <http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html>". Surely, "The People " and their representatives should know how many of "The People" are in jail, felonized or dead because of any/each US law.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." -- James Madison, Primary Author of the Constitution President of the United States, Mainstream Militant and Revolutionary

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." ----George Washington of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790

1. How many homeschool parents were incarcerated in 2002 by state/territory, men/women, misdemeanors/felonies for the last 10 years if possible? How many are still incarcerated ? (Note: No mention of HSLDA, Constitutional Abuses Against Families By "This Government", nor, has any official implementation/notation information been available from the Federal Agencies, the Free Press, or "The People's" representatives since passage, except how this government is making it safer.) How many incarcerated homeschool parents are included in the government's prisoner data ? How many homeschool families were invaded by CPS solely on homeschool truancy child abuse charges from 1996 to present data? (Minimum Estimate: over 10,000)

Continued at: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/09/02/ward.htm

Thank you for your time, consideration of the questions and your concern for a True Democratic Republic,

Ed Ward, MD Holding my breath in anticipation

[Sinsemilla Jones]

Not sure what that gobbitallygook was all about, Ed Wad, but why should it be any different from the rest of your posts.

[ivani]

Was the 'other' Dr. Ed or Ghost Toker........?

[Libertarian Toker]

150 views, 11 votes. Hmmm, very interesting. I can only wonder at the possibilitys of why this is. I have to say that it seems a little odd for people to view a poll, but not vote in it. If only a certain percentage will even bother to vote, then what good is the poll? This one shows Mike in the lead, but I think we all know that is not the case. Polls mean nothing. But they are fun, so vote, don't just be a looky lu.

Toker

[sawleaf]

150 views, 11 votes. Hmmm, very interesting. I can only wonder at the possibilitys of why this is. I have to say that it seems a little odd for people to view a poll, but not vote in it. If only a certain percentage will even bother to vote, then what good is the poll? This one shows Mike in the lead, but I think we all know that is not the case. Polls mean nothing. But they are fun, so vote, don't just be a looky lu.

Toker

Well, if we can't get people online to do something as easy as click their mouse button, imagine how many people will no bother to vote in the actual election. Sad

[Sinsemilla Jones]

Was the 'other' Dr. Ed or Ghost Toker........?

Not sure whether you were wondering if the vote for OTHER was by or for either one, but we'll never know for sure either way. Since I made this a secret poll, you can't look at who voted for who.

Since Ghostoker withdrew from the campaign, as well as not meeting the nationality and age requirements, I decided to respect his wishes and not list him on the ballot. However, I must say that if I had to vote for either Bush, Kerry, or Ghostoker, I'd vote for Ghostoker.

The absence of Ghostoker from the ballot could be the biggest reason for so few votes thus far. He was quite a popular candidate.

I guess it's possible, since you can also make open polls where you can tell who voted and who for, that some folks didn't realize this was a secret ballot. Some of the Kerry and Bush supporters might have been too embarrassed to openly vote for them.

I imagine it's also possible that some of those who can't vote in the election (from another country, under age, purged from the voter list by Jeb Bush, etc.) might have refrained from voting, but wanted to see how it was going.

Do the VIEWS numbers count people who are NOT registered on Cann.com? If so, that could be a big reason why the discrepancy.

Maybe some of those for the 2 major parties were disgusted with the fairness of the runoff idea.

A lot of folks probably died while trying to comprehend Ed's post.

Actually, I'm pleasantly surprised that it's made it into double figures.

[Libertarian Toker]

That was pretty funny Sinse. You should break out your humor more often.

Toker

[Sinsemilla Jones]

People often laugh at me when I'm serious, too.