Third party platform you can support?

[Camino LS6]

Assuming that you can start from scratch, how would you formulate a platform for a third party?

Just to get started:

- repeal the Patriot act

- eliminate income tax

- legalize recreational drug use

- have the next session of congress spend its time repealing laws instead of writing new ones

- base the party on the real world expansion of personal freedom in everyday life. ( to reduce the ever-increasing big brotherism of the present).

- the party would be entirely " faith blind" with religion not getting a place at the table. A truly secular philosophy of government.

[Intrepidation]

I like this party...too bad it doesn't exist.

I would like to see:

Deceased spending on Iraq, stop wasting money fighting wars in the Middle East, and use it to help us

Use it to fund overhauling of our severely dated infrastructures like bridges, rail systems electrical grid (I dunno if they are government funded or not)

Stop catering to the rich

Decrease pointless government spending

Instead of wasting money of CAFE put it towards alternative energy research.

Edited September 14, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Camino LS6]

I like this party...too bad it doesn't exist.

Actually much of it does, as the Libertarian Party.

But I think we can go them one better if we try.

I also think we have to if we want the "American Experiment" to retain any value.

[Intrepidation]

I added to my post.

[Camino LS6]

I added to my post.

I like most of your additions.

I would modify the Iraq one a bit:

To finish our business in Iraq in a sensible, successful, and rapid fashion. And end the borrowing which finances that excursion.

[Robert Hall]

I could support many of those platform issues...my concern about elimination of income tax, though--where to replace the shortfall from? The government would need $$$ to invest in infrastructure, etc..

[XP715]

All good thoughts; I agree with all of them to some degree.

Camino: you should probably elaborate on "legalize recreational drug use" to:

- define exactly what recreational use is

- include a list of approved/unapproved drugs (example: marijuana and other "soft" drugs should be legal but I don't think anybody will really see the benefits of the legalization of the use of stuff like heroin, meth, etc.)

- define what the maximum quantities of said approved drugs are legal to possess before you can be charged with stuff like intent to distribute (I assume this legalization of certain drugs would be accompanied by an approved and sanctioned method of distribution with safety standards and all that other happy horse$h!), etc.

Just a thought, seeing as how we're still a country run by lawyers and insurance companies :AH-HA_wink:

[Camino LS6]

I could support many of those platform issues...my concern about elimination of income tax, though--where to replace the shortfall from? The government would need $$$ to invest in infrastructure, etc..

I favor both a fee-based revenue source as well as a national sales tax. That way you control how much you pay in taxes and the government's budget is directly tied to the performance of the national economy.

[Camino LS6]

All good thoughts; I agree with all of them to some degree.

Camino: you should probably elaborate on "legalize recreational drug use" to:

- define exactly what recreational use is

- include a list of approved/unapproved drugs (example: marijuana and other "soft" drugs should be legal but I don't think anybody will really see the benefits of the legalization of the use of stuff like heroin, meth, etc.)

- define what the maximum quantities of said approved drugs are legal to possess before you can be charged with stuff like intent to distribute (I assume this legalization of certain drugs would be accompanied by an approved and sanctioned method of distribution with safety standards and all that other happy horse$h!), etc.

Just a thought, seeing as how we're still a country run by lawyers and insurance companies :AH-HA_wink:

OK.

There are several levels to this as I see it. There is the principle level which addresses the right of an individual to determine their own consumption which I see as absolute (in principle).

Then there is the pragmatic issues of how and when to take steps in this direction which is a stickier problem.

I would favor the immediate and full legalization of marijuana without exception as its banning is based on nothing more than decades of propaganda and hypocrisy.

At the same time, I would take the initial step of decriminalizing the use of any drug. Those who have problems with substance abuse do not need legal trouble on top of that. These folks need help and decriminalization would remove some of the fear and stigma attached to their dependency.

Ultimately, it is my belief that we each have a right to be complete losers if that is our choice and governmant nanny laws only make the situation worse.

The specifics of when/how/if a given substance would become legal would require serious thought, research and planning.

The revenue benefits will be astonishing as well (the estimates I have heard amount to a 40 billion dollar advantage in just the first year).

Other benefits would be equally beneficial with the profit incentive of the black market removed from the equation. Drug-related violence would vanish. We would have room in our prisons for those who commit serious crime. Our inner-cities would know a new level of peace.

[Oracle of Delphi]

OK.

There are several levels to this as I see it. There is the principal level which addresses the right of an individual to determine their own consumption which I see as absolute (in principal).

Then there is the pragmatic issues of how and when to take steps in this direction which is a stickier problem.

I would favor the immediate and full legalization of marijuana without exception as its banning is based on nothing more than decades of propaganda and hypocrisy.

At the same time, I would take the initial step of decriminalizing the use of any drug. Those who have problems with substance abuse do not need legal trouble on top of that. These folks need help and decriminalization would remove some of the fear and stigma attached to their dependency.

Ultimately, it is my belief that we each have a right to be complete losers if that is our choice and governmant nanny laws only make the situation worse.

The specifics of when/how/if a given substance would become legal would require serious thought, research and planning.

The revenue benefits will be astonishing as well (the estimates I have heard amount to a 40 billion dollar advantage in just the first year).

Other benefits would be equally beneficial with the profit incentive of the black market removed from the equation. Drug-related violence would vanish. We would have room in our prisons for those who commit serious crime. Our inner-cities would know a new level of peace.

I could never support this. What happens when you're driving down the road high, and you take out a family of four, because you're too stoned to know the red light means stop? I want them to have that extra fear and stigma! You kill someone in my family because you're high, let me say this, no court will save you from me, because as I see it, you kill my wife and daughter, I have nothing to live for anyway, so I will take you out. Nothing on this Earth will save you from my wrath.

[Robert Hall]

I could never support this. What happens when you're driving down the road high, and you take out a family of four, because you're too stoned to know the red light means stop? I want them to have that extra fear and stigma! You kill someone in my family because you're high, let me say this, no court will save you from me, because as I see it, you kill my wife and daughter, I have nothing to live for anyway, so I will take you out. Nothing on this Earth will save you from my wrath.

No different than a drunk driver, yet we see no one shouting for banning alcohol sales and possession...

personally, I'm for the legalization/decriminalization of MJ purchase/possession...not sure about how I feel about any legalization of hard drugs.

Edited September 14, 2008 by moltar

[Camino LS6]

I could never support this. What happens when you're driving down the road high, and you take out a family of four, because you're too stoned to know the red light means stop? I want them to have that extra fear and stigma! You kill someone in my family because you're high, let me say this, no court will save you from me, because as I see it, you kill my wife and daughter, I have nothing to live for anyway, so I will take you out. Nothing on this Earth will save you from my wrath.

I would feel the same way if that happened to me. However, intoxicated/impaired driving is already a crime - no matter the substance involved or its legal status.

In fact, illegality perpetuates abuse and leads to a hidden subculture which increases the risk of such tragedies.

Where decriminalization/legalization has been implemented around the world, abuse and criminal activity has been shown to actually decrease.

Just think it through.

[XP715]

Camino: all good thoughts again; I agree with everything you say. Just one thing I need clarification on:

I would take the initial step of decriminalizing the use of any drug. Those who have problems with substance abuse do not need legal trouble on top of that. These folks need help and decriminalization would remove some of the fear and stigma attached to their dependency.

-Wouldn't you also need to at the same time decriminalize the sale and possession of any drug? It would be pretty much useless to allow a person to use something that's still illegal to obtain and possess until they choose to use it, yes?

-I agree with you that removing the fear and stigma surrounding a person's addiction will almost certainly prompt an increasing number of people to seek help, but does the "right to be complete losers" extend to that? What I mean is, will this increasing number of people that seek rehabilitation be expected to pay for it themselves (as they should)? It's not my addiction and I shouldn't be required to pay for its treatment, just as I shouldn't be chipping in for people's mortgage bailouts.

Sorry if you think I'm a jerk and am trying to pick your thoughts apart; I'm only doing so because you have an interesting concept here and it could really work if you considered every angle.

[Camino LS6]

Camino: all good thoughts again; I agree with everything you say. Just one thing I need clarification on:

-Wouldn't you also need to at the same time decriminalize the sale and possession of any drug? It would be pretty much useless to allow a person to use something that's still illegal to obtain and possess until they choose to use it, yes?

-I agree with you that removing the fear and stigma surrounding a person's addiction will almost certainly prompt an increasing number of people to seek help, but does the "right to be complete losers" extend to that? What I mean is, will this increasing number of people that seek rehabilitation be expected to pay for it themselves (as they should)? It's not my addiction and I shouldn't be required to pay for its treatment, just as I shouldn't be chipping in for people's mortgage bailouts.

Sorry if you think I'm a jerk and am trying to pick your thoughts apart; I'm only doing so because you have an interesting concept here and it could really work if you considered every angle.

Actually, you ask great questions and I welcome them. In fact, such questions are required to do this the right way.

I think we need to begin with decriminalizing personal possession before anything else - just as a practical matter. It will be far easier to move on this one aspect than any other politically.

As for treatment and who pays for it, I would also see this as a process. At first, selling the idea politically would require some government funding of the treatment. The good news being that it is far cheaper to treat someone than to enforce possession laws let alone incarceration. Later, I would prefer to see the financing come from the afflicted persons themselves, from non-profits, family members, and from increased obligation of health insurance companies to cover such treatment. After all, it is a health issue first and foremost.

[XP715]

As for treatment and who pays for it, I would also see this as a process. At first, selling the idea politically would require some government funding of the treatment. The good news being that it is far cheaper to treat someone than to enforce possession laws let alone incarceration. Later, I would prefer to see the financing come from the afflicted persons themselves, from non-profits, family members, and from increased obligation of health insurance companies to cover such treatment. After all, it is a health issue first and foremost.

So like a one-time government loan to get the ball rolling, with the understanding from the people that required the services that they would be billed for them and expected to pay in full with interest for them once they are productive members of society again? I assume the money paid back would be paid into an account to KEEP the ball rolling?

[Camino LS6]

So like a one-time government loan to get the ball rolling, with the understanding from the people that required the services that they would be billed for them and expected to pay in full with interest for them once they are productive members of society again? I assume the money paid back would be paid into an account to KEEP the ball rolling?

Now that's a great idea!

[Camino LS6]

We also need to get over the flawed concept that anyone convicted of a drug or alcohol related crime is necessarily addicted, many have simply made an error in judgement leading to the offense. This is a major flaw in the way current court-ordered treatment programs are structured.

EDIT: This leads people to believe that entering a treatment program is a "get out of jail free" card, and is largely seen as a joke and just another way of issuing a fine or punishment.

[Oracle of Delphi]

Recidivism rates for Drug offenders that have had treatment are horrendous.

Forced Treatment Results in Higher Recidivism than NO Treatment and Adolescent Use INCREASES Following Treatment.

See article: http://www.peele.net/lib/court.html

[Camino LS6]

Recidivism rates for Drug offenders that have had treatment are horrendous.

Forced Treatment Results in Higher Recidivism than NO Treatment and Adolescent Use INCREASES Following Treatment.

See article: http://www.peele.net/lib/court.html

Not at all surprising considering the way such programs are structured and forced upon people.

Also not surprising considering the environments these people return to after treatment.

This helps to make the case for the sort of approach I'm advocating.

[Camino LS6]

Another option for financing treatment would be to use some of the proceeds from taxes on the legal, controlled, sales of both recreational drugs and alcohol.

[Croc]

No different than a drunk driver, yet we see no one shouting for banning alcohol sales and possession...

personally, I'm for the legalization/decriminalization of MJ purchase/possession...not sure about how I feel about any legalization of hard drugs.

MJ and Cocaine over here. I do not support/approve of decriminalizing anything else, because anything else can be really dangerous for the user as well as bystanders. Could you imagine if meth were decriminalized? Oh dear god...

[Oracle of Delphi]

Could you imagine if meth were decriminalized? Oh dear god...

+1

Edited September 14, 2008 by Pontiac Custom-S

[Camino LS6]

Could you imagine if meth were decriminalized? Oh dear god...

Yes actually, the criminal producers would go out of business, the drug would be exposed for its filthiness, and the popularity of it would decline quickly.

Darwin's principles would also apply.

I'm trying to take a long-range view of this.

Way too much fear, and way too little rationality determines our current drug policies.

[loki]

great thread.

a great step in personal responsibility.

we have drug programs for "youngsters" yet some of them still grow up and do drugs... we had sex-ed yet we still have even children going out and doing that. people will do what they want even when given facts of what will most likely happen. degrading your own life (w/ hard drugs) even with this knowledge will still happen.

PCS, just cause drugs would be legalized, doesn't mean the other laws are out the window.

i'd imagine if meth was legal, somewhere a possible industry would rise...and be taxed to minimal income. but....they already make it for ADD kids and such, so it's kinda legal.

[Oracle of Delphi]

great thread.

a great step in personal responsibility.

we have drug programs for "youngsters" yet some of them still grow up and do drugs... we had sex-ed yet we still have even children going out and doing that. people will do what they want even when given facts of what will most likely happen. degrading your own life (w/ hard drugs) even with this knowledge will still happen.

PCS, just cause drugs would be legalized, doesn't mean the other laws are out the window.

i'd imagine if meth was legal, somewhere a possible industry would rise...and be taxed to minimal income. but....they already make it for ADD kids and such, so it's kinda legal.

Funny, there was no such thing as ADD children when I was growing up. This drugging of our children is just the outgrowth of parents, unable or unwilling to deal with their own children. So they drug them. What a bunch of Malarkey!

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

As minimal as possible of laws that restrict what you can and cannot do.

Gov't maintains very powerful army/navy/airforce etc. but only uses them in dire times.

Elimination of most social programs.

Lower taxes

Encouragement for people to donate to charities (and not high class ones, there shall be a list maintained of charities that count for tax benefits... and it will have to be ran efficiently). This would allow private organizations to fulfill many of the social programs that the government formerly sponsored.

So uh, basically Libertarian party.

[Camino LS6]

Funny, there was no such thing as ADD children when I was growing up. This drugging of our children is just the outgrowth of parents, unable or unwilling to deal with their own children. So they drug them. What a bunch of Malarkey!

Off-topic, but largely true - and sad.

[Croc]

Yes actually, the criminal producers would go out of business, the drug would be exposed for its filthiness, and the popularity of it would decline quickly.

Darwin's principles would also apply.

I'm trying to take a long-range view of this.

Way too much fear, and way too little rationality determines our current drug policies.

I disagree, only in that meth is way cheap and many people look for the short term quick fix to all their problems. Quality would go up, for sure, but people would still do it, and it would still be very dangerous. Meth has fast, lasting consequences on a person's cognitive abilities, and it's the lasting deleterious effects that concern me. Plus it really messes with users' teeth, and like any American, I believe in the power of dental work and orthodontics.

Funny, there was no such thing as ADD children when I was growing up. This drugging of our children is just the outgrowth of parents, unable or unwilling to deal with their own children. So they drug them. What a bunch of Malarkey!

Agreed. I mean, I think everyone is a little bit ADD...it's really just impulsivity. Some people have ADD, but not anywhere near the numbers as that are prescribed.

Off-topic, but largely true - and sad.

Agreed. The drugging of Americans is ridiculous...and IMO it unfairly targets males. I mean let's be honest...the US education system is very feminine, with the sitting quietly and being organized while paying rapt attention to the teacher. Young males love to move, be active, and be hands-on with their learning. It's a biological thing. So to thwart biology with drugs...man I don't even want to think about it.

[loki]

It's a biological thing. So to thwart biology with drugs...man I don't even want to think about it.

i'm not going into it, but this could be said about about something else that is a "hot topic" in this currant race, and the past ~9 too. i'm sure you know what i'm talking about.

on with the thread.