The current crop of Republican hopefuls leaves me feeling uninspired.
No, no… That’s far too mild.
The list of Republicans being discussed as our “options” in the beltway and the media leave me with a hollow feeling in the pit of my stomach. It’s something like despair. Or the intestinal flu. I want to ask “Is this really the best the GOP can do? Really? I have to hold my nose and vote for one of these people?”
(If I want to see Obama go home as a one-term President, that’s exactly what I have to do.)
So I was really excited to see that Gary Johnson had announced he’s running. I’ve long been an admirer. He has a proven record, an understanding of our situation (and don’t dismiss that as unimportant – our current administration has no grasp whatsoever on the situation and that’s why it keeps getting worse), and Johnson holds to the ideals of smaller government and personal liberty so dear to the conservative heart.
Yet most of what I’ve read about his announcement refers to him as “best known” or “famous” or “most recognized” for his stance on marijuana and the War on Drugs. And very little I’ve read gave him the most remote odds of winning.
Yes, Gary Johnson has some controversial views on the drug war, and marijuana in particular. But he’s famously best known and most recognized for those views because the media (old and new) highlights the controversial. (What a surprise that he’s viewed in the way he’s repeatedly been depicted.)
But if conservatives would give Gov. Johnson a shot on the issues and not write him off as the stoner candidate, I believe they’d like what they see. So please, let’s put his stance on drugs to the side a moment (we’ll come back to it, and I believe you’ll see it’s perfectly in line with conservative principles) and look at what else he’s about.
In other words, let’s let the smoke clear and see what’s really there…
As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson cut taxes fourteen times and left not only a balanced budget, but a surplus. He was responsible for New Mexico’s longest ever stretch with no tax increase. He cut the size of state government and privatized part of the prison system. He cut government growth by half. He fought for a school choice program. He vetoed over 750 pieces of legislation, 200 of those in the first six months. He used the line item veto thousands of times, often to remove spending from bills. He reformed Medicaid, and got the state’s costs under control. He hired private companies to build highways.
That’s not what he’s talked about or what he’s promised us or what the polls tell him we want to hear. That’s what he’s done.
(As an aside, he’s also climbed Mt. Everest… oh, and Mt. McKinley, Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Elbrus. He’s also competed in multiple Ironman Triathlons. How’s that sound after a coupla years of watching President Mom Jeans embarrass himself trying to act sporty?)
So that’s a taste of what he’s done. If elected President, what else would he like to do? A lot of what the grassroots conservatives are calling for.
Johnson advocates balancing the budget. Immediately. With trillions in cuts across the board, and entitlement reforms. He also wants to eliminate the corporate income tax, thereby making it less expensive for a company to create jobs in America.
Johnson wants to abolish the Department of Education and return education decisions to the parents and local school systems.
So Johnson is right in line with some of the conservatives’ major concerns. The economy, taxes, education, restricting government growth…
Now, about that marijuana thing.
Gary Johnson wants to end the drug war as we know it. He also wants to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. But that doesn’t mean his campaign slogan is “Party hearty; Die high!”
On the contrary, although Johnson readily admits a personal history of pot smoking, it’s not something he does now or thinks others should be doing. In a 2001 Reason interview, he said:
Marijuana is a handicap. So is alcohol… But in spite of being a handicap, it shouldn’t be criminal.
But if Gary Johnson doesn’t want to change the law so he can toke up in the Oval Office, what’s his motivation? Why push for an end to the drug war?
I’m a cost-benefit analysis person: What are we spending and what are we getting? My premise is the war in drugs is a miserable failure. I don’t know of a bigger problem in every single state, or a bigger expense that might actually have alternative solutions. Drugs account for half of law enforcement spending, half of prison spending, half of court spending. What are we getting for it? We are arresting 1.6 million people a year in this country on drug-related charges, and it’s a failure.
I can’t see how any small government constitutional conservative can argue the point.
I consistently have… disagreements with conservatives who want smaller government but are perfectly fine continuing to fund the War on Drugs. While I believe that on some level they accept it because it feels like a war on sin, it goes against every conservative principle.
It’s expensive. Enormously expensive. It’s an abject failure that we keep throwing money at… similar to the failing public school system, but most conservatives are on board with an education shakeup. It’s an affront to personal liberty and, frankly, smacks of the nanny-statism that usually sets conservative teeth on edge. And it has actually caused underground criminal enterprise, much as alcohol prohibition created and strengthened the original gang problems.
But I hope it’s clearer… while Johnson definitely advocates major changes to our drug policy, he’s not looking to be President Chong. He’s coming at the issue from a small-government, common sense, conservative viewpoint.
I urge my fellow conservatives (That’s inaccurate. This is nearly begging, but I’m fine with that. Looking at the other Republican wanna-runs, there’s that feeling in my gut again.) to take another look at Gary Johnson… to wave away the clouds of smoke and actually learn something about the candidate.
Reason magazine offers excellent roundups here and here, and their 2001 interview is here. Race42012 collected Johnson’s public answers to questions posed on Twitter, offering further insight. The Boston Globe wrote about his legalization ideas here. And his campaign site is here.
Johnson’s biggest obstacle at the moment might be low name recognition. While I’m hoping to help correct that, it’s not the end of the world. In my congressional district, an almost unknown candidate destroyed the Republican party’s chosen candidate in the primary, then went on to close within single digits of the sitting Congressman with a huge war chest and major connections. In the age of the TEA Party, being a relative unknown isn’t as much of a handicap it used to be.
So, please… have a look at Gary Johnson. And if he can’t be accepted as the conservative candidate, someone explain to me why. With the notable exception of Herman Cain, he’s the only candidate I can feel passionate about so far.
Now I just have to convince the rest of you…
—
Cross-posted at Makes My Brain Itch.
Scratcher. Thanks again for another thought-provoking addition to the site here. I moved it up to the Front Page to see what the folks around here think about the matter; the candidate.
As to my take on Mr. Johnson… Well I do believe you and I have had a discussion somewhere along the line regarding the war on drugs. I don’t know why or where, but I seem to remember it coming up at some point. I’ll address that first and then come back to Johnson.
As I do with every other “social issue” I like to address where my belief set comes from. First off. I don’t like drugs, I’ve never used drugs, and that is probably all that needs to be said regarding my feelings toward them. I don’t see them as any more immoral than drinking or anything else in life. I believe in moderation, so I suppose there could be an argument for their being used accordingly, that I could buy into; I have simply never been presented with one that I could “buy.” I think their dangers far exceed that of alcohol, so I think moderation is a far greater hurdle with them than with “the sauce.”
I know many will point to alcohol-related accidents and crimes as they often do, but I am a firm believer that the numbers would quickly turn the other way if “drugs” were legalized in even a small way. The current system typically overlooks the “use” charge in the interest of prosecuting the possession or the distribution charge which carries greater penalties. What I’m saying here, is I don’t put much trust in the stats that often get thrown around on the issue because they operate in a reality that doesn’t currently exist.
I should also add that there is probably a fair argument to be made for not including marijuana in a group labeled broadly as “drugs”; I’m just not a drug user, so I haven’t the slightest clue as to why that argument is made. My only evidence on the matter is anecdotal (and I don’t like such arguments so it carries little weight even with me) and that is that I’ve never met a “pot-head” that contributed a damn thing to society, his family, or anything else for that matter. In fairness, I’ve never met an alcoholic that was much good for any of that either, so again, I guess that goes to moderation.
As to the arguments for the “war on drugs”, I’ve heard them before and I certainly understand that there is great cost incurred by the carrying out of this “war.” While troubling fiscally (and I’m sure there is room for better maintenance and administration), I do completely support it; and here is why.
If this were purely a money issue combined with measuring the social mores and beliefs of a community, I’d say leave the whole damn thing to state and local governments and let them sort it out. Prohibition came through an amendment, so if you can’t give me something of that weight, it wasn’t meant to be a federal issue. Especially considering the fact that even that didn’t withstand the weight of time and social pressures, I would wholeheartedly support this being a “local issue”. BUT here’s the problem.
Not only do we have an illegal immigration problem at our Southern border, we have an illegal immigration problem that is being exasperated by a drug trafficking problem as well. Add that to the fact that we have a “silent war” going on just miles from American cities in states on that border, and what you have is a national security issue that far exceeds any that have recently taken us to actual WAR.
The problem with the war on drugs is that it is not being waged in tandem with a legitimate immigration/border control policy. We say immigration is a matter for the federal government, yet we leave enforcement and management of its consequences to the states. Without a national strategy for closing our borders, the drug war will always be inefficient as the import of drugs will never be fully exhausted.
As to the taxing it side of the debate, it would also fly counter to everything I believe in. Making it legal, just so we can tax it….? That doesn’t fly with me. Sin taxes are just another way of making money on that which we deem to be unholy, unhealthy, or unwise. I know many such taxes were started in my home region of the Bible Belt as an answer to slowing the consumption of alcohol or to punish the “sinner” but they’ve been taken over by the nanny state and carried into every other aspect of health and welfare. If we can’t agree that drugs have a societal benefit that outweighs the dangers that come along with them, then just leave them illegal – I don’t care how much tax revenue they may generate.
As to the individual or personal side of drug use. There is a fair argument to be made for an individual being able to do in his or her home whatever he pleases. I suppose that would lead one to make an argument about growing for their own use as well. As someone who thinks the Interstate Commerce Clause has been over-expanded beyond our Founders’ wildest intentions, I suppose there is even an argument for saying that this too should be a conservative issue. I raise that not to expand on it but only to point out that there is a multitude of competing and conflicting ideological underpinnings at play in this issue, and what it ultimately boils down to in my book is this.
Like I said, there is a national interest in putting an end to the drug war going on to our South and in keeping that war and its drugs from spilling into our country. Otherwise, I’d leave it to local governments to deal with for themselves. On a personal level, I believe that drugs are wrong. I’m not waxing religious here. I mean wrong. Not immoral. I believe even in moderation, they are wrong. I believe they ruin lives, create dependencies, and foster an environment that lowers the bar for everything that surrounds it from expectation to ambition to a sense of a personal duty to contribute to society. Admittedly, my views are personal. That said, until I hear a compelling argument that doesn’t include taxing them to generate revenue or that they are the same thing as alcohol or tobacco, I will hold steadfast in my belief that they are wrong and their prohibition is (if not JUST) at least prudent.
As to Gary Johnson. I took the liberty of linking this piece I wrote in December of last year in your post. http://republicanredefined.com/2010/12/07/pot-smoking-gary-johnson-has-a-sense-that-defense-spending-is-way-too-high/
Therein, I link an interview from the Weekly Standard where he admitted using pot as late as 2008 for “medicinal purposes.” He also admits to using it illegally for some time before that. Now I’m just being pragmatic here, but I would bet every dollar in my bank account that it doesn’t matter what he says or does between now and primary season, he’s not overcoming that. Is that fair? Probably not. But the “social conservative” wing of the Republican Party is not quick to forgive such transgressions.
Am I? Honestly, no. I could probably give it a pass if this were twenty years ago or some time before he began a career in public service. I say probably because it would still be a stretch. The rest of the man’s character and resume would have to be rather substantial for ME to overlook it. My trouble lies not in a moral sense, but in a practical one. He admits to needing the drug to recover from a para-gliding accident. While I appreciate his youthfulness and athleticism, I just don’t buy it. I’ve broken a lot of bones, torn a lot of ligaments in my lifetime. I’ve taken a whole hell of a lot of Advil in my days to remedy the many lingering effects, but still no pot. It just comes off like a cop-out to me. I know I’m being petty and maybe exhibiting a little dude bravado here, but needing pot because of an accident? He wasn’t exactly battling Cancer.
My point is this. To ME, it reflects weakness. Not only does it set a bad example for America’s Youth (athletes are not role models but Presidents are) that a President could only be four years removed from a pot addiction, but it makes me question how he’d handle the stresses of the most stressful job on the planet.
So I guess what I’m saying here after this little tangential rant is this… In a world of Gary Johnson versus Barack Obama, there probably wouldn’t be much of a choice. I’d take a pot-smoking drug user in his prime over another four years of this. At least the First Lady’s war on fast food would take a walk. In a Republican primary? Probably not getting my vote.
There are no “deal breakers” in my book currently as I have no litmus test for my candidates. I do however use a sliding scale of measuring the man against the message. I try not to put too much weight in either independently. The “man” typically disappoints. See Gov Sanford. The message can disappoint – he any of the 100′s of talking point Republicans on Capitol Hill. Like I said, it’s a balancing test. Johnson may not see anything wrong with marijuana and he may have used it all those years accordingly. That said, he now wants to be our President. The Executive at the top of the Rule of Law pyramid. I see nothing in Johnson’s past that either says his past is in fact – the past – or that he now realizes that it is wrong. Without that, I fail to see how he could have any respect for the rule of law; or intend to serve it.
ALL OF THAT said, it is just my humble opinion. I do not believe the principles that guide my life and my politics are universal, so I do not judge anyone that would disagree with my take. Many of my feelings on the drug matter are driven primarily by my principled guidepost; and some are driven by what some would view as conservatism; so I can hardly say that I speak for the whole of the community.
But again Scratch. Thanks for the contribution. It was obviously provocative, but in a good way, or else there’s no way I would have taken this much time rambling on. Thanks for the effort, I look forward to seeing how it and Mr. Johnson are received.
Gary Johnson is by far my favorite in the field. He’s probably our most fiscally conservative recent governor and he still manages to be extremely popular in New Mexico, a 2-1 Democrat state.
And no one will care that he smoked pot as a kid or after a paragliding accident that nearly killed him.
First off. I appreciate your affection for Gary Johnson and for your comment here. I do hope you contribute further to this conversation as I’d like to hear more of why you’re so fond of Gary Johnson. I hope that much is not lost by what I am about to say.
“And no one will care that he smoked pot as a kid or after a paragliding accident that nearly killed him.”
“And no one will care”
I care – so “no one” would be a stretch. Am I important, influential, or even relevant. Probably not. But I do count as “one.” Just thought I should throw that out there.
“…that he smoked pot as a kid or after a paragliding accident that nearly killed him.”
He has admitted to smoking pot well into adulthood even before he “nearly killed” himself.
—-
And correct me if I am wrong… and I may be as I clearly know less about Mr. Johnson than you do… has he ever unequivocally said that pot smoking was behind him; for good?
Why do you care? What if he smokes pot everyday? How many triathlons have you completed? How many major world peaks have you climbed?
If anything, the fact that Gov Johnson has smoked cannabis well into adulthood AND been able to stay fit enough to accomplish these feats, is testimony to how ridiculous it is to chastise people who use marijuana recreationally. It shows how innocuous cannabis is. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Phelps, and a number of other high-profile athletes and intellectuals are or were cannabis users during their peaks. I’d like to know how many regular alcohol users won 8 Olympic gold medals or climbed Mt Everest.
Marijuana is a non-issue. If it’s an issue to you, T. Christopher, I’d like to know why, because the only impact it seems to have on people is that lives are ruined by criminal penalties for cannabis, not the effects of cannabis itself.
First off. I don’t particularly care what Gary Johnson or anyone else does in their personal lives. That said, when someone wants to be the next President of the United States, I begin to care. As to the personal jab at me of my athletic prowess, while I have not climbed any peaks, I am an avid runner, played a college sport, and even dabbled in getting paid for it for a brief while. I run 5-6 days a week and workout at least that much. I like riding bikes, canoeing, hiking and anything else generally outdoor and athletic. Am I athletic enough for you? Am I now qualified for President of the United States in your book? What does ANY of that have to do with him being qualified for that office? Why people like you and several other comments have even mentioned it absolutely baffles me. Who cares?
And this line “Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Phelps, and a number of other high-profile athletes and intellectuals are or were cannabis users during their peaks” – who’s the “intellectual” between those two? Come on now. And no. Phelps was not using while he was setting world records. He didn’t get caught until he had already destroyed world records. And if you really want to use Phelps as an example, I do believe part of his explanation for making poor decisions was the he was “drunk” and made a bad decision. Kinda makes him a less than perfect example to make your point.
But again, why must we use alcohol as a measuring stick. Where in any of this did this become about alcohol being good and pot being bad? Why can’t pot advocates just make a pot argument that does engage in some version of moral balancing?
And to your closing point, if it’s a non-issue to you, great. Awesome. More power to you. Where in any of this have I said I speak for every American; every conservative, or even every American? I don’t know why my opinion would even bother you for that matter. If you wouldn’t have called me out or asked me direct questions, I wouldn’t have even taken the time to rebut your remarks. You like pot, you think its kosher, you’re cool with a politician using it – fine with me. As to my feelings on pot – I’m pretty sure the comments here or the related post mentioned in Scratcher’s article would give you all the insight you might need. If it is still insufficient I would be glad to clarify on specific questions you may have.
Since I feel like I brought some controversy here, please allow me to chime in.
First, I mentioned Johnson’s athleticism as a humorous contrast to President Obama. And while I find it interesting and admirable on a personal level, I agree with T that it has little bearing on his fitness for office. (Although I do think the level of dedication necessary to do something like climb Everest speaks to his strength of will.)
That said, you ask “Why do you care? What if he smokes pot everyday?”
While I strongly desire an end to the drug war for multiple reasons – and I don’t care if Johnson smoked pot last night – I do NOT want any President smoking in the White House. For that matter, I don’t want them drinking. As Johnson himself said, “Marijuana is a handicap. So is alcohol.” As far as I’m concerned, a sitting President should be considered “on call” at ALL times, and therefore not impaired in any way when he/she needs to make the big decisions.
“Marijuana is a non-issue.”
But you’re wrong. It’s an important issue. To some, its a civil-liberties issue, to some it’s a criminal issue… Either way, it’s fair game for debate, and I appreciate that while T disagrees with me he was willing to allow this discussion here.
But just like the dirty tie-dyed “activists” are never going to convince straight-laced folk that legalization is a positive move, attacking those who have sincere concerns will never promote the kind of discussion we want.
Well, you’re right that we’ve had this discussion. We did what the libs can’t manage and kind of agreed to disagree, if I recall… Still, I feel strongly, and I hope you don’t mind a little spirited debate about this particular candidate.
“If this were purely a money issue combined with measuring the social mores and beliefs of a community, I’d say leave the whole damn thing to state and local governments and let them sort it out.”
But you see, I believe that’s exactly the case. You said yourself you don’t consider marijuana any more immoral than alcohol. And even if it is “immoral”, since when do we want the federal government to make determinations of morality?
You point to the porous borders as part of the reason the drug war is a failure… but I posit that the existence of a black market for drugs causes many of our border problems. (This is also Johnson’s take.)
“As to the taxing it side of the debate, it would also fly counter to everything I believe in. Making it legal, just so we can tax it….?”
Not as a sin tax. I get you there. But we tax everything else that isn’t food. Why not marijuana?
You mention Johnson’s use of pot for pain… About 10 years ago I broke my foot. The doctor put me on Oxycontins. (I know. This is anecdotal. But I have a point.) I couldn’t take them – I literally was too stoned to function. And they’re murderously addictive. To my mind, marijuana is a much more acceptable alternative.
I’m also troubled that you refer to his “pot addiction”. Marijuana isn’t physically addictive. (We could get into the argument that it’s psychologically addictive, but that could cover anything. Scientists have demonstrated dopamine receptors lighting up in the brains of obese people from eating. I know conservatives will never support an enforced government eating program to stop the gluttons. Your own reference to Michelle backs that up. Psychological addiction also brings up sex addicts, Facebook addicts and all manner of other nonsense we don’t legislate or criminalize.)
But if your concern is that his past (or current, I don’t care either way) use has damaged his thought processes, there’s medical evidence against such a notion. http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/a/blucsd030628.htm
“Not only does it set a bad example for America’s Youth (athletes are not role models but Presidents are)…”
We’ve had Presidents who drink. (Have we had one that didn’t?) I’m not saying that’s acceptable – I’m saying there are certain things that it’s OK to say are for the grownups. If a child you love pointed to a beer and asked for one, you wouldn’t demand the store take Miller off the shelves.
Besides, “Think of the children!” is the libs’ thing, right?
I appreciate your input. Much of what you laid out is what I expected to see in response to Johnson, although I’m not giving up yet. I’ve got a year to bring you around…
Sorry I couldn’t get back here sooner Scratch. Of course I don’t mind a little debate; on this or anything for that matter.
A couple things to clear up; up front. First. I probably should have been more clear about a few things. First off. Just because I say that I don’t believe something is more or less “immoral” than alcohol should not be construed to mean that I think it is “okay.” As I said, I believe in moderation. In the bigger picture of things, especially regarding social issues, I prefer to turn to my own guiding principles rather than simply calling upon “morality” in a general sense. I believe things like social graces, manners, “family values”, local culture, etc. are all components of a greater value structure. They are what guide me daily; not the big picture label of those things a purely religious take would deem as virtuous; or moral. And I believe it is also those things that can and were intended to have a place at the state and local level when our Great Nation was founded.
With that as the backdrop. I do believe what we are really talking about here is pot. I see nowhere in your response a defense of more serious drugs. So lets just be open about it. We’re talking about pot. So is pot “worse” than alcohol? In my humble opinion; absolutely. Why? Because I say so, of course. Obviously just kidding there. Well maybe. I do believe that we as American citizens and as citizens of our respective states have the right to determine for ourselves what we deem to be socially acceptable. Does that have its limitations? Without question it does. It only goes as far as it can without infringing upon another citizen’s Rights. My question, what Right have we infringed upon by saying pot should remain illegal?
As to the border issue. I think you’re making a chicken and egg argument here that doesn’t really work for me. You say there’s a black market because their free trade is prohibited. I say the existence of that black market is a reflection of the potential dangers drugs present. What is the reason for the black market – and I don’t mean access to drugs. I mean why do people need access to these drugs? For “medicinal purposes?” For recreation? Or is there some greater Right or greater value at stake that I’m missing here?
I believe that a “black market” reflects the fact that people will do next to anything to get their hands on drugs and they begin by breaking the law. As someone who spent a substantial portion of my young adult life working with troubled children and young people who had problems, or came from families with problems related to drug use, I shudder at the thought of anyone defending the illegal drug trade as if there is some higher (pardon the wc) end. What is it?
I know that there are probably countless people out there than can give anecdotal evidence of their own drug use and use that to bolster an argument that pot does not contribute to crime. I’ve heard it. I even believe it as it relates to those people. They may be able to live perfectly normal lives using it. That does not however mean that the same is true for everyone that comes in contact with it. For the rest of those affected, it leads to something deeper; and something that has very real consequences not just for the person using, but also for everyone that touches that person’s life.
And no, making it legal does not alleviate the problems related to it. Even if pot or other drugs were “legal”; they’d still be expensive. The Left would want to tax them for one reason and the religious Right would want to tax them for another; and then they’d be even more expensive. And then people would be right back to committing the same crimes just to get cash to buy them. The only difference would be buying them “legally” rather than illegally. The crimes that generate the cash aren’t going anywhere just because its legal.
On the tax issue. ” But we tax everything else that isn’t food. Why not marijuana?” – I think you know how I probably feel about that statement.
You raise the pain treatment issue as it relates to Johnson and to your own case. I certainly understand your point there too. I concede that pot is probably a very good substitute for other drugs. I’ve been prescribed some pretty heavy stuff over the years too for pain and throw them in the trash for the same reason. The side effects are just too substantial. I am not arguing against that point though. What I’m saying here is that there’s a big difference between a doctor prescribing a “medication” and legalizing marijuana. I think the problem that most have with the issue in a general sense is that it seems like an all or nothing. If pot is so medically superior, and the underground drug trade is such a noble coalition, why haven’t they been successful in getting it to pharmacists? Why are they still framing the debate in terms of legalizing the drug as if its alcohol? Again, is this about medicine or is it really just about recreational drug use?
As to the “addiction” question… regarding Gary Johnson specifically because I was the one that brought that up. I’m not a doctor. You seem very knowledgeable of the side effects. Again, I am not. But this is what I do know.
Pot is illegal. He continued to use it. It may not have been an addiction that compelled him to continue using it. It may have simply been a need or a “better” alternative to prescribed medication. Either way it still compelled him to commit a crime. At the end of the day, I’d prefer that it was an addiction rather than a simple choice to repeatedly break the law.
On the role model issue. Again. Its my opinion based on my own set of guiding principles here. I do not see pot use in the same light as drinking. One is illegal and one is not. Period. I can tell a child that grown-ups drink beer or scotch (once they turn 21 and its legal). What do I tell them about pot? Grownups smoke pot. People like T Christopher have just been getting it wrong all these years and it really should be legal, so its cool. Oh and btw… don’t break the law….?? Its not legal? Its a crime to smoke pot. Its just not the same as drinking because one is legal and the other is not. Someday that may change, but until it does, I’d like my President’s pot smoking days to be behind him.
And the “think of the children” thing being the “thing” of the Libs? They may use it. They may love it. That said, I said at the outset that my position on drugs was driven by my own personal principled guidepost. So this is very much my thing; on this issue. I do not want my children growing up in a country where the most visible public figure is a pot smoker. Period.
And until SOMEONE tells me what Right it is that I am violating or infringing upon by having such a hoity-toity expectation, I’m not going to feel bad about it.
But again; as to Johnson. I legitimately measure political candidates on a sliding scale. I take their politics and measure them against the man (or woman) and see where the two intersect. If Johnson were to prove himself to be the perfect conservative in every other respect, I can admit that he could someday have my vote. I’m not so close minded as to assume that this is a deal breaker. I can’t speak for other conservatives because like I said, my criticism of him would be intentionally and admittedly individual in nature. If they are guided by a different set of principles, they may be driven to a different conclusion on Mr. Johnson.
And since we’re on the subject of public figures openly admitting prior drug use… I have a question regarding Gary Johnson’s admissions. It seems to me that said public figures come out of the “closet” about their past transgressions for one of four reasons.
1. To publicly admit past transgressions as part of putting the behavior behind them.
2. Because they did it so openly or publicly that they know someone will bring it up.
3. If they’re a Lefty-hippie and they think it will endear them to their base
4. They see the drug use as defensible and endeavor to make it legal.
Which one is describes Gary Johnson? Or is there a fifth that I’m missing?
—-
Thanks again Scratch.
I know I haven’t surprised you with much, if any of this, but it is what it is I suppose. And yes, you are right. You have a year and I guess so does Gary Johnson.
I’m very sorry.. was away most of the day…
Yes, we’re talking about pot. So’s Johnson. I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear. Johnson does not advocate legalizing other drugs. (Although he does advocate – and I agree wholeheartedly – that addiction should be treated as a medical issue and not a criminal one.)
Also, to the best of my knowledge, when Johnson used medical marijuana he was not breaking his state’s law. When he crashed, he broke a vertebrae, some ribs, and pretty much exploded both knees. (I remember reading about bone fragments they had to remove from his legs…) Anyway, NM passed a medmar law in 2007. I believe he was using it for pain (after struggling with the effects of stronger prescriptions) in 2008. Does it alter your opinion if he was within the state law if not the federal?
“What do I tell them about pot? Grownups smoke pot. People like T Christopher have just been getting it wrong all these years and it really should be legal, so its cool.”
We’ve changed laws before. Should the blacks have remained as property, only because the law was already on the books? How about telling women not to vote, because it was once illegal? You tell them (this hypothetical child) that in a country as great as this we reevaluate occasionally to make sure we’re on the right track. ObamaCare is the law. Shall we keep it? I think not. So why can we not take another look at other laws?
I understand why you might be inclined to view him as weak. I don’t agree, but I think I’m following you. But please… PLEASE… have a look at that 2001 Reason interview I linked. He answers some of your questions more eloquently than I could, and I don’t think you’ll see weakness.
OK, so I went back and read the 2001 Reason piece. Sounds to me that in 2001 he was somewhere on my list of 4 reasons public figures admit to smoking pot. I can pinpoint just one. He seems to be using a hybrid. I did find the fact that he called his construction company Big J Construction hilarious. J for Johnson or J for Joint – either way it comes off like a stoner joke.
But in the end, I’m still come back to a more recent interview I linked in the Harold and Kumar piece where he said this…
Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor and a likely 2012 Republican presidential candidate, hasn’t been shy about his support for marijuana legalization or his personal use of the drug during his younger days. “I never exhaled,” he joked in a recent interview with The New Republic. But in an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Johnson admitted publicly for the first time that he smoked marijuana more recently—from 2005 to 2008—for medicinal purposes, he says.
“It’s not anything I volunteer, but you’re the only person that actually asked about it,” says Johnson, who governed New Mexico from 1994 to 2002. “But for luck, I guess, I wasn’t arrested.” Although smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes was illegal in New Mexico until 2007, Johnson says he needed the drug following a 2005 paragliding accident in Hawaii. His sails got caught in a tree, he stalled—and fell about fifty feet straight down to the ground, he says. Johnson suffered multiple bone fractures, including a burst fracture to his T12 vertebrae. “In my human experience, it’s the worst pain I’ve ever felt.”
So no. It wasn’t “legal”, so the point is moot.
As to this point…
“We’ve changed laws before. Should the blacks have remained as property, only because the law was already on the books? How about telling women not to vote, because it was once illegal? You tell them (this hypothetical child) that in a country as great as this we reevaluate occasionally to make sure we’re on the right track.”
You hit me for the “what about the children” line… this is straight out of the Lefty playbook. First off. What you’re talking about here are two “laws that were changed” to reflect a cornerstone American principle – That All Men are Created Equal. I hardly think pot smoking rises to the level of either case.
Again, what individual Right is being violated by marijuana prohibition – Constitutional or otherwise?
But as to this part…
“You tell them (this hypothetical child) that in a country as great as this we reevaluate occasionally to make sure we’re on the right track. ObamaCare is the law. Shall we keep it? I think not. So why can we not take another look at other laws?”
We re-evaluate laws; not Fundamental Constitutional Rights. Obamacare is a law created by Congress that in my opinion, and now in several courts opinions, violates the US Constitution – in toto or at least in terms of the Individual Mandate. And in a general sense, I’ll take a prohibition any day over an edict from the government that says I must do something or must buy something.
But to the point I was making when I used the ‘what kind of example would this set for our children” argument… it was illegal. He was doing it. We’re not talking about explaining a political talking point or clarifying his position on legalization. We are talking about him committing a crime, recently. If drugs were in his past and he was only seeking to be an advocate for their legalization, I would have no problem going through the process of explaining the matter, but you have to understand how his position comes off as self-serving here.
Look, here’s my real take on Johnson’s candidacy. There are two camps out there right now on this guy and I’m not sure which one I fall in, but I know it’s not in the third – which would be his supporters. 1) The Libertarian crowd who eats this up – not because they like pot, want it to be legalized or any of that, but because they like his take on a smaller less encroaching government. 2) the people that think his whole campaign for president is merely an attempt to legalize pot.
Like I said, I’m not sure where I fall. I think he either A) is using the pot thing to shamelessly garner attention, get his name out there, and find a following – most likely among the Libertarian crowd; or B) Pot really is his “Big J” issue and he’s just wasting a lot of people’s time trying to make them think he’s serious about running for president. If it’s the latter, I say go back to the non-profit world and lobby your ass off, but go away with great haste.
As I told you before, I am always willing to keep an open mind about candidates; especially this far from primary season. That said, I liked him far more two days ago than I do now, so I do believe he is moving in the wrong direction.
“So no. It wasn’t “legal””
You’re right. I somehow missed the 2005- part. I thought he started in 2008, so you just shot that argument right out from under me.
“What you’re talking about here are two “laws that were changed” to reflect a cornerstone American principle”
Then what about repealing alcohol prohibition? What constitutional principle was applied in allowing us to drink? (I would argue both fall under the description “pursuit of happiness”.)
I guess of the Johnson fans you describe, I’m in the first camp. This isn’t a make-or-break issue for me, but I like that he wants to at least talk about it, which is more than many are willing to do. Then again, I don’t want the government in any way telling me or other adults what to do with my own body. (Bear in mind, when I consider him as a candidate I’m also thinking of the others who are either planning to run or toying with us. None of them can say they’ve made the decisions and cuts he has, slowed government growth, or equaled his other accomplishments, which I find impressive.)
“I liked him far more two days ago than I do now, so I do believe he is moving in the wrong direction.”
Ouch.
“Then what about repealing alcohol prohibition? What constitutional principle was applied in allowing us to drink? (I would argue both fall under the description “pursuit of happiness”.)” – I like your angle there, but still not taking the bait. Not about to make the argument for you. I’m not defending the repeal of prohibition. I was simply referring to the two “laws that changed” that you referred to.
As to the candidates, I am completely with you that the pool is rather empty. I can’t say that I’d vote for any of them at this point. I am optimistic that someone will emerge, but if primary voting was upon us now, I think I might have a panic attack trying to choose from the lesser of a host of evils.
I’ll give a proper response in a few… meantime I wanted to share something I tripped across while surfing through lunch…
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/apr/22/oklahoma_senate_passes_life_sent
I don’t believe for one minute the founding fathers envisioned life-sentences for non-violent offenders. THIS is the ever-escalating drug war.
He is definitely most serious about running for the Presidency and to say he is determined in his goals is an understatement. Remember, he has only run two elections in his life and won them both with 10%+ margin (in a Democrat state!).
“For Johnson, the charismatic Governor who has biked four times across New Mexico, done a backflip off a ski jump at a Winter Olympics training facility and run 25 miles in combat boots to commemorate the Bataan Death March, competing in the Ironman is just another day at the office.” (NY Times)
He did state in a Reason interview that he stopped smoking marijuana when he realized it was affecting his ski run times. As for use after an accident–he is an extraordinary athlete and well aware of his physical conditioning–perhaps he preferred it to toxic pills. Above you state that you have never known a pot head who has contributed anything. If you think he’s one, how does that conform with his feats and accomplishments?
Some of those highlights include starting a handyman company in college which became a 1,000 person successful construction business. I have seen little written about this company. Its current website (at bigjllc.com) reads:
“You won’t find us putting plumbing into the motel being built down the street. We’re focused on manufacturing, the more technically challenging the better, and we’re here for the long term to keep your plant running to forecast, continuously improving, evolving with new technologies.”
I had the opportunity to meet Governor Johnson and I asked him what his big projects were while he ran & owned Big J, and he said his first big break was building the factory for manufacturing Intel’s 80286 processor (!). This is quite incredible, as I place Johnson in his 20s while this occurred… Perhaps a journalist could follow up on this and find out more (and confirm my understanding). Needless to say, he has some serious know-how when it comes to managing complex projects.
So after building some factories as a young entrepreneur, he went on to introduce himself to the Republican party a couple weeks before the Governorship primaries. Without their blessing, he went on to win the primary. The incumbent Democratic Governor set the debate rules–there were two debates. Governor Johnson went on to win the election. As the incumbent Governor Johnson got to set the debate rules. There were twenty-eight debates, leading to victory with an even larger vote margin (in a state with 2-1 Democrat registrations, I repeat).
As Governor as each bill came to the state he evaluated it against a set of criteria to assure it was necessary, fair, and passed his cost/benefit analysis. Since the war on drugs failed this analysis after watching it from the Governor’s seat, he called for an end or at least the start of a re-evaluation. This issue is in some ways his signature issue, but also a burden since the media makes it sound like it is his only issue.
He pushed hard for school vouchers in the 1990s, which was politically obscure at the time. He increased the education budget $500 million while he was Governor–as far as I can tell one of the few things that actually increased. He was dissatisfied with the return, and pushed for vouchers as a solution to the education quagmire.
He has also subjected the other four wars to a cost/benefit analysis and he finds building bridges in Kabul doesn’t lead to a stable Albuquerque. The debt is far more dangerous!
For once, can we have a genius President?
Jeff. I appreciate the comment and for the additional background on the candidate. A few pieces there I haven’t seen before. Certainly worth a deeper look.
As to his athletic achievements as evidence of anything that even remotely relates to his abilities to serve as President… I am still totally lost as to why it keeps coming up. Tell me again why it matters? It seems like this conversation keeps getting stuck on non-issues and disputes over the tangential finer points and I can’t help but assume it keeps arising out of an attempt to change the conversation away from the fact that smoking pot is illegal.
If this conversation is going to go anywhere, it is going to have to turn on something more substantial than his athletic talents and/or accomplishments. I shudder to think how many of those making that argument would react if a lib/dem made an athletic career as evidence of qualifications for public office. It’s just laughable.
Again, I appreciate the comment and the non-athletics-related Johnson information. I will explore the matter more as his candidacy develops. I am sorry for getting peeved with the sports business here, I just think my head’s gonna explode from reading two comments in a row with a reference to it.
Again, I think his athletic accomplishments speak to his dedication and strength of will. Beyond that, I agree with you, T. It doesn’t qualify him for the office.
For MYSELF, the most important thing about Johnson isn’t mountaineering, athletics, or even the marijuana. I support Gary Johnson as a candidate because he’s the only candidate who has 100% put his money where his mouth is and actually done what I want the President to do:
I want smaller government. Johnson CUT the size of government and slowed it’s future growth. I want to see lower taxes. Johnson CUT taxes repeatedly, and NEVER raised them. I want government to live within its means. Johnson not only balanced NMs budget, he left them with a surplus. I want school choice. Johnson fought every step for school choice, AND wants to do away with the Department of Education that causes so many of the problems.
The fact is, I’d be a huge fan even if he didn’t advocate an end to the drug war (which I consider an affront to personal liberty and too expensive by half). The fact that he shares my feelings on that subject is just gravy.
Johnson just announced:
“This Thursday, May 5, I will take part in the First-in-the-South Republican Presidential Debate. Fox News will televise the debate live at 9 PM ET from Greenville, SC. Immediately following the debate, I will be a guest on Sean Hannity’s show. I hope you’ll make time to tune in.”
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/first-in-the-south-republican-presidential-debate
Probably a good thing too… Despite a Republican not having a chance in hell of winning the nomination without SC, the Gov Nikki Haley has had some pretty harsh words for those not planning to attend.
I’m glad your guy’s gonna make the trek, but I do believe this debate will be the coming out party for Herman Cain. File it away. Write it down if you must. Herman Cain May 5 – Hello America!!
Oh, I also like Cain. A LOT. He’s about the only other candidate that interests me.
Heck, run ‘em together. I, for one, would be a very happy camper!
I bet you would. I’ll give you 1000-1 odds that’s not the ticket. Unless of course, the question is – what is the “least likely ticket for 2012.” Then you’re a shoe-in.
Heh. Dream killer.
[...] This one’s from Scratcher – our resident Libertarian and Gary Johnson supporter… Be sure to check out the comment feed on this one where we “debate” the man, the candidacy, and the cause… [...]
[...] I am not a “Johnson supporter“, for what it’s worth; I do think he’s been dealt a bit of an uneven hand for [...]
[...] back to the race Governor Johnson. Without Scratcher writing the obligatory “take another look at Gary Johnson” post, I think I was beginning to forget you were even still in this thing. But kudos to [...]