The argument for Gary Johnson ...

Post Reply New Topic

His Positions:

-Johnson supports free trade deals. Clinton and Trump say they are against free trade deals (Clinton is latecomer who is now appealing to Sanders' voters)

- Johnson wants to end the Patriot Act (Clinton and Trump do not).

- Johnson is calling out Obamacare as "unconstitutional". (Clinton wants to expand it, Trump has said: "I like the mandate").

- Johnson is rated 'progressive' on LGBT issues.

- Johnson wants to do something about the debt. I doubt Clinton or Trump even care.

- Johnson wants to cut taxes. Both Clinton and Trump "plans" and likely just lip service.

- Johnson opposes gov. bailouts.

Johnson supports freedom and open competition. For example, in New Mexico, he gave every student $3500 to pick out the school of their choice.

After writing this, I find it sad that we will end up with a Clinton or Trump.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Stem cell research, though, could be useful (although he doesn't argue for a ban at least -_-)... http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm is also an interesting candidate...

Jim Hedges, candidate of the Prohibition Party
His positions:
Moving toward further restrictions on harmful substances, especially alcohol
Retooling the war on drugs to focus more on targeting the producers and distributors, while turning toward the rehabilitation of users
Taking steps to move toward having the availability of full publically funded state and non-profit private colleges, similar to how primary and secondary school is supported.
Moving toward establishing universal healthcare.
Protecting the environment and moving toward more efficient and sustainable use of natural resources.
Support of fair trade
Abolishing the federal reserve and establishing a state run national bank to undertake its functions
preserving Social Security and returning it to being financially sound.
Reestablishing border security and providing a path to legal status for current illegal immigrants.
Moving toward national energy independence through supporting the growth of non-fossil fuel energy.
http://www.hedgesandbayes2016.org/

Because that worked out so well before?

Yes, it did. Prohibition was the most effective policy for reducing alcohol use and alcohol induced crime which the country ever implemented. Although estimates very widely (ranging from 20% to 91% reduction, and a common middle of about 50%), it widely accepted that alcohol use was significantly reduced. Likewise crime in general decreased significantly. The largest decease being in crimes that tended to tied with a state of intoxication. While alcohol smuggling did increase somewhat, it was only a fraction of alcohol production when it was legal.
One good account of this would be the book Temperance Facts, by W.G. Calderwood.

believes in open borders, NAFTA/TPP, his VP Bill Weld is your typical statist liberal northeastern Republican, want SCOTUS nominees like Stehen Breyer and Merrick Garland

if you're a member of the 1% then perhaps they would be good candidates otherwise you may as well vote for Hillary

fwiw if you want to throw your vote away then the Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle is a much better libertarian in the mold of Ron Paul than Gary Johnson or definitely Bill Weld

didn't it lead to a deterioration of ethics/respect for the law, as well as creating another opening for organized crime big enough to drive a fleet of beertrucks though? it may have nominally "solved" one problem but created several others in the process.

prohibition creates black markets which creates organized crime

this is true with alcohol as well as it is marijuana and real hard drugs as well

all drugs should be legal and regulated, it would be much safer and actually make it harder for kids to get it than it would be otherwise since it would put these thugs and street dealers out of business.

That is actually a myth. Prohibition did not lead to a deterioration of ethics or deterioration of respect for the law. That myth was perpetuated by wet propaganda and later the media.
Organized crime did not get the kind of significant increase it was portrayed as having. Organized crime was significant in American cities decades before prohibition ever happened. Their biggest surge actually happened in the decade before prohibition. Violent crime and murder was on the rise in the 1910's. After prohibition was enacted, the 1920's saw an overall decrease in violent crime and the murder rate stagnated. Even at the height of alcohol smuggling, it was just one of many sources of revenue. After prohibition ended, organized returned to growing and groups like the mob found even more lucrative ventures in other things.

Organized crime existed long before prohibition and continued long after.
Legalizing drugs would not put organized crime of out of business, it would instead make it government sanctioned. It would allow these people to produce and distribute their poison with little, if any fear, of repercussions. These people could freely promote their drugs and lobby the government to support their industry. Politicians would be encouraged to reduce restrictions and even promote these substances, in the name of encouraging economic growth. Such as how Governor Cuomo and the New York state legislature recently loosen state alcohol regulation to promote its expansion.

Furthermore, prohibition significantly reduced alcohol use, it significantly reduced crime overall, it helped contribute to economic prosperity in the 1920's, it helped expand educational opportunities for many young people, it helped numerous people recover from alcoholism and return to being productive citizens, and helped save countless lives. This it accomplished in its short thirteen year span.

Meanwhile, on the marijuana issue, what has legalization given Colorado. A significant increase in children being sent to the hospital for accidently ingesting marijuana, increased dui caused vehicle accidents, increased marijuana use in minors, and numerous other problems.
Furthermore, it is not entirely fair to compare the prohibition of alcohol with the war on drugs. the two policies used significantly different tactics. The prohibition of alcohol did not imprison people from possessing or using alcohol, but only banned the production, sale, and distribution of it.

How would you know any of this? Fewer admit to using alcohol after it was banned, that's kind of just common sense. One)the access is restricted and two)you're incriminating yourself! What does it matter if organized crime existed before prohibition? Who claims there was no organized crime before? It is a fact that prohibition empowers criminals, be it Chicago gangsters like Al Capone or the other modern kind of Chicago gangsta. It's generates billions in revenue, where do you think this money goes? A lot of the drugs trafficked into this country is done with a wink and not from the alphabet soup agencies, we know this is true as confirmed during Iran-Contra scandal.

To regulate drugs would make them safer, more people use drugs now than before the War on Drugs. It has been a complete and utter failure in all measures.