Gary Johnson for President 2012

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Gary Johnson is a fiscal conservative and social liberal who advocates ending the War on Drugs. He is an accomplished businessman, triathlete and two term Republican governor of New Mexico. I loved having him as governor when I was a New Mexico resident. If you want to know more, he has an interview in the April issue of Reason magazine.

Jim

[dan2100]

Gary Johnson is a fiscal conservative and social liberal who advocates ending the War on Drugs. He is an accomplished businessman, triathlete and two term Republican governor of New Mexico. I loved having him as governor when I was a New Mexico resident. If you want to know more, he has an interview in the April issue of Reason magazine.

Jim

Here's the position I believe he endorses on the War on Drugs:

http://ouramericainitiative.com/issues/drugs.html

I disagree with this position in its justification. Re-legalizing marijuana (and all other currently illegal drugs) should not be a matter of whether the War on Drugs is failing or having unintended consequences. That's sort of like advocating freedom of speech because censorship has proven too expensive or unworkable at this time. I can just see would be censorship advocates saying, "If only we could make censorship work! But, alas! we must let people read, hear, or watch what they want." In other words, the position surrenders the principle -- that of the individual to choose to peacefully use whatever drugs she or he wants to without the government (or anyone else) coercively interfering -- on the alter of pragmatism.

By the way, the Reason interview is online at:

http://reason.com/archives/2001/01/01/americas-most-dangerous-politi

His particular statements on his use of marijuana are interesting -- interesting in that he seems to think that recreational use in and of itself must be measured against lost productivity. What if I like to sit and stare out at the trees in the distance? Yeah, I could be riding a bike, practicing piano, or reading a book. Why should those options matter to me if I want to sit and stare out at the trees at this particular time? The same logic can be applied to smoking pot or any other peaceful activity Johnson doesn't approve of.

I don't want to sound too harsh on Johnson here, but some of his reasoning here sounds dubious to me.

[anthony]

Yes, well argued, Dan. It shows what we're up against (wherever we live) today, that a politico can do the right thing, for the wrong reason, and we gratefully accept it.

Practically effective action, minus principles, will always amount to pragmatism - as you say.

Which means that it can just as easily change to something else tomorrow.

Tony

[dan2100]

Yes, well argued, Dan. It shows what we're up against (wherever we live) today, that a politico can do the right thing, for the wrong reason, and we gratefully accept it.

Practically effective action, minus principles, will always amount to pragmatism - as you say.

Which means that it can just as easily change to something else tomorrow.

Tony

Thanks and you're right. I think that those who really want to change this, though, can do so. It just takes making the right arguments and keeping up the drum beat, especially on the issue of drugs. Of course, this involves more changing the culture than getting someone who promises to barely legalize pot into office.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Yes, well argued, Dan. It shows what we're up against (wherever we live) today, that a politico can do the right thing, for the wrong reason, and we gratefully accept it.

Practically effective action, minus principles, will always amount to pragmatism - as you say.

Which means that it can just as easily change to something else tomorrow.

Tony

Thanks and you're right. I think that those who really want to change this, though, can do so. It just takes making the right arguments and keeping up the drum beat, especially on the issue of drugs. Of course, this involves more changing the culture than getting someone who promises to barely legalize pot into office.

I think it's possible to be principled and make principled arguments and support the occasional politician who has a chance to make some substantive policy changes. Johnson is pragmatic, but he made a measurable difference in New Mexico while he was governor and in a state that is nearly 2 to 1 Democrat with a large independent vote.

Jim

[anthony]

Yes, well argued, Dan. It shows what we're up against (wherever we live) today, that a politico can do the right thing, for the wrong reason, and we gratefully accept it.

Practically effective action, minus principles, will always amount to pragmatism - as you say.

Which means that it can just as easily change to something else tomorrow.

Tony

Thanks and you're right. I think that those who really want to change this, though, can do so. It just takes making the right arguments and keeping up the drum beat, especially on the issue of drugs. Of course, this involves more changing the culture than getting someone who promises to barely legalize pot into office.

I think it's possible to be principled and make principled arguments and support the occasional politician who has a chance to make some substantive policy changes. Johnson is pragmatic, but he made a measurable difference in New Mexico while he was governor and in a state that is nearly 2 to 1 Democrat with a large independent vote.

Jim

No direct criticism of your candidate intended, Jim

Tony

[dan2100]

Yes, well argued, Dan. It shows what we're up against (wherever we live) today, that a politico can do the right thing, for the wrong reason, and we gratefully accept it.

Practically effective action, minus principles, will always amount to pragmatism - as you say.

Which means that it can just as easily change to something else tomorrow.

Tony

Thanks and you're right. I think that those who really want to change this, though, can do so. It just takes making the right arguments and keeping up the drum beat, especially on the issue of drugs. Of course, this involves more changing the culture than getting someone who promises to barely legalize pot into office.

I think it's possible to be principled and make principled arguments and support the occasional politician who has a chance to make some substantive policy changes. Johnson is pragmatic, but he made a measurable difference in New Mexico while he was governor and in a state that is nearly 2 to 1 Democrat with a large independent vote.

Jim

Well, I hope that's the outcome -- "substantive policy changes" in the direction of freedom. My fear is that without changing the premise, the policy will merely flip back and forth. But you supporting that candidate doesn't mean you can't still make the principled case for legalizing pot and all other currently illegal drugs.

[Jonathan]

Isn't he the guy from Team America?

[studiodekadent]

I agree that Gary Johnson's position on drugs is suboptimal. He glosses over the core issue (self-ownership) and takes a Utilitarian case.

But lets be honest; what would people politically think if you said "I don't think doing drugs is intrinsically wrong"?

Johnson is a politician. To get elected he has to frame arguments in ways that don't offend people's core values. Unlike the Fusionists, he's at least pushing a moderate libertarian political program, in spite of the fact he sometimes uses conservative-ish arguments to justify it (the Fusionists didn't even push a moderate libertarian political program).