The Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative

Huuummmm. This might end up as a duplicate response to Mike's
comments; my first response seems to have been lost in the ether.
But, no matter, here it goes again.

Mike, excellent arguments, as always. I agree with you 100% that our
view of the LP (life?) depends on where we stand. However, I am not
convinced that the liberal/conservative dichotomy is significant,
when we can all work towards a libertarian ideal no matter what our

I was at the last ASA rally handing out literature on drug
decriminalization. I wrote a diatribe against the perilous "Sex
Trafficking Act" in the June GG Libertarian. Yet, like Chicken
Little, I have been urging the LPSF to guard against a single focus
on sex and drugs. Maybe life is not so black and white?


My e-mail has been down all week, and is still a little squirrely,


I'm just now catching up. Starchild's proposed empirical solution


this dispute is surely the best, but there's a theoretical point to
be made toward resolution, too. Marcy is quite right that many
people perceive the LP as the party of sex and drugs. They're


conservatives. When they look at the platform, they see nothing
remarkable about our stands on economic issues or self-defense;
they're just common sense. Our stands on sex and drugs, however,


glaringly outrageous. Starchild is also right that many people
perceive us as the party of gold and guns. They're called liberals
(though they now call themselves progressives). When they look at
our platform, the sex and drug planks are unremarkable, just common
sense; what is glaringly outrageous are the stands on welfare and
taxes and guns. Most of us also associate mostly with people who
largely share our views, so it's not surprising that to Marcy it
looks as though most people perceive us as the party of sex and
drugs. But with respect to San Francisco, I think Starchild is
unquestionably right that the population is overwhelmingly


And for that reason I agree with him that local efforts should be
targeting the sex and drugs issues as much as possible. I would go
further: Because the Party leadership has always been


from the right, that is the dominant perception, not just in San
Francisco, but nationally. Think of how often you hear


mistakenly described as conservative or right-wing, and how often


hear them mistakenly described as liberal or left-wing. That
undoubtedly has something to do also with the fact that mainstream
_media_ people are overwhelmingly liberal; but they are also still
the principal source of information for most people. Quite apart
from the media role: Look at the proportion of pamphlets available
from the national office which address gold-and-guns issues vs. sex-
and-drugs. It hovers around 100%. There's one drug pamphlet which
goes in and out of print; there hasn't been a pamphlet on sexual
issues since Ralph Raico's magnificent gay rights brochure in


And it's not as though they haven't been asked for one, repeatedly.

I should perhaps note that it's a separate question whether the
economic or civil liberties issues are more important for the


of our society. I'm inclined to think the issue of overriding
importance is foreign policy, and peace is a "left" position; but
it's also not a local issue, except for resolutions, which is where
this thread started. Given that San Francisco is already better


most places on the left issues, it would be easy to argue that the
money issues are more important. But strategically, there's the
issue of achieving credibility. I don't think we (at the local or
national level) have done nearly as much as we might to demonstrate
the "real" implications of leftist values for economic issues,


I think Mary Ruwart, among others, is showing the way. We'd have a
hard time finding a better Presidential candidate, in fact.

--- In, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>


> Marcy,
> I am quite certain that your perception about us having an
image in
> San Francisco as the "sex and drugs" party is incorrect. However
> seem firmly convinced of it, and I am hard pressed to think of a
> of persuading you otherwise via our dialogue here.
> Therefore I propose that you and I do an outreach table
together at a
> relatively neutral location (e.g. the Safeway you and Morey


at a
> few weeks ago), and survey people who claim some familiarity with
> LP on whether they see us as more of a conservative-oriented


> more of a sex-and-drugs oriented party. I am willing to bet you


> any reasonable amount you choose) that more people will have the
> impression than the latter, with the loser of the bet donating


> money to the party and agreeing to seek an LPSF initiative of the
> favored by the other.
> What do you say?
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
> > Starchild,
> >
> > I will address your last point first: Perhaps an anti-tax
> > is just what we need to balance out the image I perceive we
> > have as the sex and drugs party.
> >
> > Your comment about anti-tax measures appealing to the


> > wing of the LP is contradicted by, for example, your excellent
> > arguments which noted that money going to point "X" would


> > from going to point "Z", and point "Z" might constitute a more
> > socially beneficial target. In my opinion, how an position is
> > will determine to whom it appeals.
> >
> > In spite of your good arguments, I remain opposed to symbolic
> > initiatives. Wasting taxpayers' money not only on paper and


> > also, in so many cases, on attorneys' fees to defend an


> > position is more than I can handle! I say, go for the jugular,
> > change and enforce the law.
> >
> > We have voted to pursue the anti-tax initiative. And I am
> > committed to urge the Initiative Committee to frame our