Gary Johnson has now participated in one debate with other candidates seeking the Libertarian nomination, and has made plans to appear in others. Johnson has received the endorsement of several state and county LP organizations, which has not been a common practice in the LP in the past. Johnson has been included in several polls of hypothetical general election matchups. He has issued several press releases/op-eds, many of them on civil liberties issues such as ending the USAPATRIOT act, supporting gay marriage rights and legalizing marijuana. He has criticized leading Democratic and Republican contenders on these issues, and in a number of interviews on MSNBC, CNN, Fox, and other media outlets has suggested he could draw as many or more votes away from the Democrats as from the Republicans. Johnson spoke at a recent conference of the ACLU. He has also been holding a series of video/chat townhalls through his website with LP leaders; the next one will be tomorrow. Johnson has had several op-eds, interviews and articles in outlets such as Huffington Post, Washington Times, the Daily Caller, Reason Magazine, and so on, and has been doing local radio interviews around the country. Johnson also responded to the State of the Union, as did Lee Wrights and RJ Harris. Johnson has the most detailed spending plan of these candidates, calling for a 43% cut, and continues to make his case for the national sales tax plan known by its proponents as the FairTax, which has drawn criticism from Lee Wrights among others.

RJ Harris has been keeping his blog updated, has attended several state conventions and debates, has made plans for others, and has some newspaper articles. He has helped with Oklahoma ballot access. Along with Carl Person, Harris has reorganized his campaign under new management and both of these candidates as well as Bill Still have updated the design of their websites. Harris was involved in a car accident while on his way to a Constitution class at the Oklahoma Capitol taught by 2004 Libertarian presidential nominee Michael Badnarik which he helped arrange. Badnarik is now trying to teach such classes at state capitols around the country. Harris was not seriously injured, but had some car damage.

Lee Wrights has also continued, and plans to continue participating in state conventions and debates and writing regular articles/op-eds. He has also issued his first TV spot, which can also be used by other candidates, and was included in an Al Jazeera article along with several candidates of other parties.

Johnson, Harris and Wrights, out of the candidates who have participated in debates and remain listed at LP.org, have been issuing the most regular updates (although Still has been updating his website frequently, but I don’t know of any active distribution of his updates beyond that). They are also the three candidates who have been acknowledged in recent LP press releases and/or LP.org blog posts.

Carl Person, Bill Still and Roger Gary are the other three candidates who have been traveling to conventions, participating in debates and meet the new LP.org listing criteria:

Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
Campaign website is current with contact information
Obtained the approval of at least five members of the 18-member Libertarian National Committee.

Of the remaining candidates that are no longer listed at LP.org, Sam Sloan (temporary website here) meets all the criteria except obtaining approval from five LNC members, which was added most recently. He has enough money to travel around to state conventions, and is trying to get into the debates but has been excluded.

Other candidates:

Jim Burns sends out fairly regular email updates to his list.

Robert Milnes continues to update his site/blog frequently. In recent weeks his main focus has been on exposing discrepancies in the resume claims of Tiffany Briscoe, who beat him for the Boston Tea Party nomination. He is trying to get the FBI to investigate that election, which he thinks was rigged, so far without any luck.

Politics1.com lists the following additional candidates, all or almost all of whom were previously also listed at LP.org but have since been removed:

Ralph
Beach (South Carolina)

Scott Keller (Florida)
– Computer programmer.

James Ogle
(California) – Parliamentary system advocate.

Dave Redick (Wisconsin)
– Retired businessman, engineer, Army veteran & frequent
candidate.

Leroy Saunders (Georgia)
– Limousine company owner.

Mosheh Thezion (California)
– Electronics technician & ’10 US Sen. candidate.

Dean Tucker (Texas)

Joy Waymire (California)
– Tea Party activist, ranch manager and tax preparer.

I don’t know what if anything any of them are doing by way of campaigning.

There are some additional candidates who are or were filed with the FEC as Libertarians that have not even made it into the politics1 listing, such as Ronald Keith Hebert and Shawn James Hogan. I don’t have any information about any of these candidates beyond their FEC filings.

At this time, the rumored entries of Jesse Ventura or (less likely) Ron Paul into the LP race remain rumors only.

One additional rumor has an unnamed wealthy individual supposedly interested in running for VP and spending a significant amount of money on the race, particularly or perhaps only if Gary Johnson is the nominee. 2008 VP candidate Wayne Root is also rumored to be a likely VP contender. Another possible VP candidate may be 2000 and 2008 VP runner up and 2008 presidential nomination candidate Steve Kubby. As in 2008, some of the presidential candidates may also switch to the VP race after being eliminated.

Additional information about the activities of any of these candidates, and any that I may have missed, welcome in the comments.

America is at a crossroads. We borrow and print forty-three cents of every dollar the federal government spends and are now choking on debt. One candidate not only understands we must reverse this policy before heading down the path of Greece or Italy, but has pledged to take immediate action.

That candidate is you, Governor Johnson.
…
You are the only candidate with the executive resume to back up your tough talk. That is why we donated to “Our America” and supported your GOP run. Yet it is clear that the Republican Party has no intention of seriously dealing with the problem of a government that grossly exceeds its Constitutional authority and continues to grow and spend at an unsustainable rate. You realize this is threatening our country’s future, but the Republican Party has chosen to silence your voice. America needs to hear your message!

That is why we, among many, ask that you take the bold step of continuing your run under the banner of the Libertarian Party.

With the unprecedented financial and political turmoil around the world, this election has the potential to change the status quo in America. With the current record-low approval rates for President Obama and Congress, the efforts by “Americans Elect” to build a vehicle for a Michael Bloomberg run, and the record-high number of independent voters, this will be an election tailor-made for a candidate who pledges to restore freedom and limited government—from outside the right/left paradigm.

We have personally seen how you are able to connect with people from both liberal and conservative backgrounds. Your message makes sense to many Americans. But due to the Republican Party’s efforts to silence you, so many more have not had the chance to hear that message. Please give Americans a real choice this fall, a chance to actually choose a new direction rather than mere slogans.

There is much cause for hope for the 2012 election. With the growth of pro-liberty groups such as Campaign for Liberty and Students for Liberty, as well as Libertarian party advocacy groups, namely the LNCC and Atlas Liberty, the base of support has never been greater. With a strategy that targets battleground states where you will poll well, such as in the West, in your home state of New Mexico, and in Nevada (where the 2008 LP ticket polled as high as 10% without advertising), you could quickly change the electoral map. In a four-way race you would become a soaring political juggernaut in a country looking for new solutions. You once told us you were running because you thought you could help our beleaguered country. We truly and deeply agree.

Sincerely yours,

Dana McLorn and Steve Kubby

Sacramento, Calif., May 18, 2011 — He was once a determined drug warrior, but now former Assistant US Attorney and Superior Court Judge James P. Gray believes the time has come to take marijuana out of the black market and regulate it instead. After years of witnessing the harm caused by outlawing marijuana, Judge Gray filed a voter initiative on Wednesday, May 18, with the California Attorney General’s office that will regulate marijuana like wine.

From a press conference held in front of the Attorney General’s office at 1300 I Street, Judge Gray stated, “Instead of my categorizing the initiative, I think it would be better for any people interested to review it themselves. It can be downloaded at www.RegulateMarijuanaLikeWine.com. When people review it, they will see that it allows anyone who is 21 years of age or older to raise up to 25 plants per year or possess up to 12 pounds of dried marijuana without being licensed, regulated or taxed, except for income or sales taxes, where applicable (which is basically the same as the home brewing provisions for wine and beer); it prohibits any government entities from taxing marijuana to a greater extent than they do wine; and it expressly does not change the provisions of Prop. 215 and its progeny, which would include, of course, the provisions for those under 21 years of age to be able to use their medicine as long as they are in compliance with those laws. It also expressly prohibits the public advertising of the sales or use of marijuana, except for medical marijuana under Prop. 215 and products made from hemp. And finally, it would not only prohibit the arrest or seizure of property, etc., of anyone 21 years of age or older who is in compliance with the initiative, it would also prohibit anyone employed by or under contract with the State of California from cooperating with federal agents in enforcing federal law.

In short, I think this is a good initiative that will repeal the failed policy of Marijuana Prohibition in California for adults, and basically be of benefit to California and everyone in it, except the Prison Guards’ Union. That is our intent, and I actually think we have been pretty successful in accomplishing it.”

“Our policy of marijuana prohibition has failed from every standpoint imaginable: unnecessary prison growth, increased taxes, increased crime and corruption here and abroad, loss of civil liberties, decreased health, and diversion of resources that are needed to address other problems in society,” Gray said.

Gray added that he is especially concerned about the disastrous effects of outlawing marijuana on families and kids, effects he has witnessed for himself as a judge and federal prosecutor. “Far from protecting our children, our present policy is actually recruiting them to a lifestyle of drug usage and drug selling,” charged Gray.

When challenged over the wisdom of allowing for sales to adults 21 and older, Gray has no doubts that it is time to regulate marijuana and take it out of the black market. “Many things in our society are dangerous, but making them illegal is not the answer. Does anyone really believe that making tobacco illegal would reduce the harm it causes? What about glue, gasoline, chain saws and high cholesterol foods? Further, if you think about it, we have at least some controls with regard to the sales and use of alcohol and tobacco, because they are regulated by the government. We have no controls at all with marijuana, because it is currently controlled by the mob,” Gray emphasized.

A copy of Judge Gray’s voter initiative and one minute video can be viewed at the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine website: http://www.regulatemarijuanalikewine.com

Sponsored by the Committee to Regulate Marijuana Like Wine 2012, campaign ID #1336887.

Photos: William McPike, Judge James P. Gray and Bishop Ron Allen look on as Steve Kubby signs off on an official request to the California Attorney General for a Title and Summary. The initiative, called the Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act, would allow cannabis to be grown, sold, taxed and consumed like wine. Adults who grow 12 pounds or less would be exempt from any regulations or taxes. Photo by Jennina Chiavetta, May 18, 2012.

9:05 AM is the scheduled time for the Chair’s election and then the other officers right behind that  until

11:30 when the non-Officer Board seats come up.

Lunch speaker: Steve Kubby

All action after lunch, fairly anti-climactic.

Official schedule hard to find on the LPCA Website but here it is: http://ca.lp.org/2011-convention/2011-convention-schedule/

We will be rolling out the new campaign at the state convention for the Libertarian Party of California on Friday, April 8, 2012. Within Libertarian circles are people who have written me checks of $10,000 or more. I raised the $500,000 to put Prop. 215 on the ballot and I raised $600,000 for my legal defense fund. I can and will raise the $2 million we will need for this campaign.

Meanwhile there are two ways CC readers can get involved. If they send us a check for $100 or more they will be official founding donors of the campaign. If you are a business and would like to become an official sponsor of the initiative, we have a program that will allow you to piggyback on our media coverage.

Read the entire article here.

The ink is barely dry on our preliminary draft of our initiative and we are already a serious subject of an editorial by the Orange County Register, a conservative newspaper based in the most conservative part of Southern California. We all understand that So Cal will determine whether legalization passes or fails in California, so this editorial support is definitely a very positive sign we can succeed, especially with former Orange County judge James Gray as our Chief Proponent. See the full editorial here: http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/marijuana-290505-use-legalization.html

Our initiative, The Marijuana Regulation and Tax Act of 2012, was written by Jack Herer’s personal attorney, Bill McPike, who is our Chief Counsel and was recently featured in The National Law Journal. Bill and other attorneys believe that Jack’s initiative, the CCHHI 2012 is fatally flawed and would be overturned in court, since it deals with multiple issues. That’s why Bill wrote our initiative and that is why he is asking Jack’s supporters to switch to our initiative. (See The National Law Journal story about Bill McPike at: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202462842284&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1)

There are no new laws or taxes in our bill, only the full repeal of all the laws against cannabis for those 21 and older. Our team believes that so long as a single marijuana law remains on the books, police and prosecutors will find ways to use those horrible laws to punish and hurt otherwise law abiding citizens. Also, we heard the message of the No on Prop. 19 folks loud and clear. Out of respect for their concerns, we have specifically protected small growers by making their first 50 pounds and 99 plants exempt from taxes and regulations. The only crime we add is for police and public officials who attempt to subvert legalization. You can easily compare our initiative with others by going here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150140126001955&set=a.71411121954.106184.620261954&theater

Some have raised their concern that our initiative creates or modifies laws about smoking cannabis in public, operating motor vehicles, using cannabis in your home, etc. Not so. Unlike Prop. 19, our initiative “…expressly does not repeal, modify or change any present laws or regulations…” so nothing is changed for these activities from the way the law stands currently. And our initiative makes it clear that nothing in our act may be used to limit or restrict the rights of medical marijuana patients.

Several members of our team will attend the “Next Steps” meeting in So Cal on Saturday, March 19th. Unfortunately, I have a prior engagement and cannot attend. Judge Gray is scheduled to speak at 4:30 PM. To purchase a ticket to this event see: https://secure2.convio.net/dpa/site/Ecommerce/1275103829?VIEW_PRODUCT=true&product_id=1781&store_id=1101

We are already raising money and our first checks have arrived. I raised $500,000 for Prop. 215 and I raised $600,000 for my legal defense fund. Within Libertarian circles are people who have written me checks of $10,000 or more in the past. I can and will raise the $2 million we will need for this campaign.

Nothing in this initiative is set in stone and we invite comments and suggestions, now, while we still have time to make changes. Please send your comments and suggestions to me at steve@kubby.com. To see the current version of our initiative, please go here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150144731535239&id=620261954

To learn more about our Chief Proponent James Gray, please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6t1EM4Onao

To become an official founding supporter of The Marijuana Regulation and Tax Act of 2012, send your contribution of $100 or more to Tax Marijuana 2012, PO Box 13591, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96151.

Let freedom grow,

Steve Kubby

Chief Officer

Tax Marijuana 2012

—————————————————————-

A SPECIAL NOTE TO MY LIBERTARIAN FRIENDS

We Libertarians hate taxes and consider most taxes to be a form of theft. Why on earth would any Libertarian ever support an initiative that includes “tax” in the title? Doesn’t supporting a new tax law create the false imprssion that Libertarians think some taxes are okay?

Libertarians understand the terrible harm caused by taxes, most of which are passed during wartime hysteria as temporary measures that soon become permanent. Many of us have tried for years to change our current tax policies and, sadly, we have failed to make any gains except for the occasional bond issue we are able to put down. I suggest it is time for a new tactic, focused on real and achievable results. It’s time for our tax policies to be set by those who are committed to reducing the size of government, NOT those who want to continue the endless expansion and intrusion of government.

Our initiative will place government on a short leash, forbid any new or special taxes and confine the taxation of marijuana to regular sales tax on commercial sales only. In return for agreeing to sales tax, we have attached some very LIbertarian requirements, such as not accepting federal funding and criminal charges for police and public officials who oppose legalization. No new tax is created by this initiative and the practice of enacting “sin” taxes against marijuana will finally be prohibited. That is real progress towards liberty and I trust that Libertarians can bring themselves to see past our odious title, which our polling company strongly recommends, and enthusiastically support the genuine tax reform that this revolutionary new initiative will bring.

For additional perspective on how the LP can directly benefit from this initiative, please see here: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/steve-kubby-liberty-leadership-and-libertarianism/

Steve Kubby has earned his stripes: Before he was a Libertarian Party candidate for governor of California and President of the United States (and South Lake Tahoe City Council), Kubby was a model activist and poster child for the medical cannabis movement. The latter because he has lived with a rare form of adrenal cancer for over 40 years, thanks to medical marijuana, and the former for co-authoring Proposition 215.

Now, Kubby, 64, is circulating a proposed ballot initiative for 2012 that, he told SF Weekly on Monday, can not only succeed where Proposition 19 failed last November, but could lead toward a changed federal policy on marijuana.

[..]

Exactly how this will play with the Prop. 19 folks and the money-makers who bankrolled them is unclear. A message for Steve Gutwillig, chair of the state Drug Policy Alliance (which funneled millions to the Prop. 19 effort, from the likes of George Soros and others), was not immediately returned. A spokeswoman for the Prop. 19 campaign did not immediately return an e-mail, either.

But Kubby says he’s willing to play ball. “I’m not married to our initiative,” he said. “If [other efforts] cover the same ground we cover, and poll at 60 percent or above, I will get on board.”

Kubby says he’s currently fundraising to pay for polls, with plans to have a finalized initiative in the hands of paid signature gatherers by the fall. The initiative would require 504,760 validated signatures by February 2012 to qualify for the November 2012 ballot.

IPR note: See our previous story, Steve Kubby: Liberty, Leadership and Libertarianism and facebook for more about this effort.

What is needed is a Libertarian initiative, that strikes at the root cause of one of government’s greatest public policy failures, the war on marijuana.  I believe that means nothing less than full and complete repeal of all laws against marijuana and permanent removal of marijuana from California’s list of controlled substances.

Although I publicly supported Prop. 19, I had to hold my nose whenever I did so.  From my perspective, it was a horrible scheme that would have certainly invited a harsh response from the federal government, resulting in a lot of innocent people being arrested, prosecuted and sent away for long sentences in federal prisons.  Frankly, my only concern was that Prop. 19 get as many votes as possible, because I was convinced from the beginning it could not win.

From a libertarian perspective, the “legalization” offered by Prop. 19, based upon a capricious administrative tax and regulate scheme, is nothing less than a fraud.  That’s because people are induced to vote for new taxes and jump through arbitrary administrative hoops on the false belief that their money and compliance is buying them protection from arrest and prosecution, when nothing could be farther from the truth.  In reality, Prop. 19 did not remove a single cannabis crime from the books, nor would it have released a single prisoner.  Instead, it created new crimes, penalties, and even prison time for those who fail to comply with state tax rules or administrative regulations, while providing evidence for the feds to prosecute and imprison thousands of new victims.

In contrast, we need a Libertarian voter initiative that repeals all cannabis laws.  Of course, some will argue that striking all the state cannabis laws will create anarchy, but we already have the anarchy of unregulated black markets and drug war violence.  Besides, we can argue that federal law is still in effect, and that all we have done is removed state penalties, which we can’t afford to enforce anymore.  If the Feds think marijuana prohibition is such a great idea, then let them assume financial responsibility for enforcing their own laws, with their own resource and officers, but not with any help or cooperation from California.

As a Libertarian initiative, we propose no new taxes and strictly prohibit any taxes other than sales tax.  We remove all existing laws and severly limit the legislature to the wine model for determining any future laws or taxes.  Furthermore, we provide serious penalties for anyone who cooperates with federal authorities to override our initiative.

If Libertarians decide to official sponsor this initiative, we will have a stunning, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to show Leadership, create Liberty and promote Libertarianism. Instead of getting skunked on election day, we will be making history and showing the world what we Libertarians are capable of.  If you think about it, our initiative is no more about marijuana than the Boston Tea Party was about tea.  It’s about Liberty.  We just need to add the Leadership and Libertarianism to make it a home run.

The initiative we are working on will finally allow the LP to compete on a level playing field.  Finally, we can take the lead and win.  This is not rocket science. The formula for us to follow to success is simple.  We know that we need to poll high enough to ensure victory, before we decide to qualify our initiative for the ballot and we know we need professional signature gatherers to get the job done.

If you’d like to become a part of this historic campaign, please visit our FaceBook page at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tax-Marijuana-2012/203562369654107

 By Steve Kubby – Libertarian
Thursday, January 20, 2011

On January 29, 2011 the top guns of the marijuana legalization movement will be meeting in Oakland, California in an extraordinary event organized by California NORML. 

Many of my longtime friends will be there to come up with a strategy for finally legalizing cannabis.  It breaks my heart just to think about it.

Several years back, Ed Rosenthal and I wrote a popular book called, “Why Marijuana Should be Legal.”  You’d think the prospect of legalization being so close to reality would fill me with good cheer, but it doesn’t.

The legalization of cannabis sounds like a great idea, but there are serious issues that raise disturbing questions about the chaos and suffering that will ultimately result.  That’s because in the world of legalization, things are not as they appear.

For example, when people use the term, “legalization,” they mean anything from schemes to benefit and exempt corporate enterprises to ill-conceived laws that lure people into thinking they are legal, when they are simply set up for massive arrests and prosecutions. 

Unlike many others in this movement, when I use the term, “legalization,” I mean a law that makes it completely legal for everyone, without those nasty little rules that end up with people being convicted and punished for growing, possessing or selling a natural healing herb.

Another serious concern is that moderates will prevail in the drafting of a legalization initiative for 2012.  During the drafting of the Prop. 215 text for the initiative there were two groups, the moderates and the radicals.  The moderates were better organized, but their initiative was very limited and would, as Dennis Peron joked, “only allow medical marijuana for patients in their last half hour of life.”

Peron’s initiative was much more radical and specific.  It provided a legal exemption to the laws on possession and cultivation of cannabis for medical purposes.  It was short, sweet and without any limits.  Then, out of the blue, we found out that the moderates had secretly filed their initiative, beating our group to the start line. Unfortunately for them, they paid by check.  It was only because John Entwistle went to Sacramento, filed our version of the initiative and paid by money order that our version was adopted and became what we all know as Prop. 215, the Compassionate Use Act.

I would be concerned that a moderate based initiative would open up a Pandora’s Box of new tax crimes and add freakish rules and penalties for those who don’t cross every “T” and dot every “I”.  Worse, I would fear a moderate initiative that ignores those who are currently rotting in jail for nonviolent cannabis violations. Worst of all, I am concerned that “legal” pot will be consistently inferior to “illegal” pot and that we’ll still end up being on the wrong side of the law.

Now let’s talk about the 800 pound gorilla that everyone is ignoring.  The DEA has made it clear that they will vigorously oppose legalization.  That threat was recently backed up by the announcement that the DEA is now authorized to deploy National Guard units with Blackhawk gunships, which are further authorized to use lethal force on raids against medical marijuana patients. Such a raid was conducted just three weeks after the defeat of Prop. 19 in California, sending a clear message to anyone who was paying attention.

Fortunately, there is a way to completely block the DEA from opposing legalization within California, but it would require courage and vision like we saw in the Prop. 215 campaign and that we will not see in any moderate based initiative.

Don’t get me wrong, some of my best friends are moderates and I think the world of them.  The folks who will be attending the NORML conference later this month are hard working and dedicated individuals whom I respect.  However, I know how my moderate friends think and I can say with certainty that whatever initiative they adopt, it will not end the federal war on pot and thus it will not free us from violent drug raids and federal kangaroo trials.

My moderate friends believe that taxing cannabis is a good thing and that it makes us safer and more “legitimate.”  I disagree and remind my friends that Al Capone was not convicted of selling booze, but of not paying enough taxes.  I also remind them that the Feds can and will use tax returns against defendants in cannabis cases.

People need to understand that legalizing the medical use of cannabis is very different from legalizing any non-medical use.  That’s because under the principles of federalism, as upheld in several recent court cases, including Gonzales v. Oregon, (2006), states have the authority to write their own medical laws.  However, the Supreme Court has also ruled that Congress has the right to create and enforce its own laws on the non-medical use of cannabis.

So now you understand that legalizing cannabis for everyone will precipitate the full force and fury of the DEA and National Guard, unless whatever initiative we draft includes an effective means of blocking the DEA and National Guard from taking any offensive actions.  Any initiative that does not lawfully and effectively eliminate the threat of DEA and National Guard raids will only bring us more harm and suffering.

My moderate friends would undoubtedly disagree with my assessment.  They would argue that President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are sympathetic to our cause.  They will tell you that the Democrats are ready to embrace legalization as a way to win the youth vote in 2012.  Yes, they will tell you this, even as their predictions of a turn out in the last election of the youth vote and the subsequant failure of that vote to materialize, is still fresh in our minds.

Is there really a way for us to craft an initiative here in California that would actually prevent the Federal government from taking any actions against us if we legalize? Yes, there is, but I guarantee my moderate friends are not going to like it.

Now remember, unless we can block Federal action, we are looking down the barrel of massive raids by violent drug police and the military, all perfectly legal under federal law and court decisions.

Last Sunday, January 16th President Barack Obama lauded a referendum held in Southern Sudan on its independence as “an inspiration to the world.”  Our President then went on to declare, that the peaceful polling process and the high turnout were “a tribute to the determination of the people and leaders of south Sudan to forge a better future.”

President Barack Obama is to be congratulated for his official endorsement of the right of a people to secede from their government, even if it is carefully couched in words like “referendum” and “forging a better future.”  Hidden in those words is the reality that the South is seceding from the North and will soon form an independent country.

Until now, the chilling reminder of 600,000 Americans slaughtered in a savage Civil War has discouraged any serious discussion of a state such as California from seceding. However, the new Obama Doctrine on secession changes all that. Now, a US President has gone on record, calling the Sudan vote to secede, “a tribute to the determination of the people and leaders of south Sudan to forge a better future.”

This new Obama Doctrine opens up an extraordinary window of opportunity to draft a voter initiative that amends the California state constitution to authorize an action that would lawfully, nonviolently and effectively block the enforcement of any federal laws in California.  That’s right, for the same effort, time, and money as would be required to legalize pot and precipitate federal retaliations, we could amend the state constitution to authorize independence and require our elected officials to take all appropriate actions to do so.

In California, voter initiatives can make law, like in the case of Prop. 215, or they can amend the state constitution with the same rules applying to both types of initiatives. So instead of a legalization initiative that is fatally flawed in inherently dangerous, we now have an opportunity to follow the Obama Doctrine and hold a voter referendum on independence as “an inspiration to the world.”

Wait, I see that a few of my moderate friends have turned blue and are experiencing apoplectic shock, so let me back up for a moment.

Contrary to the propaganda you were fed in school, everything you were told about secession is wrong. The notion that the US Constitution in any way prohibits the right of a state to secede is completely false.  The right of a state to secede is specifically protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments which requires that all powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the Federal government are retained by the States and the People. Thus, the Federal government could not legally oppose the rights of Southern states to secede, peacefully, but when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumner, it became an armed rebellion. Once the South foolishly attacked, they gave the North the Constitutional authority to put down the rebellion and the rest is ugly history.

Some may argue that the Supreme Court settled the issue of secession in Texas v. White, (1869).  In that case, the central issue was repayment for some bonds issued by Texas, during the Civil War.  The Supreme Court decided to speculate on the issue of secession, noting that the US was formed to create, “a more perfect union,” which the court interpreted as excluding the right to secede, because it was so “perfect”.  Of course any real analysis of such an absurd speculation would be forced to recognize that any union in which one party is forbidden to leave can only be described as slavery. But no such serious analysis ever occurred because this was purely speculation, which had no actual bearing on the case before the Supreme Court. The fact is that federal prosecutors specifically avoided charging anyone in the Civil War for any crime involving secession, because they were afraid they would lose.

To further support this view, we have the July 22, 2010 decision by the World Court in the Hague that Kosovo’s unilateral secession from Serbia in 2008 did not violate international law,  “The court considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declaration of independence,” Judge Hisashi Owada, president of the ICJ, said in the clear majority ruling delivered in a cavernous hall at the Hague-based ICJ.  “Accordingly it concludes that the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law.”

So, take some deep breaths and focus on the new reality that for California to pass an amendment to their state constitution authorizing independence is a lawful exercise of Constitutional and International law, as well as the recently articulated Obama Doctrine on Self Determination and Secession.

I see my moderate friends are very frustrated with me right now.  They cannot understand how I could seriously believe that mainstream voters in California would ever support such a stupid idea.  Indeed, just advocating such nonsense is enough to erode any remaining credibility I might have ever had with moderates.

How dare anyone suggest leaving the USA?  Sure, the US government has the highest incarceration rate in the world and heavily armed police who are authorized to kick in your door, shoot your dog and drag you off to prison, but is that any reason to secede? 

Mainstream voters are fed up with the reckless spending and frightening debts being created by the USA. Congressional approval ratings are below 20% and death threats against our representatives are at an all time high.  The potential for collapse, hyperinflation, civil turnoil and increased surveillance by Big Brother is a very real concern for everyone, including mainstream voters.

But, once again we must ask, is this any reason to secede?  Perhaps not, but consider this, independence would mean no longer having to pay federal income tax or a long list of other federal taxes on everything we consume.  Would mainstream voters be interested in the biggest tax break in their lifetime?  You bet they would.

My friends on the right are probably even more frustrated with me.  Don’t I realize that California is even worse than the USA?  The government here is bankrupt and a veritable cesspool of blue state thinking that is out of goose step with the rest of the country  Better a state like Texas or Nevada secede, but not all those nuts, fruits and flakes in grainola crazed California. 

But again, I disagree. California has always been the leader in crazy new ideas that are mainstream fifteen years later.  The time has come again for California to show the same kind of bold leadership and visionary thinking that has blessed this Golden State.

In fact, California began as the California Republic back in  June 15, 1846, when William B. Ide, President, of the California Republic wrote a proclamation that included these words:

‎”Government to be prosperous and happyfying in its tendency must originate with its people who are friendly to its existence… its Citizens are its Guardians, its officers are its Servants, and its Glory their reward.”

Happyfying?  Yes, that was President Ide’s vision for the California Republic and it still rings true today. But the new California Republic had no sooner won a happyfying independence from Mexico when it was invaded by the US army and forced to submit to American occupation and sovereignty.  Any honest account of California history must recognize that the US Army was only authorized by Congress to engage in a war against Mexico for control of California.

Once the citizens of California declared themselves a Republic, the Americans should have turned around or come to the assistance of the new Republic. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen, but the official flag of the California Republic still lives on and is officially recognized by every government in the world, including the USA.

In the world of trade and commerce, in which California is now the eight largest economy in the world, the Golden State has what is known as “branding.”  People around the world not only recognize the uniqueness of California, they seek it out.

Yes, the state government here is bankrupt and despised, but the people are prosperous, industrious and still know how to have fun.  The people of the California Republic could unleash a tsunami of prosperity if freed from the shackles of the United States.  That would benefit everyone, including what remains of the USA.

By now my Libertarian friends are equally frustrated with me.  Don’t I know about “Nullification”?  That was what the Colonies did when King George sent over laws they didn’t like.  In theory, California could avoid secession and simply opt for an initiative that would authorize the state to officially nullify Federal laws on cannabis.

The problem with nullification is that it still recognizes the authority and supremacy of the Federal government, which ultimately places the debate in the hands of a very conservative Supreme Court that would not be favorable to anything that diminishes the reach of the federal government.

Like it or not, the time has come for the legalization movement to take a careful look at what it hopes to achieve and what path gets us there with the least threat of violence and the greatest prospect for a happyfying new lease on life. 

Passing an amendment to the California constitution to declare independence is our best shot at a peaceful end to prohibition. Furthermore, it would serve as a model for other states to follow if the USA doesn’t mend its ways.

Anything less than Independence for the California Republic will only cause far more harm than good.

The Flag of the California Republic is officially recognized by governments around the world and by the United States.

The legalization of cannabis sounds like a great idea, but there are serious issues that raise disturbing questions about the chaos and suffering that will ultimately result. That’s because in the world of legalization, things are not as they appear.

By Steve Kubby

As a Libertarian, I respect the First Amendment and people’s right to express their opinion, no matter how harsh, especially if I choose to write something and others choose to criticize what I have written. However, I have a serious problem when someone ignores the facts and attacks me personally and that someone carries a badge and a gun.

I find it even more disturbing to find out that a Douglas County sheriff’s deputy and former campaign manager for a newly elected member of the South Lake Tahoe City Council has organized a smear campaign to defeat me in the recent election. Judging from the small number of votes that I lost by, it may be possible that this smear campaign prevented me from winning.

This attack and others by Deputy JT Davis and his alias “Cowboy25″ appears to be a part of a smear campaign he organized as campaign manager for his father, Councilman Tom Davis. This smear campaign is every bit as offensive as racial slurs or ethnic attack on me, characterizing me as a lazy stoner in some sort of perpetual haze and a threat to the community.

The knowledge that a Douglas County deputy sheriff believes I am a threat to the community and that I don’t belong in SLT is something that should make anyone uncomfortable and concerned about their safety, especially if that deputy pulls a bona fide California patient over and decides to make legal problems for them. In fact, this action by Deputy Davis underscores the dangers that medical marijuana patients must face each day from the very people who are paid to protect them.

Nevada law enforcement does not respect the legal rights of California medical marijuana patients and it is very easy for a deputy to wreck a medical marijuana patient’s life, just by pulling them over and demanding a blood test. If such a test were to show that I have metabolites from marijuana in my blood, even if those metabolites are a month old, I could be arrested and prosecuted in Nevada. Under such circumstances, the fact that I have a perfect driving record, without any tickets or accidents whatsoever, would mean nothing and I could be convicted under Nevada state law for DUI, despite being cold sober.

Below, is a recent public comment by Douglas County Deputy JT Davis, about an opinion article that I wrote for Lake Tahoe News regarding the dangers to patients of a proposed cultivation ordinance. It does not mention one word about what I have written and is solely a personal attack. Furthermore, it is an attack by a member of law enforcement, using his real name and presumably someone people look up to as an authority figure:

“Kubby must have smoked his usual 12 joints a day before he wrote this article. Everyone is sick and tired of listening to you rant and rave about this issue and it has proven time and time again to be a losing issue for you and your pals. Prop 19 lost and last I checked, you got creamed in the City Council race. You yourself got so caught up in your stump speech, that you admitted you support legalizing marijuana and that Pop 215, was just the starting point to a bigger agenda, trying to make marijuana legal. [sic] Kubby, take your show to some other city, becasue the citizens of Tahoe are soooooooooo tired of you and your pot.”

Several other attacks, under the name of Cowboy25 were also published during my campaign for City Council, nearly all of them starting with the same incriminating sentence, “Kubby must have smoked his usual 12 joints a day before he….” You’d think a member of law enforcement would be more careful than to change his posting to his real name and then continue using the same inflammatory introductory sentence, but Deputy Davis is probably so convinced he is right that he has thrown caution to the wind. As a result, he appears to be engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer of the law.

Judging from my personal contacts with JT Davis during the campaign, I believe that he is probably a dedicated and hardworking deputy.Under other circumstances, JT Davis and I might be good friends. But not today. For now and the immediate future, our lives seem ruled by a misguided and misinformed wall of intolerance that, for lack of a better term, I call the Politics of Pot.

Steve Kubby is a resident of South Lake Tahoe, having run of City Council in November 2010.

Now that California has made possession of an ounce of cannabis the equivalent of a $100 parking ticket, our best best is to pass a similar voter initiative for personal cultivation and sales.  Growing and selling cannabis would still be illegal, but the penalty for possessing or selling under a pound or growing less than 25 plants would be a $100 fine and a citation.

We won with Prop. 215, because every time our opponents marched out horror stories about teens using pot, we marched out more frightening stories about cancer and aids.  To win again, we must focus on all the horrible things that happen to otherwise good young people, as a result of the excessive criminal penalties currently being used against young people who experiment with marijuana.

Whatever new initiative is drafted, it should focus on the horrors of how cannabis prohibition can ruin a young person’s life, label them a criminal, lose college funding, get raped in jail, and expose them to hardened criminals in prison.  We would then argue that the best way to fix this problem is to reduce criminal penalties for the personal possession, sales, or cultivation of cannabis to $100 fine and a citation.

As a Libertarian, I applaud the call for full legalization.  However, as an activist, I recognize that the non-medical use of cannabis is absolutely forbidden by federal law and international treaties, whereas medical use has been recognized by the courts so that federal law does NOT trump state law on medical issues.  As we have seen with the pronouncements of US Attorney General Eric Holder, the feds plan to respond to non-medical use in a far more aggressive and punitive manner.

The US Constitution specifically requires that states must obey treaties signed by the US Government.  If you read those treaties, enclosed below, you will see that marijuana cultivation and sales is absolutely forbidden, except for medical purposes.

Given that the US government has signaled it’s determination to fight non-medical use of cannabis as a threat to national security, the idea of full legalization must be seen as something that will be extremely difficult and problematic.  In contrast, reducing penalties from serious felonies to $100 fines upholds the treaties and federal law, while still accomplishing our key goal of keeping people who grow or sell cannabis out of cages.

Waging war with the Feds would be a losing battle, whereas reducing a majority of marijuana felonies and penalties to $100 fines would be an immediate success in keeping people out of cages.  Allowing people who grow and even sell cannabis to friends isn’t something society is ready to approve, especially under threats from the US Attorney General, but reducing the penalties and eliminating jail time, especially for young people, is something that voters will support and pass.

———-

Here are the treaties:

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is an international treaty to prohibit production and supply of specific (nominally narcotic) drugs and of drugs with similar effects except under licence for specific purposes, such as medical treatment and research. As noted below, its major effects included updating the Paris Convention of 13 July 1931 to include the vast number of synthetic opioids invented in the intervening 30 years and a mechanism for more easily including new ones. From 1931 to 1961 most of the families of synthetic opioids had been developed, including drugs in whatever way related to methadone, pethidine,morphinans and dextromoramide & related drugs; research on fentanyls and piritramide were also nearing fruition at this point.Earlier treaties had only controlled opium, coca, and derivatives such as morphine, heroin and cocaine. The Single Convention, adopted in 1961, consolidated those treaties and broadened their scope to include cannabis and drugs whose effects are similar to those of the drugs specified. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the World Health Organization were empowered to add, remove, and transfer drugs among the treaty’s four Schedules of controlled substances. TheInternational Narcotics Control Board was put in charge of administering controls on drug production, international trade, and dispensation. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) was delegated the Board’s day-to-day work of monitoring the situation in each country and working with national authorities to ensure compliance with the Single Convention. This treaty has since been supplemented by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which controls LSD,Ecstasy, and other psychoactive pharmaceuticals, and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which strengthens provisions against money laundering and other drug-related offenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs

The Convention on Psychotropic Substances is a United Nations treaty designed to control psychoactive drugs such as amphetamines, barbiturates,benzodiazepines, and psychedelics signed at Vienna on February 21, 1971. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 could not ban the many newly discovered psychotropics, since its scope was limited to drugs with cannabis-, coca-, and opium-like effects.During the 1960s such drugs became widely available, and government authorities opposed this for numerous reasons, arguing that along with negative health effects, drug use led to lowered moral standards. The Convention, which contains import and export restrictions and other rules aimed at limiting drug use to scientific and medical purposes, came into force on August 16, 1976. Today, 175 nations are Parties to the treaty. Many laws have been passed to implement the Convention, including the U.S. Psychotropic Substances Act, the UK Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the Canadian Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.Adolf Lande, under the direction of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, prepared the Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The Commentary, published in 1976, is an invaluable aid to interpreting the treaty and constitutes a key part of its legislative history.Provisions to end the international trafficking of drugs covered by this Convention are contained in the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. This treaty, signed in 1988, regulates precursor chemicals to drugs controlled by the Single Convention and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. It also strengthens provisions against money laundering and other drug-related crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances

Proposition 19, the California voter initiative to “legalize” marijuana, was doomed from the very beginning. The problem was polling, which was always weak.  Despite plenty of theories by the Yes on 19 group on why polling was wrong or didn’t matter, it mattered. The fact is that Prop. 19 never polled high enough to indicate a clear shot at victory.  Hopefully, if and when we get an opportunity at financing another initiative, polling will be given much more weight than this time around.

Regardless of polling, this initiative was dead on arrival, because it was proposed during a midterm election.  Based upon the low turnout of young people from this past election, it is clear that if Prop. 19 had been proposed two years later, when young voters traditionally flock to the polls to vote on a president, it would have passed.  In fact, there was a general consensus by activists and funders that 2010 was the wrong election and no proposed initiative could pass.  Despite strong pressure to wait until 2012, the Prop. 19 group soldiered on, ignoring  the pitfalls that lay ahead.

Now that the election is over, it is time to publicly question the wisdom of supporting any initiative that promotes taxing cannabis. Yes, lots of folks think it will make us safer to pay taxes, but we’ve yet to see that to be the case. We didn’t need taxes to sell voters on supporting Prop. 215, California’s historic medical marijuana law, why do we need it now? Frankly, any taxation of cannabis, except for retail outlets for non-medical use, will invite the same fishing expeditions that the police already conduct based upon plant numbers. We can only hope that the next initiative will focus on real legalization and not peddling a watered down version of decriminalization with a sin tax, like we saw with Prop. 19.

Real legalization means something is totally legal and not subject to a long list of rules and regulations.  Had Prop. 19 been more focused on providing real legalization, it would have enjoyed much greater support from activists and voters.  If you look at the history of voter initiatives on medical marijuana, you’ll see that the highest vote totals went to initiatives like Prop. 215, which boldly established new rights, without space or plant limits or complicated regulatory schemes.  Watered down initiatives have always resulted in poor results at the polls.

Another problem with Prop. 19 is that it was too vague with too many weasel words. We expunged all the weasel words from Prop. 215 and it is unfortunate that the same was not done before Prop. 19 qualified for the ballot.

Furthermore, the initiative itself pandered to police and prohibitionists, something many activists found to be especially obnoxious.  Such pandering never helps to win votes, only to discourage activists from becoming involved.  In short, this initiative was ill-conceived, poorly written and badly timed.

Prop. 215 was historic and successful, because it was short and to the point, much like the Bill of Rights.  Prop. 19 was an administrative scheme that didn’t establish any rights, just a confusing regulatory outline that would have resulted in providing police with a new way to convict marijuana users for tax evasion.

Richard Lee, who spent his life savings to qualify 19 for the ballot, is a brilliant and dedicated activist who mounted an impressive effort to recruit minorities, unions, former police and judges, and phone bank volunteers.  But Lee gambled that he could get young people to show up at a midterm election.  Now, one must ask why anyone in the 18-21 age group would show up and vote for an initiative that specifically excluded them from participation.  Excluding 18-21 year olds was totally unnecessary — it didn’t help us win any votes and it alienated an entire age group of young voters from showing up.

There is much that could have been added to Prop. 19 or to any future initiatives.  For example, if a prosecutor loses a case against a defendant who otherwise was entitled to initiative protection, then the District Attorney’s office should automatically be held liable for defendant’s court costs.  Furthermore, all future initiatives should make it crystal clear that nothing in that initiative can be used to modify or limit any rights already granted under Prop. 215.

Lee has already announced his group will introduce another initiative in 2012. That’s good news. Hopefully, lessons were learned and the next initiative by Lee’s group will be one we can all support  and that will finally achieve victory.

Dear Friends and Family,

I lost the race for SLT City Council by just 104 votes. That’s right, we were just 104 votes away from victory.

I should point out that I was defeated by a former mayor of South Lake Tahoe, a former newspaper editor of the Tahoe Tribune, and someone who just raised $30 million in grants for the schools. My chances of winning against such well known and respected candidates was always a long-shot. Still, we waged a good campaign, with a compelling message that came very close to winning.

My team did a great job and I am proud of the campaign we ran. We just need to be 104 votes better next time.

Let freedom grow,

Steve

Win, lose or Draw…It was a great campaign – Special thanks to the guys who made this campaign such a terrific team effort: Kevin Takenaga, Beau Cain, Terry Floyd, Dana McLorn, and Wayne Allyn Root.

Here are the poll results as they stand last check:

Get out and vote! To find your voting location and sample ballot information go to: http://elections.co.el-dorado.ca.us/lookup.fwx

For more general voting information from the California Voter Information Guide go here: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/

Hope to see you out there casting your ballot! Also be sure to come to our after election party being held at the Coyote Grill!

Thanks everyone!

Note from paulie: the poll is a self-selecting sample; no random polls on the race have been conducted to my knowledge.

Campaign Party! This tuesday night @ The Coyote Grill!

Come celebrate an epic campaign at the Coyote Grill.
Win or lose, we’ve run a campaign we can all be proud of, with award winning radio ads and a great group of volunteers. The festivities will commence at 6:30 p.m.
The Coyote Grill has TVs and WiFi to help you follow the election. Please join us for this exciting event!

Invite your friends on Facebook!

New Radio Spot!

Check out our latest Radio Spots!

http://proxychi.baremetal.com/kubby.com/Kubby_102710.mp3

http://proxychi.baremetal.com/kubby.com/KubbyKTHO.plan.mp3

Also our ads, despite being radio ads, were mentioned in the “Best of” for Libertarian Political ads and campaign videos. The only radio spots to get a mention!
Let us know what you think in the comments section! Thanks for all of your support, both monetary and otherwise! You make this happen!

Steve Kubby

Via email from Steve Kubby:

(Not a random sample, this was a self-selecting sample
- Paulie)

HANG LOOSE – Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico and honorary chairman of the OUR America Initiative, spoke Wednesday night at a special town hall meeting in South Lake Tahoe. Governor Johnson spoke on key issues such as cutting deficits, lowering taxes, immigration reform, legalizing marijuana and ending the war in Afghanistan.

Governor Johnson, a former ski racer and avid telemark skier, promised to return this winter and join city council candidate Steve Kubby for some world-class tree skiing at Heavenly. The former governor who is rumored to be considering a run for President in 2012, has traveled to 28 states, where he has met with various student and political groups that are concerned with the increase in government spending and the future of the American economy.

As Governor of New Mexico, from 1994 to 2002, Johnson was known for his commonsense business approach to governing. He eliminated New Mexico’s budget deficit, cut the rate of growth in state government in half and privatized half of the state prisons. During his term, New Mexico experienced the longest period without a tax increase in the State’s history. Additionally, Governor Johnson vetoed 750 bills and issued thousands of line item vetoes.

Since the launch of OUR America in December of 2009, Governor Johnson has garnered significant media coverage, recently appearing on several prominent national news programs, including the Hannity Show, FOX News, FOX Business Network, CNBC, MSNBC, The Colbert Report, and Real Time with Bill Maher, as well as on hundreds of radio programs around the country.

[H]ere’s our latest radio commercial for my run for South Lake Tahoe City Council:
http://proxychi.baremetal.com/kubby.com/60.couple.TRPA.mp3

For more media and updates on my South Lake Tahoe campaign see here:
http://kubby4citycouncil.com/

Kubby South Park Ad now on YouTube:

This is the award winning Kubby for Governor South Park parody. This ad was really aired through out CA before the 1999 election. It was produced by Gene Cisewski of the Monticello Group and directed, animated, and drawn from scratch by Doug Scribner. Mark Hilgenberg is a co-writter and we did all the voices except for “Hartman” (thanks Paul!!) It won a 1st place Pollie award from the American Association of Political Consultants in the category of 60 second Ad for Governor; the first one for a Libertarian Party ad. Don’t believe me? check it out here! http://www.theaapc.org/awards/1999/

Scroll WAY down to find it. Hey this is big! of ALL 50 governors races in 1998, THIS ad took FIRST PLACE. Seriously!

Opinion: Tahoe needs to have more control, TRPA less by Steve Kubby

www.laketahoenews.net/2010/10/opinion-tahoe-needs-to-have-more-control-trpa-less/

Steve Kubby, former Libertarian Party candidate for Governor in California, and contender for the LP’s 2008 presidential nomination is running for South Lake Tahoe City council.  Recent polls show him in the lead.

He’s mounting a serious campaign by drawing upon his previous battles with the federal government over Prop 215 (medical marijuana).

Kubby is walking precincts, distributing lawn signs, and has two mailers ready to go out to the voters.

He can be reached at kubby.com/

Yours in liberty……………….Mark Hinkle, LNC Chair