Civil liberties

I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestions so far. However, I think one area needs to be included....

Civil Liberties.

i.e.

-Immediate repeal of the Patriot Act
-Ending prohibition on cannabis at the federal level
-Effect change in the area of treating nonviolent drug criminals (users) as addicts rather than criminals

I 100% agree with all three of these statements!

ihave19voices wrote:I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestions so far. However, I think one area needs to be included....

Civil Liberties.

i.e.

-Immediate repeal of the Patriot Act
-Ending prohibition on cannabis at the federal level
-Effect change in the area of treating nonviolent drug criminals (users) as addicts rather than criminals

I whole heartedly agree with all 3 statements.

Add me to the list of people wholeheartedly agreeing with these statements.

In addition I would say that if the GOP wants to reduce the size of government this is an ideal first place to start. Reform the ATF!

I personally agree but I think all of America only agrees with the first one.



-Ending prohibition on cannabis at the federal level
-Effect change in the area of treating nonviolent drug criminals (users) as addicts rather than criminals

Are controversial to many others, rightly or wrongly.

kefranklin wrote:I personally agree but I think all of America only agrees with the first one.

-Ending prohibition on cannabis at the federal level
-Effect change in the area of treating nonviolent drug criminals (users) as addicts rather than criminals

Are controversial to many others, rightly or wrongly.

Frankly, if it was up to me and only me, I'd end the War On Drugs completely. Its a waste of money and time. It clogs the courts and prisons and our appetite for drugs fuels the incredible violence in Mexico and South America.

I do agree that those two suggestions are somewhat controversial, but its a nonpartisan issue and should be handled by the states with no federal involvement. The federal laws get in the way of states that already allow for medicinal use. Many states already have cannabis taxes on the books as well. Depending on how it was implemented, I think most Americans would be open to it if they were given the information on models such as in Holland and Portugal and it was left to the states to decide the level of legality, but the federal prohibition needs to be ended. Holland and Portugal have less drug addiction. Once you prohibit something, it becomes wanted.

I'd also be for the legalization of prostitution, but I think that would be an even harder sell and is far more unlikely. Marijuana reform is very real and very current.

Theres many more that could fall under this category of Civil Liberties (i.e. TSA BS) so please add more.

I agree with the first one- I also think the second two deserve some consideration. They may not be sellable to the masses at this point, but I think it could be stated that our current policies aren't working. That, I don't think, is as controversial. We could demand a fact-based evaluation of both our drug laws and our prison policies in order to determine what it is costing us (ALL of the costs), what the benefits are, and what the alternatives are.

In the meantime, I would like to see some consideration given to at least ending privately run for-profit prisons, and allowing the states to write their own drug laws.

SarahKate wrote:I agree with the first one- I also think the second two deserve some consideration. They may not be sellable to the masses at this point, but I think it could be stated that our current policies aren't working. That, I don't think, is as controversial. We could demand a fact-based evaluation of both our drug laws and our prison policies in order to determine what it is costing us (ALL of the costs), what the benefits are, and what the alternatives are.

In the meantime, I would like to see some consideration given to at least ending privately run for-profit prisons, and allowing the states to write their own drug laws.

I think the majority of Americans would support the removal of federal penalties in respect to cannabis. A Gallup Poll released on Monday shows that now 50% of Americans support complete legalization:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/lawmaker-news/188485-more-americans-support-legalizing-marijuana-than-oppose-it

What this tells me is that its likely decriminalization is supported even more.

Im with you though on the states. It should most definitely be a states issue in respect to the total legality, but not a federal issue. The only federal mandate in respect to drugs should be reclassifying/scheduling substances. I also think that penalties need to remain in place for trafficking dangerous substances like heroin, meth, and cocaine.

The support for legalization has climbed exponentially since the 60s. At the absolute least, decriminalization is a must. This is not just a civil liberties issue, but also national security. The violence in Mexico is starting to creep further north and across the border. The Mexican president just yesterday is calling on the US to legalize drugs as its our appetites that is fueling the incredible violence down there.

Its time we stop putting non-violent drug abusers in jail. Mandatory minimum sentences for drugs have ruined our penal system and the strain on the courts and prison system is atrocious. Out of the entire prison population in the entire world, the United States comprises 25% of the ENTIRE world's population in prison and a large # of these prisoners are there because of non-violent drug offenses. California is having to release violent offenders early because of overcrowding. The courts are still teeming with drug abusers with judges and lawyers not able to spend the same amount of time on crimes that need the attention.

The money on the drug war needs to be spent on education and rehabilitation of addicts. Holland and Portugal both have liberal systems in place, and since they've gone that route, drug abuse has dropped. One of the reasons people get involved in drugs is because they're prohibited. Just like when your mom or dad tells you that you cant do something or watch something, that makes you want to do it more.

This says a lot:

Of course, public pressure has been building for some time now. Since 1996, 16 states and the District of Columbia have initiated statewide laws to allow for the limited legal use of marijuana when recommended by a physician. Laws are also changing in regards to the broader use of cannabis. In fact, in 2011, four states – Arkansas, California, Connecticut, and Kentucky – enacted new laws significantly lowering the penalties for marijuana use and possession. In California and Connecticut, lawmakers took the dramatic step of making such activities non-criminal offenses.

Nonetheless, federal officials don’t yet seem to be hearing the public’s message – even when it is made clear to them on the White House’s own ‘We the People’ website. In fact, in recent months, the Obama Administration has acted in opposition to voters’ sentiments, stepping up efforts to sanction marijuana consumers, distributors, and providers – including those who are acting in compliance with the laws of their state. But the Administration’s failure to heed public opinion is a gross political miscalculation.

I have to say that I agree about all of these...however...
I don't think that the drug issues are relevant to the Declaration. These are legislative issues to be addressed separately.
The 1% and media are already trying to discredit the movement on many levels. If we include drug issues in the Declaration, we would be giving them more ammunition to attack the movement by focusing the media spotlight on that instead of the other issues. I feel that it would be a detriment to the cause at this juncture, and should therefore not be included at this time.

michaelstedman wrote:I have to say that I agree about all of these...however...
I don't think that the drug issues are relevant to the Declaration. These are legislative issues to be addressed separately.
The 1% and media are already trying to discredit the movement on many levels. If we include drug issues in the Declaration, we would be giving them more ammunition to attack the movement by focusing the media spotlight on that instead of the other issues. I feel that it would be a detriment to the cause at this juncture, and should therefore not be included at this time.

I agree with you on a substantive level, but the broader issue of "Civil Liberties" IMO absolutely should be a part of the declaration.

I didnt intend to make this topic purely about the legality of drugs, thats just where my particular expertise and knowledge is as Ive been involved in grassroots campaigns for the issue in the past.

I definitely agree that civil liberties are a priority and respect your position. We just need to be careful so as not to fuel their fire.

ihave19voices wrote:I agree with you on a substantive level, but the broader issue of "Civil Liberties" IMO absolutely should be a part of the declaration.

I didnt intend to make this topic purely about the legality of drugs, thats just where my particular expertise and knowledge is as Ive been involved in grassroots campaigns for the issue in the past.

michaelstedman wrote:I definitely agree that civil liberties are a priority and respect your position. We just need to be careful so as not to fuel their fire.

Sure, I agree wholeheartedly. I wouldnt want to put LEGALIZE WEED in the declaration, but a broad "Civil Liberties" portion of the declaration, right to live freely without gov't intervention etc.

The issue with being too broad is that it's ineffective. The declaration, if I am correct in my understanding is us (America, not, us small group) saying We declare these things untenable and demand their immediate fix. Do it now or we will move the earth to unseat you next election.


Saying "we want civil rights" "we want a pristine environment" well how can we measure that. Congress can't just wave a wand and make it clean. We need to be able to measure their responsiveness in a tangible way.

If we ask for something vague and then they make a vague law or point to an existing law on topic or make a speech did they give us what we want.


We want campaign financing to end now. All future elections will be publicized through electoral webpages provided and all candidates who pass the primary will each be given 10 free tv ads and that is all the advertising allowed.


Is something that can do or not do.

To say, we want civil rights. They will point to the 14th Amendment and mock us for stupidity. You know it's not what we meant but it won't matter. Our 15 minutes will be up.

It needs to be specific enough to track and universal enough that all of America will be pissed if they don't do it.


It's not a wishlist. It's a demand and it has to have the bulk of America behind it or it will be a small child demanding a later bed time. Maybe cute, maybe annoying or pathetic, but equally ignored.