Reason Magazine
The Denver Post worries that Colorado’s Amendment 64, approved by voters last month, will be interpreted to allow Dutch-style “pot taverns.” The editorial was provoked by a Post report that quoted comments by Rob Corry, a lawyer and activist, at a recent reform on implementation of the initiative:

Because the measure prohibits marijuana use only that is done “openly and publicly or in a manner that endangers others,” Corry said private businesses will be able to allow marijuana smoking on site.
"You can have an Amsterdam-style private coffee shop," Corry said at Tuesday’s forum.

The Post editorial objects that the Yes on 64 campaign did not play up that prospect and that the initiative talks about “retail marijuana stores,” not cannabis cafés. ”It nowhere uses any term implying that consumption of marijuana on the premises of an establishment might be allowed—as, for example, the words ‘bar’ and ‘tavern’ imply regarding alcohol,” the Post says. True, but unlike Washington’s Initiative 502, Amendment 64 does not explicitly prohibit on-premise consumption either. And while someone smoking pot at a table on a patio or next to a window (not an unusual sight in Amsterdam) might run afoul of the ban on “openly and publicly” consuming marijuana, someone invisible from the street might not, especially if they pay a membership fee for the privilege. ”That is a possibility,” Yes on 64 co-director Brian Vicente told me right after the election, adding: “We don’t think the Department of Revenue [which is charged with regulating pot shops] initially will head down the road of allowing consumption in private clubs. Really this was drafted to allow retail stores and allow individuals to use marijuana privately in their homes.”
Even if the law can be interpreted to allow cannabis clubs, the Post says, letting people smoke pot in such a social setting would be needlessly provocative:

As everyone knows, the big unknown in the future of the amendment is the attitude of the Justice Department —and the main hurdle in that regard is of course the amendment’s vision of cultivation and retail facilities.
We’re on record as urging the Justice Department to show restraint and allow Colorado to proceed with implementing the amendment over the coming year.
But we also believe it would be both foolish and reckless to give the department yet one more excuse for intervention by talking about possible consumption in coffee houses—particularly when no such scenario was suggested by advocates of the amendment during the recent campaign.
Perhaps a few marijuana activists have forgotten what actually happened on Nov. 6. They won, and they should concentrate on preserving their victory, not jeopardizing it with reckless talk of public consumption.

Unlike the Post’s editors, I view ”pot taverns” as a positive development, not just because people want them but because they help create a culture of responsible, socially integrated use. Furthermore, it will be interesting to see whether Colorado’s relatively liberal approach to legalization—which, as Corry noted, includes home cultivation and noncommercial distribution as well as the possibility of cannabis cafés—does in fact generate more complaints and invite more federal interference than Washington’s relatively buttoned-down system. These differences will help inform the unfolding debate about the risks and benefits of experimenting with pharmacological tolerance.

The Denver Post worries that Colorado’s Amendment 64, approved by voters last month, will be interpreted to allow Dutch-style “pot taverns.” The editorial was provoked by a Post report that quoted comments by Rob Corry, a lawyer and activist, at a recent reform on implementation of the initiative:

Because the measure prohibits marijuana use only that is done “openly and publicly or in a manner that endangers others,” Corry said private businesses will be able to allow marijuana smoking on site.

"You can have an Amsterdam-style private coffee shop," Corry said at Tuesday’s forum.

The Post editorial objects that the Yes on 64 campaign did not play up that prospect and that the initiative talks about “retail marijuana stores,” not cannabis cafés. ”It nowhere uses any term implying that consumption of marijuana on the premises of an establishment might be allowed—as, for example, the words ‘bar’ and ‘tavern’ imply regarding alcohol,” the Post says. True, but unlike Washington’s Initiative 502, Amendment 64 does not explicitly prohibit on-premise consumption either. And while someone smoking pot at a table on a patio or next to a window (not an unusual sight in Amsterdam) might run afoul of the ban on “openly and publicly” consuming marijuana, someone invisible from the street might not, especially if they pay a membership fee for the privilege. ”That is a possibility,” Yes on 64 co-director Brian Vicente told me right after the election, adding: “We don’t think the Department of Revenue [which is charged with regulating pot shops] initially will head down the road of allowing consumption in private clubs. Really this was drafted to allow retail stores and allow individuals to use marijuana privately in their homes.”

Even if the law can be interpreted to allow cannabis clubs, the Post says, letting people smoke pot in such a social setting would be needlessly provocative:

As everyone knows, the big unknown in the future of the amendment is the attitude of the Justice Department —and the main hurdle in that regard is of course the amendment’s vision of cultivation and retail facilities.

We’re on record as urging the Justice Department to show restraint and allow Colorado to proceed with implementing the amendment over the coming year.

But we also believe it would be both foolish and reckless to give the department yet one more excuse for intervention by talking about possible consumption in coffee houses—particularly when no such scenario was suggested by advocates of the amendment during the recent campaign.

Perhaps a few marijuana activists have forgotten what actually happened on Nov. 6. They won, and they should concentrate on preserving their victory, not jeopardizing it with reckless talk of public consumption.

Unlike the Post’s editors, I view ”pot taverns” as a positive development, not just because people want them but because they help create a culture of responsible, socially integrated use. Furthermore, it will be interesting to see whether Colorado’s relatively liberal approach to legalization—which, as Corry noted, includes home cultivation and noncommercial distribution as well as the possibility of cannabis cafés—does in fact generate more complaints and invite more federal interference than Washington’s relatively buttoned-down system. These differences will help inform the unfolding debate about the risks and benefits of experimenting with pharmacological tolerance.

thefreelioness:

“One country refused to bail out its derelict banks and slash social spending amid the financial crisis. And guess what? Unlike the eurozone and the United States, it’s making a sturdy comeback.

Iceland’s stock market plunged 90 percent in 2008. Inflation reached 18 percent, unemployment shot up ninefold and its biggest banks failed. This was no recession. It was a full-blown depression.

Since then, the country has steadily improved. By September of this year, it repaid its IMF rescue loans ahead of schedule. Unemployment dropped by half and its economy will have grown by roughly 2.5 percent by the beginning of 2013.

So what’s Iceland’s secret? According to the editors at Bloomberg News, it’s a refusal to do what virtually every other nation that was pummeled by the crisis did: adopt policies of economic austerity.”

David Friedman on How to Privatize Everything

"Producing laws is not an easier problem than producing cars or food," says David Friedman, author, philosopher, and professor at Santa Clara University. ”So if the government’s incompetent to produce cars or food, why do you expect it to do a good job producing the legal system within which you are then going to produce the cars and the food?”

Friedman sat down to talk with Reason TV at Libertopia 2012 in San Diego. Friedman reflected on the impact of his landmark book, The Machinery of Freedom, discussed the differences between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism and revealed what his father, economist Milton Friedman, thought of his anarchist leanings.

Between 1956 and 1969, the Social Security Administration published a series of comic books intended to sell the seniors’ retirement program to youngsters. One of the arguments the series makes is that Social Security is great because it relieves children and young adults of responsibility to help pay for the expenses of an aging parent. Don’t want to deal with mom and dad’s late-life costs? That’s what federal retirement benefits for seniors are for. 

Between 1956 and 1969, the Social Security Administration published a series of comic books intended to sell the seniors’ retirement program to youngsters. One of the arguments the series makes is that Social Security is great because it relieves children and young adults of responsibility to help pay for the expenses of an aging parent. Don’t want to deal with mom and dad’s late-life costs? That’s what federal retirement benefits for seniors are for. 

Hungary, long considered one of post-communist CentralEurope's biggest success stories, has been backsliding fast since the rancidly populist Fidesz–Hungarian Civic Unionparty headed by Viktor Orbán won a two-thirds parliamentary majority in 2010. Among the many illiberal developments has been an alarming resurgence in government-sanctioned anti-Semitism.

‘The World Is More Complicated’ 

David Simon, creator of The Wire and Treme, on New Orleans, private prisons, drug policy, newspapers, and letting down libertarians

Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.
A reminder to most Democrats who spent 2002-08 telling us that abuse of executive power was at or near the top of the nation’s most urgent moral concerns: You just didn’t mean it. 
Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.


A reminder to most Democrats who spent 2002-08 telling us that abuse of executive power was at or near the top of the nation’s most urgent moral concerns: You just didn’t mean it. 

Election Night as It Should Have Been: Spanking, Punching, Motown, Dinosaurs

Gary Johnson Currently Has 4.5 Percent of the Popular Vote

Spread the word! 

Gary Johnson Currently Has 4.5 Percent of the Popular Vote

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson is pulling in 4.5 percent of the popular vote right now. That’s real numbers, not polling.

The numbers come from two small New Hampshire villages, Dixville Notch and Hart’s Location, who voted at midnight this morning. According to the Associated Press, President Barack Obama got 28 votes from the two villages, Mitt Romney got 14, and Johnson got two. (The AP reported he only got one last night, but the story has been updated. But then the vote numbers in Hart’s Location are now off by one so there’s still an error somewhere in the story.)

New Hampshire, of course, has a deep connection to libertarianism with the Free State ProjectJohnson’s vote totals should not come much as a shock there even given such a small population sample.

We must always remember that, as Americans, we all have a common enemy - an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.
Dave Barry (via laliberty)