Seattle Reasonoids: Catch Gillespie & Welch at Hempfest, Discuss Drug Policy Reform with Sullum, et al on 8/23!

Calling all Seattle folks and visitors to that Emerald City!

Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch will be speaking at various points over the weekend at Hempfest, the largest annual event dedicated to marijuana-related issues in the world. Go here for more info and to get the speakers schedule. They will be talking about how the pot-legalization movement can learn from the Tea Party (!) in terms of getting politicians to do the right thing when it comes to ending the drug war. And yes, they will be hawking their new book, The Declaration of Independents.

On Tuesday, August 23, the Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) is hosting an afternoon conference on drug-policy reform. Among the speakers will be Jacob Sullum, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch, along with folks such as the Drug Policy Alliance's Ethan Nadelman.

The event is free and open to the public, but RSVPs are a must. Details:

Drug Policy Reform in the States

 When: Tuesday, August 23 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Where: Hyatt Regency Bellevue, 900 Bellevue Way NE, Bellevue

RSVP: Mary Toledo at [e-mail] or 310-391-2245

"Drug Policy Reform in the States" will be a chance to find out how states are leading the way in drug policy reform. You'll hear from drug policy experts, including Washington State Representative Roger Goodman; the Drug Policy Alliance's Ethan Nadelmann, and Reason's own Jacob Sullum, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch. This "mini-conference" will take place just before the annual State Policy Network meeting kicks off, but you do not have to be registered for SPN to attend this informative free afternoon.

For more information about SPN, go here.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

Suck it, Portland.

[Aqua Buddha]

Is it the hippie lettuce that makes them keep forgetting they've already plugged the book?

[sarcasmic]

They've got a book? Wow! That's totally cool!

Seriously though, when are you guys gonna shamelessly promote your book on the East Coast?

[joshua corning]

when are you guys gonna shamelessly promote your book on the East Coast?

Suck it New England!!!

I think Nick and Matt really want to meet Epi and me.

I ain't going...I don't want to drive 3 hours just so I can spend another 4 hours looking for parking in a shitty city I HATE!!!!

Epi lives in Seattle though...he might go.

[Pissiarch]

I am so there!

[Sensei Mitch]

Wow, I Reason.com just lost major credibility points in my book. Part of "the pot-legalization movement"? I would reason with you but what is the point, obviously your brains are already fried. So what would the restrictions be on the drug that has a lasting impact on your brain function. I know, never met a pot-head who felt they were diminished, either. Kind of self-serving for them to make that statement. But seriously, can surgeons toke up? Pilots? Heavy machine operators? Bus drivers? How do you regulate it?

There is a simple way to solve the drug problem. Taint all seized drugs with some non-lethal but nasty side-effect that requires treatment and release it back into the illegal supply chain (via CIA, etc). Publicize this is being done. Arrest when they seek treatment. Reestablish chain gangs to beef up our failing infrastructure. You will have improved the infrastructure with minimal increase in costs, improved the job market as the users lose their job heading for the chain gang, scared the casual user away and seriously hurt the earning potential of the drug cartels.

BTW, why stop with pot?

And reason, really, legalize, regulate and tax to save the economy, when has that ever worked? Remind me, what happened to the one legal pot manufacturer in California recently?? Grow up reason. Oh, but then you'd have to stop smoking pot.

I know this comment will get thrashed, go ahead, don't forget to giggle and get a big mac after you post...

[sarcasmic]

Simple question: Do you own your body?

If you answer yes, then what right does anyone have to tell you what chemicals you may or may not put into it?

If you answer no, then who does?

[Mean Girl]

It's Encourage A Troll Friday!?
Pass it on!

[Sensei Mitch]

Ah, the classic 'if you answer yes, then' rebut.

Hmmm, Yes. But your 'yes' caveat/reasoning is narrow-minded and self-justifying. No where in my post did I indicate you couldn't do drugs, perhaps you want to help improve the infrastructure.

I'll pull the 'do you think alcohol should be banned' into this response for sake of expediency.

If the actions you take with your body impact others, then your freedoms may need to be infringed upon so mine aren't. Ala alcohol and drunk driving laws, age restrictions, etc. They are there to protect others not you. Also the laws consider the length of the effects of alcohol. If you disagree with the laws surrounding alcohol then you are an anarchist and this discussion is pointless. If you solely want to legalize pot for your own use, then your thinking is self-serving and not objective (kind of like an alcoholic who doesn't think they have a problem).

Stop attacking/defending the message and deal with the responsible/adult question. What would the restrictions be on the legal use of pot? How would you regulate it? How would you compete with the illegal (tax free and probably better quality) pot market?

What do you think of the required drug testing (effective 7/12) for all welfare recipients in FL and TN? Constitutional infringement or justified?

Like I said, while I am opposed to legalizing drugs, I am open to counter arguments that don't include 'people will use it anyway', 'it will fix our economic problems', 'drugs only have positive effects', 'it's my body, man' or, 'cause their killing my buzz...man'. Those arguments are fraught with holes, inconsistencies and self-serving logic.

BTW, pot is more damaging to your lungs then cigarettes...of course that is probably just government funded anti-drug propaganda...right;-) Who should pay for the medical treatments to the lungs in your body damaged by pot? Following your thinking, no one but you. Now that I agree with!

[sarcasmic]

No where in my post did I indicate you couldn't do drugs

No, you just said drugs should be poisoned, and people who seek treatment for being poisoned should be used for slave labor.
From that I inferred that you believe people shouldn't use drugs.
My bad.

If you disagree with the laws surrounding alcohol then you are an anarchist...

I agree with laws that punish people for acts of force and/or fraud on others.
I disagree with laws that punish people for something they haven't done yet.

Those arguments are fraught with holes, inconsistencies and self-serving logic.

Translation: You don't have any coherent rebuttals to those arguments other than attacking the person making the argument.

Loser.

[Chris W]

Before I get into this, you should know that I don't smoke pot, and I sincerely doubt Welch or Gillespie do either, if for no other reason than that they probably don't have the time. You lost all credibility by not being able to consider the possibility that people can love freedom enough to fight for things they don't personally agree with. Anyway, here goes:

Drug prices would go down when legalized because the risk and the transportation costs would go down. You would also see more innovation in the creation of strains to accommodate the increasingly complex tastes engendered by the legalization of a new product. Just look at what happened with craft breweries after the deregulation of that industry. And so you're asking how a legal entity with a quality product that can be grown on site at their distribution centers could possibly compete with an illegal operation in another country that has to deal with large distances and high risk? I suggest visiting the website of your local community college and seeing how much 3 credit hours of economics costs. Afterwards you'll be able to do a cost-benefit analysis and see that it was worth your time. You'll also finally be able to post on a libertarian forum without making an ass of yourself.

Obviously, the drug would be regulated like alcohol, and I doubt any workplace will allow their employees to smoke on the job. You outright attack pot smokers and their sympathizers, and when you're called on your shit, you say that the 'adult question' is how it would be regulated? What a stupid question. The 'adult' issue here is whether or not you believe in personal freedom. If you do, then logic will eventually lead you, perhaps after another 3 credit hours, to the conclusion that you have to also stand up for things you don't agree with in order to be morally consistent. Because when it comes down to it, if a person is just hurting themselves, so what? It's none of your business, asshole.

[PIRS]

Do you think alcohol should also be banned?

[Spiny Norman]

Five minutes on each of two days? Sound checks are longer than that.

[joshua corning]

that Emerald City!

Seattle is THE Emerald City not that Emerald City

You don't call New York that Big Apple do you?

[M. Simon]

You ought to get hospital psychological intake nurse to speak about their illegal drug protocols.

The medical attitude and policy is now "self medication". Why isn't this being reported?

[Nike Dunk High]

Greetings Now i'm for that reason happy I stubled onto any site,Nike Dunk High Prefer came across you will just by error, at the same time Document was first Nike Dunk 2008 Gold Black browsing relating to Bing just for something.

[Nike Dunk High]

thanks