Missouri Libertarian Party Declines To Endorse Marijuana Legalization Initiative
Despite opposing the drug war, and indicating that he will even vote for the measure himself, the state LP's chairman said the initiative would not get the party's stamp of approval.

In November, Missouri will vote on Amendment 3, which, if passed, will legalize the recreational possession of marijuana in the state. Currently, 19 states and Washington, D.C. allow recreational pot, with the possibility of more on the ballot this year. But ironically, the Missouri initiative is getting pushback even from otherwise-sympathetic sources.
Amendment 3 is sponsored by Legal Missouri 2022, a marijuana advocacy group. According to the group's website, the proposed initiative would "legalize adult-use marijuana," "boost state tax revenues," and reduce the "illicit market" for weed. As written, the proposal would remove state laws against "purchasing, possessing, consuming, using, delivering, manufacturing, and selling" marijuana for adults 21 and older. It would also allow anyone convicted of nonviolent marijuana-related offenses to petition for expungement and, if necessary, release from incarceration, parole, or probation. Sales would be taxed at 6 percent, and Missourians would be limited to 3 ounces for personal use.
Earlier this week, despite supporting legalization, the Libertarian Party of Missouri voted overwhelmingly against endorsing the measure. Chairman Bill Slantz told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "We just don't believe that any government at any level should have any legislation against drugs."
Slantz singled out the complexity of the initiative's language, saying "The fewer the words, the better off we are." Specifically, he cited the 3-ounce cap as undermining the goal of legalization: "If you have 3.2 ounces or 3.1 ounces…has the scale been…checked to make sure it's accurate?"
Notably, Slantz indicated that while the party made no endorsement, he would be voting for the measure personally. Jonathan Dine, the party's candidate for Senate, indicated his support as well.
Earlier this month, the Democratic Party of Missouri also declined to endorse the proposal, citing the complicated expungement provisions and the manner in which it would allocate licenses for marijuana businesses. The party worried that Amendment 3 "may negatively impact minorities, people of color, and low-income earning Missourians." Like the state Libertarian Party, the Democrats support legalization in general, and some party leaders indicated they would be voting for it.
Dan Viets, a Missouri attorney and chair of Legal Missouri 2022's advisory board, tells Reason that both parties are "making a big mistake" by not endorsing Amendment 3. He cited its support by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and "at least four NAACP chapters" as evidence of its appeal to those who favor both legalization and anti-racism.
As for the 3-ounce limit, Viets says that there is an irony in the Libertarian Party's opposition to it: "Most legal states do not allow as much as 3 ounces." Indeed, of the 19 states, plus D.C., that allow recreational use, only six—Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island—allow at least 3 ounces of recreational pot.
Viets admits that the limit was a compromise: "The reason for limits in general is that we hope to actually pass this law… Certainly, there are compromises in Amendment 3, and they're there so it will pass."
Despite the major parties' neutrality, and opposition from Republican Gov. Mike Parson, the measure looks likely to pass: A recent poll showed 62 percent of Missourians support legalization, including "double digits [support] among all demographic groups."
As more and more states soften their marijuana laws to varying degrees, Amendment 3 provides an interesting consideration: Is an imperfect bill that still gets nonviolent drug offenders out of jail and prevents convicting new ones better than no bill at all?
For his part, Viets says, "You can't expect to get everything you want all at once, and if you don't take the progress that you can achieve, you never make any progress."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
cutting off face to spite nose or something.
I think it’s cutting down trees to spite the forest.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly (aps-04) earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
If the bill doesn’t do any of the above, but created an overburdensome regulatory structure and law which highly limits and complicates a legal marijuana market, I don’t think a libertarian group looking at California’s weed legalization and saying, “If that’s the libertarian moment, I don’t want any of it.” is a bad thing.
For instance, and I'm just spitballing here, if America's Most Libertarian Governor commits his taxpayers to forward a massive state welfare scheme to the entire third world if they can make their way into his political district, but one tiny corner of that law the governor signed allows said third world population to "obtain a business license", is it libertarian to support such a scheme?
I argue not.
(L) position makes sense yes.
Too many hypothetical double negatives
How about “legalizing 3oz is better then not legalizing 3oz”?
But that's not comparable. Where's the massive welfare scheme here?
The status quo is, you can't do X legally without some highly restricted license that hardly anyone who wants to can get. The change would be to, you can't do X legally unless you satisfy a set of criteria that a great many people are able and willing to meet. How is that not an increase in freedom?
"JOE LANCASTER | 9.30.2022 4:20 PM"
I see what you did there, you sly dog.
I can see why the MLP wouldn't support a flawed law while not actively opposing it. Libertarians should only support laws that follow the NAP or else we'd be hypocrites.
Yep, the key to success in a Republic is to take the position that you either want ALL the cake, or not even a taste of the icing!
Why would any sane person support a law endorsed by racists and commies?
They may be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good but no opinion by the party and personal support doesn't seem a bad libertarian position, but then I can see why it would confuse the progressive writers of Reason.
Obsolete, disaffected, bigoted, faux libertarian right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.
These assholes can't be replaced fast enough.
Trevor Noah got fired? Holy jeeby creebies, shit's getting real.
Fake news. You can’t fire black peoples.
Trevor Noah is black?!!
I’m surprised he lasted this long. It almost seems like the writers have sabotaged him.
Or progs have just become that unfunny and boring.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
That is the Libertarian motto, right? Always let the perfect be the enemy of the good? No surprise here.
Girl-bullying fascists will always find a way to keep those shackles riveted and slip new ones on (see the 21st Amendment, which empowers the Feds to murder everyone around the borders of a state commandeered by fanatical prohibitionists). Prohibition laws caused the Panics/Recessions of 1837, 1907, 1929, 1933, 1971, 1987, 2008 and both Flash Crashes. These are Republican machinations that wreck national economies beyond the wildest dreams of the most violent communist saboteurs.
It's not good. It's less bad.
Less bad is good. Do painkillers make it good? No, they make it less bad...which is good.
OK
I wasn’t so sure about this until they managed to tie in legalization with anti racism.
Took em 7 fucking paragraphs, they’re slipping!
How are they on Mexicans and butt sex?
Good for them. I never support a legalization measure which includes new taxes. That's the marijuana legalization campaign's MO to get non-drug users to buy into their cause - "legalize it and we'll tax the heck out of it and raise new taxes".
To quote Margaret Thatcher: No. No. No.
"New" taxes? You're looking at it completely the wrong way. When it's illegal, if you get caught they take 100% of it and then some. When it's legal, the "new tax" takes less than 100% of it. Legalization is always a tax reduction.
Consumers of marijuana are paying this tax for the first time. Therefore, it’s a NEW tax. I’ll never vote for a new tax on anyone.
That's an incredibly stubborn view. Everything that is legally purchased is taxed, hence, every new legal purchase is a new tax. When you buy drugs sourced from drug organizations you are not paying taxes but you are paying jacked-up prices to account for all the risks and bribes they must take. Taxes are just a fee for having governmental regulation. You can argue about whether the taxes are too high. You can argue that the regulations are not good. But to argue that there should be no oversight or no taxes?
I’m skeptical of new taxes and regulations too. But we should look at the current Missouri law to see which would be better: “Marijuana possession has been decriminalized. The legislation was approved in 2014 to decriminalize the possession of 10 grams or less of cannabis. Possession of 10 grams or less is punishable by a fine only, but the offense remains a criminal misdemeanor. The possession of greater quantities of cannabis remains punishable by jail time.” https://www.mpp.org/states/missouri/
So you’ll receive a fine and it’s a criminal misdemeanor with escalating criminal penalties for more than 10 grams. If the status quo was marijuana is completely decriminalized, meaning no criminal penalties for any possession by adults and some allowance for selling/sharing between consenting adults, then I'd agree with you. Creating lots of taxes and regulations will do little but make the product so expensive that the black market will continue to boom.
The lesser evil here is legalization. Because the status quo is not a libertarian option or even a "limited government" option. Libertarians should be looking to eliminate fines, confiscation, and criminal penalties just as much as they look to eliminate taxes and regulations.
I agree it would be better if there were an actual libertarian option on the ballot with a chance of winning, but that’s not the case here. The electorate in Missouri should legalize it now, then organize and work to remove the regulations, taxes, and the remaining criminal penalties later.
Looter prohibitionists have tried to tax plant drugs since 1914 and again in 1936, after Judy Garland sang La Cucaracha. Treaties with monarchies and totalitarian drug cartel states have sought to ban weed since 1925 by equivocating it and coke with addictive opiates.
Well, there is the whole tax angle.... but 6% is way lower than other states have done. If it's a step in the right direction, vote for it.
And 6% is less than confiscation plus a fine, which is what you get without legalization.
Will legalization make Missouri's government bigger or smaller?
More regulatory officials, but maybe less prison officials? It's hard to tell.
And yet another reason why the Libertarian Party is a waste of time.
Earth to the morons in the Missouri branch?
Ever heard of 'one step at a time'?
Losers.
MAGA and CPUSA infiltrators are the wasters of time.
Slantz is another Trumpanzee Anschluss operator helping God's Own Prohibitionists choke off the spoiler votes the LP has used to repeal bad laws for the past 50 years. Fence-straddling mystical frauds have been strangling the repeal of bad laws since the 1840s, when Harriet Beecher Stowe reported on cowardly straddles that preserved the Fugitive Slave Laws through inaction and fear of controversy. We really need to get rid of these GOP and Dem infiltrators and Trojans.
Some good may yet come of Trumpanzees infiltrating the LP. If Slantz will unstraddle and actually endorse Grabbers of Pussy moves to shoot hippies and bully pregnant ladies, that might suffice to draw away enough fascist votes to defeat that rat-ridden hulk. Once former Jacobin National Socialism is wiped out, voters could possibly recognize the LP as the party most qualified to compete with the Dems to repeal bad laws.
One of the issues when its 'just decrim' is that the product itself is still contraband (may not be subject to arrest, but fines or similar and confiscation of the product and related paraphernalia). Hence, during any traffic stop, the odor of cannabis is still probable cause to search the whole vehicle.
At least with this bill, those searches predicated only on the odor of cannabis may be challenged. The 'odor of cannabis' has been one of the most wildly successful law enforcement 4th amendment waivers in the history of the country. Even if the cops never find cannabis, a search based on the odor is almost universally upheld.
The tax is modest compared to many other states (although I haven't read specifics many times the proposed amendment sets the state tax but allows local regulators to add their own local tax?).
While not completely ideal making cannabis as legal as watermelons or some other random agriculture commodity - it is better overall than the present status quo and will have spillover effects on the criminal justice system that will hopefully make up for any deficits.
Does any of this really matter? Even if it passes, won't Missouri's GOP AG and GOP-appointed State Supreme Court justices just pull a ballot nullification akin to Florida and Mississippi? I'm hoping it passes just to test whether ballot nullification probability is inversely related to latitude.
In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. {res-04} Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/