Quote:

---

War on drugs

Barr was a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as Anti-Drug Coordinator for the Department of Justice.[18] While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America.[17][18] This task force was established in 1998 by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs."[19] The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to "win the War on Drugs by 2002".[19]
“ There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief... ”

—Bob Barr, May 13 2002[20]

Barr advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. In 1998, He successfully blocked implementation of Initiative 59 -- the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" -- which would have legalized medical marijuana in the District of Columbia.[21] The "Barr Amendment" to the 1999 Omnibus spending bill not only blocked implementation of Initiative 59 but prohibited the vote tally from even being released.[21][22] Nearly a year passed before a lawsuit filed by the ACLU eventually revealed the initiative had received 69% of the vote.[23] In response to the judge's ruling, Barr simply attached an amendment to the 2000 Omnibus spending bill that overturned Intiative 59 outright.[24] Since leaving Congress, Barr's position on medical marijuana has changed dramatically and he now lobbies for state choice on the issue.[25][26]

In contrast to his otherwise fierce drug warrior image, Barr opposed prohibiting the dissemination of information about the manufacture of illegal drugs in the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, citing free speech reasons.[27]

[edit] Same-sex marriage

Barr took a lead in legislative debate concerning same-sex marriage. He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized, and individual states may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.[28] However, he does not support the Federal Marriage Amendment, citing states' rights reasons.[29]

---

A decent synopsis of Barr. I'd probably vote for him, and probably will.

Title of article is Barr vs. Barr (chances are 1:1 it will end in a draw )

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A463093

Quote:

---

Once upon a time there was a Republican congressman named Bob Barr. He represented Georgia and had more than a few repressive and/or intrusive views on things. Take, for example, his stance on medical marijuana: After D.C. voters – constantly under the thumb of Capitol Hill on everything (that's what taxation without representation will get you) – approved a measure legalizing medi-pot for seriously ill District patients, Barr stepped up to the plate to completely thwart voter will via the so-called Barr Amendment, which sought to strip the city of all funding if officials attempted to "enact or carry out" any local initiative to legalize or reduce penalties associated with use or possession of pot (or any other drug). In essence, Barr was the Man responsible for suppressing the will of 70% of District voters – not exactly a great title to hold (not that it seemed to bother Barr, mind you).

Flash forward to March 2007: My, how times have changed. According to the Marijuana Policy Project (which, it should be noted, has railed against the Barr Amendment on more than one occasion), the nonprofit group has just hired – drumroll, please – former Rep. Bob Barr to be an MPP lobbyist. Whoa: I know, it's pretty stunning, but it would seem that Barr – who dumped the GOP last year to join the Libertarians – has had a come-to-Jesus moment, and in part, the MPP says, Barr will be lobbying to gain for D.C. residents the right to enact a medi-pot law. In other words, Barr will be lobbying against the 1998 Barr Amendment – or, as MPP's government relations guru Aaron Houston says, the amendment now referred to as "the D.C. medical marijuana amendment." Whatever you want to call it, Barr will now be lobbying against it: "I, over the years, have taken a very strong stand on drug issues," Barr told the D.C. rag The Politico last week, "but in light of the tremendous growth of government power since 9/11, it has forced me and other conservatives to go back and take a renewed look at how big and powerful we want the government to be in people's lives." Amen, brother Barr, amen.

Anyway, Houston and the rest of the MPP are pretty stoked about adding Barr to their ranks, in part because he does have a reputation on Capitol Hill. Adding him is a "boon to the cause," says Houston. "It's a boon to the movement." Indeed, Houston says the news that Barr would join MPP has received a lot of attention on the hill – "Everybody," Houston says, "is talking about it." And that's usually a good thing when you're trying to get shit accomplished.

In addition to lobbying against the Barr Amend … errr … the D.C. medi-pot amendment – and for medi-pot laws in general – Barr will also take on the governmental beast known as the Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, the granddaddy of all drug-war boondoggles (not counting the drug war itself, that is).

To refresh, the anti-drug ad campaign from the White House Office of the National Drug Control Policy – the beast responsible for all those trite don't-do-drugs commercials – is a multimillion-dollar loser. Problem is, you see, that the ads don't work – never have, never will. In fact, several of the ads have actually had a reverse effect, which is to say – oh irony, you cruel, sweet mistress – that they've been isolated in research as commercials that have actually prompted teens to try drugs, specifically pot. In fact, it appears the ONDCP actually knew the ads weren't working but sat on a report that pointed that out. Nonetheless, the ONDCP – home to the nation's drug czar, John Walters – continues forward with its automatonlike assurances that drugs are bad and that anti-drug commercials are good, even as congressional skepticism about the program continues to grow. Let's put it this way: You know your program has issues when normally staunch drug-war allies – like Rep. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who last year called for Walters' ouster – begin questioning the efficacy of your strategies. (Of course that reality didn't stop President George W. Bush from calling for a 31% increase next year for the ad-campaign budget, which would give it $130 million to piss away.) Cue Barr, who Houston and MPP hope will now play a pivotal role in the increasingly popular quest to quash the anti-drug ad program: It is so "clear cut" that it's a failure, Houston says, but the fact that it continues on "demonstrates how incredibly difficult it is to kill a program in Washington."

I never would've imagined saying this (and it feels weird even thinking it): Here's hoping that this union of Barr and MPP is the start of a long and beautiful friendship.

Now I have to go shower.

---

Quote:

---

From a philosophical libertarian perspective the whole abortion issue hangs on when does life begin.

---

Quote:

---

hippies will throw their lot in with just because they are perceived as "anti-establishment".

---

Quote:

---

rev 766 said:
either way, neither one of these candidates would actually end the drug war, plus ron paul is a racist.

---

Quote:

---

Madtowntripper said:Ron Paul *is* a racist, although his supporters will never believe that even if he did write it in his own Congressional newsletter.

---

Quote:

---

Madtowntripper said:
Ron Paul *is* a racist, although his supporters will never believe that even if he did write it in his own Congressional newsletter.

Bob Barr is as well.

There is no end to my amusement at the people the hippies will throw their lot in with just because they are perceived as "anti-establishment".

---

Quote:

---

Minstrel said:

Quote:

---

rev 766 said:
either way, neither one of these candidates would actually end the drug war, plus ron paul is a racist.

---

Quote:

---

Madtowntripper said:Ron Paul *is* a racist, although his supporters will never believe that even if he did write it in his own Congressional newsletter.

---

Since you are both so adamant about branding Paul as a racist, I'm curious as to whether either of you would consider McCain a racist.  Please be so kind?

---

Quote:

---

Madtowntripper said:
I think Mccain is on the record as saying that he has quite a few problems with the Asian race.

---

Quote:

---

Ancalagon said:
To think Ron Paul is a racist requires a truly incredible mind. One must have managed to form an opinion of him without having taken in ANY of what he espouses. Had one actually bothered to try and understand his philosophy, one would surely -- assuming one had the standard number of chromosomes -- have realized that individualism is very much not in accord with racism (and sexism, and ageism, etc.) which lumps individuals into groups.

The conclusion I must draw is that the earlier posters in this thread are ignorant or are sufferers of Down Syndrome. You choose.

---