Month: December 2013

Marijuana tourism in
Colorado will see another complication before it kicks off
Wednesday:
Denver International Airport doesn’t want to see any of your
bud or weed or whatever you kids are calling it these days. From
the Denver Post:

Denver International Airport will be the first city facility to
prohibit marijuana possession on all of its property as it attempts
to combat illegal interstate trafficking in the face of federal
law.

Airport officials plan to begin enforcing the new policy, which
is the furthest-reaching among the city’s marijuana limitations, in
early January.

Recently adopted city ordinances ban the display and transfer —
but not mere possession — of marijuana on city-owned property
including parks, the 16th Street Mall, streets and sidewalks near
schools.

“We talked to all of (the federal agencies involved), and
they’ve expressed concern for good reason, but it was our decision
based on the way the airport operates,” said Stacey Stegman, DIA
spokeswoman. “We didn’t want to impact other airports and other
agencies, and we didn’t want to facilitate transporting marijuana
across state lines.”

But apparently tokers shouldn’t worry too much:

And while the airport has decided to implement a zero-tolerance
marijuana policy, it doesn’t plan to actively enforce the
policy.

“It’s not like we are going to do checkpoints. We just want
people to comply,” Stegman said, noting that a violator would have
to be discovered by other means, such as committing a different
crime and having pot found in the perpetrator’s possession.

Well, then! But an important reminder: The airport’s rules have
absolutely no bearing on what the Transportation Security Agency
does if their agents discovery you with marijuana.

Read the full story
here. Jacob Sullum explains what to expect in Colorado come
Wednesday here.

Follow this story and more at Reason
24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and
Reason articles. You can get the widgets
here. If you have a story that would be of
interest to Reason’s readers please let us know by emailing the
24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories
at @reason247.

Weird little piece up at Slate today, about an issue
certainly none of their readers or pretty much anyone else cares
about, but feeds a generic endless desire to scratch at the
persistently annoying itch of libertarianism in these here
times.

It is called “How
Libertarians Failed Gay Rights” and its URL contains the phrase
“the party failed to take a stand” on gay rights. Its evidence for
this is that on the LP’s current website, author Tyler Lopez
couldn’t find a dedicated page about gay rights.

The Party’s platform
does, though Lopez doesn’t mention this, contain this:

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity
should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals,
such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration
or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to
define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting
adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and
personal relationships.

Lopez’ very non-deep knowledge of his subject misses some other
things, like the long history of LP candidates speaking out about
gay rights as a pretty big deal, from Ed Clark’s 1978 California
governor’s race in which he ran hard against
the anti-gay Briggs Initiative to Gary
Johnson in 2012 to
Andre Marrou in 1992, and the interesting identity politics
fact that the Party’s first presidential candidate, John Hospers,
was gay, though not openly so in a modern sense. 

At the very convention where he got the Party’s
nomination, former Republican congressman and Defense of Marriage
Act author Bob Barr
had to denounce his own law and insist he’d repeal it as
president.

Lopez also
misses the Party’s record from the mid-’70s on of being way
ahead of the national curve in talking sense and laissez-faire when
it came to homosexuality.

This is summed up well in
Ralph Raico’s document used by the LP during the 1976 Roger
MacBride campaign, “Gay
Rights: A Libertarian Approach.” Some excerpts. Again, this was
used in the mid-’70s. Worth a longish look:

Since they partially share the heritage of Classical Liberalism,
democratic socialists and left-liberals have been much more helpful
to the cause of gay liberation. Much of the progress in recent
years in repealing laws in this area has been due to them. But too
often, even when they are more or less rational on the subject,
they are, either for reasons of temperament or politics, much too
timid….so many of them are generally in favor
of gay rights, but nearly all shy away from the right of homosexual
couples to adopt children, or even to have their unions legally
recognized. Moreover, their attitudes are often tainted by an
offensive, psychiatrically-rooted condescension: basically, a
these-people-are-sick-and-need-help-not-punishment approach….

And as for the run-of-the-mill liberal politicians, we have a
right to suspect the extent of their genuine tolerance. Consider,
for example, one of the more “liberal” of these men, Sergeant
Shriver (who was McGovern’s Vice Presidential candidate in 1972).
In a speech in Chicago to Mayor Daley’s precinct workers, on
October 24, 1972, Shriver whiningly complained of the unfair
attacks on McGovern in these terms: “And then they say that George
McGovern wants to give blanket amnesty to everybody—draft dodgers,
deserters, queers, kooks …” (New Your Times, November 12,
1972. Sec. 4—notice that, in his frenzy, Shriver does not even take
the trouble to make sense: “blanket amnesty to queers?”) I think
you and I have a good idea of the real feelings on homosexuals of
anyone likely to become the candidate for President of the
Democratic Party…..

With the Libertarian Party, unlike other political groups, there
was never any need laboriously to raise its consciousness on the
issue of gay liberation, nor to compel it, after long, drawn-out
battles, finally to concede the humanity and first class
citizenship of gay men and women. Instead, the Libertarian Party
was born believing in gay rights. The need to promote full freedom
of individual development for all persons is what led to the
formation of our Party; and the very first mention of us
in The New York Times (“New Party Makes a Debut
in Denver,” February 6, 1972) lists as
our first objective (even ahead of abolition of
the draft, amnesty for draft-evaders and deserters, private
ownership of gold, etc.): “Repeal of all criminal laws in which
there is no victim.”

Gay rights have been an issue in practically every major
Libertarian campaign since then, including John Hospers’ try for
the Presidency in 1972 (he did get one electoral vote, thus coming
in a close third to McGovern); Fran Youngstein’s campaign for Mayor
of New York; Jerry Tuccille’s try for Governor of New York in 1974;
and the 1975 bids of Ray Cunningham for Mayor of San Francisco, and
Dave Long for Mayor of Boston. It is also an integral part of the
campaign of Roger MacBride and David Bergland, our candidates for
President and Vice-President in 1976. At the Libertarian National
Convention in New York City, in August, 1975, at which MacBride and
Bergland were nominated, the following Platform planks were adopted
unanimously.

“We hold that only actions which infringe the rights of others
can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all federal,
state and local laws creating “crimes” without victims. In
particular, we advocate: … . (b) the repeal of all laws regarding
consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and
solicitation, and the immediate cessation of state oppression of
homosexual men and women, that at last they be accorded their full
rights as individuals … (e) the use of executive pardon to free all
those presently incarcerated for the commission of these
“crimes.”

We call for the end of Defense Department policy of discharging
armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct when such conduct
does not interfere with their assigned duties. We further call for
the retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously
assigned for such reasons and the deletion of such information from
military personnel files.”

Better than “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and in 1975. Dare
I suggest Lopez has no idea what he’s talking about?

More on how radical and how early the LP was on gay rights, a
long long time ago, from Raico:

During the Tuccille campaign in 1974, a position paper was
issued on the subject, composed by Mike James, Western New York
Libertarian and gay liberationist. It provide s the basis for the
position of the MacBride-Bergland ticket on the issue. Here is what
our national candidates in 1976 specifically favor and will promote
to the extent they can:

• Repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual acts between
  adults (with the age of consent reasonably defined). This would
  include abolition of laws prohibiting prostitution and
  solicitation, whether gay or straight.
• Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the
  same sex, and the extension to such unions of all legal rights and
  privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual
  marriages.
• An end to the use of loitering statutes and entrapment
  procedures as a means of harassing gays and prostitutes.
• An end to the collection by government agencies of data on the
  sexual preferences of individuals.
• Elimination of regulations specifying homosexuality as a
  justification for denying or revoking state licenses (for doctors,
  lawyers, teachers, hairdressers, etc.).
• Repeal of laws prohibiting cross-dressing.
• Recognition of the right of a homosexual parent to be
  considered for custody of his or her natural child, and of the
  child to choose the homosexual parent as guardian.
• Elimination of laws specifying homosexuality as grounds for
  denying the right of adoption.
• Equality of treatment of gay people in regard to government
  service, including particularly membership in the armed
  forces.
• Release of all individuals presently detained or imprisoned for
  any victimless crime.

Even Lopez’s substantive critique amounts to a complaint
that the LP treats gay issues in a distinctly libertarian
way–worrying about how government power effects gays, not worrying
about private attitudes or treatment, which remain the business of
those who hold the attitudes or give the treatment.

To complain about that is not to complain that the LP isn’t
sufficiently pro-gay (and compared to who? The Democratic Party who

just last year got around to getting gay marriage rights in its
platform, and which some research by colleague Ronald Bailey
indicates didn’t even mention eliminating sexual orientation
discrimination in the platform until 1984?) but that it is overly
libertarian.

Slate‘s piece combines confused thinking with near
utter ignorance on its topic. However, it will, if read quickly and
carelessly by equally ignorant readers, help make certain people
think less of libertarianism, and that’s all that matters.

Weird little piece up at Slate today, about an issue
certainly none of their readers or pretty much anyone else cares
about, but feeds a generic endless desire to scratch at the
persistently annoying itch of libertarianism in these here
times.

It is called “How
Libertarians Failed Gay Rights” and its URL contains the phrase
“the party failed to take a stand” on gay rights. Its evidence for
this is that on the LP’s current website, author Tyler Lopez
couldn’t find a dedicated page about gay rights.

The Party’s platform
does, though Lopez doesn’t mention this, contain this:

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity
should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals,
such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration
or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to
define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting
adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and
personal relationships.

Lopez’ very non-deep knowledge of his subject misses some other
things, like the long history of LP candidates speaking out about
gay rights as a pretty big deal, from Ed Clark’s 1978 California
governor’s race in which he ran hard against
the anti-gay Briggs Initiative to Gary
Johnson in 2012 to
Andre Marrou in 1992, and the interesting identity politics
fact that the Party’s first presidential candidate, John Hospers,
was gay, though not openly so in a modern sense. 

At the very convention where he got the Party’s
nomination, former Republican congressman and Defense of Marriage
Act author Bob Barr
had to denounce his own law and insist he’d repeal it as
president.

Lopez also
misses the Party’s record from the mid-’70s on of being way
ahead of the national curve in talking sense and laissez-faire when
it came to homosexuality.

This is summed up well in
Ralph Raico’s document used by the LP during the 1976 Roger
MacBride campaign, “Gay
Rights: A Libertarian Approach.” Some excerpts. Again, this was
used in the mid-’70s. Worth a longish look:

Since they partially share the heritage of Classical Liberalism,
democratic socialists and left-liberals have been much more helpful
to the cause of gay liberation. Much of the progress in recent
years in repealing laws in this area has been due to them. But too
often, even when they are more or less rational on the subject,
they are, either for reasons of temperament or politics, much too
timid….so many of them are generally in favor
of gay rights, but nearly all shy away from the right of homosexual
couples to adopt children, or even to have their unions legally
recognized. Moreover, their attitudes are often tainted by an
offensive, psychiatrically-rooted condescension: basically, a
these-people-are-sick-and-need-help-not-punishment approach….

And as for the run-of-the-mill liberal politicians, we have a
right to suspect the extent of their genuine tolerance. Consider,
for example, one of the more “liberal” of these men, Sergeant
Shriver (who was McGovern’s Vice Presidential candidate in 1972).
In a speech in Chicago to Mayor Daley’s precinct workers, on
October 24, 1972, Shriver whiningly complained of the unfair
attacks on McGovern in these terms: “And then they say that George
McGovern wants to give blanket amnesty to everybody—draft dodgers,
deserters, queers, kooks …” (New Your Times, November 12,
1972. Sec. 4—notice that, in his frenzy, Shriver does not even take
the trouble to make sense: “blanket amnesty to queers?”) I think
you and I have a good idea of the real feelings on homosexuals of
anyone likely to become the candidate for President of the
Democratic Party…..

With the Libertarian Party, unlike other political groups, there
was never any need laboriously to raise its consciousness on the
issue of gay liberation, nor to compel it, after long, drawn-out
battles, finally to concede the humanity and first class
citizenship of gay men and women. Instead, the Libertarian Party
was born believing in gay rights. The need to promote full freedom
of individual development for all persons is what led to the
formation of our Party; and the very first mention of us
in The New York Times (“New Party Makes a Debut
in Denver,” February 6, 1972) lists as
our first objective (even ahead of abolition of
the draft, amnesty for draft-evaders and deserters, private
ownership of gold, etc.): “Repeal of all criminal laws in which
there is no victim.”

Gay rights have been an issue in practically every major
Libertarian campaign since then, including John Hospers’ try for
the Presidency in 1972 (he did get one electoral vote, thus coming
in a close third to McGovern); Fran Youngstein’s campaign for Mayor
of New York; Jerry Tuccille’s try for Governor of New York in 1974;
and the 1975 bids of Ray Cunningham for Mayor of San Francisco, and
Dave Long for Mayor of Boston. It is also an integral part of the
campaign of Roger MacBride and David Bergland, our candidates for
President and Vice-President in 1976. At the Libertarian National
Convention in New York City, in August, 1975, at which MacBride and
Bergland were nominated, the following Platform planks were adopted
unanimously.

“We hold that only actions which infringe the rights of others
can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all federal,
state and local laws creating “crimes” without victims. In
particular, we advocate: … . (b) the repeal of all laws regarding
consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and
solicitation, and the immediate cessation of state oppression of
homosexual men and women, that at last they be accorded their full
rights as individuals … (e) the use of executive pardon to free all
those presently incarcerated for the commission of these
“crimes.”

We call for the end of Defense Department policy of discharging
armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct when such conduct
does not interfere with their assigned duties. We further call for
the retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously
assigned for such reasons and the deletion of such information from
military personnel files.”

Better than “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and in 1975. Dare
I suggest Lopez has no idea what he’s talking about?

More on how radical and how early the LP was on gay rights, a
long long time ago, from Raico:

During the Tuccille campaign in 1974, a position paper was
issued on the subject, composed by Mike James, Western New York
Libertarian and gay liberationist. It provide s the basis for the
position of the MacBride-Bergland ticket on the issue. Here is what
our national candidates in 1976 specifically favor and will promote
to the extent they can:

• Repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual acts between
  adults (with the age of consent reasonably defined). This would
  include abolition of laws prohibiting prostitution and
  solicitation, whether gay or straight.
• Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the
  same sex, and the extension to such unions of all legal rights and
  privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual
  marriages.
• An end to the use of loitering statutes and entrapment
  procedures as a means of harassing gays and prostitutes.
• An end to the collection by government agencies of data on the
  sexual preferences of individuals.
• Elimination of regulations specifying homosexuality as a
  justification for denying or revoking state licenses (for doctors,
  lawyers, teachers, hairdressers, etc.).
• Repeal of laws prohibiting cross-dressing.
• Recognition of the right of a homosexual parent to be
  considered for custody of his or her natural child, and of the
  child to choose the homosexual parent as guardian.
• Elimination of laws specifying homosexuality as grounds for
  denying the right of adoption.
• Equality of treatment of gay people in regard to government
  service, including particularly membership in the armed
  forces.
• Release of all individuals presently detained or imprisoned for
  any victimless crime.

Even Lopez’s substantive critique amounts to a complaint
that the LP treats gay issues in a distinctly libertarian
way–worrying about how government power effects gays, not worrying
about private attitudes or treatment, which remain the business of
those who hold the attitudes or give the treatment.

To complain about that is not to complain that the LP isn’t
sufficiently pro-gay (and compared to who? The Democratic Party who

just last year got around to getting gay marriage rights in its
platform, and which some research by colleague Ronald Bailey
indicates didn’t even mention eliminating sexual orientation
discrimination in the platform until 1984?) but that it is overly
libertarian.

Slate‘s piece combines confused thinking with near
utter ignorance on its topic. However, it will, if read quickly and
carelessly by equally ignorant readers, help make certain people
think less of libertarianism, and that’s all that matters.

By the middle of next year, Oakland, California will likely have
a city-wide central surveillance center to monitor citizens at all
times. 

In a
6-1 vote last month, the Oakland City Council agreed to
move forward with the creation of the Domain
Awareness Center: a central surveillance hub for law
enforcement in one of the country’s
most dangerous cities. The “spy center” will pull data from a
web of interconnected monitoring devices strewn throughout the city
and will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

According to the Center
for Investigative Reporting, the Domain Awareness Center
started as a federal anti-terrorism project for the Port of
Oakland, but is now expanding into a city-wide program.

The Domain Awareness Center, a joint project between the Port of
Oakland and city, started as a nationwide initiative to secure
ports by networking sensors and cameras in and around the
facilities. The busy port is one of seven U.S. maritime facilities
that the Department of Homeland Security considers at highest
risk of a terrorist attack.

Since its inception in 2009, the project has ballooned into a
surveillance program for the entire city. Some officials already
have proposed linking the center to a regional Department of
Homeland Security intelligence-gathering operation or adding feeds
from surveillance cameras around the Oakland stadium and arena
complex.

The center will aggregate information from an array of existing
surveillance methods, including thousands
of security cameras owned by the city and private businesses,
license plate readers, gun shot detectors, crime-mapping software,
and Twitter feeds. 

Oakland residents vigorously protested the Domain Awareness
Center, citing privacy concerns and a lack of trust in
police. 

Joshua Daniels, one of the speakers during a July city council
meeting,
said the surveillance center would give significantly more
power to the police department, which he believes “doesn’t respect
the rights” of Oakland residents. 

“This city has a huge trust issue,” Daniels said, “and it’s not
going to be solved by spying on your citizens.”

West Oakland resident Magdalena Kazmierczak
agreed, “I don’t want to live in a city that is testing
this giant surveillance system, because I believe it is going to be
used to criminalize normal existence.” 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and
the Electronic Frontier Foundation have also stated their
opposition to the center, on the grounds that there are no privacy
guidelines in place or limits on how much collected data the city
will retain. 

This is all happening in the same city where, earlier this year,
the county sheriff
proposed purchasing a drone that can virtually
see through walls with infrared technology. The drone plan was

tabled following a series of complaints over privacy
concerns by groups like the ACLU and Alameda County Against Drones,
but it may be brought up again.

The Domain Awareness Center however, will almost certainly still
be constructed. Oakland will allocate
$10.9 million in federal grant money to create the new center.
The city also plans to apply for an additional $2.6 million to
create several new law enforcement positions.  

By the middle of next year, Oakland, California will likely have
a city-wide central surveillance center to monitor citizens at all
times. 

In a
6-1 vote last month, the Oakland City Council agreed to
move forward with the creation of the Domain
Awareness Center: a central surveillance hub for law
enforcement in one of the country’s
most dangerous cities. The “spy center” will pull data from a
web of interconnected monitoring devices strewn throughout the city
and will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 

According to the Center
for Investigative Reporting, the Domain Awareness Center
started as a federal anti-terrorism project for the Port of
Oakland, but is now expanding into a city-wide program.

The Domain Awareness Center, a joint project between the Port of
Oakland and city, started as a nationwide initiative to secure
ports by networking sensors and cameras in and around the
facilities. The busy port is one of seven U.S. maritime facilities
that the Department of Homeland Security considers at highest
risk of a terrorist attack.

Since its inception in 2009, the project has ballooned into a
surveillance program for the entire city. Some officials already
have proposed linking the center to a regional Department of
Homeland Security intelligence-gathering operation or adding feeds
from surveillance cameras around the Oakland stadium and arena
complex.

The center will aggregate information from an array of existing
surveillance methods, including thousands
of security cameras owned by the city and private businesses,
license plate readers, gun shot detectors, crime-mapping software,
and Twitter feeds. 

Oakland residents vigorously protested the Domain Awareness
Center, citing privacy concerns and a lack of trust in
police. 

Joshua Daniels, one of the speakers during a July city council
meeting,
said the surveillance center would give significantly more
power to the police department, which he believes “doesn’t respect
the rights” of Oakland residents. 

“This city has a huge trust issue,” Daniels said, “and it’s not
going to be solved by spying on your citizens.”

West Oakland resident Magdalena Kazmierczak
agreed, “I don’t want to live in a city that is testing
this giant surveillance system, because I believe it is going to be
used to criminalize normal existence.” 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and
the Electronic Frontier Foundation have also stated their
opposition to the center, on the grounds that there are no privacy
guidelines in place or limits on how much collected data the city
will retain. 

This is all happening in the same city where, earlier this year,
the county sheriff
proposed purchasing a drone that can virtually
see through walls with infrared technology. The drone plan was

tabled following a series of complaints over privacy
concerns by groups like the ACLU and Alameda County Against Drones,
but it may be brought up again.

The Domain Awareness Center however, will almost certainly still
be constructed. Oakland will allocate
$10.9 million in federal grant money to create the new center.
The city also plans to apply for an additional $2.6 million to
create several new law enforcement positions.