What do Libertarians do when elected?

[shanek]

Why, they actually keep their campaign promises!!! Even when it's to their own detriment!!! :eek:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0208/propertytax.html

In January, Libertarian Mayor Willy Marshall of Big Water, Utah kept his first campaign promise when he repealed his $13,000 annual salary.

In June, he kept his second promise: A "significant" property tax cut for local residents.

At a city council meeting on June 18, Marshall presented a budget with a 50% property tax cut, which passed by a vote of 4-0. The rate was reduced from .32% of assessed property value to just .16%.

A month earlier, two Libertarian city councilmen in Michigan also succeeded in cutting their local property taxes -- a political victory that will save taxpayers about $145,000.

How many Republocrats can say that???

[Richard G]

Keep talking. I may switch partys yet.

[subgenius]

A true Libertarian would resign immediately to reduce the size of government.
Don't yell at me, I'm just kidding.

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
A true Libertarian would resign immediately to reduce the size of government.
Don't yell at me, I'm just kidding.

I know, but you'll notice he did cut his own salary down to $0!

[subgenius]

Originally posted by shanek


I know, but you'll notice he did cut his own salary down to $0!
I noticed, I noticed. Glad to see he can afford it. A true public servant. (That's not sarcastic.)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek
Why, they actually keep their campaign promises!!! Even when it's to their own detriment!!! :eek:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0208/propertytax.html





How many Republocrats can say that???


Rock on, property taxes are plain evil. They are usually based on the "value" of your property. it put the government in the business of assessing property. Its simply none of the governments business.

[GrapeJ713]

The Libertarian party would be great if some of the kooks weren't spouting off crazy talk most of the time. Like Harry Browne, half of what he says make sense. Then he goes and says everything should be just like it was in 1900 when a 12 year old could by heroin at a drug store. I wish people like Ron Paul would get more air time, but he did switch to GOP so he could get elected to congress. But he acts like a libertarian instead of porkmeister republicans.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
The Libertarian party would be great if some of the kooks weren't spouting off crazy talk most of the time. Like Harry Browne, half of what he says make sense. Then he goes and says everything should be just like it was in 1900 when a 12 year old could by heroin at a drug store. I wish people like Ron Paul would get more air time, but he did switch to GOP so he could get elected to congress. But he acts like a libertarian instead of porkmeister republicans.
Good point, and cute baby.:)
Not too proud are you? Best of luck.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek
Why, they actually keep their campaign promises!!! Even when it's to their own detriment!!! :eek:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0208/propertytax.html

How many Republocrats can say that???

I can't see the point in repealing the salary. I have seen how much work my own councillors do. To not pay them for it is crazy.

[Edwin]

It's a pity the property tax wasn't reduced all the way to zero. As it is, they still have to assess property value, have people collect it, make people fill in incomprehensible forms, but for less return.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can't see the point in repealing the salary.

There are two points: 1) to save taxpayer money; and 2) by making a position a volunteer position instead of a paid position with a salary, you make it more likely that a true public servant, not an abitious politician, will seek the office, because unless the person elected is independently wealthy he will have to have a real job and therefore only focus on the necessary aspects of the job. Art Olivier did the same thing when he was mayor of Bellflower, CA and that was the effect it had after he left office.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Edwin
It's a pity the property tax wasn't reduced all the way to zero. As it is, they still have to assess property value, have people collect it, make people fill in incomprehensible forms, but for less return.

One step at a time...

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by subgenius

Good point, and cute baby.:)
Not too proud are you? Best of luck.

Thanks, can you tell it's a Nasa badge on the front?

I used to be republican until I found out the record of the freshmen class of '94 that I had so much hope in. They turned out to be almost as big as pork hounds as the socialist democrat party.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by shanek
How many Republocrats can say that?

Phil Bredesen in his Adress To The General Assembly earlier in the year.

At the core of this process was a request for everyone in our government
family to step up and do their part by cutting 9% across the board.

Our state agencies and departments are cutting 9%. The highway
fund is cutting 9%. Higher education is cutting 9%. We are asking
local governments to accept a 9% reduction in tax revenues that
we share with them. We are cutting grants to a wide variety of
organizations and projects by 9%. I am grateful that the legislature
has volunteered to cut their budget by 9%. There are other cuts as well.

The net effect of all this, I’m proud to say, is an actual decrease
in state appropriations of $132 million. This is only the third time
that state appropriations have gone down in 30 years.

This is, of course, after the sales tax had been raised from 8.875% to 9.875%.
Still it's all a bit of a mystery really.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

Phil Bredesen in his Adress To The General Assembly earlier in the year.

This is, of course, after the sales tax had been raised from 8.875% to 9.875%.
Still it's all a bit of a mystery really.

The sales tax increase was to make up for a shortfall from the previous year. The governor (republican) and some of our state assemblymen tried to shove an income tax down our throats instead.

Isnt it amazing? A democrat gets elected to governor of tennessee and instead of resuming the attempts to tax income, he cuts spending across the board. Watch out Hillary, this could be your opponent in 2008 for the nomination.

I didnt vote for Bredesen, I voted for Van Hillary. I am man enough to say I might have voted for the wrong person.

[GrapeJ713]

The main reason I accepted the transfer out to Nashville from Texas was that TN didn't have a state income tax. I didn't know that Tenncare was such a basket case though. Maybe soon a state or the federal govt will switch over to medical savings accounts so prices will go down or stabilize and medicare won't bankrupt the country. It would be very easy, just let people keep the money in flex accounts year after year and make interest on it. Instead of making people spend everything that is put in there each year. Insurance companies could manage them the way investment companies manage IRAs and 401ks.

[shanek]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
Thanks, can you tell it's a Nasa badge on the front?

The picture's a bit stretched horizontally, though. It gives your avatar a creepy feeling...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


There are two points: 1) to save taxpayer money; and 2) by making a position a volunteer position instead of a paid position with a salary, you make it more likely that a true public servant, not an abitious politician, will seek the office, because unless the person elected is independently wealthy he will have to have a real job and therefore only focus on the necessary aspects of the job. Art Olivier did the same thing when he was mayor of Bellflower, CA and that was the effect it had after he left office.

The only aim of government should not be to save taxpayer money. I can buy generic brands that are the cheapest at the supermarket, but I usually avoid most of them because I know their cheap price is there for a reason, the contents are only worth that much.

Government is a natural monopoly. We can't get around that. To compensate for this fact, you get to choose them serially, rather than have multiple choices available at once. (Just imagine having four governments running the country at the same time, with four presidents and four armies).

There is nothing wrong with paying the right price to get the quality that is necessary. That is true with all purchases.

Which is not to say that the process of electing and running governments in the USA is working well. There are problems, but I think that paying politicians for their work is the least of them.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

There is nothing wrong with paying the right price to get the quality that is necessary. That is true with all purchases.


I don't think anyone disputes that. You are preaching to the choir. However, I paid 36k in taxes a few years and what I got in return wasnt the premium government service I should have expected. For 36k, I expect them to name a cruise missle after me.

Of course, there are people paying hundreds of thousands or even millions in taxes who would also tell you that they dont get much bang for their buck.

Thats why we want lower taxes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The only aim of government should not be to save taxpayer money.

But shouldn't government have the obligation to make as efficient use of taxpayer dollars as possible?

I can buy generic brands that are the cheapest at the supermarket, but I usually avoid most of them because I know their cheap price is there for a reason, the contents are only worth that much.

Actually, many generics are the exact same products, made in the exact same factories. And many of hte ones that aren't are still pretty much indistinguishable from the real thing.

Government is a natural monopoly.

Which is exactly why we have to be so worried about costs.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
The Libertarian party would be great if some of the kooks weren't spouting off crazy talk most of the time. Like Harry Browne, half of what he says make sense. Then he goes and says everything should be just like it was in 1900 when a 12 year old could by heroin at a drug store.

I don't agree with everything Harry Browne says, not by a long shot. And if I were involved with the LP, he's not the guy I would have supported as the nominee. But I can't say I recall him saying what you attribute to him. Any chance you could provide an exact quote?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by a unique person
The only aim of government should not be to save taxpayer money. I can buy generic brands that are the cheapest at the supermarket, but I usually avoid most of them because I know their cheap price is there for a reason, the contents are only worth that much.

But when you make choices at the supermarket, you don't have to get the other shoppers to approve of the choices you make. You can choose something different than the next guy, and for that matter, among your options for any product available is to not buy it at all. And oh yeah, they don't usually make you pay for part of the other guy's groceries either.

Government is a natural monopoly. We can't get around that.

We certainly have the power to get around the disadvantages associated with it by voting in a way that reduces its power to make choices for everyone. Sadly, almost nobody makes this choice.

To compensate for this fact, you get to choose them serially, rather than have multiple choices available at once. (Just imagine having four governments running the country at the same time, with four presidents and four armies).

One government is fine. The problem is that it has control of things that don't need to be a monopoly.

There is nothing wrong with paying the right price to get the quality that is necessary. That is true with all purchases.

And again, what is true with most purchases is that the buyer's choice isn't bound to what others want for themselves, and he can choose not to buy at all.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by WMT1


I don't agree with everything Harry Browne says, not by a long shot. And if I were involved with the LP, he's not the guy I would have supported as the nominee. But I can't say I recall him saying what you attribute to him. Any chance you could provide an exact quote?

I believe it was on Politically Incorrect. Either the host or the guests said that adults should be free to put into their bodies whatever they wanted. Harry said everyone including children should be able to do drugs if they wanted. He said that when it was legal for 12 year olds to buy heroin at the local drug store in 1900 they didn't. I remember that becuase I heard him on the radio a few weeks before and he sounded not as loony.

first paragraph has the gist of what he said on TV (http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/DrugWar.htm)
What he said on TV which isn't on that site is that we should go back to the exact same way it was.
I just think all adults should be treated the same, at 18 there are no more restrictions period.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
The main reason I accepted the transfer out to Nashville from Texas was that TN didn't have a state income tax. Did you hope to find the state income tax that Tennessee doesn't have less of a burden than the state income tax that Texas doesn't have? Since neither state has the tax, I assume there was some other reason for your move. Or maybe I don't know what a state income tax looks like.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Did you hope to find the state income tax that Tennessee doesn't have less of a burden than the state income tax that Texas doesn't have? Since neither state has the tax, I assume there was some other reason for your move. Or maybe I don't know what a state income tax looks like.

I just believe in voting with your feet. And I don't like paying state income tax, especially when I pay so much in federal income tax. So, since my company was willing to pay for my move and give me extra cash for expenses to move. I moved because TN didn't have a state income tax just like TX.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
The Libertarian party would be great if some of the kooks weren't spouting off crazy talk most of the time. Like Harry Browne, half of what he says make sense. Then he goes and says everything should be just like it was in 1900 when a 12 year old could by heroin at a drug store.

Originally posted by WMT1
I don't agree with everything Harry Browne says, not by a long shot. And if I were involved with the LP, he's not the guy I would have supported as the nominee. But I can't say I recall him saying what you attribute to him. Any chance you could provide an exact quote?

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
I believe it was on Politically Incorrect. Either the host or the guests said that adults should be free to put into their bodies whatever they wanted.

So far so good.


Harry said everyone including children should be able to do drugs if they wanted.

See, here's where you go over the top. I've followed Harry enough to know pretty much where he draws the line on things, and that probably includes catching all of his appearances on "Politically Incorrect" as well. He takes positions I disagree with, but I'm confident he has never said what you're attributing to him. Among other things, critics of the Libertarian Party would have been all over it.


He said that when it was legal for 12 year olds to buy heroin at the local drug store in 1900 they didn't.

And from this you get "everyone including children should be able to do drugs if they wanted"? :confused:

As I've pointed out elsewhere (even in this forum), there never seems to be a shortage of misinformation about libertarianism, and I see at least some (potentially very damaging) exaggeration here.


What he said on TV which isn't on that site is that we should go back to the exact same way it was.

I have my doubts about whether he even said that, but even if he did, it is a far cry from taking the position that "everyone including children should be able to do drugs if they wanted". The words in the link you provided were:

It may be hard to believe today, but early in the 20th century a 10-year-old girl could walk into a drug store and buy a bottle of whiskey or a packet of heroin. She didn't need a doctor's prescription or even a note from her parents. Any druggist would sell to her without batting an eye; he would assume she was on an errand for her parents.

I've heard him make these references too, and every time I've heard it, it was to respond to those who base their support for the drug war on "the children", by making the point that there was no significant drug problem before there was a drug war, or something along those lines. It was not to argue that kids should be able to take harmful drugs.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by WMT1
I've heard him make these references too, and every time I've heard it, it was to respond to those who base their support for the drug war on "the children", by making the point that there was no significant drug problem before there was a drug war, or something along those lines. It was not to argue that kids should be able to take harmful drugs.

That is how I remembered it. I couldn't swear on the constituion and say that is exactly what he said, but it was a few years ago and made an impression on me. I tried to find something on the web that supported it and could not. Maybe I will try and email Harry himself and see what his position is exactly.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by shanek


The picture's a bit stretched horizontally, though. It gives your avatar a creepy feeling...

Says the guy with no face?!


NA

Oh -- interesting topic; good post; good job keeping the campaign promises and more power to him.

[shanek]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Says the guy with no face?!

I'll have you know the Mechanoid 4000 Series was voted "Android of the Year" five years running!

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
Why, they actually keep their campaign promises!!! Even when it's to their own detriment!!!

Not that I disagree with everything Libertarians propose, but I don't consider this significant. Suppose you're a political opportunist and you just want to win. What are you going to do? Run under an independent party with a long history of not getting elected, or sign on with one of the Big Two?

Of course third party candidates are going to be more trustworthy than Democrats or Republicans -- not because of the beliefs of the party, but simply because there's no reason for the liars to affiliate themselves with it. If the Libertarian party came into the mainstream, they wouldn't be keeping their campaign promises for long.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh
Of course third party candidates are going to be more trustworthy than Democrats or Republicans -- not because of the beliefs of the party, but simply because there's no reason for the liars to affiliate themselves with it. If the Libertarian party came into the mainstream, they wouldn't be keeping their campaign promises for long.

Don't think that isn't a major concern of Libertarians. Also don't think that the LP hasn't taken measures to try and prevent what happened with the Reform Party in 2000.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by WMT1

I've heard him make these references too, and every time I've heard it, it was to respond to those who base their support for the drug war on "the children", by making the point that there was no significant drug problem before there was a drug war, or something along those lines. It was not to argue that kids should be able to take harmful drugs.

I emailed Harry directly and here is what he sent me, you can do the same if you don't believe me. His email is harrybrowne@harrybrowne.org

I emailed him the following:

Could you please tell me directly. Do
you think all adults should be able to take
whatever drug they want, or do you think all
adults and children should be able to take
whatever drug they want.

and he replied with:

I do not believe there should be any laws
governing drug use. Parents should decide how
they're going to raise their children.

With best wishes,

Harry Browne
www.HarryBrowne.org

I guess he does have a point, it should be OK for a person under the age of 18 to use drugs if thier parents/guardians know about it. So if cops caught a bunch of teens smoking weed the cops could just make sure the parents knew about it, and then the parents could deal with it however they wanted.

The internet is such a wondrous thing when the general public can get an answer from a former presidential candidate within a few hours if the candidate is open to communication with the general public.

[shanek]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
The internet is such a wondrous thing when the general public can get an answer from a former presidential candidate within a few hours if the candidate is open to communication with the general public.

Especially one as wired as he is. He's good about responding. But it's amazing, if you actually EMail someone with a question about what they've said, how often you'll get a genuine reply.

[GrapeJ713]

Although it might make logical sense for parents to allow minors to use drugs if they want to in a pure liberty scenario. I don't think America is ready for that huge a step at once. The first step should be to make drugs legal for all adults, and if minors get caught with drugs they go to counseling or rehab. Then once the country becomes safer and more productive a few years after that happens, then ease restrictions on minors. But when people hear that the Libertarian Party candidate for President wants children to be able to access drugs legally, they usually think that person is a kook and don't listen to whatever other good points he might have.
Look at America's long slide into socialism and envirowhackiness, it happened in small step by small step at local, state and federal government levels year by year. With some great big leaps that had 'feel good' names or purposes (The Great Society, The New Deal, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air and Water Act) but most of the legislations unintended or secretly intended purposes was to squash liberty and give more power to government or other organizations.

[JAR]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
Then he goes and says everything should be just like it was in 1900 when a 12 year old could by heroin at a drug store.

The government should make heroin legal but also should make it a law that directions have to be put on the container that tell the consumer what a safe amount to use is.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by JAR
The government should make heroin legal...

I hope governments start re-legalizing drugs before I get some painful disease. If I had terminal cancer that was really painful, I would want to score some herion in large quantities. The federal government is so scared that someone might get high off of pain killers, they harass doctors that give powerful and helpful pain meds(oxycontin) to people in agony. More people died from aspirin overdoses than oxycontin overdoses in the last two years, but the govt makes life hell for doctors that proscribe what they think is too much pain medication, because a few sources printed a story calling it 'hillbilly heroin' so it must be bad.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shanek
But shouldn't government have the obligation to make as efficient use of taxpayer dollars as possible? YES! The government does not exist to make money or spend money. It is not the governments money. They ostensibly take it from us for the betterment of society. It is a responsibility and an obligation. Those that waste our money are immoral. I would like to shove it in shanek's face and show him that Republicans are fically responisble. Unfortunately I have to walk away with my head bowed. They are not. And no I'm not going to change parties. I'm going to beat my head against the wall trying to make a hole because I do believe the Republicans are the lesser of two evils and the Libertarian party has little if any chance.

But by all means shanek give us hell. We deserve it. At least you and I can agree that we need to end the war on drugs and to get government out of our bedrooms and business.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713


I hope governments start re-legalizing drugs before I get some painful disease. If I had terminal cancer that was really painful, I would want to score some herion in large quantities. The federal government is so scared that someone might get high off of pain killers, they harass doctors that give powerful and helpful pain meds(oxycontin) to people in agony. More people died from aspirin overdoses than oxycontin overdoses in the last two years, but the govt makes life hell for doctors that proscribe what they think is too much pain medication, because a few sources printed a story calling it 'hillbilly heroin' so it must be bad.

my brother goes to a rehab clinic every morning for his fix. Why? Because he got some oxycontin from someone for his back pain. Next thing he knew, he couldnt stop taking the stuff and he was spending bunches of money to buy them from people who doctor shop. Oxycontin is so addictive from the reports I've read, I'm surprised its legal for a doctor to prescribe. A comparison to aspirin is rubbish.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by RandFan
And no I'm not going to change parties. I'm going to beat my head against the wall trying to make a hole because I do believe the Republicans are the lesser of two evils and the Libertarian party has little if any chance.

I was were you are now a few years ago. I hoped that the GOP freshmen of 1994 that basically ran on libertarian principles to get elected would do what they promised. But few did, and it seems now more than ever, the GOP panders to the left and spends millions on pork just to win the next election. Now, I just can't make myself vote for the GOP because even though they are the lesser of two evils, they should know that many people still want liberty. The more votes the Libertarian Party gets, the more chance that either of the two reigning parties will pay attention to our issues. I wish a strong charasmatic person would come up from the Libertarian Party and give the republocrats a run for their money. Recent third party history is promising. Jesse Ventura did it on a state level, and Ross Perot almost did it on a national level, in the future someone could actually change things for the better.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by corplinx
my brother goes to a rehab clinic every morning for his fix. Why? Because he got some oxycontin from someone for his back pain. Next thing he knew, he couldnt stop taking the stuff and he was spending bunches of money to buy them from people who doctor shop. Oxycontin is so addictive from the reports I've read, I'm surprised its legal for a doctor to prescribe. A comparison to aspirin is rubbish.

By "someone for his back pain" do you mean a friend or an actual doctor that treated him. Oxycontin is for people with major agonizing pain, and because it is closely related to heroin, it can be addictive if you aren't in hard core pain when you take it.

Read here Killing a Painkiller The OxyContin hysteria inflicts pain. (http://www.reason.com/sullum/121801.shtml)

Here are the first few lines...
Last May a Kentucky physician reported that a former patient, a paraplegic with severe chronic pain, had killed himself. The man's new doctor, alarmed by official warnings about the prescription painkiller OxyContin, had drastically reduced his dose, leaving him in agony.

Stinginess with pain medication is not a new phenomenon. For decades pain experts have complained that many doctors are so worried about getting into trouble with state regulators or the Drug Enforcement Administration that they err on the side of letting patients suffer. The federal government's ongoing crackdown on OxyContin, egged on by a year of hysterical press coverage, is bound to make the problem worse.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RandFan
YES! The government does not exist to make money or spend money. It is not the governments money. They ostensibly take it from us for the betterment of society. It is a responsibility and an obligation. Those that waste our money are immoral. I would like to shove it in shanek's face and show him that Republicans are fically responisble. Unfortunately I have to walk away with my head bowed. They are not. And no I'm not going to change parties. I'm going to beat my head against the wall trying to make a hole because I do believe the Republicans are the lesser of two evils and the Libertarian party has little if any chance.

But by all means shanek give us hell. We deserve it. At least you and I can agree that we need to end the war on drugs and to get government out of our bedrooms and business.

Thanks...and the best of luck getting your party to agree with you. I mean that; I'm not going to say anything against anyone who works for the cause of Liberty and smaller government.

But personally, I think there is a greater chance of Libertarians being elected than there is of the Republicans ending the War on Drugs.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
and he replied with:

I do not believe there should be any laws governing drug use. Parents should decide how they're going to raise their children.

Your earlier characterization of his position was "everyone including children should be able to do drugs if they wanted". Would you now agree that his position actually has to do with what the parents want?


I guess he does have a point, it should be OK for a person under the age of 18 to use drugs if thier parents/guardians know about it.

Does this mean you no longer feel this reflects the position of a "kook"?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by RandFan
And no I'm not going to change parties. I'm going to beat my head against the wall trying to make a hole because I do believe the Republicans are the lesser of two evils and the Libertarian party has little if any chance.

You don't suppose their "little if any chance" might have something to do with all the libertarians who continue to support "the lesser of two evils", do you?


At least you and I can agree that we need to end the war on drugs and to get government out of our bedrooms and business.

As long as there are libertarians reluctantly supporting the two-party system while waiting for enough others to break away from it before they are willing to, what do you think the chances are of those goals ever being achieved?

C'mon RandFan. I've sensed the good in you. How about turning from the Dark Side? :D

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by WMT1
Your earlier characterization of his position was "everyone including children should be able to do drugs if they wanted". Would you now agree that his position actually has to do with what the parents want?

Does this mean you no longer feel this reflects the position of a "kook"?

On the TV show he said it differently than in the email. He didn't mention parents, he just said that it shouldn't be illegal for anyone including children to take drugs if they wanted. It sounded kooky the way he said it. Because even though it might not be a kooky idea, when people hear that the Libertarian presidential candidate wants it to be legal for children to purchase and use whatever drug they want, they automatically shut themselves off to anything else he has to say. It seems that on some issues Libertarians try to take one big leap to get where they want to be instead of taking smaller incremental steps like the socialists and envirowhackies have done.

edited because I had another thought...

If Harry wants parents to have control over what drugs their children take, then it should only be legal for adults to PURCHASE drugs, but it would be legal for minors to CONSUME drugs. Maybe I'll fire off another email to him.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
On the TV show he said it differently than in the email. He didn't mention parents, he just said that it shouldn't be illegal for anyone including children to take drugs if they wanted. It sounded kooky the way he said it.

Well, since neither of us has a transcript, and we're both relying on our memories, I can only reiterate that I'm pretty sure I caught all of his appearances, and I remember them differently.