And in other news:

http://abcnews.go.com/…

Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic Senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police on the scene refused to tell ABC lawyers the charges against the producer, Asa Eslocker, who works with the ABC News investigative unit.

A cigar-smoking Denver police sergeant, accompanied by a team of five other officers, first put his hands on Eslocker’s neck, then twisted the producers arm behind him to put on handcuffs.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

http://ap.google.com/…

Obama has a 2-to-1 lead over McCain among 18-to-34-year-olds, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week. The same poll gave Obama an 8 percentage point lead among registered voters nationwide. In an AP-Yahoo News poll in July, the two were virtually tied among voters overall.

But does “coolness”_ or the perception of it at least — really matter to young voters?

“I don’t think you can ignore that factor,” said James Kotecki, a 22-year-old political video blogger who achieved fame on YouTube last year after he interviewed former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul in Kotecki’s Georgetown University dorm room.

“What Obama’s been able to do is capitalize on his hipness, at least as far as younger voters go,” said Kotecki, whose video commentaries now appear on Politico.com, the Web site for the Washington political newspaper. “I think it’s not that they don’t support his issues and his policies, but younger voters are more willing to work for him and work passionately for him because he’s someone who resonates more on their wavelength.”

“Coolness” is often associated with youth, but elder status doesn’t automatically signify “uncool,” Kotecki said.

Ron Paul, 72, amassed a considerable following among younger voters, largely because his libertarian message was deemed countercultural, Kotecki said.

“You can certainly be cool at any age,” Kotecki said. “Look at Hugh Hefner. He’ll be cool til the day he dies. But for him and for Ron Paul or anybody who’s elderly and who’s cool, part of it is what they represent that makes them that.”

Largely? Really? I’ve met a lot of Ron Paul supporters. Many of them ‘younger.’ I can’t say that a single one would have said anything about libertarianism being counterculture nor did I get the feeling that was why they were there. Federal Reserve, war, growing police state, 9/11 is what I heard. I’m not saying there weren’t a notable number who joined the bandwagon… but many that did learned a lot and stayed on for serious reasons. I don’t see Obama supporters saying the same thing. In fact the opposite.

Part 2

http://www.townhall.com/…

The other day, reading the New York Post’s popular Page Six gossip page, I was surprised to find a picture of me, followed by the lines: “ABC’S John Stossel wants the government to stop interfering with your right to get high. The crowd went silent at his call to legalize hard drugs”.

I had attended a Marijuana Policy Project event celebrating the New York State Assembly’s passage of a medical-marijuana bill. (The bill hasn’t passed the Senate.) I told the audience I thought it pathetic that the mere half passage of a bill to allow sick people to try a possible remedy would merit such a celebration. Of course medical marijuana should be legal. For adults, everything should be legal. I’m amazed that the health police are so smug in their opposition.

After years of reporting on the drug war, I’m convinced that this “war” does more harm than any drug.

Independent of that harm, adults ought to own our own bodies, so it’s not intellectually honest to argue that “only marijuana” should be legal — and only for certain sick people approved by the state. Every drug should be legal.

“How could you say such a ridiculous thing?” asked my assistant. “Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect. If you do crack just once, you are automatically hooked. Legal hard drugs would create many more addicts. And that leads to more violence, homelessness, out-of-wedlock births, etc!”

Her diatribe is a good summary of the drug warriors’ arguments. Most Americans probably agree with what she said.

But what most Americans believe is wrong.

Myth No. 1: Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect.

Truth: There is no evidence of that.

In the 1980s, the press reported that “crack babies” were “permanently damaged.” Rolling Stone, citing one study of just 23 babies, claimed that crack babies “were oblivious to affection, automatons.”

It simply wasn’t true. There is no proof that crack babies do worse than anyone else in later life.

Myth No. 2: If you do crack once, you are hooked.

Truth: Look at the numbers — 15 percent of young adults have tried crack, but only 2 percent used it in the last month. If crack is so addictive, why do most people who’ve tried it no longer use it?

People once said heroin was nearly impossible to quit, but during the Vietnam War, thousands of soldiers became addicted, and when they returned home, 85 percent quit within one year.

People have free will. Most who use drugs eventually wise up and stop.

And most people who use drugs habitually live perfectly responsible lives, as Jacob Sullum pointed out in “Saying Yes”.

Myth No. 3: Drugs cause crime.

Truth: The drug war causes the crime.

Few drug users hurt or rob people because they are high. Most of the crime occurs because the drugs are illegal and available only through a black market. Drug sellers arm themselves and form gangs because they cannot ask the police to protect their persons and property.

In turn, some buyers steal to pay the high black-market prices. The government says heroin, cocaine and nicotine are similarly addictive, and about half the people who both smoke cigarettes and use cocaine say smoking is at least as strong an urge. But no one robs convenience stores for Marlboros.

Alcohol prohibition created Al Capone and the Mafia. Drug prohibition is worse. It’s corrupting whole countries and financing terrorism.

The Post wrote, “Stossel admitted his own 22-year-old daughter doesn’t think [legalization] is a good idea.”

But that’s not what she said. My daughter argued that legal cocaine would probably lead to more cocaine use. And therefore probably abuse.

I’m not so sure.

Banning drugs certainly hasn’t kept young people from getting them. We can’t even keep these drugs out of prisons. How do we expect to keep them out of America?

But let’s assume my daughter is right, that legalization would lead to more experimentation and more addiction. I still say: Legal is better.

While drugs harm many, the drug war’s black market harms more.

And most importantly, in a free country, adults should have the right to harm themselves.

He may be preaching to the choir but it’s still nice to have a man like him in his position. I nearly went to the MPP event last week and it saddens me that those who did go paused when he advocated full drug re-legalization. Must not have been many libertarians there.

I’m sure most people have heard about this already but here is a collection of information about what’s going on.

• Ron Paul talks with Tom Abrahams on ABC 13
• Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty
• Campaign for Liberty’s YouTube channel

If you are in anyway a supporter of liberty and freedom, if you are a supporter of Ron Paul or anything he stands for, please signup to become a member of the Campaign for Liberty to be kept up to date on the second phase in the Ron Paul Revolution. We are looking to get 100K before September 2nd. You can read the mission statement, strategy and statement of principles at http://www.campaignforliberty.com/mission/.

There is also a blog [RSS feed] manned Trevor Lyman who helped rally people around the moneybomb concept and Michael Nystrom of Daily Paul.

I think this is a wonderful direction for Paul to take. He has no reason to continue his campaign now that all the votes are in. He can take his money and continue the momentum that his campaign has created which was what worried me the most.