Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
Dispatch / Elections Porn / November 3, 2012
By Yasha Levine

Be libertarian one time? Is that the same thing as "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas"?


Author’s note: I wrote this brief dispatch about my run-in with libertarian pro-marijuana activist/former judge James P. Gray back in March of 2011. But the piece disappeared into the black void of my computer hard-drive, and I forgot all about it—until now. I’m glad the text turned up, because Judge Gray’s sleazy efforts to bring lefties and progressives into the Libertarian Party fold under the innocuous banner of pot legalization is much more relevant today than it was 2011. After all, Judge Gray is now the running mate of Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson is using the weed wedge issue to siphon off votes from Obama.  —YL

Last Friday, I tagged along with a friend to a community center/Methodist Church in Hollywood for a documentary screening and panel discussion about California’s marijuana legalization movement. The film was a continuous stream of talking heads—interviews with aging hippies, baby-boomer marijuana patients suffering from cancer, former drug addicts, inmates, a few policy wonks, mystical Ibogaine practitioners and a bunch of assorted lefties and new agers involved in the marijuana legalization movement. All in all, it was a predictable set of people, and people in the audience seemed to be of the same activist demographic. But when the lights were turned on and people started talking, a cold chill ran down my spine: it was as if everyone around me had suddenly turned into a libertarian.

There were a bunch of them in the audience, including a quiet, mousy intern from and her hippy bohemian writer chick friend who had been recently been converted to libertarianism, who admitted that she thought libertarianism was “really cool,” as people stood outside on the stairs and passed around a joint. The panel of experts was also stacked with libertarians, including a retired libertarian judge from rightwing Orange County who shared the stage with pot activists spewing new age gibberish about a “spiritual evolution” putting an end to the War on Drugs. New age stoners, crusty lefties and wonky progressives getting along with free-market extremists? Yes, sir. They were on the same team—and proud of it. They had risen above “mere” politics and put aside “petty” ideological differences to engage in a nonpartisan effort for the greater good of Gaia…or something like that.

I knew that libertarians have come to dominate the drug legalization movement, but I had never seen the spectacle up close and personal. And what I saw was deeply disturbing. Because from where I sat, it didn’t look like bipartisanship in action: it looked like a straight up con and a perfect example of how America’s oligarchy infiltrate the gullible leftie ranks and bootstrap liberal/progressive issues to the freemarket/anti-regulation cause.

My journalist buddy, who’s been watching and reporting on California’s drug legalization movement for the past decade, said this was not new. Libertarians have wormed their way into the drug scene in a major way, and were a big reason why marijuana legalization had suddenly gained so much mainstream credibility over the past five or six years. It made sense: the Koch-funded thinktank-industrial-complex has limitless cash, connections and access to media outlets. The Kochs also have a major objective that fits right in with the stoner scene: cloaking libertarianism with a liberal veneer and attracting lefties and progressives to the dark side.

"Three Strikes! You're out for life!"

The libertarians at this discussion were not trying to hide and operated right out in the open, starting with the keynote speaker, the Honorable James Gray. He had spent years working as a rightwing judge in Orange County, locking people up for petty drug crimes, but had suddenly seen the light and was now a vocal proponent of marijuana legalization. A former Superior Court judge coming out strongly against drug criminalization? It’s no small thing—his presence gave the stoner-dominated weed legalization movement a huge boost in credibility and respectability, and made Judge Gray a celebrity, a hero among liberal legalization activists.

Up on the stage, Judge Gray talked a lot about the failure of America’s drug policies. He talked about the stupendous amounts of taxpayer wealth wasted to no good effect. He talked about the insane incarceration rates for non-violent offenders, and the unnecessary suffering and misery caused by the War on Drugs, breaking up families, robbing young people of opportunity and leaving kids to grow up without fathers and mothers. It all made sense. And given that Gray had spent 25 years as a real life judge putting away all those people he now talked about with such empathy and feeling added some serious moral heft to his words. I gotta admit it was hard not be moved.

There was one problem with the act: it was full of shit. As a libertarian true believer, Gray has no problem with legalizing child labor, scrapping welfare, letting people die on the street for lack of healthcare and allowing companies to turn our air and drinking into into toxic sludge. So why the empathy for moochers and losers rotting in jail? It didn’t any make sense.

When I got home, I looked this guy up and it didn’t take long to figure how much he really cares. All I had to do was go the “About” section of his website. It’s all right there, down to the photo of him posing with his hero Milton Friedman, that great defender of the common man.

"Ha ha ha! Those liberal suckers think we're against the War on Drugs!"

Gray started his legal career as a JAG at the U.S. Naval base in Guam—which by the way is a government job. Next he was appointed to the bench in 1983—yep, another government position—right when Reagan’s war on drugs started picking up steam. California’s prison population tripled under his watch. Which might make you say: “Hey, you know, he saw the debacle with his own two eyes and now wants to stop it. What if he really does care about the poor and the oppressed? Give him a chance, will ya?” Sure, he cares. That’s why three years after he was appointed to the California Superior Court, he won the Business Litigation Judge of the Year award from the Orange County Bar Association— you know, because he sided with the common man.

And after he retired, Gray got a cushy job making $400 an hour at ADR Services Inc., a firm that handles out of court arbitration for corporate clients. Arbitration is a loophole created by corporate America to scam people out of their constitutional right to a fair trial by jury, bypassing the public legal system altogether and forcing Americans into a rigged private justice system. A 2007 Public Citizen report revealed that arbitrators working for outfits like Gray’s ruled against consumers 94 percent of the time:

“Many consumers will find themselves forced into the shadowy world of binding mandatory arbitration, where their chances of successfully defending themselves are slim to none. . . . Safeguards built into the justice system are not found in binding mandatory arbitration. For example, arbitrators decide most credit card cases on the basis of documents supplied by the company without the presence – and sometimes without the knowledge – of the consumer. Consumers must pay to have a hearing. Hearings are not open to the public, no transcripts are produced . . . And appeal is nearly impossible. “

Looking through the articles and press clippings amassed on Gary’s site, it’s clear where he stands on the issues. On top of getting rid of government social programs and minimum wage, he wants to enact the “FairTax” (hint: it’s only fair to billionaires) and get rid of restrictions on political donations, freeing Americans to contribute as much as they want want to political candidates—money is speech, after all.

But what about the War on Drugs? Well, no matter what he tells his progressive stoner groupies, Judge Gray sees nothing wrong with the War on Drugs per se, as long as it was being waged by the states and not the federal government. The semantics may be a bit too complicated for the legalize it crowd to follow, but let’s take a look anyway.

On his “Primary Issues” page, Gray does not actually say that he is against drug prohibition, nor the heavy handed sentencing requirements. Instead he is against the federal government meddling with the affairs of local governments:

Repeal the failed and hopeless War on Drugs by restricting the role of the federal government to assisting each state to enforce its chosen laws. Crime was reduced by more than 20 percent within one year after we pursued this course with the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition, and the same results will be realized when we finally repeal Drug Prohibition. People must be held accountable for their actions, instead of for what they put into their bodies. The War on Drugs has directly created an enormously large and lucrative black market that has corrupted institutions, people in all walks of life, and, most especially, children, here and all around the world.

He said the same thing on Bill O’Reilly in 2008:

If I was the drug czar, I would advocate letting each state decide what to do with regard to this critical issue. Invoke the concept of Federalism and get the federal government out of the equation, except to allow them to help each state to enforce its own rules.

You hear that stoners? Drug legalization is all about states rights. As in, the state can do whatever it feels like. And my current home state of California has been doing a bang up job managing the largest, most overcrowded prison gulag network in the whole country.

Remember that when you go to the polls and feel your hand drifting towards the Libertarian Party checkbox.

PS: Read David Sirota’s analysis of the GOP-LP “marijuana conspiracy” in Colorado that Mitt Romney’s hoping will siphon off enough of the progressive pro-pot vote away from Obama and hand him the state.

PPS: On top of everything, Judge Gray’s not even a real libertarian. He was a lifelong Republican until 2004, when he suddenly switched to the Libertarian Party to run for Senator Barbara Boxer’s seat.

Yasha Levine is an editor of The eXiled and co-founder of the S.H.A.M.E. Project. Read his book: The Corruption of Malcolm Gladwell.

Click the cover, buy the book!



Read more: , , , , , , , , Yasha Levine, Dispatch, Elections Porn

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at


Add your own

  • 1. darthfader  |  November 3rd, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    I mostly like the eXile for wordlessly directing wannabe lefties to the amphetamine cabinet.

  • 2. Stewert Humphrey  |  November 3rd, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    The ideal way to legalize marijuana is for the federal government to end its ban, while allowing each state to regulate and tax marijuana as it sees fit. This would circumvent the complicated constitutional issues that will arise if the California initiative passes, as federal law would still prohibit marijuana.

    Legalization would eliminate most of the violence and corruption that currently characterize marijuana markets. These occur because, in underground markets, participants cannot resolve disputes via non-violent mechanisms such as lawsuits, advertising, lobbying, or campaign contributions. Instead, producers and consumers in these markets use violence to resolve disputes with each other and bribery or violence to resolve disputes with law enforcement. These features of “vice” markets disappear when vice is legal, as abundant experience with alcohol, prostitution, and gambling all demonstrate.

    Only with by setting the free-market….free can we end all of the hazardous baggage that illegal marijuana causes.

    This comment troll presentation is brought to you by “Be Libertarian One Time” AKA “What Happens In Larry Craig’s Bathroom Stall, Stays in Larry Craig’s Bathroom Stall”® – A Campaign To Keep America Free of Democracy, Sponsored by the Koch Bootshiners Trade Union.

  • 3. Trevor  |  November 4th, 2012 at 5:40 am

    God I hate the weed evangelists. When they’re not making up ridiculous benefits of getting stoned or insisting the right to get stoned matters more than healthcare, they’re voting for neoconfederate dildos like Gray.

    Weed boo! Speed woohoo!

  • 4. Daz  |  November 4th, 2012 at 7:27 am

    Wow you changed my mind now I have to be liberal and vote for Obamney. Thank you! My mom says you’re awesome (she’s tired of my baggertard whining from the basement) and wants to thank you personally.

  • 5. June Genis  |  November 4th, 2012 at 8:26 am

    This is a deplorable hatch job on an open and honest corporate judge-for-hire. Corporate judge-for-hire Gray has always admitted that he used to be a drug warrior. It was his experience on the bench and working as a corporate judge-for-hire that turned him around. Is the author of this piece trying to say that corporate judges-for-hire can’t learn, grow and change their judge-for-hire minds?

    As to this sell judge-for-hire government “job” as a judge advocate, that was how this judge-for-hire fulfilled his military obligation during Vietnam. This judge-for-hire is the only candidate at the presidential level that actually served in the military. This judge-for-hire believes that drugs are a state, rather than a federal issue because this judge-for-hire is a oligarchinolist who sees no authorization in the US Constitution for the statist federal government to have any say there. This judge-for-hire has shown himself to be a firmly judge-for-hire in favor of corporate freedom at the state level by his activities in California where he lives.

    As to the Libertarian Party, it has opposed the war on drugs in favor of the war on labor and people since the party was first created. That opposition is based on the billionaire-fonded position that billionaires own your own life and body and should be able to do with it whatever they want short of harming some other billionaire. The practical arguments against the drug war are just insulting the billionaires unnecessarily. Comon, they have feelings too. Don’t make them feel bad.

  • 6. Ticklemonster  |  November 4th, 2012 at 9:04 am

    “Neofascism will be the ultimate expression of libertarian social liberalism, of the unit which starts in May 68. Its specificity holds in this formula: All is allowed, but nothing is possible. The permissiveness of abundance, growth, new models of consumption, leaves the place to the interdict of the crisis, the shortage, the absolute depauperation. These two historical components amalgamate in the head, in the spirit, thus creating the subjective conditions of the neofascism.” –Clouscard

    Libertarianism is taking over with nothing anyone can do about it. It’s here, the youth has been taken in by its simplicity. Libertarianism: the complete surrender to apathy, marketed as a ‘new’ higher wisdom.

  • 7. xxxxxx  |  November 4th, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Why the fuck would they want their voters to be “libertarian one time”??? BOOM, busted. They’re not that into Romney, but they REALLY hate Obama.

  • 8. Epsilon  |  November 4th, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    Libertarians also are good for betraying the things that they say they believe in for more power.

    Look at them trying to get 5% of the vote so they can get Federal funding. Despite the fact that, you know, that funding comes from eeeeeevil tax money.

  • 9. Zhu Bajie  |  November 4th, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Unfortunately, Libertarianism is fashionable, the way the New Left was fashionable a generation ago.

    I suspect many of the stoners claiming to be libertarians are confusing the right wing anarchists (libs) and the few left wing anarchists.

  • 10. nampa1  |  November 4th, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    I miss the Exile–you know lampooning America, singing the positives of exile, pranks, denigrating lame U.S. dating. If you guys can’t speak to those things anymore, exile to a more open land. (I believe Panama and Brazil was mentioned after the boot from Russia.)

  • 11. Tierbess  |  November 4th, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    The only legitimate libertarian is Noam Chomskey, and he refers to himself as a “libertarian socialist” because he comprehends the term’s history and philosophical underpinnings, as opposed to libtertarianism’s current bastardization. States don’t have rights–individuals have rights. States have powers. Claiming states have rights merely concentrates power at the local level, it doesn’t promote or enhance liberty for individuals and citizens of a democracy. Modern-day libertarianism is a Trojan horse for corporate tyranny.

  • 12. FWIW It's a vocal minority  |  November 4th, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    Ehh, I wouldn’t get too freaked out by this. Just did a little research into pot-smoking stats and a whopping FIFTEEN PERCENT of adults in the U.S. of A. smoke it with some regularity. The crusty-activist sort of stoner is just a tiny minority of that amount.

    It’s no surprise that libertards are making a play for that demographic, but I can’t for the life of me find a single libertarian stoner outside of the west coast, and even over there they’re still vastly outnumbered by the more typical, low-key pot smoker that makes up the silent majority.

    If someone is open and “activist” about their pot habit then it is a fair bet that they’ve got a trust fund or family business or something that insulates them from the day-today necessities of polite human interaction. Either that or they’re so far below the poverty line that they just don’t give a crap what people think of ’em anymore. The unifying theme for these “libertarian” stoners is, amusingly, a thorough separation from genuine material want.

    I’d bet dollars to donuts that most stoners are falling for the other, more subtle troll that the koch-heads are having much greater success with– convince lefties that voting is rigged, meaningless, don’t do it. With any luck we’ll see one of those posts right below this. These folks are in the Koch korner as much as anyone else, and they distressingly seem to be flying under the radar. The more obvious libertard trolls are getting caught too often nowadays, but this new tactic (“voting doesn’t matter”) is working out great for them.

    Kids being too cool to vote — that’s the thing to be afraid of. Not the two percent of the voting public that wears dreadlocks. Those folks would just be wasting a vote on some dolt like Nader if there wasn’t a libertarian block currently fellating them. Good riddance.

  • 13. super390  |  November 4th, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    My takeaway from this article is that they’re using the states’ rights excuse the same way Ron Paul is using it for abortion; he wants the matter left to the states because he knows his fellow crazies will ban it in all the states where women are poorest and have the least mobility.

    Those are the same theocracy-dominated states which will continue to imprison people for possession of marijuana. The SAME states that supported Prohibition 100 years ago. Why?

    1. They want people to have no comforts but those that are rewards from their God and His capitalist Elect.

    2. They need to keep those prisons filled up for when they’re all converted to slave labor camps. After all, wasn’t America more moral and Christian and libertarian when it still had slavery and debt prisons?

  • 14. Epsilon  |  November 4th, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    You know, I kind of miss the Paultards. You could disagree with them, but at least they were consistent.

    Since most of them said “fuck this, I’m not voting” after getting shat on on the RNC, you are left with the “legalize it duuuuude” crowd and the hucksters trying to appeal to them for their own gain.

  • 15. Aunt Bold Ire  |  November 4th, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    FWIW, you & Levine couldn’t be more correct. Everything you said was validated by what called itself the Occupy here, but which never really came together, through efforts at authentic “horizontal empowerment”, because of Libertarian and Anarchist dominance in the group, during the process of which a few trust fund babies ejected the most long-standing NORML representative in this city, in favor of one trust fund baby who chaired NORML in one of our most comfortable suburbs and whose main interest seemed to be to create opportunities to go head to head with police so that he could brag to friends who never occupied with us about being on the front lines of “the revolution” for pot and for Ron Paul. Another very fine, effective, and personable freelance hemp activist was also pressured out, because he was poor and not from around here.

    And that’s only a couple of stories out of several about what called itself our Occupy that corroborate every word of Levines article.

  • 16. casino implosion  |  November 5th, 2012 at 5:57 am

    Trevor at #3 nails it.

    The second most annoying thing in the land after libertarians is stoners.

    Good reporting, YL.

  • 17. Bat-Mite  |  November 5th, 2012 at 6:32 am

    @12 Yes, a vote for the Greens is quite a waste, unlike a vote for good ol’ Barry! Voters are getting exactly what they wanted from that guy, am I right?

  • 18. Flatulissimo  |  November 5th, 2012 at 7:59 am

    I am fine with drug use and pot in theory, but in reality those people are often insufferable human beings.

    As mentioned by #12 above, the trustifarian thing is a cliché because it is generally accurate. Just look at the people who tended to be Deadheads back in the day, or neo-hippies following contemporary jam bands around now.

    In college, when most people go through their drug experimentation phase, I had the misfortune of working at a venue hosting a Phish concert. Almost made me go straight edge. Forever turned me off of thinking pot could be cool.

  • 19. Adam  |  November 5th, 2012 at 11:33 am


  • 20. Adam  |  November 5th, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Adam: Well by golly, Ames, you look like you’ve seen a ghost!


  • 21. Adam  |  November 5th, 2012 at 12:31 pm



  • 22. chipe  |  November 5th, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    Every time the eXiled mentions anything about cannabis legalization, the focus is on the dipshit libertarian crowd, which is a minority that is already looked down upon by the ACTUAL leaders of legalization efforts and stoners in general (at least all the one’s I’ve met). The real danger from cannabis is voter apathy.

    It is very frustrating to see a progressive newspaper shit on a progressive cause because libertarians are attempting to hijack it. Real cannabis activists will tell you that libertarian ideals have nothing to do with it. Do some research on Americans for Safe Access, NORML, Oaksterdam, the actual organizations behind legalization… not this dead-end, bottom-feeding libertarian opportunism. Judge Jim Gray is NOT a “pro-marijuana activist,” he is a con man.

    Your “journalist buddy” really thinks that Richard Lee’s Prop 19 was just a Koch-funded honeypot to get stoners to be libertarians? Or is that just some shit you made up? What a mind-boggling combination of nonsense and utter dishonesty…

    The most disturbing part about these articles are the comments that latch on to the hatred…. calling those who choose to smoke cannabis “insufferable human beings” or insisting that all cannabis-legalization activists are stupid rich kids who live in a fantasy world. Have these people have met somebody crippled from illness, whose only respite from their body’s torture is this pain relieving medicine? Nah, we’re just too cool to care. After all, if it is a rich kid, a baby boomer, or a Phish fan who wants it legalized, we all know that they’re subhuman trash who should be put in concentration camps until they’re cool and edgy and want to legalize amphetamines.

  • 23. joe  |  November 5th, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    @12. FWIW & 15. Aunt Bold

    “I’d bet dollars to donuts that most stoners are falling for the other, more subtle troll that the koch-heads are having much greater success with– convince lefties that voting is rigged, meaningless, don’t do it.”

    I started attending occupy meetings (or at least whats left of them) a few months ago. I was flabbergasted at the pervasiveness of the “we shouldn’t vote” meme. At one point there was a huge controversy over whether or not we should burn our voter registration cards at an action. This is mostly coming from the Guy Fawkes/anarchist/direct action crowd. Lets look at some of the stupid shit I’ve heard:

    “We shouldn’t vote because that’s working within the system.”
    “If voting worked it would be illegal.”
    “I vote at occupy meetings so I don’t need to vote in a corrupt system.”

    I have a really hard time beveling that this meme was generated by stupidity alone.

  • 24. joe  |  November 5th, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    Actually here is the stupid shit I’ve heard:

    “We shouldn’t vote because that’s working within the system, man.”
    “If voting worked it would be illegal, man.”
    “I vote at occupy meetings so I don’t need to vote in a corrupt system, man.”

  • 25. Cum  |  November 5th, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    Hey assholes the point of the article was that libertarians are terrible, not that pot smokers are terrible. If Mark had written the article it would have been about how both groups are terrible but Yasha is less judgmental than Mark or you asshole commentards. I’ll give Mark a pass because I know how speed will make you cranky, I’ve been prescribed it for half my life. But what sort of personal pain is such aggressive bigotry covering up for the rest of you?

  • 26. Amen to that  |  November 5th, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    I too have been kind of weirded out by the anti-weed crowd in the commments. My guess would be that they’ve mostly been exposed to granola-stoners, and… well, that’d about explain it. Or maybe they got bullied by stoners in high school, that happens more often than hippies would like to admit. AEC: What is up with these whimpering, yelping weed dorks? This holy comment censor will take the dumbest Koch troll over these dull sanctimonious dweebs. Also, note below that this pathetic weed cultist respects Bill Gates because…the guy toked a spliff in college! Hey, buddy? Guess what? Rightwing freemarket fascists took LSD in the California in the 1960s to open their minds….and then kicked off the proto-libertarian movement. So groovy.

    Seriously, if you want to tell the difference between your average working adult pot user (i.e. the vast majority of users) and a teetotaller, you’ll probably need to put both under 24-hour surveillance. I sometimes confuse potheads with Jesus freaks, and vice-versa. They tend to stay on the quiet side, at least before you get to know them. It’s like this bizzaro invisible republic that you don’t even *see* unless you’re looking for it.

    Good example: Bill Gates’s not-so-secret affection for weed. He’s still more-or-less plutocrat scum in my book, but at least he’s part of that little bloc of billionaires that wants to be taxed more heavily, and he’s using a serious chunk of his wealth for something useful. This is not a guy libertarians are especially fond of.

    So at least we know there is nothing inherent in pot that makes a person libertarian, or even dumb.

  • 27. Emperor of Butthurt  |  November 5th, 2012 at 10:15 pm


  • 28. Stewert Humphrey  |  November 5th, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Well, I can see that you offered no logical rebuttal, instead opting for a vulgar ad-hominem.

    Well, here are some facts that might further the debate—WARNING. ALL WHINING WEEDBAGGERS BEWARE: YOUR PATHETIC TRESPASSING ON THIS HERE HOLY PRIVATE COMMENT GROUND IS FORBIDDEN BY THE AEC. —The same we see today over narcotics matches the violence came with the Eighteenth Amendment’s ban of alcohol in 1920. The murder rate rose with the start of Prohibition, remained high during Prohibition, and then declined for 11 consecutive years when Prohibition ended.The rate of assaults with a firearm rose with Prohibition and declined for 10 consecutive years after Prohibition. In the last year of Prohibition–1933–there were 12,124 homicides and 7,863 assaults with firearms; by 1941 these figures had declined to 8,048 and 4,525, respectively.

    Now remember now, this was the result of federal government regulation.

    I can see both sides of the debate, and feel that some government oversight should accompany the fertile market to be. The federal government must enforce the private property rights acquired by the industrious entrepreneurs who inevitably blossom under their own laborious graft; “protestors” and “minority populations” can’t stifle free enterprise; jobs would be lost from their loitering (financial management up a company isn’t easy, to say the least).

    You can label me whatever you want, bur the facts are not up for debate. Because I’m a whining weedbagger who’s convinced the AEC hosts CrossFire 2, a show that understands that its important to consider both sides in order to form a more solid understanding of the topic.

    I look forward to your reply. and if Charles Koch is hiring-he’s good at that sort of thing- my hands are ready for whatever job he requires of me. I’m not afraid to get my hands dirty or wet! I’d rather work for him than a government that tolerates slothful indolence from its own workers while the young and hungry work as much as 3 jobs just to make ends meet.

  • 29. Adam  |  November 6th, 2012 at 6:05 am

    Hey eXiled! Tell Ames to edge away from the cliff, I hear Obama’s got, like, a 75% chance of winning – YOU GUYS DID A GREAT JOB, WOW!


  • 30. Ozinator  |  November 6th, 2012 at 6:51 am

    Hope Trolls arguing with Libertard trolls and potheads getting hurt? This place had got it all!

    Joe Rogan’s podcast is a good example of making sense about weed legalization and then concluding that we must vote Libertarian. We get it #12, but if we’re smart enough to get how dumb that is, why wouldn’t we be smart enough to see you doing the same thing by concluding that we vote for Obama or that a vote for Nader is the same thing as not voting? Besides, Obama isn’t the lesser evil, he’s the more effective evil (Glen Ford is spot on). At least with Romney bombing babies and making jokes about it, you people might give a shit. AEC: YEAH, LIKE THEY GAVE A SHIT WITH BUSH AND REELECTED HIM.

  • 31. Bat-Mite  |  November 6th, 2012 at 8:57 am

    What a lot of you seem to be forgetting is that in legalization discussions with the marijuana crowd “hard” drugs are left out, something that doubtlessly irks Levine and Ames. Many members of this crowd would probably accept continuing the drug war if they could get their preferred plant off the government’s enemies list.

    Hell, even if they wanted to legalize anything else they couldn’t because many of them have spent the last two decades claiming that marijuana should be legal because it’s a wonder drug. Unless grannies start doing lines to help with their glaucoma that argument won’t work for any other drug.

  • 32. Ozinator  |  November 6th, 2012 at 9:46 am

    Hello Almighty!

    I meant Obama supporters seem to be ok with bombing babies as long as it’s a Democrat doing it. They croc tear up when it’s a Repug though. I can’t stand the fake burks who blame Nader voters for Bush. I blame Gore voters for not getting matching funds for the greens–a more worthwhile fight than which baby killer is farting in the oval office

  • 33. RaperOfGod  |  November 6th, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Finally, put these “anti-prohibition” libertarians in their place. You can’t have both social freedom and economic neoliberalism; the latter precludes the former.

    Their justification for their stance never has to do with ending social injustice, it’s always about how much money can be made. Or it’s just a vessel through which they can pass their anti-government, pro-capitalist bullshit. When 60 Minutes aired a segment on the legalization measures in Washington, Colorado, and Oregon, it was interviews and information about tax money, freeing up police resources, entrepreneurs, and other bullshit. How about because arresting people, throwing them into private prisons, and cashing in on them as a commodity is morally corrupt? Why don’t these people talk about that? Where’s the media narrative on that?

    Oh wait, that’s why I’m here in the first place.

    And if you’re a pothead, stop whining. This piece isn’t about what you do. If you smoke weed for your own enjoyment, people are going to stigmatize you, especially if you’re a loudmouth about it. It comes with the territory. You should know that by now. Just deal with it, enjoy the drug, and help scrub out libertarianism.

  • 34. joe  |  November 6th, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    I had a little trouble understanding your post. For example take the sentence:

    “…but if we’re smart enough to get how dumb that is…”

    Who is we and what is that?
    You seem to be saying that voting for the lesser of two evils is a bad idea, voting for Nader is just as bad as not voting and Obama is somehow worse than Romney. The way I see it there are several different strategy’s:

    1. Vote for the better of two evils. This strategy needs no explanation
    2. Vote for the worse of two evils. This is the worse is better approach. With this strategy you hope to make things so bad that a revolution will occur. I do not agree with this strategy because it could take 40 years for a revolution to occur. When there is a revolution the most brutal, well organized, authoritarian faction comes out on top. At least this strategy is in the domain of coherence.
    3. Vote for a third party. This strategy tells the politicians I am an informed voter and I’m tired of the Republicrats and if you want my vote you have to move your party’s platform towards my agenda.
    4. Stick your thumb up your ass and not vote. Then brag to all your anarchist friends about how real your shit is. This tells the politicians that you are completely ignorant and apathetic and that you care more about Justin Bieber than politics. A politician is not going to look at your absence of vote and think:”wow this guy is really intelligent and pissed of at the system”. This strategy is not a good strategy because it is not a strategy at all. It lacks any coherence. For fucks sake at least vote Vermin Supreme.

    As for me, my state is locked in Obama so I’m using strategy 3.

    As for the pothead debate. I don’t think anyone here is hating on pot users, they are hating on stoners. Pot makes you retarded. That’s no way to go through life son. It is however a great way to spend a Friday evening. It’s really hard to get a political movement going with a bunch of retards.

  • 35. Rehmat  |  November 6th, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    The libertarians, you say!

    Remember what David Horowitz called Rep. Ron Paul? He called him “a crackpot” and “vicious anti-Semite“. Why? Because Ron Paul made a political wrong statement last year. Ron suggested that Washington should stop $3 billion annual military aid to Israel.

    Yeah, like that’s gonna happen.

    PS: This here is private property. You want to advertise? Cough up some cash, you antisemitic donkey.

  • 36. Derp  |  November 6th, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    I love Israel! Limbaugh and Drudge Report tell me they kick ass, take names and need to bomb Iran all the time! Only assholes like Mel Gibson (Braveheart, Lethal Weapon and The Beaver are pretty awesome though) wouldn’t want to give them billions of dollars a year to gain God’s magical blessings he bestows on all the friends of Israel according to whoever wrote the Old Testament, derp derp derp!

  • 37. chipe  |  November 7th, 2012 at 1:58 am

    Look! Cannabis legalization efforts passed in Washington and Colorado, and I don’t see any libertarian candidates winning many votes there. Here we are, with the proof right in front of your eyes that cannabis legalization isn’t some sort of magic pill that makes people vote libertarian.

  • 38. CB  |  November 7th, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    Yeah, there’s a reason why people stand side-by-side with these Libertarian shysters, but then shy away at the polls.

    It’s the same deal as with Libertarian philosophy itself. At first, it sounds all cool and interesting and, you know, True. “More freedom is good. Don’t let the government tell you what you can do.” Why, what an appealing philosophy! Who could disagree with that?

    Then you find out what it means in practice, and who is practicing it: More freedom from the restrictions that keep employers, banks, insurers, landlords, and others from taking advantage of those less fortunate; and some privileged moneyed asshat who obviously thinks they will be (or dreams they one day will be) the ones to benefit in such a money-make-right situation.

    Yet still, somehow these ideas have influenced the public discourse, and the public mentality. The fundamental idea expressed above is seductive enough that it has become a kind of default presumption, and we find ourselves having to argue, even with ourselves, why it doesn’t apply in a given situation. So while not actually gaining much in the way of direct political power, Libertarianism has nevertheless become the lubricant that lets them get away with shafting the populace.

  • 39. Ozinator  |  November 7th, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    The reason they shy away is because they are afraid the Democrat will win and they’re too fucking stupid and full of hate to realize there’s no difference between him and the Republican. They’re still down with all the Libertarian bullshit though

  • 40. Recall  |  November 7th, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    “But what about the War on Drugs? Well, no matter what he tells his progressive stoner groupies, Judge Gray sees nothing wrong with the War on Drugs per se, as long as it was being waged by the states and not the federal government. The semantics may be a bit too complicated for the legalize it crowd to follow, but let’s take a look anyway..”

    21st Amendment:

    “Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”

    Looks to me like you guys are just being a bunch of purity trolls.

  • 41. Adam  |  November 8th, 2012 at 5:54 am

    Hey, Ames be a man and tell us who you voted for. Personally, I don’t vote. Don’t want to be part of the system, man!

  • 42. Cum  |  November 8th, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    I just don’t like it when Papa Ames and Papa Levine say the mean things… Now do a weekly NSFW/Exiled podcast. It could even be a 30 minute call-in thing. Election night was fun, you could make it work. Be sure to record it in a hotel that reeks of pot because angry makes funny.

  • 43. damn red  |  November 8th, 2012 at 12:46 pm

    Dear AEC,

    Just found out my friend voted for Gary Johnson based on his “opposition” to the war on drugs. He claimed he was no longer a libertarian after I hammered him on his beliefs and now describes himself as a social democrat.

    I have sent him multiple pages of research documenting the libertarian party, and exposing the true nature of the ideology and yet I find out he went full scale dumb ass progressive voter.

    He’s a fucking hippy voter now.

    What should I do?

    Betrayed by Bagtard Buddy

  • 44. Cum  |  November 8th, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Actually I guess what I’m saying is I like it when Papa Ames and Papa Levine say the mean things (when it won’t apply to me or my habits) and that they should be recorded.

  • 45. Ozinator  |  November 8th, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    Hey Joe

    I’m all for you voting for a third party. I like Nader. But yeah, Obama is a sugar coated, eternal war austerity pill. rhetoric is only slightly better but in reality, he gets the evil done much more effectively while the right pretends he’s a leftist and the left defends him.

    AEC: What is up with these more-effective-evil-tards?

  • 46. NoRemorse  |  November 8th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

  • 47. Ozinator  |  November 8th, 2012 at 9:29 pm


    “…He has a good head on his shoulders. He has the absolute right ideology, a Ron Paul Constitutionalist who recognizes the evils of Islam, and supports a strong military, defense of America and of course, our personal rights to gun ownership”

  • 48. joe  |  November 8th, 2012 at 10:42 pm


    You seem to be arguing for strategy 2, the worse is better approach. Romney’s overt shenanigans would ruin the 99% much faster and be more obvious than Obama’s covert shenanigans. This would allow the 99% to become more politically aware sooner and therefore allow the change we need to happen sooner. But the whole point of strategy 2 is to eventually switch to strategy one. During the Keynesian period the 99%’s slice of pie got bigger with the whole pie. After Nixon the slice stayed the same size. After Clinton the slice started to shrink. The only inequality milestone I see after that is when the slice is too small to feed your family. By that time the poor will be completely disenfranchised and ignorant that any enterprising commie with a boatload of ak’s can take over. This process could take 100 years. In the meantime(i.e. my working life) it’s gonna suck.

    I say we unfuck the future now, I’m tired of waiting. The American Public is ready for a change. That means strategy 1 or 3.

    We can’t fix things with voting alone. The ONLY way that’s going to happen is mass mobilization. People need to unglue there eyes from the mainstream media and talk to each other face to face, organize and take back both political party’s.

  • 49. joe  |  November 8th, 2012 at 10:54 pm


    Describe hippie voter and dumb ass progressive voter.

  • 50. damn red  |  November 9th, 2012 at 12:44 am

    AEC where the fuck are you

    In short voting libertarian despite being explained in painful detail why it is a dumbfuck move, just for legalizing pot man, yeah that was his reason.

    In short eat shit hippy.

    AEC: Debagging progressives is gonna be a long, painful process…

  • 51. damn red  |  November 9th, 2012 at 12:51 am

    And it gets even funnier he refuses to vote green. He thinks it is full of conspiracy nuts…

  • 52. Ozinator  |  November 9th, 2012 at 4:34 am


    no, I’m saying don’t be a pussy and go #3. If it results in #2, great. It beats sucking off your rapist

  • 53. joe  |  November 9th, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Damn, I had no idea progressives vote libertarian.

    Let the D-bagging begin.

    Let me get this straight; because you challenged my manhood by calling me a pussy I should suck off the other rapist. The one that doesn’t use lube. Go fuck yourself.

  • 54. damn red  |  November 9th, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Where have you been, it’s been a thing for years from the left, most of it comes off of how awesome Ron Paul is for wanting to end the wars, legalize drugs, and cut military spending.

    But they ignore the ideology driving his reasoning. The conclusions might be good but it completely glosses over how they intend to achieve these goals. Hint state’s rights.

    And it attracts the idiot hippies and progressives since they are obsessing over the concept of thinking locally which of course I can go into detail about why this think local bullshit also needs to be canned.

    Also the strange overlap of conspiracy oriented thought between progressive hippies and libertarians is also quite disturbing.

    But it all boils down to, dude weed man like the paper companies will go out of business if hemp were legal, fucking idiots.

  • 55. Recall  |  November 10th, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    “Where have you been, it’s been a thing for years from the left, most of it comes off of how awesome Ron Paul is for wanting to end the wars, legalize drugs, and cut military spending.

    But they ignore the ideology driving his reasoning. The conclusions might be good but it completely glosses over how they intend to achieve these goals. Hint state’s rights.”

    Getting delusional people to support sensible policy is pretty much the goal of all politics. If we’re going to end the drug war, then we can’t afford to be too picky about where the votes come from.

  • 56. joe  |  November 10th, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    @54 QFT

    Come to think of it I do know a few supposed lefties that got on the Paultard bandwagon.

  • 57. Bagtard Bob  |  November 11th, 2012 at 1:27 am

    Alright now you are either the densest mother fucker to read this site or you are just posting to piss me off. Either way…

    For fucks sake, the point is about 50,000 miles above you. Should not be shocking seeing how you think the argument is about

    “Best ways to sucker people to vote for a hard right economic policy by dangling the carrot of sensible drug policies” (Note I took some liberties with rephrasing your statement, I was nice enough to leave out the part where you pissed yourself. And sensible drug polices means, let your dumb fuck neighbors decide. Not like they can be easily duped. Just like you you savvy voter.)

    They are not arguing for legalizing drugs you stupid tit. They want to end the DEA and to use it as an attack on the rest of the federal government YOU STUPID SACK…

    They aren’t even using the end the war on drugs rhetoric for a good end. They seek to end federal funding for things that happen to benefit the so called parasites.

    They are attacking the DEA since it happens to be the weakest point and there is a growing base of youth voters who oppose the war on drugs. They are hoping to ride that wave to libertopia where you don’t have to serve blacks if you don’t want to. And if there is still money involved for keeping people locked up drugs will still be illegal on a state level since state politics are obviously not corrupt.

    It’s a Trojan horse you sack of stupid, but I’m certain you will be still surprised when your local roads collapse in on themselves despite paying a private company, since you “never voted for it”. (Hint if you voted libertarian you did, idiot)

    Jeez I need another 5 drinks.

  • 58. Tyler  |  November 11th, 2012 at 2:04 am

    I don’t get why you guys are bitching. Every one of these libertarian votes is one less for republicans. No it ain’t. A stonerbot says what?

    Since clearly, you guys think Obama is so great, despite calling him a boring technocrat, then this works for you.

    Don’t bite the hand that feeds you and passes you a joint to smoke.

  • 59. Recall  |  November 11th, 2012 at 3:14 pm


    “(Hint if you voted libertarian you did, idiot)”

    I’ve never voted anything but a straight Democratic ticket, so you can take it easy on your liver.

  • 60. Bagtard Bob  |  November 12th, 2012 at 11:54 pm

    Glad to hear you’re not that stupid.

    Well this is fun another stoner voter that seems to miss the point again…

    The problem with the weed vote is it’s deceptive, yeah sensible drug policy is good but it shouldn’t be the vessel used to deliver all the other socially regressive and economic garbage that libertarians have been arguing for.

    And on top of it they really don’t care to legalize it, they want to leave it to the states. Go talk to your neighbors, mine want weed legal but still think crack users are worse then kiddie fuckers.

    And going back to that point about not being happy with Obama, I live in a battleground state I did my duty swallowed my pride and some pills and voted for Obama. But here is the difficult concept that you might have a hard time following.

    The media narrative is just as important, and the media narrative would not take my individual thought into account nor yours for why I voted the way I did. If libertarians took enough votes and it gave the election to Romney how do you think the media would phrase that.

    And also libertarians are not the only political party arguing for ending the war on drugs, the only reason you hear it from them is they aren’t demanding anything that will upset the current ruling economic class hell they’re funding them.

  • 61. Ozinator  |  November 13th, 2012 at 7:09 am

    voting dem when they don’t earn it is dumb….maybe if they lost more than 50 percent of the time, they’d be compelled to represent the people who used to vote for them–or they’d become even more rightwing and get zapped with freemarket freedom? safe state strategy is lame…hit them where it hurts as well. No need to swallow pride at all…let them do that.

  • 62. Recall  |  November 13th, 2012 at 11:17 am

    “The media narrative is just as important, and the media narrative would not take my individual thought into account nor yours for why I voted the way I did. If libertarians took enough votes and it gave the election to Romney how do you think the media would phrase that.”

    Who gives a fuck? The libertarians aren’t getting a meaningful amount of the vote, even by third party standards.


    That’s from Colorado, the state where they’d be most likely to throw the election. Yep, Obama lucked out with the hispanic vote–which is up around 400,000 in the mile high state.

  • 63. CB  |  November 15th, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Ozinator, apparently you’re too stupid and full of hate to realize that the people I was talking about, the people the article is talking about, are pot-smoking liberal hippies supposedly getting suckered into being libertarians by their legalization cheerleaders. They aren’t afraid of Democrats getting elected. And they aren’t voting Libertarian at the poll, either.

  • 64. Ozinator  |  November 17th, 2012 at 6:39 am

    Sorry CB,

    You said “why people shy away” instead of, “these people shy away”. Not sure where you are coming from with me being full of hate but may all your dead relatives rot in hell I guess


  • 65. Buddy  |  November 21st, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    I hope that they don’t legalize drugs. Revolution through counter-economics. Buy your weed on the Silk Road.

    Oh wait…..I think the Koch brothers inverted Bitcoins.

  • 66. Buddy  |  November 21st, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    *invented. (Damned spell check.)

  • 67. Zhu Bajie  |  November 23rd, 2012 at 12:10 am

    @12. FWIW & 15. Aunt Bold: “I’d bet dollars to donuts that most stoners are falling for the other, more subtle troll that the koch-heads are having much greater success with– convince lefties that voting is rigged, meaningless, don’t do it.”

    In your lifetime, has anything important changed because of voting?

  • 68. Spinoza  |  January 12th, 2013 at 11:22 pm

    Wow. How much Kochaine does it take to overcome the cognitive dissonance going on here?

    Seriously, you totally are right to think of libertarians as being billionaire loving fascists because they believe government’s monopoly on violence is wrong, yet according to my cut Koch – get this – government is so not totally awesome! Yes, that’s right, I troll this site that calls itself “exiled” because I’m not in love with government. And not just any kind of government, but the centralized federal government that has done such a great job of locking people up, taking American’s money and waging foreign wars for the past 50 years. Corporate America would never do that.

    Note: the swamp troll’s comment has been condensed for your reading pleasure.

Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)


Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed