08/21/2010 Freedom Watch w/ John Stossel, Michelle Bachmann, Jacob Hornberger, Rob Kampia, S.E. Cupp, Joe Wilson, more,

Here is this weekend’s edition of Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano. The Judge spends much of the first part of the show discussing the drug war and efforts at legalization and decriminalization.

httpvp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=43C2ED3F871568B7

(Thanks to the Patriot’s Network for posting these on Youtube)

-->

42 Comments

  1. GEORGE B. MARTIN Said,

    August 21, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

    S.E. Cupp is not worthy of being on this show. I expect better argumentation from the opposition. There must be better reasoning against legalizing drugs. Judge, I expect guests whose intellect is bigger than their breast size. She is great looking and not too bright.

  2. Steve R. Said,

    August 21, 2010 @ 9:05 pm

    It is not just the government that is diminishing your rights. Corporations are doing it too. They are even claiming "government powers" such as the ability to inspect your packet flows on the internet without even a search warrant. Big government may be bad, but corporate abuse of your civil liberties is just as insidious. Judge Napolitano should provide equal coverage.

  3. Daniel Rosenberg Said,

    August 21, 2010 @ 9:07 pm

    Anyone else think the Judge is a bit too easy on his conservative guests? I really don't consider "Are you against big government?" to be a difficult question to answer. Perhaps it would be more productive and interesting if he started challening them on the areas where they actually support big government.

  4. GEORGE B. MARTIN Said,

    August 21, 2010 @ 9:10 pm

    Thank god!!! Did I hear Bachmann say she would repeal the USA PATRIOT Act? Certainly, voting for Constitutional candidates in the fall, no matter if they are Democrat or Republican is VERY important!
    ObamaCare, RomneyCare, or whatever you want to call it needs to go too. And, the "Financial Reform" that recently passed needs to be repealed. It is good to see Bachmann taking the lead in all of this.

  5. Tim Said,

    August 21, 2010 @ 9:46 pm

    S.E. Cupp doesn't want to make alcohol illegal but cannot give a cogent constitutional argument against decriminalizing marijuana. By the way, does S.E. stand for Size E?

  6. Bennet Cecil Said,

    August 21, 2010 @ 11:28 pm

    Both parties are trolling for payoffs. Democrats work for the unions while republicans work for military contractors. Both steal from taxpayers with unbalanced budgets. Stalemate is the best we can hope for.

  7. Sam Said,

    August 21, 2010 @ 11:42 pm

    S.E. Cup was an azz clown and a untcae

  8. Ethan Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 1:20 am

    why did the MPP rep allow that ignorant conservative to claim that smoking 1 joint is equivalent to a pack of cigarettes, and say pot smokers are stupid.

    marijuana has been known since 1974 to fight cancer, and has recently been found to cause neurogenesis (the creation of new neurons in the brain)

    very dissapointing

  9. Tony Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 5:31 am

    Corporations can't violate your rights unless government allows them. Corporations do not have a monopoly on violence. Whatever rights were violated (if this is even the case) by corporations, could be fixed by not having to rely on government but a market solution. You can't rely on a big violator to protect you against a smaller violator.

  10. Zack V Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 11:11 am

    S.E. Cupp has not the slightest competent argument against the legalization of marijuana or any drug for that matter. She has clearly bought into all of the government studies and malicious misrepresentation of true scientific research through the propaganda spewed forth in support of special interests. Her incompetence in regards to these matters and her input need be disregarded in full. Nancy Skinner… nothing new here, would be much better suited to living in Europe, she clearly has socialist fantasies and possesses no value or appreciation for the freedoms our Founding Fathers fought to secure our country. I fail to understand why the Judge continually permits her presence on his show unless it is to incite monumental distaste for her distorted perception of what our government is permitted and obligated to do. Ultimately, this was a fair 'episode' of Freedom Watch, however I would have much preferred this installment to have dug deeper into the War on Drugs and the prospects of legalization. Additionally, Paul Armentano would have been a much more appropriate guest to discuss the issues regarding marijuana than Rob Kampia who largely failed to properly educate the naysayers and the viewers of this episode. Thank you Judge for continuing the fight for Liberty!

  11. liberty_4_us Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

    Good show, Judge. Skinner really doesn't reason well, Cupp neither.

    Would love to see Declan McCullagh on your show!

  12. EmperorHasNoClothes Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

    Cupp makes perfect sense on this topic – the only voice of reason in an otherwise crazy world.

  13. Bruce Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 6:47 pm

    As a retired 25 year veteran of the NYPD I look at this question from two distinct viewpoints. First – the argument that Cupp makes, i.e., that marijuana is as likely to lead to DUI as alcohol is absurd on its face. I have never in 25 years on the street had occasion to arrest a pot user driving a vehicle. On the other hand, drivers using alcohol are an almost daily occurrence. The two are in no way comparable. Second is the argument about the expense to police of the drug “war.” Many officers, including myself, strongly object and are troubled by the militarization of police SWAT units and their tactics. Drug informants are notoriously poor sources of valid information, and most drug units rely on them far too often for my taste. this is why there are so many raids that go horribly wrong – such as the one in Missouri. What a tragedy, and for no good reason. I personally can see NO reason for arming these units with fully automatic weapons, shock grenades and the like (not to mention the military regalia and face masks). This is all a reaction to the California bank robbery situation a few years back. Utter nonsense. I personally could care less what anyone does in the privacy of their own home, and neither should any cop. Cops in general bristle when such snooping is done on them by IA units – the public is no different, and that includes marijuana, sex, or what have you.

    The war on drugs (sic) is a colossal failure and waste of police assets that should be on the street fighting real crime that affects the public at large. As was mentioned in the show – this is all part of the plan to get millions in fed dollars under the old LEAA and current fed groups to “fight crime”, and doesn’t do a damned thing. The militarization of police today should scare the hell out of any law abiding citizen like it does many cops. I’m left wondering if any of these guys remember the oath they took, or more importantly – the Constitution.

  14. JustMeInMD Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 7:56 pm

    If everyone wants to legalize marijuana, then they should only legalize taking it via ingestion. If smoking it is legalized, I would argue that the second-hand smoke is a danger to those around the smoker, and thus illegal. One way they could legalize and regulate it is to legalize tetrahydrocannabinol (the drug ingredient in marijuana), not marijuana. The drug companies could sell it in pill form and make a profit.
    P.S. – "Sam" – please stay away if you can't advance the argument.

  15. Diane Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 8:41 pm

    I enjoyed the show as always, however, there is one point I would like to make. Yes I do believe that people should do as they wish in the privacy of their own home including the use of drugs as long as other people are not put in danger. Everyone has the right to do stupid things. However, when people use drugs such as crack, heroin, cocaine, etc., it hurts their body in many ways. The one way I see working on a cardiac floor in a hospital is the heart. People come in a lot with chest pain and/or heart attacks because of cocaine use. Most of these people are on the welfare system and guess who has to pick up the hospital bills because of their drug use- (Taxpayers). This is where I take offense, why should we have to pay for their stupidity.

  16. Barry Williams Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 9:43 pm

    Your Honor,

    If medical marijuana becomes legal in Washington D.C., wouldn't that make it possible to challenge the Federal Government's prohibitions? After all, Washington D.C. is THE federal enclave and nothing happens there without approval from the federal government.

    It will be interesting to see how long it takes the federal government to enforce the prohibition in its own front yard.

    You are the expert and I think this makes an interesting question. I hope you will examine this aspect of the issue.

  17. Passer-by Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 11:17 pm

    S.E. Cupp has not the slightest competent argument against the legalization of marijuana or any drug for that matter. She has clearly bought into all of the government studies and malicious misrepresentation of true scientific research through the propaganda spewed forth in support of special interests. Her incompetence in regards to these matters and her input need be disregarded in full. Nancy Skinner… nothing new here, would be much better suited to living in Europe, she clearly has socialist fantasies and possesses no value or appreciation for the freedoms our Founding Fathers fought to secure our country. I fail to understand why the Judge continually permits her presence on his show unless it is to incite monumental distaste for her distorted perception of what our government is permitted and obligated to do. Ultimately, this was a fair 'episode' of Freedom Watch, however I would have much preferred this installment to have dug deeper into the War on Drugs and the prospects of legalization. Additionally, Paul Armentano would have been a much more appropriate guest to discuss the issues regarding marijuana than Rob Kampia who largely failed to properly educate the naysayers and the viewers of this episode. Thank you Judge for continuing the fight for Liberty!

  18. Passer-by Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 11:23 pm

    Government oversteps it's authority by legislating morality and drug use is a moral issue. I don't think people should take cholesterol medicines, they should get active and pursue a healthy diet and lifestyle; but they have the right to put those synthetic chemicals in their body and forgo the root of their problems. The same is true for marijuana, crack, cocaine, heroin, lsd, dmt, 2c-b, etc… it is your body, your the one charged with taking responsibility for it.

  19. Ian Livingston Said,

    August 22, 2010 @ 11:59 pm

    I have two questions for Judge Napolitano and Mr. Stossel. Your argument for the legalization of marijuana hinges on the individuals right to do what they will with their own body within their own homes. Normally, I would agree with you, that the government has no right to impose upon individual freedoms. However, because Prohibition was a spectacular failure, our society now lives with legalized alcohol. There are consequences to this. How many lives are destroyed yearly by drunk driving, lost jobs, destroyed marriages, etc. due to alcohol? We can expect more of the same from legalized marijuana. Currently, there are millions who will never try this drug either because they don't know how to obtain it, or are afraid to because it is illegal. Granted, there are probably many people who use marijuana responsibly, with no consequences to anyone outside themselves. Legalizing it will provide opportunity to millions more who will fail to use it responsibly, just like alcohol. Why introduce this additional destructive element into larger society if we don't have to? Prohibition failed due to lack of public support. Marijuana doesn't seem to have the same problem.
    My second question is at which drug do we draw the line and why? If the argument for legalization hinges on the individuals right to do what they will to themselves so long as it affects no one else, then why shouldn't I be able to use crack cocaine or LSD or any other drug in my own home, so long as my use does not affect anyone else? Legalization of marijuana for this reason seems to be a valid reason to legalize any other substance.

  20. Buffoonette Said,

    August 23, 2010 @ 2:51 am

    “S.E. CUPP” is a fucking moron who obviously knows absolutely NOTHING about cannabis. Why are we putting idiots like her on air? I guess she makes a good point that there is no logical or reasonable argument against legalization.

    Wench.

  21. Jonathan Said,

    August 23, 2010 @ 4:43 am

    Nancy skinner is a dumb bitch

  22. Passer-By Said,

    August 23, 2010 @ 8:32 am

    Ian, we don't draw a line from a truly Libertarian point of view. Go educate yourself on all these drugs and you will largely conclude that the government has put a lot of spin on the problems associated with whatever given drug. That is not to say I agree with someone using meth or heroin, but that is their right. There are a lot of problems associated with the conventional allopathic medicines mass produced by Big Pharma, but I don't really see any of you complaining about the horrendous loss of life resulting from consumption of these drugs vs. the sum of all deaths from illegal drugs. Far more people die from legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco than all illegal drugs. The same is true of conventional allopathic medicines produced by Big Pharma, far more people die annually from those than the sum of all illegal drug related deaths. Education is the key, however it is not our government who should be providing that education. It is YOUR responsibility to educate yourself and take responsibility for your own actions!

  23. Passer-By Said,

    August 23, 2010 @ 1:49 pm

    I agree, we shouldn't have to pay for their stupidity but that does not mean our government should prevent individuals from voluntarily engaging in dangerous activities. A lot of people go to the hospital as a result of car collisions. I don't think I should have to pay their hospital bills because of their inability to competently operate a vehicle. With that said, regarding the welfare system, ideally, our nation wouldn't have a welfare system. We should not reward unproductive individuals for their lack of initiative to take care of themselves. I think there may be certain cases where providing additional means of survival to some individuals and families would be a noble and compassionate thing, but that compassion should be voluntary and unaffiliated with the government.

  24. Passer-By Said,

    August 23, 2010 @ 1:59 pm

    You should also eat tobacco instead of smoking it then, correct? Your logic suggests little change in the current laws given that the vast majority of marijuana consumers utilize the plant through means of smoking. Let the free-market decide… plain and simple, if a business does not want their customers to smoke on the premise than they would make it known to their customers. If your outside walking down a side-walk and pass someone who is smoking, perhaps you should just keep walking. To complain that they are the source of your cancer or asthma is arrogant, there are far more toxins in the air as a result of cars, businesses and industries than to legitimately claim that because you walked by a smoker and inhaled their second-hand smoke they brought 'harm' to you. Try holding your breathe as you walk by them or simply walk around them, most likely a few extra steps to navigate around their vicinity will be good for the majority of obese Americans anyways.

  25. Alpha Said,

    August 23, 2010 @ 7:15 pm

    To be honest, these statist nutjobs ruin the show for me. They stifle what's good about it. I want pure, unadulterated libertarian goodness. Please keep these statist totalitarian idiots off of the show. It's like inviting a 7-year-old into a conversation with adults. I know, it's Fox, and they have to have this argumentative "fair and balanced" format, but it is just simply irritating. Like last week's show, Nancy Skinner had no business debating Walter Williams. She's not worthy of licking Williams' ball sweat as far as I'm concerned.

  26. Random Dude Said,

    August 23, 2010 @ 10:21 pm

    Damn straight!

  27. Steve Said,

    August 23, 2010 @ 11:22 pm

    We shouldn't have to pay. But you resolve that problem by repealing the laws that force hospitals to treat everyone regardless of whether or not they can pay. You don't do it by banning a drug and sending people to prison for 10 years because they were caught posessing cocaine, which is also at taxpayer expense.

    Stop treating people who can't pay and let them go to free clinics and charity hospitals that get money from donations. This is another example of how government screws things up.

  28. Kevin Said,

    August 24, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

    I've decided i like Nancy Skinner on this show. She is so smug, ignorant and absurd that it makes everyone else look that much better. SE Cupp (hottie that she is) performed the same function. She had no cogent argument and it was obvious.

  29. Brewster Said,

    August 24, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

    My comment of the other day does not appear. Wonder why that is???

  30. Constitution Said,

    August 25, 2010 @ 5:34 pm

    Every time Nancy Skinner is on she does nothing but read from the two word democrat handbook that says "Blame Bush". She is a democrat hack that knows nothing about economics other than to toe the party line which is to believe that one more government agency is the answer.

  31. isSEreallythatdumb Said,

    August 25, 2010 @ 6:16 pm

    please don't ever invite S.E. Cup on to your show again. She added nothing to the show, none of her arguments were valid, and she just spouted off baseless facts.

  32. MDFaraone Said,

    August 25, 2010 @ 11:05 pm

    The answer to your question "at which drug d we draw the line?" is very simple…NONE ! Consenting adults should be allowed to put ANYTHING they so choose into their own body, with the caveat being they are also 100% responsible for their own actions and consequences of their behavior.

  33. Susan Williams Said,

    August 27, 2010 @ 8:17 am

    These are possibly the five best sentences you’ll ever read: 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3, The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. 5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

  34. HDThoreau Said,

    August 28, 2010 @ 10:19 pm

    I agree. She looks very nice, but so does my car. That's little reason to attempt to carry on a logical conversation with it.

  35. HDThoreau Said,

    August 29, 2010 @ 2:38 pm

    And to be even more clear, government has no power but what we give it.

    Whereas corporations have no power but what government gives it. Which means in a round about way, that it is our fault for not crushing the government that allows them to stay incorporated after say… destroying the seafood supply of every southern state or the like.

    Neither entity is a person. But both have the same Rights as a Person and infinitely more privileges. That is the fallacy and the root of the problem. Corporate charters used to be revoked when they screwed up. Guess when that stopped happening. You can pretty much trace all these wonderful defects to some point 50-100 years ago.

  36. RSK Said,

    August 29, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

    next time – make S.E. Cupp defend the police state tactics that are being used to enforce marijuana prohibition; armed masked swat teams busting into homes, killing the family dog, shooting civilians, terrorizing the family including children – the fact that people can be denied the right to work if they piss test positive for certain substances and on and on. Where in the constitution does the governemnt get this right? This is not a "war on drugs" it's a war on people who use certain drugs that the state has declared (unscientifically) to be some sort of threat to society.

  37. RSK Said,

    August 29, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

    Where in the consitution does the government get the right to declare war on We the People? that's right we the people – not We the Puritans who are and have always ruined this country by imposing their intolerant views on everyone else. At least with alcohol it was done by a constitutional amendment – but still a disaster in every sense of the word. Look at all of the violence in Mexico – it isn't over tequilla which is both legal and regulated. How can the "regulate commerce clause" of the constitution be used to justify a completely un-regulated market? We can be certain that marijuana prohibtion is unconstitutional because of all the harm and exceptions to the constitution that this unlawful prohibtion has caused and continues require. The ends do not justify the means especially when the ends are repugnant to a free society and the declaration of independence as well as the constitution itself. We're supposed to be the Land of the Free – not the Land of the Drug Free – that is a State religion and therefore violates the 1st amendment.

  38. RSK Said,

    August 29, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

    Finally – consider the reasonableness standard of the constitution such as in the 4th amendment, must be a reasonableness or unreasonableness as determined by We the PEOPLE – not by the government. There would be no point in reminding the government to do what is reasonable or not do what is unreasonable because they would justify anything they could think of in terms of reasonableness ~ therefore that threshhold must be as determined and the limits of which established by the people. Did they forget? Government derives its just powers from the CONSENT of the governed.

  39. liberty_4_us Said,

    August 30, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

    Where's the 8/28 show video?

  40. William Vail Said,

    September 18, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

    Fifty year ago I watched Jack Kilpatric on Agronski and Company. Jack commented on what the locals in Scrabble, VA would submit to balance the federal budget. "The minute the expenditures of the federal government exceed the revenues, congress would be dissolved.
    No congressman or senator who served in the dissolved congress may never run again." In 1994 in the Contract for America congressmen proposed term limits. Some of the very same congressmen whole still serve signed the contract.

  41. matt Said,

    September 18, 2010 @ 8:46 pm

    why are socialist scum such as nancy skinner and mike norman ever on this show, freedom watch was much better when it was just an internet show with libertarian guest it has been ruined ever since it made it to tv, i cant watch this show anymore i hear the same socialist nonsense i see on other shows

  42. Karmen Price Said,

    March 12, 2012 @ 9:35 pm

    The video was informative and substantial. If viewers will watch more videos like this one, we will all be well informed and educated.