Republicans: Focused on the Issues

[David]

Originally Posted by CharlieK

David, I have to agree with you on this one. The GOP leaders are dumber than dumb. How else can you explain how they can sometimes get the best message out, then turn around and fall flat on their faces when they should be following up on them?

If they had an above average IQ they could easily be the majority party for decades. But a Dumbass is still a Dumbass.

Hell if the GOP (not the TP ) actually kept their more logical promises like balanced trade, smarter spending, etc. I'd vote for them. But the only Repubs keeping their promises atm are job killing, take a chainsaw to the budget because nothing could go wrong, theocratic TPers who love to rap themselves in the Constitution but can't tell you anything about it if it's not the 2nd Amendment.

[Salty Dog]

Gary Johnson: Face reality, legalize pot - CNN.com

Republican Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson weighs in on legalizing marijuana.

(CNN) -- In 2002, I became aware of a woman who had already served more than six years of a 25-year prison sentence. Her crime? She was addicted to codeine, and she had fraudulently written herself more than 100 prescriptions for Tylenol III.
It seemed to me that this woman had already served far too much time in prison -- in fact, more than a person would likely serve if convicted of second-degree murder -- so I used my authority as governor of New Mexico to release her.
This sort of real-life example might have been difficult to envision 40 years ago, when President Richard Nixon publicly declared his intention to wage "a new, all-out offensive" against drugs. Back then, many Americans believed that tougher enforcement of drug laws would put an end to drug abuse in the United States once and for all.
But some, even within his own party, thought Nixon was going too far by involving the federal government in personal, private behavior. Raymond Shafer, for example, was the former Republican governor of Pennsylvania and Nixon's choice to lead his handpicked National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. Composed almost entirely of anti-drug conservatives, this commission was expected to issue a report supporting Nixon's new policies.
However, that isn't what happened. When the commission released its report in 1972, it recommended, in particular, against the criminalization of marijuana, arguing as follows: "The criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use... the actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion of the law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only with the greatest reluctance."
This report received little media attention, and unfortunately, it had no impact on public policy. By the mid-1980s, virtually 100% of elected politicians from both parties supported the war on drugs in its entirety. Intellectual arguments against prohibition, however, did not die with the Shafer Commission.
William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman, two of the most respected conservative intellectuals of the late 20th century, were among the drug war's high-profile critics. These great thinkers did not argue that recreational drug use should be celebrated -- far from it! Instead, they argued that the prohibition of drugs was causing far greater harm to society than drug abuse itself. And they were right.
When I ran for governor of New Mexico in 1994, I promised to bring a common-sense business approach to government. Everything was going to be a cost-benefit analysis -- how much of taxpayers' money are we spending, and what are we getting for the money we spend?
As governor, I was astonished to learn that half of what we were spending on law enforcement, courts and prisons was drug-related, and yet illegal drugs were cheaper, stronger and more available than ever. After further study, it became obvious to me that the drug war had created a lucrative black market and was enriching and empowering violent gangs and cartels. In many ways, it was like alcohol prohibition all over again, with similarly disastrous results.
I decided I simply couldn't allow the status quo to continue unchallenged, so in 1999 I became an advocate for legalizing marijuana and adopting harm reduction strategies for dealing with abuse of harder drugs (including prescriptions). I've been making these arguments ever since, and in recent months they have been resonating more strongly than ever.
The drug reform movement got a big boost last month when an international commission released a report criticizing the war on drugs. The Global Commission on Drug Policy was a 19-member commission that included Kofi Annan, a former U.N. secretary general; George Shultz, President Ronald Reagan's secretary of state; and Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The report's conclusions are clearly stated: "The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the U.S. government's war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed."
Study these issues and I bet you'll agree that the Global Commission on Drug Policy is right. The Department of Justice reported that, in 2008, 2.3 million people were in our country's jails and prisons. Yet it is clearer than ever that the worldwide supply of drugs can never be wiped out -- no matter how strongly prohibitions are enforced.
If Republicans are truly serious when they talk about liberty and fiscal responsibility, and if they truly do their homework on the drug war, many will soon join me in my call for rational drug policy reform in the United States.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gary Johnson.

[CharlieK]

And he is absolutely correct too.

As an aside, and just for the record, I have smoked it either two or three times, so I really don't have any dog in the fight. I just never got excited by altering my mind. It's warped enough without having to bend it further.

But this is a property rights issue more than anything else. If you own and control your body, and you are an adult, you have the Liberty to foul it up if you wish, so long as you are not harming others.

It's just that simple. Property Rights 101

[gipper]

Originally Posted by CharlieK

And he is absolutely correct too.

As an aside, and just for the record, I have smoked it either two or three times, so I really don't have any dog in the fight. I just never got excited by altering my mind. It's warped enough without having to bend it further.

But this is a property rights issue more than anything else. If you own and control your body, and you are an adult, you have the Liberty to foul it up if you wish, so long as you are not harming others.

It's just that simple. Property Rights 101

I say legalize it. But, my opinion is really based on the hope that libs will get stoned on election day and forget to vote.

I wonder if there is a study of stoners to determine their political persuasion. I can only assume that most are libs/dems. Agreed?

Lets do an informal poll here at the LL. Stoners please identify yourselves. I don't touch the stuff.

Stoners 0
Non-Stoners 1

[David]

Most of the stoners I know are rednecks.

[gipper]

Originally Posted by David

Most of the I know are rednecks.

Are you a stoner?

And, by stoner I mean a user of cannabis.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by gipper

Are you a stoner?

And, by stoner I mean a user of cannabis.

Most users of cannabis are young kids. Highschool and college. That same group of people is also mostly liberal. The fact that most stoners are also liberals may be due to the fact that most stoners are also members of a population more likely to be liberal.


These are all generalizations obviously, but they are probably true for the most part.

[illavbill]

Originally Posted by gipper

I say legalize it. But, my opinion is really based on the hope that libs will get stoned on election day and forget to vote.

I wonder if there is a study of stoners to determine their political persuasion. I can only assume that most are libs/dems. Agreed?

Lets do an informal poll here at the LL. Stoners please identify yourselves. I don't touch the stuff.

Stoners 0
Non-Stoners 1

Maybe you should go smoke a joint. It might open up your mind. I live in the Pacific NW and TONS of people on the west coast smoke pot. Many of my friends, Doctors, Lawyers, and EVEN a prosecuting attorney buddy I know partake. Political affiliation doesn't have shit to do with people using drugs. My conservative retard friends smoke weed.

I'm sure all the meth heads aren't liberals tho. I say legalize and tax it. People would know they're getting clean stuff, the govt. makes money, no shady dealers or jail time (In my area personal possession is a ticket and a fine up to 40grams I think). I've been in the car while a friend was pulled over and had stinky weed in his pocket. Cop smelled it, said give it to me or I'll get the dog in here and blah blah blah. It was $40 worth. Cop looked at it, said WOW smells great and laughed. Made sure he wasn't smoking and driving, and dumped it on the ground and made my friend smash it up with his foot into the ground. Small fine, no jail time, traffic stop took 20 minutes max.

Harder stuff should be treated harshly for the dealers they're the violent ones, the gangs that sell the hard stuff cause problems in society. Treat hard users as someone with an illness and TREAT them. Cost WAY WAY less than ruining someone's life and putting them in jail for years upon years. If they really want to keep their WAR on drugs going go after the sources of the hard drugs. Go hard after meth heads and cooks, work at slowing/stopping heroine coming into the country, stop the coke coming in. The cartels are violent as hell and they're getting stronger by the day. The broke addicts of the hard drugs are responsible for a HUGE amount of property crime in the area I live according to my cop buddy (Yes, he knows I smoke, doesn't give a shit. FUNNY as all hell when he shows up in uniform to say hi and I have a friend over and we'd smoked earlier . Obviously my friend that's a cop doesn't smoke and isn't going to bust a good friend.)

[illavbill]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Most users of cannabis are young kids. Highschool and college. That same group of people is also mostly liberal. The fact that most stoners are also liberals may be due to the fact that most stoners are also members of a population more likely to be liberal.


These are all generalizations obviously, but they are probably true for the most part.

I used to smoke a TON of great stuff every day. Then as I got older i started getting anxiety sometimes (too good of stuff, damn my sources ) lately I've just been partaking here and there every few days. Doesn't effect me at work or anywhere else. Granted I do it after work just like having a beer or two after work doesn't have anything to do with work the next morning.

[Salty Dog]

Originally Posted by gipper

I say legalize it. But, my opinion is really based on the hope that libs will get stoned on election day and forget to vote.

I wonder if there is a study of stoners to determine their political persuasion. I can only assume that most are libs/dems. Agreed?

Lets do an informal poll here at the LL. Stoners please identify yourselves. I don't touch the stuff.

Stoners 0
Non-Stoners 1

I know plenty of Masons who smoke cannabis. And they are far from liberal on most issues.