Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 10/16/2012 9:45:47 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
To: SmithL
"It's fiscally prudent. It would be taxed, regulated, monitored. It makes a lot of sense to Republicans," he said.

LOL! Anyone who believes that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to talk to you about.

2 posted on 10/16/2012 9:49:52 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (This is America! Being dead is no excuse not to vote!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Marijuana backers courting conservatives

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They’re wasting their time. They may certainly win over libertarians. But not conservatives.


3 posted on 10/16/2012 9:50:09 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Its funny. My brother is a raving, DU-type, conspiracy theorist Lib who thinks Bush started the Iraq War to line his pockets. I’m conservative. Yet we both agree that pot should be legal. Personally, I don’t see it as any worse than drinking. Libs advocating legalization are their own worst enemies. They start off OK but then the argument turns to some conspiracy about how the CIA wants to keep pot illegal to fund its death squads.


4 posted on 10/16/2012 9:50:18 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Said it before many times to legalization libertarians— have several friends in the tobacco industry that told me and anyone who will listen, that there are warehouses of aging bales of marijuana in Central America. The warehouses are owned by RJ Reynolds, Lorillard,American Tobacco (the Dukes) and others.
So “legalization” for the benefit of a new taxable cash crop to support the continuing liberal socialist agenda..just like the demonrat controlled CA legislature is advocating to “save” CA.... is all ready to go.

Camels made with hashish, no filter. Great. More cancer causing natural ingredients in the crop then that found in natural Nicotiniana (or proprietary additives and flavors). Lord, save us from the pestilence of Progressives and Statists.


9 posted on 10/16/2012 10:09:28 AM PDT by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Libertarian and conservative thought intersects often. I want less government interference in my life. I support reform of marijuana laws to allow individuals to decide for themselves.
I oppose prohibition of alcohol, gambling, smoking and food in the same spirit of freedom for individuals. Regulations can be enforced to limit the exposure to nonpartakers and for public safety.


10 posted on 10/16/2012 10:13:25 AM PDT by outofsalt ("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
Early in the financial crisis I predicted that pot would be made legal in an effort to raise revenue, and I am still surprised that it hasn't happened yet. But now there is a gigantic new obstacle.

"What is the law against marijuana if it isn't the Nanny State telling you what you can do and what you can't do to your body and with your body?" asked Tancredo

The movement is fighting the last war, trying to adopt the pro-choice logic of the previous generation. But that logic no longer applies. Pro-choice is now pro-force.

When the federal government owns our bodies and is able to allow or deny medical treatments, why would they allow drugs to become legalized and harm their property? Why would a state accept a neighboring state allowing drugs and higher medical costs, which would be a tax transfer to the other state for higher drug abuse treatments?

If one is pro-pot, I think they have to be anti ObamaCare, which would have to be repealed before drugs could be legalized.

11 posted on 10/16/2012 10:17:25 AM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

We conservatives are not potheads, just as conservatives were never feminists or other self-described “progressives.” Members of the socialist, political/regulator class...well, we know what they are.

Avoid buying anything that you don’t really need. Become more self-sufficient each month, and learn to manufacture something useful as a hobby for now. Starve the B.


12 posted on 10/16/2012 10:18:45 AM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in a thunderous avalanche of rottenness smelled around the earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

A MSM attempt to get libertarians to waste a vote and have Obummer take CO.
Colorado needs to see what legalizing Pot has done to CA and OR.


14 posted on 10/16/2012 10:32:50 AM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

William F. Buckley Jr. - the founder of National Review when there was no Conservative magazine in the country and a leading Conservative thinker, in his own time and now - would be proud.

Social Conservatives need to re-authenticate their support for true Liberty; they must either committ to the ideal of small and limited government, for all, not just so big government only leaves them alone, or quit mouthing the position that they are against big government, only when it suits them, and then matching the Liberals tit-for-tat when they want big government themselves - for promoting their own social engineering agendas.

It is irrational to think that support for decriminalization of marijuana means support for “dopers” who are “high” on the job, on the road, or in the schools. It is irrational because it irratioanally suggests that anyone is asking for drunks to be accepted, on the job, on the road or in the schools. No one is.

Alcohol is legal, but it is not legal to be drunk while driving a motor vehcile, and not legal to be drunk while engaged in certain jobs, and not accpetable to be drunk on most any job and not acceptable to be drunk in most any school. Why would the same laws, and social prohibitions, be any different toward a “doper who was high” just because marijuana was decriminalized? The fact is, they wouldn’t.

The end of prohibition was not affected so is to encourage either public drunkiness or alcoholism. It follows that it is irrational to think the intent or purpose of decriminalization of marijuana is to encourage behaviorial abuse of, or addiction to marijuana.

Marijuana addicts and abusers of marijuana use are no greater portion of all marijuana users than are drunks and alcoholics to all those who drink alcoholic beverages.

Legal prosecution belongs to behaviors of abuse that threaten public safety, constituting an abuse of Liberty that threatens the Liberty of others.

Legal consumption of recreational stimulants, when not abused, are not a threat to Liberty. Creation of criminal syndicates, under the benevolent big government guise of controlling the consumption of recreational stimulants, has proven each time to be a great and expensive threat to Liberty; imprisoning millions for their personal vices and creating conditions that result in murder and mayhem by those engaged in the illegal trafficking of a legally prohibited substance.

Tax the trade and spend the tax revenue on public education concerning substance abuse and addiction - in the schools in particular.


16 posted on 10/16/2012 10:39:35 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL; All

until they include automatic license suspension to those using “medical marajuana” this is still just a pothead issue.

Remember, there are ALREADY drugs with the requisite ingredients that avoid the entire smoking BS.


17 posted on 10/16/2012 10:45:32 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Libertarian are libertarians, not conservatives.

They brought us gambling, why not drugs?


18 posted on 10/16/2012 10:49:00 AM PDT by donna (Pray for revival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

The problem is that this is not seen in the context of quid pro quo. Why should we give the left anything at all?

Now, let’s say for a moment that the left was willing to trade legalization of pot for illegalization of abortion. Now we’re onto something! I could be very happy with a deal that would allow the left to chemically lobotomize itself in exchange for keeping the unborn alive. Heck, I’d throw in legalization of heroin and cocaine as well.


21 posted on 10/16/2012 11:06:45 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Leftists are the small hive beetles of the American hive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Following Obama’s stunning defeat in November, I would hope that the Romney administration not spend 2 seconds considering this issue and move on to something much more relevant. The economy, our security, undoing the chaos of the marxist Obama’s policies, etc.


27 posted on 10/16/2012 11:14:14 AM PDT by Made In The USA (Obama may not be running on his record, but he sure as hell can't run from it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Libertarians are not the same as conservatives.

Libertarians and conservatives share certain interests, such as smaller government, balanced budgets, lower taxes, freedom from oppressive government regulation, and freedom to raise children without government interference.

If libertarians and conservatives could only work together, then they would have taken back control of the government long since. But the press and the libs work hard to divide them, and they are only too willing to be divided.

I said this a thousand times over the decades, and it bears repeating.

Real libertarians have to understand that freedom entails responsibility, and that if you don’t want to be controlled by the police then you need to have self-control. You have to take responsibility for basic respect of your neighbors. You have to recognize that a free society is built on marriage, family, and neighbors.

We saw that when the libertarians refused to understand Rick Santorum, who ran ahead of Gingrich almost the entire time, and second to Romney because of the divided vote among Romney’s more conservative opponents.

Rick Santorum did NOT say that he would MAKE people behave like good Christians. He said that he would set the example and ENCOURAGE people to behave like good Christians—or Jews, or agnostics with principles. But the press pretended that he wanted to be a moral dictator, and too many people believed him.

So, once again the libertarians and conservatives were split by the opposition and the GOPe, and we got Romney as our reward.

The solution for drugs is neither our current one—a government that goes after the little guys and takes a rakeoff from the cartels—nor one in which everyone from the age of six on up takes pot and bathsalts and does whatever he likes. What we need is honest law enforcement, as far as that can be achieved in an imperfect world.


30 posted on 10/16/2012 11:22:38 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
It's better than the freedoms cost and brutal police tactics (SWAT) in the War on Some Drugs. I don't like pot. I don't smoke it and haven't touched it in close to 15 years. However I don't have a problem if someone chooses to smoke it in their own home or on their property. I do have a problem with driving while high.

Whiskey is legal and its use sometimes causes more problems, even though I personally like the stuff.

54 posted on 10/16/2012 2:25:25 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (Holding my nose one more time to get rid of Eric Holder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

The War on Drugs is one of the most wasteful and Constitutionally challenging endeavors ever attempted by all levels of government.


64 posted on 10/16/2012 5:38:19 PM PDT by Molon Labbie (Prep. Now. Live Healthy, take your Shooting Iron daily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

I’m against marijuana unless it’s for medicinal or recreational use only.


65 posted on 10/16/2012 8:24:41 PM PDT by Manic_Episode (Some days...it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL

Favored constituents of both political parties, you should not have given our industries away to foreign enemies or destroyed so many American families with your vices. You don’t yet know how much you needed our support or how much you should have avoided causing us to disrespect you.

No vote. No sale.


68 posted on 10/17/2012 10:17:14 AM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in a thunderous avalanche of rottenness smelled around the earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
CINC (Choomer In Chief) agrees.


82 posted on 10/19/2012 8:15:42 AM PDT by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SmithL
It would be taxed, regulated, monitored. It makes a lot of sense to Republicans.

Real conservatives hate taxes, hate regulations and sure as Hell don't like being monitored.

88 posted on 10/19/2012 8:36:00 AM PDT by uglybiker (nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-BATMAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson