Well, evidently, enough didn't like them to elect the candidate against them. 
Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY —
In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race — and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.
The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network — which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws — contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.
Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.
"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.
Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.
Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Well, evidently, enough didn't like them to elect the candidate against them.
I'm not either. I'll remember to make my point without using any metaphors when I post to you in the future.
Without that "unusual infusion", you have a valid point.
You make some stupid statement about "Prohibition" beginning in 1937. It didn't.
Marijuana was not "prohibited" in 1937. A tax was imposed. You say it had the same effect. Fine, the effect was the same -- but the laws were different.
If you're going to compare the Marijuana Tax Act to alcohol Prohibition, then be prepared to defend your statement. You're the one playing with words, not me.
A bunch of Democrats voted against an anti-abortion candidate, but only because of Soros' money, and only because of the drug laws. Yep, that figures out right.
A rose by any other name. Prohibition was imposed under the MTA. The part of the scenario that is a lie is the "tax" aspect. I am as impressed with your arguments as I was with Bill Clinton's defense based on the meaning of "is", for all the same reasons.
Wouldn't dream of it. Alcohol prohibition did not try to ban the production of alcohol for commercial use.
But, all money could do is get a message farther and wider than ordinary, unless it be used to buy voters, which is hardly the case in this application.
Twenty years ago, not only would you not have seen politicians, judges, LEO's and well known conservatives speak about against the drug war in general, and the cannabis prohibition in particular, but you wouldn't have seen any anti drug war articles in papers, seen anti drug war comments on broadcast news or serious discussions against the drug war in any type of public forum.
Now, you have all of the above, and escalating. You are being sidelined by the vector, which vector is driven by the "people" whose supposed imprimatur on the drug war you use to justify that war.
Will you still justify the drug war when the actual majority turns against it?
RP- As to your not having the time to waste, any quick check on any of the many WOD threads, proves that to be false.
Why don't the two of you come to a consensus and get back to me?
I think we can all agree that you will say and do pretty much anything you think will keep pot illegal, including misrepresenting anything I or William have to say about it.
Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states. Yes, they may regulate any plant they choose. Yes they may regulate tomatoes. Yes they may regulate peppers.
Sam I am.
No, you are robertpaulsen robertpaulsen robertpaulsen robertpaulsen.
If Congress published a finding that your growing tomatoes or peppers substantially affected their interstate regulatory efforts, then yes, you cannot grow them.
Sorry paulsen, but Congress is not our dictator.
Let me ask you. Do you believe that Congress does not have that power? And what is it, exactly, that makes you believe this?
The Tenth Amendment says that Congress has only delegated powers. Regulating commerce among the several states does not authorize prohibitions on the growing of tomatoes or peppers.
Since you use the notion that the majority supports the war on drugs, and prohibition of cannabis in particular, thereby giving it validity, would you abandon that position should the majority turn against the war on drugs, and prohibition of cannabis?
I also use the fact that a smaller majority of the American public supports the continued illegality of marijuana. In one survey, almost half strongly opposed legalization, while less than 1/4 strongly favored it.
My personal views of the WOD and marijuana legalization have nothing to do, one way or the other, with the views of the American public.
I use the fact that a majority of the American public supports the WOD.
No, you support the notion that a majority wants drug war prohibitions.
I also use the fact that a smaller majority of the American public supports the continued illegality of marijuana. In one survey, almost half strongly opposed legalization, while less than 1/4 strongly favored it.
"Surveys" can be biased to support ~any~ agenda. Your agenda here is obvious, paulsen.
My personal views of the WOD and marijuana legalization have nothing to do, one way or the other, with the views of the American public.
Your "personal views" and your credibility here at FR have long been ignored.. Howlers like, -- "I'm not on this board to play gotcha games" at # 458 have seen to that.
Learn to deal with your own duplicity.
That 2003 poll was done by Zogby and was sponsorosed by the Drug Policy Alliance.
Not my agenda, aine.
See post 471. -- Everyone here knows your agenda paulsen.
There has been more and greater questioning of the war on drugs, specifically how it applies to cannabis.
You're losing and you ought to know it.
And I bet I can ask ten cannabis pro-legalization FReepers on this board to tell me their definition of legalization and I'd get ten different answers.
And if marijuana were actually legalized, I bet it would be different than any of their proposals.
So, you tell me how its possible for anyone know how many support the legalization of cannabis when no one know what form the legalization will take.
You point to polls. The most recent Zogby poll (commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance)showed 41% favored treating cannabis like alcohol. Oooh. Pretty good, huh?
First of all, it was a loaded question. Secondly, less than 25% felt strongly in favor, while almost 50% felt strongly against it.
Let me design the question. How about, "Do you favor the legalization of marijuana for recreational use? That marijuana should be treated just like alcohol, and that adults should be free to grow their own?"
You will never see a Soros-commissioned poll phrased this way. So don't give me this propaganda crap about Americans wanting to legalize dope.
I'll bet you can't.
When you legalize something, you remove all criminal sanctions from its simple possession, and potentially add regulations revolving around taxing and controlling it. Anyone who gives any different answer simply doesn't understand the concept of "legalization" and their answer is not a viable "different answer".
Besides, you know what we're talking about. You also know what legalization means and so does everybody else. The only possible unknown issues involve post-legalization regulation, but legalization is well understood.
So, you tell me how its possible for anyone know how many support the legalization of cannabis when no one know what form the legalization will take.
Heh. You know, the form legalization takes is when you are discovered with cannabis you are not subject to criminal action for that simple fact. Anything the state does to further complicate the matter is a side issue to legalization.
You point to polls.
I pointed to no polls. I simply said that the "poll" is different depending on the pro or anti position of the commissioner of the poll.
You try to confuse the matter. Let me state it again in its simple form. Right now, if a law enforcement officer discovers cannabis on you, you are liable for some criminal penalties for that simple fact, according to the state. With "legalization", you would not be liable for criminal penalties for the simple and aggravated fact of possession.
All there is to it, nothing complicated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.