Posted on 08/15/2012 10:49:36 PM PDT by South40
Support is growing for a proposed Colorado amendment to legalize marijuana, a new poll released Wednesday shows, and the referendum could upend the former member of the Choom Gang who currently occupies the White House.
The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that 47 percent of likely Colorado voters support Amendment 64, which will appear on the state ballot in November. That's a small uptick since PPP's June survey, which showed 46 percent support, but opposition to the measure is dropping. Only 38 percent of voters oppose Amendment 64 in Wednesday's poll, down from 42 percent in June.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“There is a third-party candidate who’s actually supportive of marijuana policy reform, so Gary Johnson provides an option to some voters who feel strongly about this issue,” Tvert said.
PPP showed Obama leading Romney by 6 points in a head-to-head match-up but only 4 points when Johnson is in the mix.
A poll released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University, CBS News and the New York Times showed Romney leading Obama in Colorado, 50 percent to 45 percent.
Yeah.
The short-term memory thing.
Almost no conservatives, but definitely some moderate type republicans, especially those who have been affected by the personal use of the drug, they tend to be liberal except for economics and guns, and a few other things, but usually, amazingly hostile to true, complete, conservatism.
Turn-out, the left will turn out for adding more dope to the destruction of America.
Welfare, food stamps, and drugs, the left lives for that, it destroys daddy’s America, and it is all free if you vote correctly.
The democrats are in the same situation that the conservatives are, they have things that they would like to do, but they can't say it out loud.
The left knows that Obama and the democrat party is not really against drugs, that is why the democrats leave it alone nationally, while promoting it everywhere locally.
This proposition is a democrat proposition, it always is, stoners are democrats, they will show up and vote for dope, abortion, homosexuality and Obama, and the radical leftist, Johnson, will get some of their votes as well.
Conservative turn out will be lower because of Romney, so this thing may pass.
Oh, BS! I was conservative probably before you were even born.
I've seen a LOT of folks (even around here) that are scared sh@itless when faced with the precept of pure, unbridled Liberty, so don't you dare presume to speak for me.
It's not about the 'drugs' ansell2 - it's about the simple question of WHO owns your body.....you or government?
FWIW, prue unbridled liberty is called anarchy, which has never really worked out well through out history :-).
it's about the simple question of WHO owns your body.....you or government?
There's a third choice there, if one is willing to accept it. Of course, accepting that, one is governed by ideas and mores that go contrary to "pure, unbridled liberty", and actually hold one to a set of standards that one couldn't possibly measure up to, without a little help...well, OK, a whole lot of help.
That doesn't change your proposition, it just adds an extra layer of complexity.
Because Obama has to ignore it and send the feds in to bust the dopers like he is doing in California
What I dread is that if it becomes legal, parents who are users will be much more casual with their stash and the kids will be able to get it for free, not for $$ from some Son of Barack.
You don't know frustration until you try teaching pot smoky smelling kids with bloodshot eyes and shit-eatin grins on their faces who given even less than a crap than when they aren't stoned. One advantage is that they are too wasted to cause as much trouble.
Obama has cracked down harder on medical MJ more than Bush did. The MJ advocates are pretty furious with him.
They won’t go for ‘I don’t even drink coffee’ Romney, but they may break (in significant numbers) for Johnson.
If Obama is tied or slightly behind Romney in the surveys that don’t include Johnson, in reality he could be losing to Romney in a BIG way once Johnson splits the democrat vote.
I am a conservative who is pro-life, pro-closed borders, pro-strong national security.
I also oppose the WOD.
On major highways that cross the California border we already have federal agents profiling and doing stops. If you have an east-coast plate, you are almost guaranteed to be stopped.
The government NEVER had the authority to control what plants you grow, keep and personally use on your property. The very concept of such laws is absurd and I don't understand how some so-called FREEpers support them.
If you want to have controls or reasonable taxes on sales, fine. But people should have the power to grow/possess anything they want on their own property. Many people dont know but it has always been legal to possess several pounds of dried hemp and grow your own plants in Alaska. Yes, more people smoke but they don't have anything close to “reefer madness” like some people imagine.
No, anarchy is not Liberty. In anarchy, might makes right. In Liberty, the right to swing my fist ends at your nose.
-----
There's a third choice there, if one is willing to accept it.
LOL! Trying to create your own definition of Liberty is not a third choice
A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.
Thomas Paine
-----
That doesn't change your proposition, it just adds an extra layer of complexity.
LOL! There is really nothing complex about it.
Tell us, ansell, what do you think the source is for all legitimate power of government?
I wasn't paying as close attention as I should, and this is a very old argument with some pretty regular participants.
I really should know better than to post on FR while trying to bake a batch of honey oatmeal raisin cookies at the same time, anyway.
Again, my apologies.
-----
But the question in the previous post remains. :-)
I am not creating my own definition of liberty. Straight from the dictionary the definition on liberty is "freedom from control". So pure liberty is pure freedom from control of any sort...anarchy. No getting around it, no matter how nuanced you are trying to be.
You completely missed the point of a third choice,. The government doesn't own your body. If you believe in the ultimate sovereignty of the Almighty, then neither do you. Choice one; "the government owns a person's body" (no private ownership). Choice two;"I own my body"(private property, defined by man). Choice three; "I submit to the sovereignty of God" (private property though natural rights).
The problem with the first choice is obvious; it turns people into chattel. The problem with he second choice is that it is defined by man, like the first one, and can hence be redefined by man; usually by forcing the first choice upon the unwilling. The third one places the basis of ownership on a plain above man. As such men can still come take your stuff, they can throw you in bondage; they can never "own" you, though.
Following the course above, the legitimate source of power in our government comes from men exercising the natural rights granted to them by God. The brilliant men who founded this country believed that so much that they wrote it in to the Constitution. They believed in the concept so much that they risked and, in many cases, lost their fortunes and lives over it. I'm not going to argue with them, or the Power above.
In the end, you are right, though. If you believe in God, it's not too terribly complex. If you are secular, then it really is more complex. That's because you have to wrap your head around the fact someone believes that you are not the end all be all arbitrator of what is right and wrong, and that there are a set of rules above that of man that guide the universe.
As an aside, you don't have to be a Christian to reap the benefits of a system based on the belief in the sovereignty of God. If the government (derived from the people by and large) becomes divorced from that belief, though, everyone suffers. Look at the state of the nation at the moment as an example.
You're confusing freedom from control with freedom from consequences.
If the Founders thought we should be 'controlled', they would have written - "We hereby create the United States" and gone home! The consequences of the exercise of Liberty is that should I do someone an injury, they have a right to sue for compensation. Government has no business in our business.....unless you believe the Constitution is a 'living document'.
--------
That's because you have to wrap your head around the fact someone believes that you are not the end all be all arbitrator of what is right and wrong, and that there are a set of rules above that of man that guide the universe.
LOL! We weren't talking about God's laws. Do you seriously think all legitimate authority from government comes from God? If so, please show me the Chapter and verse that says God prohibits ingestion of a plant or chemical compound.
-----
If the government (derived from the people by and large) becomes divorced from that belief, though, everyone suffers.
Authority for government comes from the people, yes.
So answer me this -
Do I, as an individual, have the legal authority to come to your house, throw in a flash-bang grenade, shoot your dog, terrorize your family and destroy your home all because I think you may own something I don't agree with?
Conversely, do you possess an authority as an individual to do the same to anyone else?
Great debate! You guys rock out loud!
LOL!
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.