Posted on 02/28/2015 6:16:37 AM PST by Ken H
Much like the drive by MSM does things, get the slander out first, backtrack later
if to many complain.
Nice try on the spin. Care to answer my Questions now?
Would you vote for a Conservative Candidate who is against MJ legalization?
You're humble reply would be most appreciated.
Good grief. I support him on the Tenth Amendment, aka States' rights. I really don't get how you come to your conclusions.
Would you vote for a Conservative Candidate who is against MJ legalization?
Yes. Ted Cruz, for example. He didn't think CO should legalize, but he said it was their right. He showed himself to be a man of principles by taking that stand. He put the Constitution ahead of a policy.
It seems like Ted Cruz might qualify as such a candidate.
As for myself, I could certainly still vote for him, even though I disagree with him on the Drug War.
If Cruz is astute enough to understand federalism (and his statement seems to indicate that) then that would be a great start.
I don't think any of us really ever find a candidate that agree with on 100% of the issues, but anybody who, in principle, understands that shrinking the federal government and restoring it to operating within its Constitutional bounds is paramount, has definitely got the right idea.
This election cycle will be an interesting season for the GOP. Will the elitist authoritarians prevail once again, or will the minimal government/conservative/TEA party/amsll "l" libertarian (classical liberal) crowd finally coalesce around worthy statesman to carry the banner of Liberty into the American future?
We truly need somebody like that. If I have to vote for a candidate with whom I disagree on some issues, at least it should be someone like Cruz who truly seems to understand both what is needed and what is Constitutionally proper.
As far as the apparent current crop of Republican candidates is concerned, Cruz has my vote as of this moment. I can only hope that Cruz is teamed with somebody like Sarah Palin or her ideological ilk, to create a formidable small-government ticket which could usher in a new era of American opportunity, prosperity, and (not to mention) potential Liberty.
Barring that, I would be looking for an independent candidacy that could accomplish the same. Because the Republican party at the national level is establishment-rotten to its core, and they will not surrender their power to "upstarts" without a bruising and bloody fight.
A prime example of bad leadership, not supporting the will of their base voters.
But we can rest assured they will not fight against the Democrats with such fervor,
and indignation. My fall back will be Walker should anything happen to Cruz.
Both are over the target.
Nice chatting with you Freeper.
What you proved was that you came in with a chip on your shoulder and it got knocked off. It just totally chaps your hide that national marijuana prohibition is on its way to the garbage dump where it belongs.
Look at Ted Cruz joking with Sean Hannity at CPAC about Colorado providing the brownies. They're having a grand old time. Their laughter is a slap in the face to marijuana prohibitionists everywhere. Also note the enthusiasm with which Cruz says it's the states' decision.
The relevant exchange starts at about 2:45 =>
Let’s try that link again =>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prbn-ycOONM
Did it ever occur to you that NOT legalizing dope is NOT “draconian”?
Numbing the minds and the ambitions of an increasingly larger segment of our youth will only make true Fascist control that much easier to impose.
So, you can either fight or light up, but you’ll never do both.
I’ll expect next to be called everything but the Son of God. C’est la vie.
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but your War on Drugs is as much a failure as the War on Poverty or Prohibition. There is nothing ‘coming’ in what I posted...those are ALREADY HERE. And, they are a DIRECT result of those same ILLEGAL Laws. So, Joe Biden Jr., I don’t take trampling the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th such a laughing matter.
I don’t care about facts? The ‘fact’ you stated have nothing to do with the debate. If you were so worried about ‘harm’, you’d be just as fanatical about booze, cigs and a plethora of other substances. If ‘harm’ is your yard-stick, we should outlaw personal cars, ‘extreme’ sports, snack foods, TVs, computers, etc.....
Culture won’t matter much under the iron fist you support. Thanks, but no thanks.
To paraphrase a quote: The dictator may at times sleep, but those, thinking they do so for the good of others....
The War on Pot doesn't prevent many from lighting up, but does enrich criminals in the attempt; and preventing someone from lighting up doesn't mean he'll fight at all, much less fight on the right side.
“A would-be Republican presidential nominee has changed his mind on marijuana.”
No he didn’t. He has said in the past it is up to the state to decide that question. This article is an attempt to cast Cruz as “wishy-washee”. It FAILS.
As to Ken H's statements, you'd have to ask him.
Have you ever considered that the War on Drugs has damaged over 90% of the Bill of Rights>
Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment 9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”Amendment 8 — Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the “crimes”, even if you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment 7 — In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment 6 — The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a “speedy trial” to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can “taint” the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are “protected”, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment 5 — How does “Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984” comply with “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?
Amendment 4 — Kentucky v King”The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”In other words:Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!
Amendment 3 — [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment 2 — Arguably, the “prohibited persons” from the `68 GCA.
Amendment 1 — Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs (Employment Division v Smith), there are stories of “legalization”-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed.So, that’s 90% of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
If that's not cause for concern, and impetus for stopping the War on Drugs then is there anything that cannot be done in its name?
I hadn't heard of him saying that before with regard to pot. Can you provide a link to his statement(s)?
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.