Printable View
For over 20 years Congressman Ron Paul has been in Favor of Legalization :thumbsup:
Ron Paul interviewed on NORML 2007
YouTube - Ron Paul interviewed on NORML (part 1 of 2)
Ron Paul on Morton Downey Jr. 1988
YouTube - Ron Paul on Morton Downey Jr. 1988 - Pt. 1
Ron Paul 2008-Hope for America
Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America
The ONLY one? Wow.*
Anyway, RON PAUL 2008
WAKE UP PEOPLE! IT'S TIME TO SAVE AMERICA!!!!!!!!
Goodbye to:
- Illegal/unjust taxes
- the IRS
- NAFTA
- North American Union
- Big government
- Federal Reserve system - bring back the gold standard
- Illegal wiretapping/spying
- the Patriot Act
- THE WAR IN IRAQ-AND-SOON-TO-BE-IRAN)
- the "War on Drugs"
- No Child Left Behind Act
- *and now apparently: The criminalization of Marijuana. YAY!!:jointsmile:
Just a few things I can think of at the moment.....
Pump-your-breaks for a second. Legalization is one thing, but screwing over children is another. There are alot of childern who trully need this. Chill.Quote:
Originally Posted by norkali
The No Child Left Behind Act is a bureaucratic nightmare. The Department of Education has just about doubled to administer the benchmark scores. Idealistically, No Child Left Behind is a helpful piece of legislation. Realistically, it costs too much to maintain on a national level with too many hands in the cookie jar.
BTW, even though Ron Paul would disband the DEA and federal drug laws, the individual states would decide the criminality of certain substances. So, if you happen to live in the Bible Belt or Utah don't bring your bongs out of hiding any time soon.
if you actually believe this man is going to be president then you really are lost
Mike Gravel also wants to legalize marijuana...I think people that frequent this forum would agree with his policies moreso than Paul's, but this is just a guess. He has an equally horrible chance of becoming president though, which is unfortunate.
Paul's chances are way better than Gravel's. He raised 2.5 million dollars last quarter. That is 4th or 3rd for the Republicans. Just a few days ago he raised 75K in one day. That is a record for his campaign and it happened recently.
yeah, after hearing so much about ron paul, i looked more into him and his views, i'll vote for him... i hope he wins and stays true
My bad, I was unaware Mike Gravel was for legalization when I made this thread. After researching Gravel I think he would make a great president, but Ron Paul would bring about more positive changes.
This is not really directed to King of The World, but to everybody who, in frustration, can only see fit to put out one liners of doom when anybody gets excited about change.Quote:
Originally Posted by king of the world
I would like to gently point out that that was not a very nice thing to say to somebody who is seeking change. The status quo is created solely by naysayers. Oppressors have always used the inertia of the oppressed against them. They don't really have to do the oppressing. By doing nothing we are keeping ourselves chained.
Even if the good doctor's chances are slim, his supporters are the people that raise the level of debate among the citizenry. Shitting on activists is worse, in my view, than being a rotten, pocket-lining politician. At least they have a reason ($$$) for their actions or lack thereof. If you don't believe miracles can happen, do a Google search for Senator Jeff Smith, or watch the documentary about him. You will see that sometimes grassroots efforts succeed...certainly more often than doing nothing.:D
Your awesome Tea Party
For the uninformed liberal masses, the "no child left behind" act is a travisty.... people seem to have forgotten that in life, there are winners and losers in everything.
Not everybody is cut out to graduate from college and become vice president of IT&T, nor is everybody cut out to be a broom pusher, though thats not a bad place to start.
Not everybody is the same and to lower the educational standards so that even the dumbest, most ignorant, person can pass is unjust to them and also to the overachievers who what to make something of their lives and become shakers and movers in our society.
Whether he *is* going to be the president or not doesn't matter. In order to allow him a fighting chance, we need to vote for him. Don't vote for people you think are going to win - that's backwards. Vote for people who you want to win. That's how democracy works. Though I will agree that the media will brutally release anti-Ron Paul propaganda, because, of course, every other candidate is mostly against what he is for.Quote:
Originally Posted by king of the world
Fight for your fucking freedom. Don't question whether or not he will make it. You need to fight for that. So if you think that whether or not he will make it is a pertinent issue and argument against him, then you are lost.
And a good point you have made, Tea Party. +rep
Cheers.
I love these comments I am glad to see there are such intelligent people out there.
while I totally agree with the principles put forth by tea party and mfgr, this is an unusual point in our political history. As a rule, people absolutely should vote for who they think best advocates their interests, regardless of popularity. However, voting for underdogs based on intelligible reason sometimes diverts votes from the better of the two front runners.
I'm thinking of 2000, when a small amount of votes went to Ralph Nader (I think it was), Al gore lost to the dangerous George Bush. If those small amount of votes went to Gore, he really might have won.
The problem is, the smart people are going to vote for who really is best, but those valuable votes might have been needed to oust the choice of idiots, in this case bush.
I don't know if our country can afford principles right now. This next election, we need to be careful not to allow the loser that idiots vote for to win because the better opponent lost intellectual votes to misunderstood underdogs.
My favorites in order are, edwards, obama, romney, hillary, kucinich, ron paul. (kucinich is also pro-legalization). However I would have to sacrifice my favorite to make sure the true bonehead won't get elected (like giulani or mccain or thompson).
Although I think Kucinich's nonprofit health care plan would be a disaster
To be honest, in my opinion, while you bring a good point up about diverting votes away from the two front-runners, that does not matter, does it? We vote based on who best supports our interests. And of course, if one of the front-runners loses because he or she lost votes due to people voting for candidates that support their interests, well... that's democracy. The underdogs will never have a chance if people just decide to only vote for the big timers.Quote:
Originally Posted by burnable
If anyone else other than Ron Paul wins (other than maybe Kucinich), I might just be forced to pack my bags and move to Holland (yes!). In no way am I going to live in such an oppressed country, especially if the NAU gets formed.
In reality, we the people are the government, in a way. We elect the officials. We elect the ones who will make the laws that we want. We The People are the ones who are supposed to control it. However, that isn't how it is anymore. We need that back!
And as I have noticed, the front-runners are usually the ones will lie to get into office. Bush is one out of many of those. The point is, we need change, and without people like Ron Paul running, our change will never have a chance of being brought forth. Ron Paul is consistent in only voting yes for things that are completely within the bounds of the constitution. And I don't understand how so many Americans can overlook this and not want that; that is, to want their original-given freedom back. Human liberty. Why can't people vote for that? Oh, I know why. Because we've been lied to so much that most people believe security is better than freedom, because otherwise the "terrorists" will get us right? Well, the terrorists have already got us. The terrorists are also known as: The U.S. Government.
Ron Paul is our only hope in this next election to have our human liberties and constitutional freedoms restored.
take care :stoned:
yes, mfgr, but you're a smart person. It is much easier for a smart person to join the ranks of dumb people than it is for dumb people to be educated to the point at which they can see the truly appropriate candidate. Smart people throughout history have had to make ridiculous concessions for the collective good (consisting mostly of dumb people).
One example is Galileo and how he published his astrological findings in the common vernacular for everyone to read. basically he stirred up a bunch of shit and was arraigned before catholic cardinals, like sepulveda, to repudiate his true but tough findings. He did admit that the sun revolved around the earth while under his breath stating how ludicrous everyone was being. People were stupid and were not ready for the truth until later.
We are a self-governing people, but the majority will always be pretty damned stupid. While it is worthwhile and admirable to vote for the best under most scenarios, we are in a precarious time when the objective is damage control. Because of that, it is better now to ensure that things won't get worse rather than vote for the most ideal candidate. I'm not sure how able anyone is going to be to fulfill their grand promises with all the housekeeping that needs to take place after bush leaves office.
Very well, you leave a very good point. In fact, I am not exactly sure what to respond with.Quote:
Originally Posted by burnable
Anyway, have a good one :)
haha it's all good mfgr. It's never about who's right it's about what's right.
I support the guy too. Last election I voted for Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. I knew he wouldn't win, but so what? If you vote for a guy that you don't think will win, you're essentially saying that you're willing to vote, but you don't like your choices. And even if the guy you vote for does lose, if enough other people vote for him, the leading candidates will think, maybe they need to change their platforms to be more like his in order to get those votes.
Keep this in mind: no presidential candidate has ever won by a single vote, and the laws of averages state that this will likely never happen. No matter who you vote for, the election results will be the same. And wouldn't you rather your vote go toward change than toward keeping the same broken system in power?
Oh, and No Child Left Behind sucks. More like, No Child Gets Ahead.
Alot of very good points here. I however feel it is time we all stand up and speak out, (or stand out and speak up)! It's all about gaining a little ground and holding on. If we pursued that idea, I believe we would sooner than later see some positive changes. I think that by voting for our most disliked candidates opposition, we're contributing to the downfall of democracy. And btw, I thought that when you hit bottom there's only one way to go, apparently not!
I also don't think he's electable, not enough visibility and nowhere enough money. If Hillary is elected we will at least have medical marijuana without federal interference, a step in the right direction (this from a lifelong Republican, scary isn't it?).
More power to his supporters though, perhaps their efforts now will pay off in the future.
I love Ron Paul's idea on minimizing the government's power & spending. It's absolutely brilliant! No longer will America's government have the funding or power to be the intrusive meddlers we have come to know. If he can revolutionize the concept of government in America, then it will set new standards for future presidents to come. Hopefully, an experience like the one Ron Paul promises will not only revolutionize government, but also revolutionize the minds of Americans! We need a better philosophy on all this!
Yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganj
No reason to expect this from Mrs. Clinton. Eight years of Bill Clinton saw Pot Smokers going to prison as always...Quote:
Originally Posted by MajMike
Quote:
Originally Posted by burnable
Did somebody really say that? If not now, then when? Never, that's when. We could survive a 100 years and more of shitty Presidents. Don't buy into the fear that the world is going to end.
We have to take our lumps and get this ship righted. We need to pitch in and make some sacrifices by choosing what we want and not what is least offensive. This is why the war in Iraq is not over. The people expect the gov. to solve all problems. Our government should have forced us to sacrifice as in WWII. Osama would have been caught, and the Afghanis would have been rescued from their oppressors.
The president is always less of a problem than we the people...and that is why we need an intelligent leader who will motivate us to be more involved in democracy. We need a leader that rallies the people around him/her rather than one that scares the shit out of us. Fear. Fear. Fear.
This is the same reason that Marijuana is still not decriminalized. If everybody that actually smoked, became more active rather than hiding out in fear of being bust (and I consider myself one of these cowards)...who knows. And this is the fear that will allow us to weather many more ill-minded Presidents. The self-interest and fear are what keeps the country glued together in one brilliant mass of what-could-have-been. I am willing to risk the destruction of our country in order to create a hope that it will somehow persevere. The status quo leave no room for improvement, and that is what we will get if we do not make bold choices and take risks. This way of thinking that everything will stay at least as good as it is right now as long as we keep applying band-aids is misguided.
And by the way, Nader and his supporters did not loose the election for Gore. Gore and the Democratic party lost the election by not having any balls during his campaign. It never should have been close enough to allow Nader's votes to come into play. Kerry? Same thing. Hillary can probably pull it out this time even though she also has NO cajones. Her speeches are void of any charisma, personality, honesty, or constructive sentiments.
All of this being said. Kucinich is my man. He is more informed and more intelligent than any other candidate. And that is what I want. I don't want any more Presidents who are there due to inheritance (Dem. or Rep.) I will keep voting for who I want to win, not who has a better chance of winning. You can't win any money at the track unless you go for the longshot.
Where do you get that Hellary supports medicinal MJ? From everything that I have read she will keep things status quo as far as the drug war.Quote:
Originally Posted by MajMike
tea party, the text you extracted from my post and then isolated now has a totally different meaning than the context in which I originally inserted it. Granted I could have said "I don't know if our country can afford THIS particular principle." poor choice of words. Of course the white house has been totally devoid of principles, except loyalty to a person, since 2000.
My point was that the damage that bush has caused is not yet fully known. It's like someone shows you a lot of fancy gifts and then later you find that they charged thousands of dollars to your credit card to make the purchases.
Once the next president gets to the WH, they'll sit down, go through the books and find much more demanding priorities than what they sold their campaign on.
I'm very much an idealist and do hope that notwithstanding the cleaning up that has to take place, the next prez will be able to do the things he/she campaigned on, especially since there are unpredictable nuances that interconnect when it comes to national policy and the economy that might balance out when completely new things are done.
And of course Gore himself lost his own election, I was merely using that as an example that there are many variables in an election and sometimes it's good to vote for who will benefit the majority over who will better represent your personal interests. We couldn't have known then, but we should know better now.
You should keep voting for who you want to win, but if you want the "longshot" to even be submitted for consideration you'd have to do a lot more than vote, like join their campaign and try to shape public opinion yourself in a broader arena than an internet forum (maybe you do, I don't know). I'm on your side, I wish more people were willing to be uncompromising in their vision of America, I just think you misunderstood most of what I said, partly owing to the fact that I was trying to convey an abstract thought in a unilateral manner
Flip Flopper!...Quote:
Originally Posted by burnable
...just kidding:D
I was in no way attacking your words, but that particular sentence jumped out and punched me in the nose, so I had to highlight it. I always wanted to be a campaign speech writer...I don't care what your opinion is, as long as you have one!
...But if you really want out of context:
:S2:Quote:
Originally Posted by burnable
hahaa ha
Does this guarantee she will really do this, I can't say. But, at least she seems to be amenable to MM by the states.Quote:
BBSNews 2007-07-17 -- MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE (GSMM) - Two prominent presidential contenders have moved in opposite directions on the issue of federal attacks on medical marijuana patients, as America's second largest cancer charity, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, came out strongly for protection of medical marijuana patients. Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) called for an end to federal raids in states where medical use of marijuana is legal, while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) backtracked on an earlier promise to end the raids.
During a Manchester campaign on July 13, Len Epstein, a volunteer for Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana (GSMM), told Sen. Clinton, "Twelve states allow medical marijuana, but the Bush administration continues to raid patients," to which she responded, "Yes, I know. It's terrible." Epstein then asked, "Would you stop the federal raids?" Sen. Clinton responded firmly, "Yes, I will."
Great news! Now if she would only seek to decriminalize bjs!:D
Well all very good and valid points. I am not gonna get into a debate on who should be president, or naysay any previous president. I love my country. And right or wrong we put them in power. Why? because they all tell us what we want to hear. Everyone bashes bush, He told us what he was going to do before he was elected with the war ect, and we elected him anyway. I am only 36, but as of yet, i havent seen one president get elected and hold to everything he said he would. yep, we can dream and we can vote, but in the end they will do as they have always done, get what they want(elected) and forget the promises that got them elected. I am totally for marijuana reform but to get rid of the dea? hell no. just because i am pro m.j. doesnt mean i am pro meth or pro extacy, or pro cocaine. granted they do a lousy job but they do achieve some measure of keeping some of that crap out of the country. But i am just some guy got my armchair and the internet. I dont know as much as i should about politics, but i do know that even if our new president says disband this program, legalize that, reform reform reform he is only gonna hold to it maybe through half of his term then he starts looking for popularity among congress, the senate, the state reps ect so that he can stay in office. bye bye promises to the american public.
ron paul ftw. He would get rid of the IRS which is good enough for me.
To expect any person to accomplish everything they set out to do is not realistic, presidents or otherwise. And to say that no president has ever done any good or moved forward in any of their promises is also hooey. (Even George Bush promised to cut The Arts and he followed through!) We must be optimistic even unto our graves, otherwise there is no reason to live in the first place--we are just taking up space. 1+1=2 & -1+1=0, so one bit of pessimism really is very much worse than saying nothing at all--it sets things back two steps rather than moving them one step forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by marmarkus2006
No. They achieve no measure of success. They punish the user rather than the crime syndicates/governments/corporations that continue to keep the world in turmoil. Re: other drugs. Meth and cocaine, and X have no business being compared to the medicinal prowess of Marijuana. These are all dangerous substances. Besides, the DEA can't stop them either. The DEA is in business to seize real estate, so that they can buy more coke, so that they can seize more real estate, so that they can buy more coke...Quote:
Originally Posted by marmarkus2006
Admitting that you have a problem is the first step towards a cure. Join us...Quote:
Originally Posted by marmarkus2006
Not really, no. Once Marijuana is decriminalized, it will be very hard, if not impossible, to turn back the clock, especially once the money machine starts rolling with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by marmarkus2006
Thats what I just cannot understand about the current stubborness of the government. Its already been said last year or so (sorry bad memory :stoned:) that Marijuana is the SINGLE BIGGEST CASH CROP IN THE UNITED STATES. Period. After that article was on yahoo news, I thought prohibition was nearly done with and celebrated with a few bong hits. The article ITSELF even said how the government was trying to figure out how to tax the new cash crop champ. Unfortunately that was the last I've heard about it. Bush and the ultra conservatives probably didnt even read this repot. They probably just brushed it aside and labled it propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tea Party
Usually if the government smells money, they're right there with their hands out. This baffles me. At first I expected every state to just throw in the towl fighting medical marijuana and open up a state pot dispensary in a neighborhood near you. Wanna grow your own? Fine heres a growing permit for $100 bucks a year or so with a limit on plants and of course laws to keep intoxicated drivers off the streets.
These are the United States' biggest money makers:
1 Marijuana $35,803,591
2 Corn $23,299,601
3 Soybeans $17,312,200
4 Hay $12,236,638
5 Vegetables $11,080,733
Its coming folks. Hopefully sooner than later, but its coming.
I'm voting Ron Paul for sure.
I think you guys should think outside the world of marijuana. These are the leaders of our country, their every decision decides the fate of our citizens including ourselves. So what if they support marijuana, it's a miniscule issue in the hope of a survivable future.
Yes we love ganja, but don't base your entire vote on who supports legalization or not, please!
Can you still buy marijuana and smoke it to your pleasure? Yes, legalization will come but try not to base your decision on this, now, hopeless measure.
Look at what else they stand for and DON'T stand for, those are the big ones.
The government has invested tens of billions, if not 100's of billions of dollars fighting the "insanity" drug, the evil Marijuana!
Do you think they will let up in just 1 push? No, this legalization thing will take many a decade.
In conclusion, don't be narrow minded, observe candidates real objectives and political bases besides just "do they support legalization?" Or we are doomed.
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoCommando
Legalization should be an important issue for us. It is the government policy that most affects us. If we don't stand up for our own rights no one will. Marijuana is not some miniscule issue. The War on Drugs is not a minuscule issue. It is one of the biggest problems facing the country. The DEA spends 60 billion dollars on fighting drugs. I don't even want to guess what the rest of the government spends on the drug war. Ending the Drug War could reinvigorate America. Imagine all the money America could save with the legalization of soft drugs. Imagine all the money America could make. For hard drugs there are better ways to discourage use than the Drug War. Legalization may be the answer it may not. However the current course does not work and must be changed. Also you are wrong on legalization. There are plenty of reasons to believe in could happen in a decade or less.
Another reason why the drug war is important is b/c it shows how honorable a politician is, especially Ron Paul. He is a Republican that opposes The Drug War. There aren't to many of those. They aren't even that many Democrats at the federal level that want to end the Drug War. Most politicians know The Drug War doesn't work. They don't stand against because it is easy not to. Those few politicians that stand against the Drug War should be commended for their courage. They have the character to criticize a policy that benefits the rich and makes reelection a million times easier because you are "tough on crime."
You seem to have a dislike for Ron Paul. I wish you had just begun an educated debate about Ron Paul's views. Instead you choose to chastise us supporters by saying all we cared about was legalization. Then you went even further by saying this is a bad thing. I am sure most posters do not vote purely on legalization. I do not. However I would have no problem with someone who voted for a candidate solely for his or her views on marijuana. Legalization should be the major issue for most these posters. This issue could make their lives a million times easier.
Cancel that, that was jibberish!
this is the right one:
People should not base their entire vote on 1 issue. The Drug War is especially a failure and a drain on society, we both know this.
I do not dislike Ron Paul, nor do I care to delve deeper into his beliefs. The whole point of my post was to hopefully, not grudgingly, encourage voters to invest time into studying the views of their elected or soon to be elected officials.
Perhaps, I am speaking to the wrong crowd. This board is devoted to Marijuana and any neutral or controversial writing of the sort will not be tolerated.
The American people need to keep an open mind. Marijuana users will be users and they will get their "weeds". With the whole on our ass ie China, Iran, Russia, all the big powers and little ones hating our guts for interference in their affairs, I believe that is bigger than marijuana issues. For god sake it's a drug to live life with, not to live life for the drug!
It will be legalized and every mature user should vote according to their ideals, but PLEASE don't throw your vote away on marijuana laws alone.
Right there,
Dave
The problem with the current government and the drug war itself is that the interference in other nations affairs is now an interference in United States citizens affairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemoCommando
I understand that one should not solely base their vote on MJ issues, however, the MJ issue is part of a larger issue which is eroding Constitutional rights in America. The federal government has no Constitutional right to shutdown medicinal MJ operations in states that have voted to allow it. The federal government does not have the authority to enforce Roe v. Wade...it is a state decision. We, as citizens, have the right to habeaus corpus, and that has been taken away.
Ron Paul, personally, does not encourage or even support MJ use, but he does believe in the individual right to choose. He does not believe that the federal government has the right to choose whether an individual smokes up or abstains. A vote for Ron Paul, is a vote for individual freedom of choice.
However, if you choose the wrong road, you are ultimately responsible for you're choice. Don't expect the government to bail you out.