NM Politics & The NMMCP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManOBuds

Gary Johnson isn't a republican.I don't think you understand what a real Republican is......Ron Paul is a true Constitutionalist Republican,not a neoCon like these current pretenders.Ron will "never be President" because the controlled media has convinced you and others that he won't,so you won't vote for him like a good sheep.

---

I'm sorry bit I must respectfully but completely and totally disagree. I'm from the 14th congressional district of Texas originally and still have family residing there , despite getting re-elected there's not a great many folks in Galveston or Victoria etc. real happy with the man , the really wish he WOULD go to DC and leave folks in Texas alone.

Yes the man has some decent rhetoric what with rehashed Spooner and Rothbard and Plagiarised Von Mises and Rockwell , however he is not a Libertarian to any who have explored beyond the Cliff's notes of Libertarianism.

What he IS , is the last stop on the FauX Freedom road before the complete installation of corpotacracy and Fascism , one only needs to explore his connections in the past with both the John Birch Society and the Christian Reconstructionist/Domionist movement for alarm bells to ring.

Then we have the troubling racial stances , which though denied have been quite common knowledge in many parts of the South for a couple of decades or better. And his stance on abortion is more than a bit hypocritical.

The kicker? He's been feeding at the same hog trough as the others for 24 years. And nope I don't have any use whatsoever for a single one of the other available candidates on either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allwx

As in, Ayn Rand. Anyone who still admires Ayn Rand into his seventies has probably got something loose somewhere. .

---

Biggest fake and hypocritical megalomaniac connected with Libertarianism , and a tyrant to those with her cultic grip to boot. A thoroughly disgusting excuse for an example of socalled humanity.

Although I haven't studied this issue deeply, I suspect the MAIN reason Ron Paul is popular with a few younger people is his stance on drug legalization. Bluenote puts the right words on this: Faux Freedom. It is a laudable position to take, to say that free people have the god-given right to eat and drink and smoke what they want to. But that isn't a workable solution to crackheads who break heads to get what they need. Drug legalization, I suspect, is Paul's manner of keeping the young people who adore him tuned in. I doubt that many of them are aware of the rest of his program. As Bluenote mentions, there is a wide range of objectionable ideas swimming around in that septuagenarian mind of his, most of them stolen from other "thinkers" like Ayn Rand, who's philosophy is often summed up as Survival of the Fittest. Most weed people I know are progressive people, not Objectivist animals, and most have probably never heard of Ayn Rand.

There is no possible way that drugs are going to be legalized in the U.S. and that includes cannabis. The sooner people come to grips with this fact of life, the sooner we can move towards real reform of the laws. Even so mild a "drug" as cannabis could never be comprehensively legalized across this American nation, any more than alcohol, or heroin, or meth could. Maybe these young Paul People expect that weed will become as legal as drinking water. I'd like to get a little of what they've been smoking. None of these drugs, including cannabis, is associated with high-level human behaviors. A brief tour of the marijuana forums reveals people who can barely write, and they seem proud of it. They spell words that look like gang graffitti, and make about as much sense. This isn't putting the best foot forward. The other half of America that opposes legal weed will not tolerate zombied young Paul People wandering their streets with blunts hanging out of their mouths. I'm just saying.

To work for real reform of the marijuana laws, I believe it is important to distinguish between weed and the other drugs. The only reason Weed got put on Sched 1 is because of the rightwing hatred for hippies back in the day. That is what needs to change, and nothing much more. Move weed off Sched 1 so that states can comfortably regulate it themselves. Leave the the very harmful drugs where they are, and keep enforcement going against them. It is very possible, even probable, that Obama will make this move next year, or once the political environment will support it. So, ManOBuds, I hope you won't waste your vote on a dead-end like Ron Paul. The only viable path towards cannabis reform is Obama.

"The only viable path towards cannabis reform is Obama." Allwx, Are you kidding me? If this were the case, then why hasn't he done something about this issue before now? Why does he allow the DOJ to continue with their crackdown in CA, CO and other MMJ states? If it weren't for the plant limits in place, they would be cracking down on NM. Those producers that choose to expand to the 150 plant limit are risking a mandatory jail sentence of 5 years! For providing medicine to patients. Few candidates have ever kept their campaign promises. After being elected Obama told the DOJ there were better uses for their resources than going after the MMJ community. If people like Steve DeAngelo and Harborside would stay off the boob tube, maybe the DOJ would leave the dispensaries alone too. The "nonprofit" dispensaries in CA are making a fortune....on the backs of ill people. Everyone is entitled to reasonable compensation, but the millions being made in CA is obscene.

Many of us are one issue voters. Whatever effects us personally and which candidate speaks in agreement to what we want or need....that is the candidate that will receive our vote. Obama spoke of "change". Well, we got change allright....in our pockets. Hopefully, the American voters will wake up and see what I have said all along....Obama is another Carter and the only reason he was elected was because the liberal media convinced the voters that the Republicans were evil and they had had control for too many years and it was time for a Democrat. That Bush 'stole' the election and even though he was voted in for a second term, he was evil incarnate. We no longer have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people". We have elected orators who speak pretty but haven't got a clue as to what their constituents really want or don't care. When thousands of people sign a petition asking that cannabis be legalized similar to alcohol, or to reschedule, and the White House comes back with the same old rhetoric, it proves to me they are liars and really do not care what the PEOPLE want.

We need to continue to educate as many people as we can about the medicinal benefits of cannabis and perhaps once every state has a medical cannabis program, the feds will finally reschedule. No matter what liar...oops...party, is in the oval office. I pray that a compassionate candidate makes it to the White House...regardless of his party affiliation.

If every representative and senator had at least one family member that was so ill they needed the benefits of cannabis this would be a nonissue. Every person alive on 09/11 could have PTSD and qualify for the program in NM.

There was so much negative information regarding Susana Martinez and what she would "do" to our program. All seems to be continuing on the status quo thus far. I expect it will continue the same for the duration of her term.

CFO... good morning.

Why hasn't O done anything before now? He's done a lot. Obama promised during the 08 campaign to stop the federal persecution Patients. Notice, the difference between a Patient, and a Producer. There is a difference. Remember, the President is not a King or a dictator. He's one part of a multi-dimensional gov't system that includes three equal branches at the Fed level, and then 50 states, each with its own gov't set-up and particular political situation. Presidents are rarely able to do anything by decree, without considering various political calculations, as witness the recent struggle over birth control.

The Administration thru the Justice Dept issued guidelines that suggested to the Federal Attorneys in the states, not to chase sick people, as long as they are in conformity with state laws. This is a middle position that has been acceptable to everyone. It has not been overly criticized by the GOPs. As time went by, there developed in some states a new situation, in which large, commercial-type grow operations were being established. The Administration is chasing those commercial operations, not patients. We may argue about the wisdom of this. Personally I prefer a situation where sick people can grow their own, or have others help them grow, and people be allowed to exchange medicine among themselves without being hassled. I don't prefer a situation where commercial operations grab control of production and distribution, and I'll bet you wouldn't like that to develop, either. You made reference to this profiteering, which you call "obscene" and I totally agree. Again, Obama's Justice Dept is NOT chasing patients. They are chasing large distribution operations that make millions of $ off sick people. Some weed people like the idea of corporate production and sale of weed products, I personally hate the idea of that, and support any effort to keep, say, the tobacco companies from getting a controlling monopoly on weed as it becomes more legal. I'm not suggesting that this is the intent of the Fed crackdown on the big growers, but it does help us in that direction, to keep weed a home-based industry.

You suggest you are a single-issue voter. That's too bad. Single issue voters rarely make enlightened decisions about candidates in a complex world. Why would anyone support a candidate on the issue of weed legalization (whatever THAT means) alone without considering also that the guy is a racist, xenophobic crank?

Re Ms Marinez. You correctly note that she's had relatively small impact on the MM program. Why? Because there is little support either in the legislature or among the population to do what she'd like to do. We stay active, and in touch with her office and through our legislators, and she gets the message. We can get along with any decent politician, as long as we remember how they respond to us. Plus, legalization is a biparitsan issue. THere are millions of GOPs who like the idea of legalization. Ms Martinez will do what keeps her in office and promotes her future political career. Our job is to help her to understand that being opposed to legalization is not the best way to achieve success.

Back to Obama for a moment, to close this out. Pres. Obama apparently does not favor the legalization of weed. Maybe this attitude of his is a product of his own experiences with weed, as well as other drugs, and the people who use them recreationally. I don't know. But I do know that he is going to respond to political pressure, as he did in calling the Fed dogs off of patients. None of the GOPs is anything but utterly opposed to loosening up weed laws. I don't include Paul because he isn't really a GOP. So, think about how this might play out. If enough people vote single issue for Paul, more likely we end up with one of the GOPs in the WH. If having a religious zealot GOP in there is better in your mind than having a reasonable pol like Obama who can be persuaded our way, then by all means vote single issue Paul. But, if you want things to move in our direction, then Obama is the only viable choice.

There. I said it again. Obama: the only viable choice towards legalization/reform in the years ahead. It seems to me that if you truly are single-issue on weed reform, then there is no other intelligent choice than Barack Obama.

Morning, to you too.

Pointing out that there are a lot of single-issue voters in our populace does not mean that I am one. There are too many issues on the table that I don't have the time to list them regarding Obama or the other candidates. I will go back to my original comments and restate that we need to clean house in all branches of the government where it can be done. Supreme Court we have no control over. Congress and the White House...you bet. Our entire political system needs an overhaul and not just because of their stance regarding cannabis.

I too would love to see everyone be able to grow their own. Unfortunately, not everyone can do so. And to grow at medicinal grade by an individual would take a lot of time. Having small producers who can focus on the quality of their meds makes more sense to me than these large commercial producers in some of the other states.

I believe we need to focus our energies on rescheduling rather than trying to elect compassionate legislators....seeing as how once elected most of them change their positions anyway.

I totally agree wit ya! Rescheduling is the only thing that CAN be done in the short term. Once that is done, then the states can start to regulate it more the way they want to. Also, Obama needs legislation. Presidents under the Constitution are obligated to enforce the laws that Congress passes. They aren't allowed to pick and choose, though they sometimes get away with a little picking and choosing, depending on political atmospheres.

I truly expect that Obama will work to reschedule after the election. But it won't be easy. He can't just pop up and say, "Reschedule it." He will have to deal with blowback from various quarters, including some in his own administration. The worst thing that could happen is if, like what happened to Clinton when he tried to end the prohibition on gays in the military, there was significant blowback that caused a big ruckus. We must avoid that at all costs, because it would set back legalization by years. We can expect that certain very holy people will rise up and oppose rescheduling as giving in to Satan. We got to help give Obama political cover, by staying very involved and activated, like I know you are.

I know what you mean about sick people being unable to grow their own. Wife and I are both on the program, but she is much sicker than I am, there is NO WAY she could do any of the very physical work that is involved. What I hope we would change is the prohibition on transferring among patients. That makes no sense to me. Those of us who grow more than we need could share with those who can't grow at all. I love to share!

Peace, brother.

Short but interesting article in today's Huffington Post by Jorge Cervantes:

Jorge Cervantes: Mary Jane, You've Come a Long Way Baby

I didn't realize Jorge was a real person named Jorge. A couple of years ago I found material on other internet sites that matched nearly word-for-word the paragraphs from Cervantes' magnum opus, only under the name of a different author, and with references to cannabis scrubbed out and replaced with those of other plants. Because of this I assumed that Jorge Cervantes is a pen name, which would be a reasonable assumption because of the questionable legal position anyone in 1983 put themselves in by writing a book about marijuana cultivation. When I found the other book, identical in every meaningful way to Cervantes' book, I figured that older material previously published had been rehashed for marijuana and put into another book designed to appeal to weed growers.

Now, we have a short op-ed in a national web paper under the name, and with a photograph, of Jorge himself. I'm surprised.