What Presidential Candidate do you think will best protect our MMJ once in office?

The best candidate who will protect mmj as well as the best overall candidate for the nation in my opinion, is the one who will, the way the trend has become, never be able to run. These days you must be a multi-millionaire or take millions from "special interests" & corporations with expectations of of access and returned favors to become president.The best & brightest cannot afford to run or will not run because they won't sell out.

Ron Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerbill

The best candidate who will protect mmj as well as the best overall candidate for the nation in my opinion, is the one who will, the way the trend has become, never be able to run. These days you must be a multi-millionaire or take millions from "special interests" & corporations with expectations of of access and returned favors to become president.The best & brightest cannot afford to run or will not run because they won't sell out.

---

I disagree friend, Ron Paul defies each of your constraints this minute. 2nd in nevada hmmm. little harder to rig all those machines.
In my opinion, We should just come to the conclusion that "we the people" outnumber and outrank those placed in government to SERVE US, With that knowledge in hand we could theoretically be "FREE".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zcomp

I disagree friend, Ron Paul defies each of your constraints this minute. 2nd in nevada hmmm. little harder to rig all those machines.

---

Yeah that was quite a feat!
2nd in a 2 man race in a state where he may have more support than anywhere else in the nation? That is not good, especially when you take into account that he got his ass handed to him and it wasn't even close. I admire your enthusiasm but seriousely the people have obviously spoken time and time again, Ron Paul will never have the support he needs for many many reasons, the results speak for themselves. If you don't believe me then just wait and see, I will bet anyone anything that Ron Paul will not only NOT be the nominee but he will not be president either. Any takers?:cool:

Well I'm in Louisiana and From my view, I believe he has this state. Early projections have him in a far lead here. Also, there was very much news about the "confusion of the delegate process", This means only one thing, Lots and lots of new delegates and caucusers. I wonder where all these new and young(and apparently confused) delegates came from???? Oh yeah, Grassroots. Louisiana is one of the grass root states due to its delegate process involving just average registered voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrinS

Mississippi Steve calm down a bit and read what Land of Drought was saying, the SG and FDA doesnt have anything to do with Ireland policies... it amazes me how many people dont read.. and just type.

---

Not only that he was an asshole about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

<sigh> Like I said.... do your homework. Go back to about 1963 when Coke, Heroin, MJ and a bunch of other "street" drugs were classified as having *no medicinal value* and no more research could be done on them. The classification system was set up so that individual drugs could have their classification changed without literally requiring an act of congress.

The DEA and Surgen General have to change the clasification of MJ *BEFORE* it can be legalized.

---

Just because a government agency acts outside of its bounds, it doesn't make it legal. Judges at state and federal levels have basically created laws, and so has the president.

Many unelected government and non-congressional agencies in the past and right now, have created and are creating laws, this I concede. This is completely unconstitutional. There is no where in the constitution that allows for this. But, We The People do not need to rely on judges, governors, presidents, the DEA, BATF, or IRS to reverse these unconstitutional laws, only our state and U.S. congresses.

if any of the dems was to back our rights it'd be the black guy, cuz the woman is already scared of the "race issue", if I were a politician I would back up our rights, as there are approx. 160million people in the world that use cannabis daily, I bet a nice chunk of that 160million lives in the U.S., there go The voters to back you right there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeetCraig

I agree... the Libertarian party isn't against marijuana at all.

---

THis is true, the Libertarian party is one that advocates personal freedom, allowing the individual to make their own choices. Does that not seem like the way it should be ? It's too bad we've been conditioned to believe that we need the government to make these decisions for us :wtf:

The topic of cannabis and the "War on Drugs" has taken a back seat to immigration, universal health care, terrorism, and Iraq.

(Ironically, the money spent on the war on drugs could easily be spent for health care and security issues in the US)

I use to be very optimistic but now ... I think BOTH sides of the argument are gaining no ground. The government continues to spend billions of dollars on something that will NEVER change, while the supporters don't convince enough people to support the cause ... thus, the laws remain.

The cannabis movement would need a very popular and vocal person to create "buzz" about the issue in order for changes to take place IMHO. If "no one" is talking about it ... then "no one" cares about the issue. Out of sight ... out of mind.

Ron Paul would be a huge step however. But he's not going to win the Republican vote ... let alone make it to the White House. Even then, there would be a lot of people in Congress to fight off.