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

I have seen just about every Democrat come out and say that they will not allow the DEA to continue on the path that they have been on here in California. I am just curious as to what candidate everyone thinks will be the one to make a difference for us. Please do not answer the obvious Ron Paul.

id say half the demos would make a half assed attempt at getting the dea to lay off MMj users.

^^^^^ Pretty much my thinking!

Ron Paul
(none of the dems would do anything, besides barack(still probably wont)

dems are all talk

Mike Gravel was probably the dems best bet, I think assuming that any of the other candidates would make a "half assed" attempt is assuming alot. They know that they can just make an empty promise to the constituants that support MMJ, because most of them are un-informed much like any other cross section of America, and most of them generally vote democrat if and when they vote. Not to mention the fact that most of them won't even remember what any of these candidates said in or before the primaries.

:stoned:Is it just me...or does Mr. obama sound like dave chappell doing a white person imitation.....

not just you :D

The president can't *DO* anything bout it.....it has to come down from the DEA and Surgen General......even Congress can't *DO* anything about it. The DEA and Surgen General have to change its classification catagory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrinS

Ron Paul
(none of the dems would do anything, besides barack(still probably wont)

dems are all talk

---

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

uuuuhhh did hillary look like a raving BITCH the other night....I THINK SHE WILL PAY BACK BILL...i am comming in the OVAL OFFICE! part 2:wtf:

Richardson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

Mike Gravel was probably the dems best bet, I think assuming that any of the other candidates would make a "half assed" attempt is assuming alot. They know that they can just make an empty promise to the constituants that support MMJ, because most of them are un-informed much like any other cross section of America, and most of them generally vote democrat if and when they vote. Not to mention the fact that most of them won't even remember what any of these candidates said in or before the primaries.

---

seems you haven't done your research...


The Bill Richardson File - SantaFeNewMexican.com

Richardson Tells Voters: ââ?¬Ë?The War on Drugs Is Not Workingââ?¬â?¢ | Send The Right Message!

Bill Richardson is good for the democratic side...Apparently he doesn't have much contributions coming from big pharm..

I don't believe that any of them could do a damn thing. Yes, I like Ron Paul too (b/c of his Libertarian values of small government and personal freedoms) however even if he was voted in he'd have one hell of a time fighting congress and everyone else. The checks and balances would tear him apart.





And thats sad.

I'm going to the Ron Paul Meet-up in Greensburg tonight. Maybe we can all trade cuttings afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BUDSHOTS

uuuuhhh did hillary look like a raving BITCH the other night....I THINK SHE WILL PAY BACK BILL...i am comming in the OVAL OFFICE! part 2:wtf:

---

Bill came in the oval office....repeatedly...just ask Monica. Hillary just wants her tur with the interns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

The president can't *DO* anything bout it.....it has to come down from the DEA and Surgen General......even Congress can't *DO* anything about it. The DEA and Surgen General have to change its classification catagory.

---

And finally someone that is making sense! Thank you Steve.

And by the way, just because I don't think Richardson would be the "best" doesn't indicate a lack of research. As far as I know Richardson is not for "decriminalization". I think if you did some research you may amaze yourself. The meer fact that any candidate says they will or will not make the DEA do something shows some insincerity in the answer, and it also is insulting to your intelligence if you believe it. It needs to be re-scheduled from where it is now, a Schedule 1 considered in the same regard as heroin. Until that happens nothing will change on the federal level.

Ron Paul is the only choice. There's no longer Dem/Rep parties, it's a fabricated. Ron Paul is THE only choice. If we do not get this man into office, then we keep seeing the DEA raids on us!
Vote Ron Paul if you really wanna legalize it.
Watch this though
YouTube - Ron Paul on Medical Marijuana

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Land of Drought

I Should add we had the same kind of thing here in the past year. We had a general Election. As it turned out we got a couple of green's into power,,before the election
these said assholes promised to decrim or at least look into Cannabis. Then they won
their preasious seats theyve turned there backs on us.....Now no such talk..Power corrupts
my friends

Drought

---

You just don't get it..... NO ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT LEGALIZING WEED.

It can *ONLY* be done by the DEA and the Surgen general.... THEY have to change its classification or remove it from the list.

Please do a little homework

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justonevoice

I have seen just about every Democrat come out and say that they will not allow the DEA to continue on the path that they have been on here in California. I am just curious as to what candidate everyone thinks will be the one to make a difference for us. Please do not answer the obvious Ron Paul.

---

Why anyone but Ron Paul?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mississippi Steve

You just don't get it..... NO ELECTED OFFICIAL CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT LEGALIZING WEED.

It can *ONLY* be done by the DEA and the Surgen general.... THEY have to change its classification or remove it from the list.

Please do a little homework

---

Of course elected officials can. Congress are the lawmakers, our state and federal congress can repeal laws also.

The DEA and Surgeon General do not make laws, so how could they change them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by angry nomad

Of course elected officials can. Congress are the lawmakers, our state and federal congress can repeal laws also.

The DEA and Surgeon General do not make laws, so how could they change them?

---

<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.

Yes I know exactly what your talking about steve.
I think though, the pres could order an investigation into why our own SG isn't listening to the recommendations they've received. I don't have my home work in front of me but, didn't the AMA or one of those already recommend marijuana does in-fact have medicinal value and also does not have the addiction risk level specifically listed with the level of classification currently applied?
It currently states that marijuana has a "high probability for addiction and high level of withdrawal symptoms.
Also, I think its the FDA not the DEA that has to approve it. I believe the SG is the one who has to ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zcomp

Yes I know exactly what your talking about steve.
I think though, the pres could order an investigation into why our own SG isn't listening to the recommendations they've received. I don't have my home work in front of me but, didn't the AMA or one of those already recommend marijuana does in-fact have medicinal value and also does not have the addiction risk level specifically listed with the level of classification currently applied?
It currently states that marijuana has a "high probability for addiction and high level of withdrawal symptoms.
Also, I think its the FDA not the DEA that has to approve it. I believe the SG is the one who has to ask.

---

Your correct... it is the FDA..... I just couldn't spell it right :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I don't believe that any of them could do a damn thing. Yes, I like Ron Paul too (b/c of his Libertarian values of small government and personal freedoms) however even if he was voted in he'd have one hell of a time fighting congress and everyone else. The checks and balances would tear him apart.





And thats sad.

---

Welcome to America. Theres always a higher power. ;)

i heard hillary if shes elected is gonna has a big hippy museum built i mean it was an era in life so why not if shes elected im sure she wont care about weed and help to make it legal not voting for her tho but shes leading isnt she but ide say ron paul even tho u said not to haha

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.

none they are all ball-less...f-ing politicians

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

I don't believe that any of them could do a damn thing. Yes, I like Ron Paul too (b/c of his Libertarian values of small government and personal freedoms) however even if he was voted in he'd have one hell of a time fighting congress and everyone else. The checks and balances would tear him apart.





And thats sad.

---

actually, the executive branch is solely responsible for enforcing the laws made by congress or the interpretation of the courts. congress can pass whatever law it wants, but as long as the president so demands, no enforcement of that law can be done, making it useless. ron paul could (and has said he would) waltz in there as president, wave his hands, and instantly "legalize" drugs and pardon all drug offenders, etc.

i don't think any of them will do anything, I think there are just saying it to get more votes..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatenme

i don't think any of them will do anything, I think there are just saying it to get more votes..

---

Good point...
But I think Id still go with some one who is at least SAYING they are gonna do things to make us any closer to legalized or even decrinalize more...

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.