cannabisnews.com: Why Don't More Republicans Oppose The DEA's Raids? Why Don't More Republicans Oppose The DEA's Raids? Posted by CN Staff on July 31, 2007 at 21:48:55 PT By Jacob Sullum Source: Town Hall.com Washington, DC -- Last week, the Los Angeles City Council voted for a measure that asked the federal government to stop harassing medical marijuana users in California. Minutes later, the Drug Enforcement Administration raided 10 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles County. The disrespect for local judgments on local matters could not have been starker. Determined to maintain anti-drug orthodoxy, the DEA is running wild in the laboratories of democracy, smashing experiments in reform and injuring innocent bystanders. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed this cruel crusade to continue based on the premise that a cancer or AIDS patient who grows a few marijuana plants to relieve his pain or nausea is engaged in interstate commerce and therefore subject to federal regulation. As for Congress, on the day of the L.A. raids, the House once again rejected a measure aimed at restraining the DEA. Because the two other branches of the federal government have failed to protect medical marijuana patients, their most plausible hope lies in electing a president who is less intent on snatching their medicine. At this point, the Democrats look decidedly more promising than the Republicans in this respect. According to Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana, seven of the eight declared candidates for the Democratic nomination have promised to call off the DEA's medical marijuana raids if elected. The eighth, Barack Obama, has said such raids "probably shouldn't be a high priority." Three of the nine remaining Republican candidates -- Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson -- oppose the DEA raids. But the rest of the Republicans, including the leading contenders, either have taken no position (Mitt Romney) or have said they would continue the current policy (which, it's worth remembering, has roots in the Clinton administration). When he was asked about medical marijuana in April, the straight-talking John McCain said, "I will let states decide the issue." Less than three months later, asked whether he would end the DEA's interference with medical marijuana use in the 12 states where it's legal, he already had changed his mind, saying, "Right now my answer to you is no." And in five minutes? McCain's initial position on medical marijuana was reminiscent of George W. Bush's during his first presidential campaign, when he said, "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose." At least Bush waited until after he was elected to renege on his promise. The Republicans also look worse than the Democrats in congressional votes on this issue. It's true that a conservative Republican congressman, Dana Rohrabacher of California, repeatedly has joined Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., in cosponsoring an appropriations bill amendment that would prohibit the DEA from spending money on busting medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. But Democrats have been far more likely than Republicans to back the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which last week was supported by 66 percent of the Democrats who voted but opposed by 92 percent of the Republicans. These partisan tendencies do not mean Democrats have greater respect for the division of powers between the federal government and the states. When it suits them, they're happy to support federal involvement in policy areas the Constitution leaves to the states. It's just that Democrats are, by and large, more comfortable with the therapeutic use of cannabis than Republicans are. It's hard to find a logical explanation for this split. Republicans, conservatives especially, are traditionally critical of overly cautious regulators who prevent people from using drugs that could relieve their suffering safely and effectively. They have a record of supporting the freedom to use herbal home remedies without unreasonable bureaucratic interference. The prevailing Republican stance on medical marijuana, which is at odds with what most Americans tell pollsters they think about the issue, can be understood only in light of the connotation cannabis acquired as a result of its accidental association with the 1960s counterculture. In fighting a symbol of their opponents' principles, conservatives have sacrificed their own. Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com. Complete Title: Why Don't More Republicans Oppose the DEA's Medical Marijuana Raids?Source: Town Hall.com (DC)Author: Jacob SullumPublished: Wednesday, August 1, 2007Copyright: 2007 King Features SyndicateContact: info townhall.com Website: http://www.townhall.com/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #83 posted by whig on August 05, 2007 at 11:18:26 PT unkat27 I don't want to have a political debate with you but I'm not worried about my health benefits. I have private coverage and it is fine for me now. [ Post Comment ] Comment #82 posted by FoM on August 05, 2007 at 09:36:25 PT unkat27 I don't know why you would be having trouble posting here. I never would give you any problems and no one else has the right to give you any problems here on CNews. Let me know if it gets better or keeps up and I will report it to Matt Elrod the webmaster. [ Post Comment ] Comment #81 posted by unkat27 on August 05, 2007 at 09:30:43 PT Whig The LP may be opposed to high govt taxes on companies (read companies, not corporations, there is a difference) but they are also anti-corporate; opposed to corporations controling people's lives. They are not anti-union, they are pro-people. The misunderstanding here begins with corporations. The LP is definitely anti-corporate. Just check out www.infowars.com for an example of a mainly pro-libertarian website. www.antiwar.com is also another pro-libertarian website.http://www.infowars.comIf you read enough articles by pro-libertarians, you'll notice how anti-corporate they are. It begins with an understanding of the difference between simple companies and corporations. Most libertarians do NOT believe that corporations should have the same rights as individuals.Libertarian opposition to big, bad government maintains the basic premise that corporations are a major part of the problem because they maintain too much power and influence over politics and government.Whig, you seem to be mainly worried about your health benefits. I don't believe any true libertarian would let you lose everything due to health problems and payments. Not only would they want you to have inexpensive access to cannabis, they would probly put you on a slide-rule to keep your health costs low and affordable.Funny thing, I've been getting cut off from the internet every time I come here and try to put a comment into a post. Looks like somebody don't like what I'm sayin, I dunno...Btw, the Congress just signed dictatorial spy-powers over to the big chimp and his gang of thugs! Pathetic! Great bunch of dems in congress, eh? Antiwar.com: A Pro-libertarian website [ Post Comment ] Comment #80 posted by whig on August 04, 2007 at 14:08:18 PT unkat27 I don't think the LP agrees with providing health care to all Americans. I don't think they are pro-union. I think they fight to cut corporate taxes and government regulations of corporations. [ Post Comment ] Comment #79 posted by unkat27 on August 04, 2007 at 11:47:03 PT Whig Not following that last comment. Are you saying the Libertarian Party doesn't agree with everything i have said in these posts? If so, please specify, because I don't see it.Not every libertarian agrees with Ron Paul on the abortion issue. [ Post Comment ] Comment #78 posted by whig on August 04, 2007 at 11:08:32 PT unkat27 I see. You are a libertarian of a different type than the Libertarian Party.Ron Paul is more of a Libertarian Party type I think except for his disrespect of women's rights. [ Post Comment ] Comment #77 posted by unkat27 on August 04, 2007 at 08:49:40 PT Whig -- "Would it be "big government" to ensure health care for every American?"No, not in the context of libertarians. When they refer to big government, it is primarily the bad programs that are considered unecessary, the programs that the fear-mongering right-wing scares all the little people into supporting with exaggeration and lies. I doubt very much that covers a program that is genuinely designed to help people.-- "Should there be any limits on corporate taxes or government oversight of corporations?" Any limits should be established by workers unions, not by government. Government should be more receptive to the workers since it is the workers that form the actual foundation of all companies and corporations.-- "Would it be big government if there were not?"The problem with this issue resides in the fact that it is the corporations that have most of the influence over government, not vica versa. We're talking about big money lobbyism and corporate competition, not government oversight of corporations per se, because corporate big money has more power over politics and congress than the voters or the unions. Big government oversight of corporations wouldn't be necessary if unions were permitted to do what they were originally intended to do. Corporate lobbyism should be eradicated because it counteracts any power the workers unions wield. [ Post Comment ] Comment #76 posted by whig on August 03, 2007 at 16:00:05 PT This is our land This land belongs to us. It is not the property of any corporation or foreign person. It is inalienable, it is immovable, it is our land. [ Post Comment ] Comment #75 posted by whig on August 03, 2007 at 15:57:38 PT Truth I want to drive off the corporations. I would tolerate those which behave well, but those which harm people for their own bottom lines should be disincorporated and liability attached to those who cause damages. [ Post Comment ] Comment #74 posted by whig on August 03, 2007 at 13:27:35 PT unkat27 We should be able to live rent-free on our own land, but if someone takes more than their share they should pay for the privilege. What do you think? [ Post Comment ] Comment #73 posted by whig on August 03, 2007 at 13:25:31 PT I propose The government collect the full rental value of land and natural resources claimed by corporations and foreign owners, with a personal exemption amount for citizens. [ Post Comment ] Comment #72 posted by whig on August 03, 2007 at 13:18:00 PT unkat27 Would it be "big government" to ensure health care for every American? Should there be any limits on corporate taxes or government oversight of corporations? Would it be big government if there were not? [ Post Comment ] Comment #71 posted by unkat27 on August 03, 2007 at 12:22:13 PT Whig Big government IS BAD Government, understand? The US government was never originally intended to have anywhere near as much power over people's private lives as it does today. Whenever libertarians refer to Big Government, they are referring to all those bad government programs that intrude upon the private sector and private people's lives. No, corporations should NOT have the same rights as individuals. That judicial decision was one of the biggest mistakes the justice system ever made. Of course, there's plenty of reason to suspect that it was an intentional decision bought and paid for by the ruling-class corporate tycoons to pave the way for their present tyranny. [ Post Comment ] Comment #70 posted by whig on August 03, 2007 at 10:15:14 PT unkat27 Do you think corporations should have the same rights as people? [ Post Comment ] Comment #69 posted by whig on August 03, 2007 at 10:10:19 PT unkat27 I don't understand why those programs are "big government." They are just bad programs. Whenever people try to "shrink" government they end up keeping those bad programs and taking money away from poor people.Let's abolish the DEA. [ Post Comment ] Comment #68 posted by unkat27 on August 03, 2007 at 04:55:58 PT Whig, #61, Big Government? Big government is government intruding upon the private sector where it doesn't belong, using tax-payer money to fund programs that are not actually necessary.The DEA is an example of big government. In fact, just about all the offices on drug policy, with the possible exception of the FDA, are big government. Some argue that the FDA acts like big government by over-stepping its authority on some issues.DARE is definitely an example of big government, as it works almost directly with the DEA on the local level. The ONDCP, The Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the CIA, are all examples of big government agencies that wield too much power and influence over politics and people's private lives.Going upon the idea that government shouldn't intrude so much upon the private sector and corporations shouldn't have so much influence over government, I think there are more than enough examples out there now that fit under this definition.Big government is usually corrupted by corporate big money and profits. The Prison Industrial Complex is a perfect example of big government on a major corporate level, as is the Pentagon (Military Industrial Complex) as well. Big government is too big, so big it has lost touch with the public. [ Post Comment ] Comment #67 posted by whig on August 02, 2007 at 21:57:40 PT FoM I don't want to live in a foreign-owned country. It makes no sense at all. I guess that's how a lot of people feel about America taking over other countries and now we're on the receiving end, even if it isn't a military occupation. [ Post Comment ] Comment #66 posted by FoM on August 02, 2007 at 21:01:00 PT whig It really makes me wonder why this is allowed and how it could hurt us. There were many people who were hurt or lost their life with the bridge collapse. I assume that there will be a law suit. What if a foreign country would have owned that bridge? I think it's not a good thing to divide our country up like they are. No liability can very often mean no responsibility. [ Post Comment ] Comment #65 posted by whig on August 02, 2007 at 19:59:00 PT FoM That is just plain insane. [ Post Comment ] Comment #64 posted by FoM on August 02, 2007 at 18:48:04 PT Just a Comment: This Article Was from 2006 They are selling our roads to foreign countries. ***Foreign Companies Buying U.S. Roads, Bridges***July 15, 2006WASHINGTON (AP) — Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying.On a single day in June, an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.8 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years.Complete Article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-15-u.s.-highways_x.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #63 posted by whig on August 02, 2007 at 17:53:18 PT Toker00 I think they've deliberately neglected infrastructure maintenance because they are trying to break our country. [ Post Comment ] Comment #62 posted by Toker00 on August 02, 2007 at 17:26:20 PT Whig. That's kinda what I think but how many years have funds been cut for the "war on tearer" that would have paid to repair this bridge, and was that negligence purposeful? This North American Super Highway isn't popular and they will do whatever they think it takes to push this down our throats.You're right. I read about the failed inspections. I simply don't trust anything to be accidental anymore. Like I don't fly anymore. We've been warned for decades that our infrastructure was in danger and needing re-vamping. Super Highway, illegal immigrants from south of the border to build the New World Highways. Whether we like it or not. There have been promises made in Texas by farmers and land owners to meet the Construction crews with shotguns. Big talk, even for Texans. Things are not right, Whig. Things are dreadfully wrong.Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #61 posted by whig on August 02, 2007 at 16:45:18 PT unkat27 What does "big government" mean? Health care is important for one thing, so are a lot of programs that libertarians are against. [ Post Comment ] Comment #60 posted by whig on August 02, 2007 at 16:33:42 PT Toker00 Bridges do sometimes collapse like that, and this one was rated structurally deficient two years ago. I don't think it was deliberate. [ Post Comment ] Comment #59 posted by Toker00 on August 02, 2007 at 16:07:48 PT A bit of action... TELL CONGRESS IT'S TIME TO IMPEACH GONZALES The White House has ordered the Justice Department not to prosecute contempt charges against any of its operatives who it had also ordered not to testify in the first place. Gonzales who HAS testified has told so many different stories that were he not himself the attorney general he would be facing perjury charges right now. ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/impeach_gonzales.php But of course even if he were convicted he would instantly be commuted or pardoned as was Scooter Libby. There is one and only one constitutional recourse left and that is impeachment. The appeal courts have already been stacked with right wing judges and they will not intervene. The solicitor general will not appoint a special counsel. Only through impeachment can Congress demand a return to integrity. On Tuesday, July 31st, Jay Inslee proposed that the Judiciary Committee pursue the possible impeachment of Alberto Gonzales, who tried to browbeat a semi-conscious John Ashcroft into signing off on a patently illegal spying program, who was the point man in doing a legal end run around the laws against torture, who let the White House dictate which U.S. attorneys were not sufficiently partisan in their prosecutions, and who then lied repeatedly under oath about it all. In today's Time magazine online article they examined the reasons Bush still has not dumped such an outright embarrassment of an attorney general, and the number one reason they cited was that "Bush needs someone at Justice who's going to watch the White House's back." Of course this is precisely the reason he must be impeached immediately. If his only purpose is to shield the Cheney White House from investigation and exposure of their own crimes he's the first one who has to go. ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/impeach_gonzales.php For those focused on impeaching Cheney and Bush we suggest this is not a distraction. Instead it could be an important strategic icebreaker. To just get the word "impeachment" past the lips of some members of Congress has been a major struggle. But our numbers are building fast, and once the dam breaks, it'll be Katy bar the door to the oval office. Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know. Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #58 posted by Toker00 on August 02, 2007 at 15:51:31 PT Whig Pen: Internet. Cell phones. E-mail. iphone. etc. etc.I think this worries the Gummit. All those could help lead us right back to the pen that slashes their Defense Cash Cow's throat. How many videos of the Bridge Collapse have been discovered and aired already besides the one they have already aired to death? Now the States and the Feds don't have to pay for the demolition of this bridge. The Tax Payers do through whatever funds cover Disasters. Now the Contractors for the North American Super Highway can simply concentrate on the new replacement bridge that will go up much quicker now. Re-routing the traffic is no longer an issue, it is a MUST. Watch to see if Controlled Demolitions get the clean-up job. Is the evidence off limits or are people investigating this immediately?Someone at work came up to me today and said "Bridges don't just collapse like that. The government had to have something to do with this." Has everything now become a "Conspiracy?" Or has everything like this ALWAYS been Conspiracy and we are only now alert enough to recognize this? Bridges DO collapse. Don't they? Stop Warring in the name of God, and start Sharing in the name of God. At least give it a f**king try!Wage Peace on War. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! [ Post Comment ] Comment #57 posted by unkat27 on August 02, 2007 at 15:48:34 PT Obama and Clinton, Supporters of More War Both Clinton and Obama are no better than Bush and Cheney, when it comes to US imperialism."Obama Follows the Neocon Mass Murder Script"http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=943"It is a race to see who can kill more people. “As President, Barack Obama would order attacks on terrorist camps in Pakistan even if its president, Gen. Pervais Musharraf, refused to give permission and would link American aid on Pakistan’s progress in rooting out its terrorist havens,” writes Marc Ambinder for Atlantic Online. “That stance, one part of the multifacted counterrorrism strategy Obama unveils this morning, is tougher than the more considered approach of the Bush Administration, which has generally avoided antagonizing its ally in public.” In other words, Obama’s selection strategy consists of outdoing the neocons and he really harbors no reservations when it comes to mass murder and adding to the horrific total exacted in human life (nearly a million Iraqis) since the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq."IMO, Obama and Clinton are only promising to stop the DEA raids in CA to sucker all the dems there to vote for them. What would ya'll do if, after you voted for them, and they were elected, the DEA raids continued? [ Post Comment ] Comment #56 posted by unkat27 on August 02, 2007 at 15:43:36 PT Whig, #32, 33 -- "Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel would also end cannabis prohibition.All the Democrats except for Joe Biden and Barack Obama would end the federal raids, I believe. John Edwards is also for ending the federal raids.Ron Paul hasn't actually done anything for us except be a Republican gadfly."Ron Paul wants to end prohibition. He was for an end to it long before most of the dems sited here.The main reason why people don't like him is because he is officially a part of the republican party. But as an antiwar libertarian, he was one of the only republicans in congress that opposed the war from the start. He's one of the only republican "constitutionalists" that opposes big government. Big government, according to libertarians, is bad for a free democratic republic. They believe in people helping each other without the need for big government involvement. Anyone that understands this notion understands that Paul's heart is on the right track. [ Post Comment ] Comment #55 posted by FoM on August 02, 2007 at 12:55:34 PT whig The pen is mightier then the sword. You are so right. I have always believed that too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #54 posted by whig on August 02, 2007 at 12:55:21 PT In this age of digital networks Perhaps the keyboard is mightier even than the pen. [ Post Comment ] Comment #53 posted by whig on August 02, 2007 at 12:53:23 PT In the meantime While war rages, I work against war by the promise that the pen is mightier than the sword. [ Post Comment ] Comment #52 posted by whig on August 02, 2007 at 12:51:42 PT Toker00 Co-operation, indeed, and if we can do without war it won't be work we are unwilling to do. [ Post Comment ] Comment #51 posted by Toker00 on August 02, 2007 at 12:19:34 PT Maybe not work. Maybe Co-operation is a better word. Salvation (If we think we must be saved) or Sustainable Existence through co-operation, not war. K?Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #50 posted by whig on August 02, 2007 at 10:50:40 PT Toker00 I don't know if I believe that Work for its own sake is the basis of salvation. I think that we should be like little children sometimes. [ Post Comment ] Comment #49 posted by Toker00 on August 02, 2007 at 03:13:11 PT Whig Right. Everything we need is before us. Nature holds all solutions to all problems. All that is asked of us in order to find these solutions is WORK. That is our purpose: To WORK to find SOLUTIONS. Those who deny that and want to make their own rules to establish Selfish Control instead of finding it in nature through WORK, are the PROBLEMS we seek SOLUTIONS to. Is it possible to become so controlled that the Slave becomes the Master? Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #48 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 17:26:24 PT Toker00 I don't know what people believe and if it is heartfelt. That is between them and their God. I appreciate when a person says how they feel about faith but I watch to see if actions follow their words. Faith without works is dead or so the Bible says. [ Post Comment ] Comment #47 posted by whig on August 01, 2007 at 17:23:52 PT Toker00 Trust in ourselves. We are all that we need to be. [ Post Comment ] Comment #46 posted by Toker00 on August 01, 2007 at 17:09:01 PT I don't know either FoM. Religions have survived because governments have learned to use them to win over support for things that turn out to be lies. It's not people's souls the government is concerned about when they war in the name of God, it's the power and wealth to be had, it's the power of mind control that religions exert over people that keeps them unified as a group. In God we Trust. Really? Do we trust God to clear the pollution we have dumped and injected and haphazardly stored on this earth for decades? Do we trust God to unradiate the lands we contaminate with Depleted Uranium weapons, cattle farming, cotton growing and to replace the Rain forests we rape and plunder daily for the sake of "Progress"? Do we trust God to stop the Greed so we all can share? But the Elite of the world DO Trust in God. They trust that God won't punish them for what they are doing to so many of us. They trust that as long as we have blind faith in something that isn't touchable, see-able, feel-able, hear-able, or knowable, they can use that to rally the forces for War. By God.Sorry FoM. I hear all these candidates trying to include God in their campaigns knowing that most of them are Godless men. If they really believed in a God, they would be shaking in their footsteps from paranoia and guilt for what they have brought onto the world with this so-called War on Terror. Yeah, things have changed since 9-11 alright, but ALL change is temporary, so we will change this Tyrannical Government in time. That is the kind of faith I have. But we have to change a lot of people one person at a time. It could take some time, short of some mega-social event such as a great SPIRITUAL AWAKENING.Americans, open your minds!Toke. Wage Peace on War. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! [ Post Comment ] Comment #45 posted by whig on August 01, 2007 at 16:50:35 PT Toker00 One word that can heal the divisions of religion: Namasté. [ Post Comment ] Comment #44 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 16:27:18 PT Toker00 I know what you mean but a long time ago I came to the conclusion that religion, doctrine and faith are so interwinded in people's minds and hearts that I try to understand where they are coming from. Nothing is all good or all bad. I can live in peace with my surroundings by coming to that conclusion. Religion is way older then we are and there is a reason that they have survived so long. What that reason is I don't have any idea though. [ Post Comment ] Comment #43 posted by Toker00 on August 01, 2007 at 16:09:55 PT Oh, I hear ya, FoM! Same here! Faith is one thing. Blind Faith is something totally different. I have faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but I don't have faith in being rescued by some super hero. And no one will EVER convince me that there will be any number of virgins waiting for me when I get to "Heaven" if I just simply blow myself up. Thanks for understanding and not taking offense. All religions are philosophies that got WAY out of hand. But, hey, that's just MHO. Toke. Imagine there's no Heaven... [ Post Comment ] Comment #42 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 14:53:35 PT Toker00 I don't know of one person that would be able to beat the Democrats or the Republicans. God is good but people get so into their religious beliefs that it causes harm. Without faith I wouldn't care to wake up in the morning and tackle the day. [ Post Comment ] Comment #41 posted by Toker00 on August 01, 2007 at 14:28:34 PT Save your votes for now. Republicans and Democrats have both lost the confidence of many Americans. Let's watch and search for an Independent Candidate. Hilary will end the war, my ass. Any Republican will only escalate the war for Profit, the same as Ms. Hilary. Look for someone who will end ALL wars and expose corporate control of Congress as well as Israel's Religious influence over Congress. To HELL with Israel. All religion should be abolished from the face of the earth. NO beliefs should be held as sacred without absolute evidence to back those beliefs, not just blind faith. Yes there is a Creator because no one put THEMSELVES here, but religions are all based on limited, unproven, unrealistic beliefs. Philosophies are much more believable than the Three Major Mind Controlling Religions. I just wish that when the so called Christians get their rapture, they go ahead and take the Jews and the Muslims with them so the rest of us might find PEACE. Think about it. The more believable philosophies don't involve WAR. The Big Three DO. Ending these Warring Religions would end all Wars. Just MHO, no offense intended. I just believe we can all believe in a Creator without having to restrict Him/Her/It with Religious BS. Toke. [ Post Comment ] Comment #40 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 13:46:48 PT whig I don't know any Republicans really. Most of the people I know don't pay attention to politics and don't vote. I am new at this voting thing too. I guess Republicans will vote for Giuliani since he will probably get the nomination. [ Post Comment ] Comment #39 posted by whig on August 01, 2007 at 13:25:48 PT FoM I think if Hillary Clinton does win the nomination I will encourage Republicans to abstain from voting against her but I don't think I would encourage people to vote for her. That's just how I feel about it. I would rather she be president than a Republican but I don't know if I could actually vote for her because I don't know if she would be good. [ Post Comment ] Comment #38 posted by whig on August 01, 2007 at 13:13:27 PT FoM Hillary Clinton never seems to want to admit mistakes, but she is allying herself to progressives now and is claiming to want to end the war, and I don't want to attack someone who is helping us. I would rather she not be the nominee, but I can't support Barack Obama either if he won't stop treating us as criminals. I can't vote for anyone who would arrest me for my medicine. [ Post Comment ] Comment #37 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 13:08:48 PT whig I like him too. I like all of them except Clinton. I'm will vote for her if she gets the nomination but she is my least favorite. I am not into the needle exchange issue but she said no and Obama said yes. [ Post Comment ] Comment #36 posted by whig on August 01, 2007 at 13:02:42 PT FoM I think it might wind up being John Edwards as the nominee. I wouldn't mind him, I think he's a good man trying to do the right thing. He makes mistakes but he is willing to admit them and move on, and that's something I appreciate. [ Post Comment ] Comment #35 posted by dongenero on August 01, 2007 at 12:53:38 PT Bill Richardson Gov. Richardson did a beautiful thing there. You have to consider the courage it took. Most politicians would fear for their career in making such legislation.You gotta hand it to Bill for standing up for what he knows is right regardless of the potential fallout.By the way, there seems to be absolutely no fallout regarding New Mexico! I sometimes wonder if prohibition ended wholesale, if everyone wouldn't just go, "yea, duh!", and then move on.Oh sure the Joyce Nalepka's and John Walters of the world would spin out but, you're always going to have the fringe wack jobs out there. [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 12:47:21 PT whig That's a good question. I judged competitions relating to riders and horses and I competed in events too. Sometimes I would see someone at the beginning of the day and they stood out in everything they did and they won. Then you have the times when horses and riders have faults and some really good points and then it was harder to decide. The Democrats have good candidates this time and it will be hard to decide which one is best. [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by whig on August 01, 2007 at 12:37:06 PT Also Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel would also end cannabis prohibition.All the Democrats except for Joe Biden and Barack Obama would end the federal raids, I believe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by whig on August 01, 2007 at 12:31:14 PT As long as we're talking about candidates... Why isn't Bill Richardson getting more respect for having passed medical marijuana in New Mexico?John Edwards is also for ending the federal raids.Ron Paul hasn't actually done anything for us except be a Republican gadfly. I hope he wins the Republican nomination but I don't think he will. So then it's a moot point anyhow.Anyone who is a Republican voter should certainly support Ron Paul in your primary, okay?I hope people will stop supporting Republicans though. [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 11:42:55 PT DjLoTi I didn't think we were fighting with each other. Everyone thinks differently and says how they feel but that's not fighting. [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by DjLoTi on August 01, 2007 at 11:08:57 PT Fighting When people pit anything against anyone contrary to their beliefs, be it religion, marijuana, social status, or anything, wars are startedCrusades, war on drugs, war on poverty. That is why we all must unite and not pit against each other for a common cause. It upsets me that anything can pit us against one another when we're both fighting against the war on drugs. It's hard enough fighting the government, we can't be fighting ourselves. [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 10:18:45 PT dongenero When people pit one religion against another instead of trying to find a common denominator this is the result. No compromise is how wars start. [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by dongenero on August 01, 2007 at 10:16:29 PT Thanks FoM.....hmmm This made me wonder,...Maybe religion is the root of all evil. [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 09:48:13 PT dongenero I don't know if you are interested but I thought I'd post this anyway incase you are. The war in the Middle East will be hard to stop.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_of_Christian_eschatological_differences#Dispensational [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 09:26:27 PT Sam What a politician believes as far as abortion goes is important to me. Pro-Choice means what it says about a woman's liberty. Pro-Life means they will continue to work hard to make a woman a criminal like it was. Women died from having to get an illegal abortion. I am against abortion but I see how they can turn things around if giving any hope that they can. That's why it matters. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 09:21:27 PT cannabliss Here's 2007's vote.http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll733.xml [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by cannabliss on August 01, 2007 at 09:18:27 PT Where's the State Pride? Beyond the question of (so-called) conservatives supporting big central government is the question of why any representative from a state that has passed medical marijuana laws would vote against this.I found the 2006 roll call but couldn't find the 2007, but it was interesting to see the regional breakdown, as well district-by-district in any given state.So, these California Republicans are essentially saying "let's let those Alabama rednecks tell us how to run our state, because certainly we don't know how to". I can't imagine this could be a winning attitude with California (or any other MMJ state) voters. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by Sam Adams on August 01, 2007 at 08:46:04 PT musings I will accept Ron Paul's abortion stance. I don't think the Repubs will ever let abortion get banned again in a state, it could destroy their party. That issue is like the left's term limits, they love to talk about it to get the redneck masses fired up, but they don't really want to change anything. IMO.As for Hillary, sure, she tolerated Bill blazing up all those years, so she'll let us smoke too, right? Seriously, my problem with her is that the Republicans will beat her. No way this primitive, hardcore Christian country will elect a woman. They hate her. Romney could easily beat her just because he's a good looking, devout man (not my definition of devout). Imagine Tommy Thompson running against "Hilary". They'd win by 10 points IMO. All the snake-handling, floor-rolling Christians will come out of the woodwork to vote against Hilary!On Pakistan - of course we should go in there! Do we really want to punish the criminal that bombed us? Of course, they will get us again and it will be worse next time.We chose to destroy Iraq, creating thousands and thousands of new "terrorists", and by creating a new Shiite govt, de-stabilizing the entire region. We could have worked with Pakistan's govt and used ground troops at the start of the Afganistan war to actually capture Bin Laden. Look at how horribly wrong the Bush family has been in foreign policy. Mark my words, in the years to come we will see that the Bush family came to power during a period of growing world peace, and they put us all back on the path to nuclear war.You see, Pakistan is the country we've armed with nuclear weapons. So now, if we go in to get Bin Laden and the terrorists there (who are most definitely planning another US attack), we risk a fundamentalist revolt that could put an Iran-like govt. in charge of nukes. That is the problem! If Musharref's dictatorship fails, the fundamentalists will get the nukes.The big problem is that, after the US finally leaves Iraq, it will revert to Shiite control, and it's possible that Iran could control or annex most of the country. Or, the entire Mideast could plunge into war fighting Iran and trying to install a Sunni govt in Iraq. That seems to be what Bush/Cheney are preparing for- they're proposing to arm all the other Sunni govts, because we're pulling out soon. Just imagine what could go wrong - Iran gets nukes. Or, Bin Laden strikes at us again, and we go into Pakistan, they overthrow Musharref, and get nukes. Pakistan or Iraq nukes Israel, we nuke them back. You know this is a scenario that the neocons are perfectly comfortable with.I say the neocons foresaw all of this - they knew installing a Shiite govt in Iraq would de-stabilize the area. Now, for decades to come, the US will need to keep troops in the Mideast. We are currentlly spending 10% of our tax money on the military. That was Cheney's goal, and he's succeeded in it not only for now, but for decades to come.It's sickening to me that these men endanger the entire planet and everything living on it just to gorge themselves and their defense industry friends on our tax money. They are some of the most repugnant men in history. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by sam adams on August 01, 2007 at 08:28:06 PT republicans Thought you all would find this interesting, Senator Ted Stevens and half the Alaska state govt was caught taking bribes from an oil contractor. As we speak, Stevens, is working hard to stop the Ethics bill that the House just approved. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/01/senators_financial_clerk_testifies/The same thing happens with cannabis. Instead of the giant oil industry paying of the pols, it's the giant LEO industry. They are seized the drug money, and passing a cut of the cash directly to the pols. If you don't believe that, then say hi to Santa and the Tooth Fairy for me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by DjLoTi on August 01, 2007 at 08:13:03 PT Sorry, I'm a bit offended You guys are saying I don't care about rights for women (this was quite offensive, and I told you I was pro-choice) and you guys are attacking me because I support Ron Paul because of his position on abortion. This is a *medical marijuana* website. Also promotes recreational use. If you guys really can't stand Ron Paul because of his pro-life position, then I'd ask if you'd please just ignore me or something, I don't know!This is a medical marijuana site! Should I talk about Obama and his urge to go into Iran or Darfur? Do you guys really think we can handle another MASSIVE, long, never ending war? Not to mention Obama supports maintaining 'stability' in Iraq (or... being there for 100+ years), he only has experience as a ONE TERM senator!Hillary? She voted for the war! She's had no other job then a politician. She voted for the patriot act. See how losing sight of perspective can harm our cause? (of course I mean... MM and RM cause)Thanks. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 08:02:25 PT dongenero That's ok. I know that this could be the beginning of the end. I want to believe that we will be able to be a nation that doesn't push war but it could be too late. Christian Fundamentalists are happy because they want Armageddon to happen because they believe they will be raptured off the earth. Religion causes wars. Common sense and reason aren't part of a religious war. This is about Israel really. Islam versus Jews and the Dome of The Rock and who has the rights to it since they both believe God gave it to them. From the very first after 9/11 I said this was about the Dome of the Rock and Israel. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by dongenero on August 01, 2007 at 07:51:33 PT FoM Sorry for the gloom.Bush allied with Pakistan to try and get help against Al Qaeda.Unfortunately, with our ham fisted foreign policy, it's essentially the "kiss of death" for any foreign head of state to be allied with Bush and by association, our country.Thanks George, Thanks......DICK.You're doing a "heck of a job!" [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 07:41:25 PT For Those Who Are Interested in Needle Exchange http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/A_needle_exchange.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 07:25:19 PT Had Enough That is how politicans are unfortunately. There isn't one that is honest. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 07:23:51 PT dongenero I always wondered why Bush made Pakistan a friend when they treat their woman so badly and have nuclear weapons. I knew that he would harbor his people and just give lip service to Bush. Maybe WWIII won't be able to be stopped. That is depressing. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Had Enough on August 01, 2007 at 07:22:02 PT Lots of People Talking… but few of them know….“All the Democrats are Pro-Choice and want some form of Universal Health Care and that is a good thing I believe.”Yes that is what they are saying all right. Heard it before, will hear it again. The problem: all talk no action.But most of them are saying this just because they know voters want to hear it, so they say it to gather votes. How many will follow through once in office???Universal Heath Care – As long as Insurance Companies and Big Pharm control our politicians, I don’t think it will happen, regardless who is in office. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by dongenero on August 01, 2007 at 07:17:26 PT off topic but, re: Pakistan. Heck, I think it's very possible we will end up in Pakistan before long. India has a stake in it, sharing a border and status as a nuclear power. Maybe would go in with India. With the increased Middle East instability and support for radicalism we have generated with our policies, Musharraf's hold on power is pretty much slipping away. Fundamental Islamists promoting Sharia or Islamic law are gaining momentum.The kicker; Pakistan is a nuclear power. The prospect of a nuclear power going fundamental Islam is not a good thing. I hope somebody in our greedy, money grubbing, inept and incompetent government has a plan for getting that nuclear material out of there. Plan? Our Government?....Oh no. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 07:00:16 PT Had Enough The way I look at it is how many issues does a person believe in that I believe in. I don't want a man making a woman a criminal again and I want Universal Health Care. I don't like politicians but will vote according to my conscience. I like Obama because he is so pleasant to listen to but he is a politician and that always checks me.All the Democrats are Pro-Choice and want some form of Universal Health Care and that is a good thing I believe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Had Enough on August 01, 2007 at 06:40:33 PT Politicians George DoobieYa Bush lied when he was asked about med pot and he said it should be up to the States to decide. Within hours after Ashcroft was sworn in the raids in California started.Bill Clinton didn’t inhale.And now Hillary said she would stop the raids. Well Bill and Hillary had their chance, and look what they did with it. While they were in charge pot arrests skyrocketed. I don’t believe her. It’s just lip service to gather votes.I would like to believe Obama, but I have my doubts.George DoobieYa Bush, Clinton, and Obama have all smoked pot, and maybe still do, and I could care less if they do or don’t, but they promote locking other people up for it and destroying their lives. This I care about. I can spell hypocrisy.These candidates are nothing more than representatives of the status quo, and paid for by big corp. And when they take office it will be business as usual. Politicians forget their job description about 30 seconds after the votes are counted.We need to keep on replacing politicians one after another, vote after vote, until they get the message. The career politicians have got the world turned upside down, just the way they like it. This is where we need change.When I step in to the voting booth, I will definitely be voting for change. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 06:02:52 PT Had Enough I hope he doesn't think that troops in Pakistan would work. They would need to activate the draft to get people on board with more war. Maybe he will explain what he means on this issue. Sometimes the spin makes it seem worse then it is. I hope that's the case. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Had Enough on August 01, 2007 at 05:53:58 PT Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan Obama Might Send Troops Into PakistanWASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive. The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid. "Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.the rest of the story…http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070801/D8QO7UK80.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on August 01, 2007 at 05:39:25 PT MMJ MINISTRY I like Obama because he is inspiring. I've never seen anyone fire up so many people but he hasn't been clear on how he will deal with medical marijuana. It isn't over until he gives a clearer answer for me. I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination but I say that with no emotion just fact. I know Obama will get a good position when the Dems win and maybe he will be ready in 2016. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by MMJ MINISTRY on August 01, 2007 at 00:39:26 PT freedom for all I like Obama but he lost my support a few weeks ago as his campaign started to fizzle out and it became apparent he was not ready for the job. He’s a great speaker with a good message but he’s a bit green imo. Hillary finally won my support with her definitive and straight forward answer to the question about stopping the dea raids as well as her performance in the youtube debate. While meeting with members of the audience at a July 13 campaign rally held at Victory Park in Manchester, a GSMM volunteer told Sen. Clinton, "Twelve states allow medical marijuana but the Bush administration continues to raids patients," to which she responded, "Yes, I know, it's terrible." When the volunteer asked, "Would you stop the federal raids?" Sen. Clinton responded, "Yes, I will."Her answers in the last debate about nuclear power and how she would handle meeting with foreign leaders really let me know she was ready to be president and others were not.Let’s face it, ron paul is the smartest most constitutionally consistent person running but he has no chance to win the presidentcy or even the vp. I’ve seen some misinformation around here on Ron pauls policy’s regarding abortion and health care so let me see if I can help clear things up a bit.Ron Paul is against the federal government funding abortions and would leave it up to the states to decide, so even if roe vs. wade was overturned you could still go to a state that has abortions. You just would not have a federal right to an abortion in the states where the people vote not to have abortions. ron pauls health care plan is a free market universal healthcare system run buy the states and the people rather than the federal government. Medicare and Medicaid are serious flawed, unfair, overpriced programs not to mention unconstitutional. They should be replaced with state run systems for less bureaucracy and more personalized treatment. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by whig on August 01, 2007 at 00:34:32 PT DjLoTi Just because you aren't a woman doesn't mean women's rights aren't important. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by DjLoTi on August 01, 2007 at 00:28:58 PT jmoran Awww.. what do you mean? Can you be more specific? Are you referring to pro-life? He believes the federal government should get out of it. He thinks it should be up to the states. OK, it may not be perfect, but I'd say it's a decent compromise!I'm pro-choice, personally.. I mean, I don't know what to say. I will never become pregnant, so I will never be in that situation. But of course, when I say 'us', I say that as in those on our side on the war on drugs. This is, after all, a marijuana news website. Not an abortion one. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by jmoran on July 31, 2007 at 23:56:12 PT Djloti Except for women rights. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by DjLoTi on July 31, 2007 at 23:33:01 PT Ron Paul is a republician that fights for us!!! Just to let you guys know, my website, www.RonPaulradio.com, is now UP!Check it out! Let me know what you guys think! And tune in August 5th to hear me LIVE at the debates! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by goblet on July 31, 2007 at 22:46:19 PT: can't use system to fix it when system is problem "Because the two other branches of the federal government have failed to protect medical marijuana patients, their most plausible hope lies in electing a president who is less intent on snatching their medicine."short of: "Dear Governor - Please engage our state militia to enforce and protect the laws that the people have voted into place. "-or- exercising "our right, our duty, to throw off such Government" that is "evincing absolute despotism via its' long train of abuses and usurpations"I think that the lessons learned last week that congress is nothing more than (insert favorite derogatory term here), I think the only way we'll make progress is jury nullification or large-scale civil disobedience. Jury Nullification - Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself is wrong (including whether it is "unconstitutional") - vote your conscience, not unjust laws. Steal this sig. http://www.fija.org/" [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by fight_4_freedom on July 31, 2007 at 22:32:23 PT: another raid today Oakdale, California - Another medical marijuana raid today Body: Today another unlawful act by our local law enforcement in Oakdale. A young man of our movement, Addison was helping the patients of his community with SAFE ACCESS; to qualified patients under state LAW. His home, and place of business were terrorized and ambushed. The locals had no reason to do what they did. We need to unite and help him and his family get through this hard time. Please respond to us to help unite a group for his August court date up north.Thank you and PLEASE repost this. Shawn T HHCC keep your head HIGHhttp://www.myspace.com/hhccoalitionReceived this bulletin from myspace today [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 31, 2007 at 21:56:25 PT Just An Update Senator Obama was asked again since the first time and this was the answer. This is not a complete answer to the question but at least he doesn't think it is logical.***On July 21, 2007 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire, a GSMM staffer asked Sen. Obama if he would end the raids. Sen. Obama replied: "The Justice Department going after sick individuals using this as a palliative instead of going after serious criminals makes no sense."http://granitestaters.com/candidates/barack_obama.html [ Post Comment ] Post Comment