Tom Tancredo Endorses Marijauna Ballot Issue

PrintSmith wrote: Pandering to the right? How do you figure that? It's the right that wants it to pass so we can have a showdown with the federal government over States' rights, maybe even begin a reversal of the usurpation of power that has gone on for the last 100 years.

Boulder is considering banning smoking on the Pearl Street Mall. Know why? They don't want to have to deal with folks hanging out smoking pot on the mall after the measure passes. You want to try and pass that off as pandering to the right as well?

So all the times you scoffed at the thought of marijuana as 'medicine' and insisted criminalization was the smart way for society to handle the issue, what was that? Now you see an opportunity to force a showdown with the Feds to further your states-rights Bircher confederate thing, and you're all for it? Wow, your values seem pretty pliable.

Then you go on to argue against government contol of your daily life...hahaha...first, you supported prohibition, and criminalization...a pretty direct form of governmental control of one's daily life. Now you support legalization and taxation, another direct form of governmental control. So what you're saying is, you don't really believe in prohibition OR legalization...just governmental control of others' daily lives, as long as nobody tries to control your daily life.

I do support the ballot issue, and I'm glad Tancredo's supporting it, even if I am suspicious of his motives, as I believe they are similar to PrintSmith's...just recognizing an opportunity to ride the coat tails of people who do believe in individual freedom and liberty, and are willing to organize and work for it, in order to further their own unrelated agendas.

So, the right ISN'T against gay marriage?!?

Just say NO to governmental control of your daily life, unless it's to something you don't like.

Soulshiner wrote: So, the right ISN'T against gay marriage?!?

Just say NO to governmental control of your daily life, unless it's to something you don't like.

Actually only some of the right is against gay marriage. If you looked at actually voting patterns in the California ballot measure, Republicans were more likely to support gay marriage than traditional minority Dem voters.

Obama ran on a anti-gay marriage platform in his first term. Clinton signed DOMA.
(How soon they forget.)

There are rabid anti-homosexual people in the Republican Party, but there are more in the Dem party than you think.

plaidvillain wrote: So all the times you scoffed at the thought of marijuana as 'medicine' and insisted criminalization was the smart way for society to handle the issue, what was that? Now you see an opportunity to force a showdown with the Feds to further your states-rights Bircher confederate thing, and you're all for it? Wow, your values seem pretty pliable.

I scoffed at the medical marijuana law PV, not whether or not marijuana had any medicinal value - big difference. I still maintain that the majority of those with an MMJ card suffer no debilitating, chronic condition other than the current laws prevent them from using marijuana for recreational purposes.

plaidvillain wrote: Then you go on to argue against government contol of your daily life...hahaha...first, you supported prohibition, and criminalization...a pretty direct form of governmental control of one's daily life. Now you support legalization and taxation, another direct form of governmental control. So what you're saying is, you don't really believe in prohibition OR legalization...just governmental control of others' daily lives, as long as nobody tries to control your daily life.

What I supported was enforcement of the law PV. What I don't support, and never have, is the ability of the federal government to decide what the law governing the citizens of Colorado is going to be with regards to marijuana, or any other drug for that matter. If the citizens of this State want to make marijuana or OxyCodone an over the counter medication it is our business, not the federal government's. The limit of the federal government is to classify what the drug is and to regulate, or keep regular, the laws regarding its manufacture, importation, exportation and transportation as it travels between the States. If the federal government decides to levy a tax on any of these actions, it had been delegated the power to do so. It hasn't, however, been delegated the power to govern the use or legality of any drug for the entire Union or within the boundaries of any of the free, independent and sovereign States that belong to that Union. Those are State issues that the citizens of each State get to decide for themselves. If the citizens of Kansas want to make it a felony crime to possess and use marijuana even for medicinal purposes that is none of my business. I am not a citizen of that State and its government is foreign to mine.

plaidvillain wrote: I do support the ballot issue, and I'm glad Tancredo's supporting it, even if I am suspicious of his motives, as I believe they are similar to PrintSmith's...just recognizing an opportunity to ride the coat tails of people who do believe in individual freedom and liberty, and are willing to organize and work for it, in order to further their own unrelated agendas.

The biggest roadblock to individual freedom and liberty is a central government with the plenary power to do what it wishes, when it wishes, to whomever it wishes. Such governments don't govern citizens, they control and rule them.

Soulshiner wrote: So, the right ISN'T against gay marriage?!?

Correct. The right is against the government deciding what the definition of marriage is and being told that they must accept the definition that special interest groups and the government issue. That is why citizens of every stripe in every State have voted down every gay marriage proposal every time that question is put to them to decide. I am unaware of the citizenry ever voting down a civil union bill. That in itself ought to tell you what the true issue is SS. I would vote against a gay marriage law and for a civil union one. I would prefer a law which ceased any reference to "marriage" in the civil laws at all since the civil law is solely for legal purposes and has absolutely nothing to do with the emotional and spiritual bond that exist in any relationship between two or more individuals.

I can be an ally or a foe - it all depends on what the intention is. If you want the government out of defining what a marriage is, I'm going to be an ally. If you want the government to define what marriage is, I'm going to be a foe. So yes, SS, I am against "gay marriage", but not for the reasons you want to insinuate.

Laughable, the right is heavily against gay marriage. It's in the Republican platform. http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat ... ing/#Item1

Trying to view it through your "states rights" colored glasses doesn't change that.

Soulshiner wrote: Laughable, the right is heavily against gay marriage. It's in the Republican platform. http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat ... ing/#Item1

Trying to view it through your "states rights" colored glasses doesn't change that.

Even states where the Dem party has over 60% of voters like California and Massachussets have never passed homosexual marriage. Only judges & legislatures have legalized it.

Breaking News: Dem party passes homosexual marriage against their own voters preferences.

The adults were talking about the Republicans...

Soulshiner wrote: The adults were talking about the Republicans...

:woo hoo: Just trying to bring a little balance to the thread. And point out that so many issues aren't Left and Right and instead free versus statist.

FredHayek wrote: Even states where the Dem party has over 60% of voters like California and Massachussets have never passed homosexual marriage. Only judges & legislatures have legalized it.

Breaking news: DOMA is on-track to be declared unconstitutional. Prop-8 in California is likely to be either refused by SCOTUS, (which would render the last Appeals Court decision that it is unconstitutional stand), or found to be unconstitutional. Maryland is on-track to pass the first state law BY THE VOTERS to make it legal.

Wow, you know as much about that as you do about the non-existent "free birth control."