Republican Candidates Disagree Profoundly On Pot Laws

Other than on immigration and maybe getting into more wars, there is little real disagreement among the candidates. One fault line that arose in the last debate concerned pot laws.

Rand Paul took the expect libertarian position, basically that it is heartless to deny patients medical marijuana and that putting people in jail for pot is just wrong. Other candidates, like Bush, Christie and Fiorina, took the reflexive War On Drugs approach that has defined the party's stance for decades.

It's surprising to me this issue doesn't get more attention. The party has a big problem appealing to younger voters. Now granted, all of them are not wanting to get stoned, but support for pot legalization has to be heavily skewed by voter age. What easier way to show some relevance to younger voters than to adopt Paul's approach? Unfortunately, the establishment country club republicans have their arrogant Just Say No mindset. After all, as Paul noted, rich white guys like Jeb! don't get sent to jail for pot. And the War On Drugs has been a dismal failure, costing billions, ruining countless lives, creating our refugee problem and destabilizing governments and societies throughout Latin America. Like with the Iraqwar however, the party establishment seems determined to learn nothing from their failures and instead to pretend that they were great successes. Good luck with that.
 
I still fail to see why weed is illegal but alcohol is okay when alcohol related deaths are way higher (is there even a single death caused by weed?), not to mention the amount of crimes committed related to alcohol, and the fact that weed actually has medical benefits.

Oh yeah I forgot, weed makes white women sleep with black men...

It's only a matter of time before the rest of the states follow what a few have already done.
 
Drug problems are least where there is no prohibition. This is fact. Anybody that thinks the War On Drugs is a good thing is ill informed or some other kind of stupid. I just scratched Bush, Christie and Fiorina from my list, not they were very high up on it...
 
Drug problems are least where there is no prohibition. This is fact. Anybody that thinks the War On Drugs is a good thing is ill informed or some other kind of stupid. I just scratched Bush, Christie and Fiorina from my list, not they were very high up on it...
you can scratch Rubio also

The problem with legalization is that there has just never been enough money in it for the politicians (and most money is being made on the illegal side.)
 
Legalization is the way to go. Drugs were only criminalized early in the century at the behest of pharma giants who saw huge profits if natures competition were stamped out. The puritanical right and left positioned it as a moral issue, and grew the national security state enormously. It's been a total horrendous failure that has destroyed so many lives. Something like half of all felons are non violent drug offenders. Drug use is really just an attempt to self-medicate. Anyway, like tripleA said, too much money in it. Rand Paul is right, and led the GOP race before Trump entered. It's a great wedge issue. A GOP candidate decriminilizing drugs and pardoning nonviolent offenders. That's half the black vote, right there.
 
It's ironic that these country club republicans are all for being energy independent. Free us from OPEC and stop sending money to terrorists,e tc. They can't seem to grasp that we could achieve weed independence much more easily, and we would reap the same benefits. Keep our money at home and starve the evil drug cartels of money.

The District of Columbia passed a law allowing recreational pot, but congress blocked it. Somehow the local government decided that the part allowing sale and use had been blocked, but the part of the law allowing home cultivation had not been. So now it is the official policy of the DC government that you are allowed to have six weed plants for every adult living at an address, but only three plants per adult can be mature. According to a long article in the Washington Post last week, what has happened is that people now have literally more weed on hand than they know what to do with. Six plants, cultivated properly, will produce a LOT of weed. Pounds of weed.
 
I'm against the legalization of weed. Alcohol is different because there is a safe level to drink, and that safe level is legal. It's illegal to drive drunk and to be publicly intoxicated, as I think it should be.
I'm not an expert in weed because I don't do it, but it's my understanding that there is no safe level of weed where you're mind isn't altered when you are high. If you are high, then you are high. And I don't think we want people driving down the road at sixty mph high on weed. I know I don't want the guy coming towards me to have his mind altered.

And that's why I think it's good public policy for weed to be illegal and alcohol to have limits.

Don't bother telling me how stupid i am because studies show this or that. If the mind is altered, that is no condition to drive in my book. Sorry.
 
Back
Top