Can we get Republicans to support Cannabis Re-Legalization?

[Ernst]

Going to launch a Poll. Come on you remember how to be all "Vote" oriented.

-----------------------------------

Can we get Republicans to support Cannabis Re-Legalization?


We have seen strong political tides flowing. Electrifying our Democratic(tm) Nation. So, what happens if we demand more right now? Is not the Republican party wanting to win a hand in this poker game in 2016?

So, my Republican (generic classification in today's Republican party geography) friends and "frienemies" of politics forum, I offer up an interesting "Swing Vote" while Y'all are pondering your political navel.


-----------------------

What are the benefits to expressing the Ron Paul philosophy in a modern Republican party and endorsing Legalization.
Look at your last, Whites values hope, Romney; can you believe the whiter than white approach will work with the workers of this Nation? They Vote after all.

So Rock The Vote Republicans.. Embrace Legalization.


The Poll will be a question of how likely this is likely to happen.


Thanks.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Ernst,
You got a screw loose. Marijuana was never legalized in the first place. No one knew about it outside of the select few like Mexicans and black jazz musicians. It was only made illegal. What's this whole re-legalization bullshit?

 

[Voidling]

Ernst,You got a screw loose. Marijuana was never legalized in the first place. No one knew about it outside of the select few like Mexicans and black jazz musicians. It was only made illegal. What's this whole re-legalization bullshit?

I'm not sure whether you're being serious or not

 

[budlover13]

I'm not sure whether you're being serious or not

i think he's getting at the fact that it wasn't really regulated before prohibition. It was never legal or illegal to begin with. It just was. Hell, then again, at one point farmers were required to grow it.

 

[Saltrock]

The party of freedom, less government and personal responsibility would never let have the freedom to smoke MJ.

Peace
Salt

 

[Padawanbater2]

I don't believe the current Rep. party will ever support Cannabis, medical or otherwise. We'll see how the experiment in Colorado and Washington go, in a few years they'll check the statistics, in 5 it'll be a better picture, and in 10 it'll be definitive. But even if crime doesn't go up, use doesn't rise, minors don't have easier access, etc., Republican politicians will still avoid it like the plague because their base, conservative Christians, white, older citizens.. won't support it. They've made up their minds already on it regardless of the facts.

If the party changes, they get rid of the Bachmann's and Palin's, and replace them with more sensible people who support the right positions, maybe.. But I don't see that happening. I think they're going to ride the bus into the ground, Hannity and O'Reilly will stick with it all the way to the end, crying persecution all the way down. Maybe when the party is in shambles and the Democrats have total domination will they finally realize "fuck, maybe we should change some of our stances..", it's either change or die, either one is fine with me. But handing the country to the Democrats just because you're too proud to change is idiotic. It'll require something completely foreign to the Republican party, introspection. As it is, they believe a Republican can't do anything wrong, so everything they do is right, it's the American people that are wrong. I just read a report basically saying the American people are too stupid to know what's good for them, from a butthurt conservative columnist. Just watch anything with Michelle Malkin, that bitch is so butthurt Romney lost it's hilarious!

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Bl13,
No one was ever required to grow marijuana. Hemp, yes, but never the psychodelic version we have. Hemp will never get you high, and marijuana won't make strong rope or sails like hemp.

 

[budlover13]

Bl13,
No one was ever required to grow marijuana. Hemp, yes, but never the psychodelic version we have. Hemp will never get you high, and marijuana won't make strong rope or sails like hemp.

True. i must've fell into the governments position of hemp=cannabis lol.

 

[Dr Kynes]

i think he's getting at the fact that it wasn't really regulated before prohibition. It was never legal or illegal to begin with. It just was. Hell, then again, at one point farmers were required to grow it.

actually at several points. whenever a war was going down, a certain portion of any arable land run by a farmer with more than X acres (so smallholders wouldnt get fucked too hard) had to be planted with hemp for the war effort.

but in the 1940's hemp was illegal... ohh my!! what we gonna do now?!?!

dupont's wonder fibers made shit cordage and couldnt keep up with wartime demand so they brought back the hemp mandate despite their repeated claims that hemp had no legitimate uses at all, just a few years before.

The hypocrisy! It burns!

then once they didnt need large volumes of domestically produced hemp any more... back on the "evil drugs" list with thee!

and for the edification of Ernst and all you other dingbats who love to blame all ills on the other guys, ainslinger was the drug czar under

Herbert Hoover, R
Franklin D Roosevelt, D
Harry S Truman, D
Dwight D Eisenhower, R
and John F Kennedy, D

ZOMG!! Bi-Partisan Dickery? Amazing!

both parties share equally in the benefits of cannabis prohibition, and both parties share equally in the efforts to ensure it's continuation. therefore both parties must share in the BLAME for the lies told on BOTH sides of the political aisle.

the system is the problem, the parties are just voluntary associations of the assholes who fuck us over every day and in every way, for the purpose of increasing their own power.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Voidling, I'm very serious. Marijuana was never made legal, so you can't make it re-legal. Psychodelic cannabis sativa was just as much made legal as a milk-weed. Does milk-weed have a legal status about its can or cannot uses?

 

[Padawanbater2]

All drugs should be legal. If politicians actually supported less government, this would be a cornerstone to their platform.

Assholes.

 

[Harrekin]

All drugs should be legal. If politicians actually supported less government, this would be a cornerstone to their platform.

Assholes.

Between 90 and 95% of ALL drug related problems are related to their prohibition.

The politicians don't give a single half-shit about common sense tho, I wanna just grab one, slap them up about the face (like they're a bitch) a bit and then ask them "Seriously, are you as fucking stupid at home as you are in Government? I think child protection should take your kids off your dumb ass".

Is Sarah Palin (for example) really the dumb bitch at home that we see on tv?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Padawan,
Today hell froze. I actually agree with one thing you said. All drugs should be legal. Although I probably agree for different reasons.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Bl13,
No one was ever required to grow marijuana. Hemp, yes, but never the psychodelic version we have. Hemp will never get you high, and marijuana won't make strong rope or sails like hemp.

dont believe the hype bunny.

HEMP the plant, comes in pretty much 2 flavours, and always has, indian hemp and european hemp.

indian hemp was smoked since time immemorial by the chinese (who also made clothing sacks rope etc out of it) and while it's useable fiber content is lower, the fiber is not less useful, or in any way different from the fibers of the western variety of the plant.

european hemp is taller and rangier, produces more fiber than indian hemp, and grows quicker in a variety of environments, and contains less THC than indian hemp, but still contains enough that it was smoked by many africans, and some eastern and northern european groups despite the lack of popularity in southern and western europe.

when made available, the Indian Hemp was grown everywhere, despite the lower fiber volume, and slower growing characteristics. Indian Hemp is what George Washinton and Thomas Jefferson grew, and they were well aware of its useful properties.

many people assume since there were no 16th century editions of High Times, and The Fabulous Freak Brothers that smoking cannabis started as ainslinger claimed, with an "Insidious New Drug" brought up from mexico by sinister mexicans for the purpose of enslaving white women to their vile spanish influenced lusts!

any herbal (botanical catalog) from the age of enlightenment will make clear that smoking cannabis was a well accepted treatment for many ailments, and some even provided instruction on making hash butter and "Special" cookies and cakes.

This drawing which should be familiar to us all, is from a russian herbal printed in 1886.



welcome to the wonderful world of revised history and outright lies. they have repeated these lies so often that even we, the potheads sometimes find ourselves believing it.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2001/09/shakespeares-tenth-muse.html
http://www.livescience.com/14797-shakespeare-bones-smoked-pot.html

ohh my... ainslinger should have banned archaeology too.


the "new" industrial hemps are selectively bred for low cannabinoid levels, much as we selectively breed for HIGHER cannabinoid levels. that blade cuts both ways bunny. i like our varieties better, but BOTH types make good rope. in fact, both types make the SAME rope.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Doc,
I don't see how my Afghan Kush could be used for anything but an herb. The damn thing is mostly flower only after 3 weeks. I love the smell and growing it to give better flavor to my pine flavor sativa.I wish the smell could be bred into a sativa high

 

[Saltrock]

I don't believe the current Rep. party will ever support Cannabis, medical or otherwise. We'll see how the experiment in Colorado and Washington go, in a few years they'll check the statistics, in 5 it'll be a better picture, and in 10 it'll be definitive. But even if crime doesn't go up, use doesn't rise, minors don't have easier access, etc., Republican politicians will still avoid it like the plague because their base, conservative Christians, white, older citizens.. won't support it. They've made up their minds already on it regardless of the facts.

If the party changes, they get rid of the Bachmann's and Palin's, and replace them with more sensible people who support the right positions, maybe.. But I don't see that happening. I think they're going to ride the bus into the ground, Hannity and O'Reilly will stick with it all the way to the end, crying persecution all the way down. Maybe when the party is in shambles and the Democrats have total domination will they finally realize "fuck, maybe we should change some of our stances..", it's either change or die, either one is fine with me. But handing the country to the Democrats just because you're too proud to change is idiotic. It'll require something completely foreign to the Republican party, introspection. As it is, they believe a Republican can't do anything wrong, so everything they do is right, it's the American people that are wrong. I just read a report basically saying the American people are too stupid to know what's good for them, from a butthurt conservative columnist. Just watch anything with Michelle Malkin, that bitch is so butthurt Romney lost it's hilarious!

Romney is butt hurt, the GOP is back to hating moderate mitt, and they

Maybe when the party is in shambles and the Democrats have total domination will they finally realize "fuck, maybe we should change some of our stances..", it's either change or die, either one is fine with me.

We wouldn't need them if they changed there stance. We already have one democratic party. We don't need two with the same exact views.

As it is, they believe a Republican can't do anything wrong, so everything they do is right, it's the American people that are wrong.

I agree 100%. They blame everyone but themselves . Now and only now are they starting to realize they need to change, but the change isn't genuine. It's hard to preach a policy for so long and then all of a sudden have a change in belief.

It's like if the democrats had a restaurant where everyone was welcome to eat without judgement and has been there policy for a long time. And the republicans had a restaurant where only select few are excepted into the restaurant. Now all of a sudden the republican's restaurant is losing revenue, and they have to begrudgingly except other people. You think people are going to forget what your policies used to be. Your policies may have changed, but your feelings prior to the change haven't.

Peace
Salt

 

[Harrekin]

Romney is butt hurt, the GOP is back to hating moderate mitt, and they



We wouldn't need them if they changed there stance. We already have one democratic party. We don't need two with the same exact views.



I agree 100%. They blame everyone but themselves . Now and only now are they starting to realize they need to change, but the change isn't genuine. It's hard to preach a policy for so long and then all of a sudden have a change in belief.

It's like if the democrats had a restaurant where everyone was welcome to eat without judgement and has been there policy for a long time. And the republicans had a restaurant where only select few are excepted into the restaurant. Now all of a sudden the republican's restaurant is losing revenue, and they have to begrudgingly except other people. You think people are going to forget what your policies used to be. Your policies may have changed, but your feelings prior to the change haven't.

Peace
Salt

Is that why there's gay Catholics then?

 

[Padawanbater2]

I think they could always run on change, as every, what is it, 6 years? A politician in the house or Senate is replaced if they did a bad job (or if they did a bad job and their constituents are idiots, like Bachmann's..).

I can see it now.. "The TRUE Republican party!", base it on some 19th century, Lincoln-esque beliefs... even if they didn't believe it, their constituents would eat it right the fuck up and bitch at anyone who didn't oppose slavery in the 21st century.. The constituents are idiots, the politicians are clever, they know what to support, what to oppose, even if they don't agree with it. It's a game they play, I don't believe half the Republican politicians actually believe the world was created in 6,000 years, they just have to say it and portray they do in order to take the vote, because, as I said, their constituents are idiots. All they care about is GOD! GOD this, GOD that.. GOD hates faggots! GOD hates dem ARABS!... welcome to the deep south, where obesity is a disease and homosexuality is a choice... Fuckin' tards.

 

[Harrekin]

I think they could always run on change, as every, what is it, 6 years? A politician in the house or Senate is replaced if they did a bad job (or if they did a bad job and their constituents are idiots, like Bachmann's..).

I can see it now.. "The TRUE Republican party!", base it on some 19th century, Lincoln-esque beliefs... even if they didn't believe it, their constituents would eat it right the fuck up and bitch at anyone who didn't oppose slavery in the 21st century.. The constituents are idiots, the politicians are clever, they know what to support, what not to support, even if they don't agree with it. It's a game they play, I don't believe half the Republican politicians actually believe the world was created in 6,000 years, they just have to say it and portray they do in order to take the vote, because, as I said, their constituents are idiots. All they care about is GOD! GOD this, GOD that.. GOD hates faggots! GOD hates dem ARABS!... welcome to the deep south, where obesity is a disease and homosexuality is a choice... Fuckin' tards.

Ron Paul lost...?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Ronny lost big time..