Could a poltician win soley based on legalizing marijuana?

T

tical916

Well-Known Member
Anyone think a politician could win running on legalizing marijuana and refusing to take any lobbyist money?

I think the time is right. The more people I speak with, even if they don't smoke realize that marijuana should not be illegal and hemp should be used to it's full advantage.

What do you guys think on both sides of the aisle?

I think they'd get pretty far. Side against the govt/DEA and be for the people.
 
GrowingfortheGold

GrowingfortheGold

New Member
No politician can win without inside interests pushing there cash and influence around, they control the media and the money, if they don't approve you're out of the race. Legalization isn't part of the agenda they are pushing.

I also think it wouldn't pass with the popular vote either. It would prolly land a bit minority like 40%'s imo.
 
T

tical916

Well-Known Member
GrowingfortheGold said:
No politician can win without inside interests pushing there cash and influence around, they control the media and the money, if they don't approve you're out of the race. Legalization isn't part of the agenda they are pushing.

I also think it wouldn't pass with the popular vote either. It would prolly land a bit minority like 40%'s imo.
Click to expand...
I agree it's all about how much money ou have to campaign. But I feel it is the right time for a lot of grassroots campaigning.

If someone came out. Marijuana is a drug like alcohol and tobacco. That's why we are deciding to treat it the same way. Marijuana will be free to grow and smoke within the confines of your personal space. Marijuana will still be illegal to anyone under 18. And will be prohibited while driving/working same as alchohol. It would be sold in dispensaries that pay taxes.

Then ran ads and push at how much money you will make in the sale of Marijuana and the benefits of hemp.
 
potspot

potspot

Member
Yep grass roots movements are great (pun intended :lol:) but in order to get the traction needed, one would need financial backing or have a very large coffer of their own in order to get the publicity needed. Remember elections are won via the electoral college and not necessarily the people, so you (the candidate) would need to ensure that the demographic would simply be key on that issue....here's the rub. We all want more than a pot head in office, the problem is though that all these politicians are corrupt in one manner or another. Forgive my pesamistic views...oh and spelling.

tical916 said:
I agree it's all about how much money ou have to campaign. But I feel it is the right time for a lot of grassroots campaigning.

If someone came out. Marijuana is a drug like alcohol and tobacco. That's why we are deciding to treat it the same way. Marijuana will be free to grow and smoke within the confines of your personal space. Marijuana will still be illegal to anyone under 18. And will be prohibited while driving/working same as alchohol. It would be sold in dispensaries that pay taxes.

Then ran ads and push at how much money you will make in the sale of Marijuana and the benefits of hemp.
Click to expand...
 
GrowingfortheGold

GrowingfortheGold

New Member
tical916 said:
I agree it's all about how much money ou have to campaign. But I feel it is the right time for a lot of grassroots campaigning.

If someone came out. Marijuana is a drug like alcohol and tobacco. That's why we are deciding to treat it the same way. Marijuana will be free to grow and smoke within the confines of your personal space. Marijuana will still be illegal to anyone under 18. And will be prohibited while driving/working same as alchohol. It would be sold in dispensaries that pay taxes.

Then ran ads and push at how much money you will make in the sale of Marijuana and the benefits of hemp.
Click to expand...
I dunno man. I don't really think the US has a democracy. The way I see it is it's more of a front to keep the general populace satisfied and under control. I think to get it legal across the board like that it would take more than just grassroot campaigning. The only way real change can happen is if the majority of the general public comes together and pushes heavy for it. Like so much so that they are pissed it's not legal. Rioting gets things changed quick. However I don't see this happening so I say it's gonna be quite some years before it gets close - even in Cali. :neutral:
 
nowAdayz

nowAdayz

Member
HELL NO these guys would have a better chance winning on a "combining church and state" champain and getting the relious zellets that are out there to vote for them. Now pot heads every where will no doubtly will forget to vote and/or who to vote for.
Not saying mj laws don't need to be addressed BUT Bible thumpers are orgonized, Tobaco is organized, Auto industry.. very organized!!!!
The reason is legality can you and the local pot head go to a pro "MJ" rally/convention. No I say, arrest will be made and pot will be seized. People will not stick their necks out just to have it conviently chopped off.
May be 10-15yrs down, winning something on a soley MJ platform is possible. But then again do you want the man, with his finger on a button, to suddenly look down at the "foot ball" and say, with a questionable look on his face....
"This channel SUCKS, change it"......
:fire:



peace out
 
GrowingfortheGold

GrowingfortheGold

New Member
potspot said:
Yep grass roots movements are great (pun intended :lol:) but in order to get the traction needed, one would need financial backing or have a very large coffer of their own in order to get the publicity needed. Remember elections are won via the electoral college and not necessarily the people, so you (the candidate) would need to ensure that the demographic would simply be key on that issue....here's the rub. We all want more than a pot head in office, the problem is though that all these politicians are corrupt in one manner or another. Forgive my pesamistic views...oh and spelling.
Click to expand...
Also a good point.
 
undertheice

undertheice

Well-Known Member
though it is representative of the larger issue of government usurping the rights of the individual, legalization itself is a small matter and hardly worthy of being the focal point of any campaign. addressing that larger issue and campaigning on the platform of reducing the size and scope of government may have some promise, but any candidate that tried would likely be crucified by special interests and the denizens of the bureaucracy itself. our politicians today are elected on the promises of what government will do for the people, the false premise that it is government's duty to take a proactive role in the lives of its citizens. we have gotten used to that concept as well as the idea that government should act as a safety net for when personal responsibility fails or is absent. the obvious downside to such a proactive government is that it requires a massive governmental presences and that denies the people control over their representatives. without popular control of government we end up with such absurdities as this insane prohibition.

so it seems rather obvious. get rid of prohibition by getting rid of its cause - government run amok. now all we have to do is convince the children that they no longer need a baby-sitter to wipe their noses.
 
GrowingfortheGold

GrowingfortheGold

New Member
undertheice said:
though it is representative of the larger issue of government usurping the rights of the individual, legalization itself is a small matter and hardly worthy of being the focal point of any campaign. addressing that larger issue and campaigning on the platform of reducing the size and scope of government may have some promise, but any candidate that tried would likely be crucified by special interests and the denizens of the bureaucracy itself. our politicians today are elected on the promises of what government will do for the people, the false premise that it is government's duty to take a proactive role in the lives of its citizens. we have gotten used to that concept as well as the idea that government should act as a safety net for when personal responsibility fails or is absent. the obvious downside to such a proactive government is that it requires a massive governmental presences and that denies the people control over their representatives. without popular control of government we end up with such absurdities as this insane prohibition.

so it seems rather obvious. get rid of prohibition by getting rid of its cause - government run amok. now all we have to do is convince the children that they no longer need a baby-sitter to wipe their noses.
Click to expand...
Wow you phrased that well. I wholeheartedly agree.
 
undertheice

undertheice

Well-Known Member
GrowingfortheGold said:
I wholeheartedly agree.
Click to expand...
but do you realize all that this entails? the necessary drastic reduction of government would mean the dismantling of the welfare state, the elimination of all those entitlements that the "victims" of society demand and the realization that it is the people themselves that are responsible for their own well being. considering the current mood of the people, it hardly seems possible. as i originally stated, we have gotten used to the idea that government is there to take care of us. the state is responsible for educating our children, propping us up when we fall throughout life and taking care of us in our old age. it seems we are determined to refuse to do for ourselves and that is what is required. we excuse our childishness by insisting that we are the state, but we all know this is nothing but an illusion.
 
nowAdayz

nowAdayz

Member
undertheice said:
but do you realize all that this entails? the necessary drastic reduction of government would mean the dismantling of the welfare state, the elimination of all those entitlements that the "victims" of society demand and the realization that it is the people themselves that are responsible for their own well being. considering the current mood of the people, it hardly seems possible. as i originally stated, we have gotten used to the idea that government is there to take care of us. the state is responsible for educating our children, propping us up when we fall throughout life and taking care of us in our old age. it seems we are determined to refuse to do for ourselves and that is what is required. we excuse our childishness by insisting that we are the state, but we all know this is nothing but an illusion.
Click to expand...
WOW is all I can say ,stole the thoughts out of my head, and organized them way better too
cheerskiss-ass
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
undertheice said:
though it is representative of the larger issue of government usurping the rights of the individual, legalization itself is a small matter and hardly worthy of being the focal point of any campaign. addressing that larger issue and campaigning on the platform of reducing the size and scope of government may have some promise, but any candidate that tried would likely be crucified by special interests and the denizens of the bureaucracy itself. our politicians today are elected on the promises of what government will do for the people, the false premise that it is government's duty to take a proactive role in the lives of its citizens. we have gotten used to that concept as well as the idea that government should act as a safety net for when personal responsibility fails or is absent. the obvious downside to such a proactive government is that it requires a massive governmental presences and that denies the people control over their representatives. without popular control of government we end up with such absurdities as this insane prohibition.

so it seems rather obvious. get rid of prohibition by getting rid of its cause - government run amok. now all we have to do is convince the children that they no longer need a baby-sitter to wipe their noses.
Click to expand...

You mean there really isn't a Santa Claus? Damn!
 
GrowingfortheGold

GrowingfortheGold

New Member
undertheice said:
but do you realize all that this entails? the necessary drastic reduction of government would mean the dismantling of the welfare state, the elimination of all those entitlements that the "victims" of society demand and the realization that it is the people themselves that are responsible for their own well being. considering the current mood of the people, it hardly seems possible. as i originally stated, we have gotten used to the idea that government is there to take care of us. the state is responsible for educating our children, propping us up when we fall throughout life and taking care of us in our old age. it seems we are determined to refuse to do for ourselves and that is what is required. we excuse our childishness by insisting that we are the state, but we all know this is nothing but an illusion.
Click to expand...
Well of course that isn't gonna happen. Too bad. It is a drastic change but ponder an even more sever change. I always like thinking about the world without money. A society that isn't based on a monetary system. A switch to a resource based system would truly make me rejoice. Alas it is a pipe dream. It cannot be even considered with the current world social climate ( power division and agendas).

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
GrowingfortheGold said:
Well of course that isn't gonna happen. Too bad. It is a drastic change but ponder an even more sever change. I always like thinking about the world without money. A society that isn't based on a monetary system. A switch to a resource based system would truly make me rejoice. Alas it is a pipe dream. It cannot be even considered with the current world social climate ( power division and agendas).

http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy
Click to expand...
Why not a world that had both a barter system and competing currencies for those that wanted them? In other words ....true economic freedom.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
No candidate could win on a single issue because he could never cobble together enough single issue voters from all the other issues they vote singularly on. Think about that. Even I consider marijuana to be not even in the top 10 or 20 most important issues.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Illegal Smile said:
No candidate could win on a single issue because he could never cobble together enough single issue voters from all the other issues they vote singularly on. Think about that. Even I consider marijuana to be not even in the top 10 or 20 most important issues.
Click to expand...
Freedom isn't a priority?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Illegal Smile said:
freedom hardly rises or falls over marijuana laws
Click to expand...
...Except for those 850,000 or so that get arrested every year for pot.

I won't even mention the $ billions
extorted annually to pay for the insanity.

When we permit a government to control people's bodies that harm nobody, all "freedom" is in jeopardy.
 
T

tical916

Well-Known Member
I was talking more long the ranges of lower seats. Gov, Mayor, even possible trying to grab some congress seats.

Running on the basis you do not accept any corporate donations for your campaign. Run on the belief of looking the other way in regards to marijuana. Start using hemp industrial. Imagine how many jobs that would create in your home town. Not to the mention the money you bring in immediately off of taxes.

I'd like him/her to openly allow gay marriage, pro choice, public choice healthcare reform and an immediate change to campaign financing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top