Pigs seen taking flight

November 14, 2012
By

As PoliPundit supports bipartisanship on something:

There are a plethora of suggestions — of varying degrees of helpfulness — as to how the Republican party can re-brand and re-orient itself; ranging from capitulating on taxes to deciding that gay marriage isn’t a hill to die on. But there’s one easy ideological maneuver that Republicans could make that would simultaneously burnish their stance as the party of freedom and expand their base while alienating the president from his. It is a move that might also make one swing state a little easier to win in 2016. Congressional Republicans and conservative leaders could get on the weed bandwagon.

Now, the John Boehners and Mitch McConnells of the world may never win the loyalty of the Choom Gang contingent. But Republicans should rejoice with those who rejoiced when voters in Colorado and Washington passed sensible marijuana policy. Last Tuesday, both states passed ballot measures decriminalizing the recreational use of medical marijuana — and giving the GOP an early Christmas present.

[…]

The White House is surprisingly uncool when it comes to toking up: A Reuters piece that Charles C. W. Cooke noted on the Corner last week reports that the victories are largely symbolic. Ken Sabet, former assistant to Obama’s drug czar, said that state leaders “are facing an uphill battle with implementing this, in the face of . . . presidential opposition and in the face of federal enforcement opposition.” In other words, the Obama administration cares more about maintaining the concentration of federal power than preventing thousands of bored college students from getting arrested for doing exactly what the president did when he was a bored college student.

For the GOP, this is more than just an opening; it’s a magical messaging moment, which, to paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, conservatives shouldn’t let go to waste. “This is a classic example of where they can walk the walk,” says Tim Lynch of the Cato Institute. This isn’t really a drug-legalization issue; it’s a states’ rights issue and a limited-powers issue. All conservatives have to agree on is that the federal government might have better things to do with its freshly printed money than try to enforce a nigh-unenforceable law that local voters and leaders think was a bad idea in the first place.

This is a case where India – India! – leads the US when it comes to personal liberty. In India, you can buy a cannabis candy from any corner shop for one Indian rupee, which is about 2 American cents. It’s a trip, in more ways than one:

30 Responses to Pigs seen taking flight

  1. ken_phd on November 14, 2012 at 8:34 am

    Poli:

    I couldn’t agree more.

  2. archtop on November 14, 2012 at 8:53 am

    While I agree that supporting states rights is in general a winner, it won’t help the national picture in the long run. My take on future election cycles is this:

    (1) If you want to win, play to win! Take it to your opponent. If your opponent goes negative, you respond in kind. Playing “nice” has not seemed to worked in recent elections.

    (2) Get your voters to the polls. Did I mention – get your voters to the polls? Get them to the polls…drive them, bus them, cajole them, call them, plead with them, organize them…

    (3) Up until the next election – and this is key – do everything you can to make the Democrat Party UNPOPULAR! Any mention of democrat politics and issues will be greeted with scorn and derision. When we get new taxes (“on the rich”), remind people who voted for Obama who is in the White House.

    (4) Full stop on ALL MSM consumption. No CNN, no ABCNBCCBS, no NYT, no USA Today, … Make MSM reporting even more unpopular than the Democrats.

    For me, it is #2 that is the most important. It is mind boggling that only 40 or 50% of the eligible population votes. There are a large number of untapped voters, enough to overwhelm the narrow voting advantage the Dems seem to have, particularly in the swing states.

    • Nukedad on November 14, 2012 at 11:23 am

      I’m pleased to see someone in agreement with me regarding the MSM (point #4). Personally, I’ve taken it one step further – I no longer watch ANY programming on ABC,CBS, or NBC.

      I’m done supporting the networks in any way.

      Dennis

  3. Jim,MtnViewCA,USA on November 14, 2012 at 8:59 am

    I’m torn on this one. I smoked dope for years and liked it. Stopped when I got married to a non-stoner wife who didn’t want to have the children exposed to “drugs”.
    1) Marijuana is mostly medically benign, more than alcohol for example. Though it may be much
    stronger than when I was consuming back in the 70s/80s
    2) Legalizing would have positive advantages in reducing crime rate, generating more money from taxes, take money out of the pockets of bad guys, etc etc etc
    3) But, do we really need MORE recreational drugs in our society?
    On balance I’m with Poli and Ken,PhD. And, no doubt, GiantCrapWeasel. Sigh.

    • Jim,MtnViewCA,USA on November 14, 2012 at 9:01 am

      And just agreeing to leave it up to the states is philosophically and morally consistent.
      Like gay marriage, you can say “I will personally vote against it, but if the People vote in favor, I can live with it.”

      • Jim,MtnViewCA,USA on November 14, 2012 at 11:48 am

        Although, to disagree with myself, it is inconvenient to have differing state laws. You get gay-married in Nevada but then can’t get the couple-discount from a motel in Oregon.
        You have a bag of legal pot in your car in Colorado but get pulled over for a broken tail-light in Wyoming.

        • IP727 on November 14, 2012 at 1:20 pm

          They aren’t a “couple” in oregon.

    • Nukedad on November 14, 2012 at 11:31 am

      While I agree that this is a states rights issue, I can’t help but believe that it’s a very bad idea to legalize recreational drugs. We already have thousands of people killed each year in drunk driving related accidents. Can that number go anywhere but up with the legalization of other drugs?

      • bobo on November 15, 2012 at 1:11 pm

        I disagree wholeheartedly making them illegal isn’t stopping anything. We make illegal the actions which affect others one commits while sober or under the influence but there should be no laws banning people from making the choice to do anything with their own bodies (note: this doesn’t affect abortion as that affects another life IMO).

  4. Rational on November 14, 2012 at 9:02 am

    Totally agree. This is a state issue. Federal government should buzz off!

    I’ll even go further, we should also define abortion issue as a state matter.

    Conservatives should strive to return significant amount of powers from federal to states, thus, limiting the federal government in a meaningful way.

    • Anonymous un-Paulbot on November 14, 2012 at 9:29 pm

      The only way that’ll ever be possible is for the paulbots to stop playing the ‘poor victims’ like the black-voter base and stop being so easily exploited by the left every election to preserve the stats quo.

      It’s impossible to return power to the states when the paulbots keep enabling the left to preserve the status quo of moving the nation more toward a dictatorship with ZERO personal liberties.

      The nation is doomed so long as idiots keep enabling the left.

  5. Stephen on November 14, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    I think the reasons conservatives should get behind de-criminalization of recreational drugs goes beyond just states rates. I’m of the mind set that so long as an individual isn’t infringing on the rights of another, that individual ought to be left alone to do whatever he or she wants to do. Including getting high.

    Sometimes having rights means having the right to do something bad.

    • bobo on November 15, 2012 at 1:12 pm

      Bravo, you sir get it.

  6. Arizona CJ on November 14, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    I find pot-smoking by anyone OTHER than someone with a true medical need disgusting and reprehensible.

    I also find it to be none of my damn business. Just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal.

    BTW, have a great Thanksgiving and holiday season, everyone. I won’t be back online until after Christmas.

    • bobo on November 15, 2012 at 1:12 pm

      +1

      • bobo the pothead on November 15, 2012 at 1:49 pm

        yessirree Bob!

  7. The Return of the Giant Crapweasal on November 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    agree with him or not, whether you view him as a Stateman on the level of Jefferson or scorn him and his supporters for possibly denying Romney the votes needed to overtake Obama on Nov 6th, it is worth listening to Ron Paul’s final speech he delivered today on the House floor:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zqi6paX3ong .

    • Anonymous un-Paulbot on November 14, 2012 at 9:03 pm

      What you paulbots don’t seem to be able to grasp is that it is YOU who are the biggest part of the status quo.

      Your cult has unwittingly become the democrat party’s permanent “Ross Perot” voting block and the marxists eagerly exploit you paulbots every single election-cycle to preserve their status quo.

      The left exploits you paulbots more than they exploit blacks because you’re so much easier for them to manipulate and virtually none of you leave the democrat’s plantation so the ONLY results that you paulbots ever achieve are:
      (1.) To maintain the marxist status quo while they keep moving the nation closer to a dictatorship with zero personal liberties, and

      (2.) To keep playing the ‘poor victims’ so the left can keep you angry and brainwashed just like they do to exploit the black vote to preserve their status quo.

      The similarity between black-voters & paulbots is uncanny. The fact that you’re both so EASILY exploited by the left every election to preserve the status quo is pathetic.

      • The Return of the Giant Crapweasal on November 15, 2012 at 6:20 am

        So let me get this straight. According to you, to get rid of Status Quo Candidate A, whose party supposedly — according to you — exploits supporters of a platform of a return to Constitution principles, we all need to ‘fall in line’ to support Status Quo Candidate B, whose party “doesn’t” exploit said supporters (no, the B-party bosses just cheat in straw polls and change the Convention rules against at the expense of said supporters and Candidate C whom they back) and all will return be right in the USA as we return to a smaller Federal government, sound money, balanced budgets, less attacks on our personal freedoms (e.g. removal of NDAA, TSA, etc).

        Uh-huh, right.

        dude, quit grinding that ax. your crapweasal candidate, backed by the Status Quo establishment GOP, lost the election. Get over it.

        PS. It seems the real ‘cult’ is those who mindlessly back the Party of Status Quo Candidate B, whose so called party “leaders” just recently said we need to move more to the current “Political Center” (which is left of the Poltical Center of 20 years ago) and embrace Amnesty for illegals.

        • Anonymous un-Paulbot on November 16, 2012 at 4:42 am

          Your metaphors realy SUCK, paulbot. Why? because they strain reality.
          They also keep exposing you for the “poor angry victim” just like your black soulmates on the left who allow themselves to be exploited just like you paulbots do.

          The actual reality is what I stated earlier. The TRUTH HURTS, get over it!

          Your cult HAS unwittingly become the democrat party’s PERMANENT “Ross Perot” voting block and the marxists eagerly exploit you mindless paulbots every single election-cycle to preserve their status quo. That’s a FACT and everyone knows it. It’s also based fully in TRUTH so stop trying to pretend otherwise – you’re just making a fool of yourself to deny it. Truth hurts, isn’t the right you “poor little victim”?

          • Anonymous un-Paulbot on November 16, 2012 at 4:53 am

            Oh, want an accurate metaphor? Okay here’s a simple one:

            You live in a nice neighborhood with a home owner’s association ran by 3 men, but only 1 is elected to set the rules:
            The 3 men are: *Barry Olama, *Mitch Ronnie, and *Ron Small

            Barry Olama has 45% support from the neighborhood and he demands strict adherence to THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of invasive regulations, where his neighborhood storm-troopers come onto your property every day and spend hours measuring things like your lawn, the number of weeds in your flowerbed, how often you’ve swept your carpet, whether you’ve dusted your furniture, what types of decorations you’ve put up, and whether or not your buying pre-approved brands of food. You get it? They control 100% of how you live and IF you don’t adhere to their rules – THEN they WILL FINE YOU and FINE YOU and FINE YOU until you’re unable to live their anymore.

            Mitch Ronnie has 45% support from the neighborhood and he disagrees with the VAST majority of Barry Olama’s policy. Mitch wants limited control, but he does believe that a couple basic concepts, like people should keeping their yards mowed and not raise hogs in their front yard. They’re very minor rules but they’re also common-sense stuff that anyone with a brain should understand.

            Ron Small has 10% support from the neighborhood and he wants full blown anarchy. Crack-dealers, whores on the neighborhood streets where the children play, and you can let your property decay, waste away, weeds ten feet tall, piled up junk cars everywhere, raise stinking hogs, and basically turning the whole neighborhood into a stinking anarchist nightmare.

            Now, year after year it’s the EXACT same thing during election time:

            45% vote for Barry’s rules of dictatorship with ZERO personal freedoms
            45% vote for Mitch’s plan to RESTORE personal freedoms + common sense stuff
            But ALL 10% of Ron Small’s cult-members votes for Barry because they are angry that Mitch has one or two guidelines that will keep the neighborhood safe for children. If Ron Small’s cult cannot have full blown anarchy, then they ALWAYS vote a dictatorship on their own heads and then try to blame others for what they did.

            THAT’s the truth. You paulbots are so blind and stupid, that you keep voting for a dictatorship to rule over you because you cannot stomach even one single guideline that is contrary to your anarchist-based idiocy.

            Now go keep playing the “poor angry victim” like you always do, paulbot.

            It’s what you mindless sheep have been brainwashed to do.

          • The Return of the Giant Crapweasal on November 16, 2012 at 2:27 pm

            keep grinding that ax, buddy. But although your views are distorted and not based on reality, but based on your slanted political agenda … it might not be a good idea to get off your mind-altering meds right now. you might hurt someone, like yourself.

          • The Return of the Giant Crapweasal on November 16, 2012 at 2:30 pm

            btw — how’s that RINO agenda working out for ya? Let’s see 2 failed attempts at the Presidency and now embracing Amnesty and moving more towards Obama to “work with him”. Gee, you are a suckah for Punishment!

          • The Return of the Giant Crapweasal on November 16, 2012 at 2:33 pm

            speaking of “poor, angry victims” … who is the one grinding the ax because they can’t put it down?? who is the one who is supporting a political leadership that is now looking to ‘throw him under the bus’ to Amnesty?

            you like to play with words, but you fool no one!

          • Anonymous un-Paulbot on November 16, 2012 at 3:31 pm

            It is plainly noted that you cannot counter the metaphor about Ron Small because it is 100% correct and everyone knows it.

            It is also noted that you have no response but small, childish name-calling and the same rants you always use.

            Keep playing the “poor angry victim” paulbot. it’s about all that you know how to do with your brainwashed little brain.

            Keep playing the “poor victim” and keep getting the STATUS QUO, moron.

  8. Setnaffa on November 15, 2012 at 10:16 am

    You go to Colorado for some local weed and then get fired from my company when I find out about it. Because we don’t send pot-heads to our clients’ businesses…

    • MoMo Joe on November 15, 2012 at 12:11 pm

      yeah, and in my company I’d fire anyone who I found out was drinking beer or other alcohol, whether it was done on or off company time.

  9. Setnaffa on November 15, 2012 at 10:18 am

    BTW, I think smoking enormous amounts of pot is what it takes to support “giant crapweasals” like Barack Obama, Ron Paul, or Gary Johnson; but that’s just my opinion…

  10. fremont on November 15, 2012 at 11:38 am

    California used to be the Golden State for real. In 1975 Jerry Brown became governor the first time and immediately changed marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor and legalized sodomy. For personal reasons no doubt. The movement of millions of homosexuals and potheads followed.

  11. Knighthawk on November 15, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    Completely agree, though i suspect the gop will keep pissing this opportunity.
    BTW even though it failed I noticed the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act (Issue 5) nearly passed, getting 48.5% of the vote, or roughly thirty thousand votes short, I’d wager the next time it comes up it’ll pass.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *