Potheads to Palin: Join us
posted at 8:29 pm on April 5, 2010 by Allahpundit
You know what? That’s a hell of an idea.
With Sarah Palin set to speak Tuesday before the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America’s national convention, advocates of decriminalizing marijuana are feeling left out.
So Dave Schwartz, campaign manager of Nevadans for Sensible Marijuana Laws, is planning to offer Palin $25,000 to come speak before “supporters of a regulated marijuana market in this country.”…
The offer comes, however, with a string attached: In exchange for the $25,000, Palin not only has to speak at one of NSML’s upcoming events, she must also “acknowledge the fact that marijuana is just as legitimate a recreational substance as the substance she is talking about at the WSWA convention (in fact, it is objectively much safer) and endorse taxing and regulating marijuana in Nevada and throughout the U.S.”
She can’t do it if she’s running in 2012. Conservative Republicans, i.e. her base, oppose legalization 20/77; a bold stroke on this front would scare a bunch of them into Huckabee’s camp. If she’s not running, though, then I can see an argument for it. One of her big problems, especially with centrists, is the media’s caricature of her as some sort of fire-breathing theocon, which she isn’t. She’s made moves to chip away at that — the Rand Paul endorsement, and of course campaigning for Maverick instead of Hayworth — but it’s hard to scramble a narrative purely through associations. She needs an issue, and this one is fairly low-cost with a few major benefits. Taking a modest pro-legalization position (i.e. “I don’t use it myself and don’t want kids using it, but…”) would (a) electrify the debate over a hot-button issue, which she obviously relishes doing (see, e.g., “death panels”), (b) prove that she doesn’t mindlessly follow Republican orthodoxy, which would force centrists and libertarians to give her a second look, (c) mindfark the media, which would be on her side for once, and (d) reestablish her political identity as a western, not southern, conservative. The west was, after all, the only region of the country that supported legalization when Gallup polled the issue in October.
Granted, there would be short-term costs like a temporary dent in her “true conservative” cred, but she’s evidently willing to absorb those dents to campaign for McCain and she’s getting a lot less out of that than she’d get from doing this. She could even pitch the issue to grassroots righties on fiscally conservative terms: Think how much we can reduce spending by eliminating police patrols, prison housing, etc., for nonviolent marijuana offenders! Exit question: What am I missing?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I am very libertarian on this issue as I am most things. But I want to play devil’s advocate for a moment and respond to what what is most likely the three biggest arguments against legalization going:
1. If you legalize it and make it more available, use will go up including use by minors. It is a societal issue here in the USA. I lived overseas where there were no age restrictions on alcohol, and as far as I could see it wasn’t a problem with adolescents. Sure some drank but far less than what I remembered from my own high school days in the USA.
2. Worker productivity will drop as use goes up. People will get stoned, a certain segment of the population will abuse the privledge and get stoned at work. Employers will argue that without illegalization and the ability to test, they cant restirct workers from use.
3. Operating machinery accidents, especially automobiles accidents while under the influence will also climb dramatically as casual use increases.
paulsur on April 5, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Anyone want to get pizza? Oh, here’s the list.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 5, 2010 at 10:19 PM
Everything you say in your post already happens. There is no reason why employers can test in the same fashion as they can test for alcohol.
Although I appreciate the amount of work you put into your post, what it ultimately amounts to is a straw man.
uknowmorethanme on April 5, 2010 at 10:27 PM
can = can’t
uknowmorethanme on April 5, 2010 at 10:28 PM
And the Palin army marches on…….
Picking recruits up along the way:)
God’s plan unfolds……
idesign on April 5, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Taking a modest pro-legalization position (i.e. “I don’t use it myself and don’t want kids using it, but…”) would (a) electrify the debate over a hot-button issue, which she obviously relishes doing (see, e.g., “death panels”), (b) prove that she doesn’t mindlessly follow Republican orthodoxy, which would force centrists and libertarians to give her a second look, (c) mindfark the media, which would be on her side for once, and (d) reestablish her political identity as a western, not southern, conservative.
Brilliant analysis, AP. Nicely done.
TallDave on April 5, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Obama takes over healthcare and the most important challenge to Sarah Palin is what to do about weed? Brilliant strategy, potheads. You’ve just demonstrated why pot doesn’t just affect you.
Ronnie on April 5, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Nah*….This isn’t a “low-cost” issue at all. It’s absurd to even consider, in my opinion.
She’s just not that stupid.
AnninCA on April 5, 2010 at 10:44 PM
From my own personal experience I can tell you that pot has a very real impact on people. I have a lot more experience in the drug culture than I would care to admit. Almost all of my friends smoked pot. One thing I can say beyond doubt is that none of them that kept smoking ever managed anything but basic subsistence in their lives. Extra cash went into partying. Pretty much nothing was saved and they never had motivation to do any better than make enough to get by and keep partying.
While they are certainly not bad people, they have also given away a large part of themselves to smoking pot. After I got away from these friends for over a decade I met up with some of them and they were no different than they were when they were high school friends. It was like a time warp. They had absolutely no motivation to improve themselves or their lives.
OK, not everybody is cut out to be exceptional. But these guys were not dummies. They were bright people that simply settled for less. I think they settled for less because smoking pot pretty much satisfied them with less. It became the goal in their lives. Partying was the reason for being. It was pretty tragic really.
Hawthorne on April 5, 2010 at 10:45 PM
Well, thank heavens we’re finally hearing from the voice of reason. *NLOL
hillbillyjim on April 5, 2010 at 10:48 PM
Thanks to decades of incompetence by the people & agencies fighting the war, the absurd now seems logical to many.
But stupid she is not; Sarah knows darn well how much more support she can garner by taking the side of those who want to enslave themselves to chemicals.
Dark-Star on April 5, 2010 at 10:51 PM
Jane Fonda just slammed Palin on Larry King….
Did anyone see it?
idesign on April 5, 2010 at 11:00 PM
Hawthorne on April 5, 2010 at 10:45 PM
Great post Hawthorne. It mirrors my own experience with pot. My hubby and I came of age growing up outside of Boston in the 1970s. Everyone back then smoked pot, and we know many people who settled for less in life so they could enjoy their weed. We still have friends and family who literally smoke themselves straight on a daily basis LOL!
KickandSwimMom on April 5, 2010 at 11:02 PM
It’s a trap!
Daggett on April 5, 2010 at 11:06 PM
She won’t do it. It’s a trap and she’s smart enough to recognize it as such. However, I imagine that if she had no more political ambitions (regardless of whether she wants to run for office again) and you pressed her on the subject off the record, she would probably admit to at least not being opposed to legalization. She’s tried it herself — as I imagine most of us have — so she’s not some prude. Personally I think it’s pretty ridiculous that it isn’t legal already. I fail to see how the effects are any more damaging than cigarettes or alcohol, both of which are legal. Save the drug laws for the really hard core stuff that results in violence and turf wars and the like. Potheads are usually pretty mellow types in my experience.
NoLeftTurn on April 5, 2010 at 11:12 PM
a bold stroke on this front would scare a bunch of them into Huckabee’s camp
She’s lose support, but not to Huckabee.
Y-not on April 5, 2010 at 11:16 PM
I hear Michael Savage and others going on about how it is a gateway drug. The vast majority of people who use any drug, including alcohol, started with cigarettes. That’s the really “cool” image kids see very early on. I think it’s silly to worry about step two or three and deny the first step. Cigarettes are the gateway drug.
I think it would be cool to see her do it just to mess with the media and America’s perception of her. At this point she’s more of a celebrity than a political entity anyway. Besides, there’s a lot of tax money in them thar hills. It might help keep sales of Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd albums going too.
deewhybee on April 5, 2010 at 11:23 PM
As an overall policy issue, despite the mis-information, fearmongering rhetoric, and outright lies, taken objectively, the legalization (or, put another way anti-prohibition) stance dovetails rather well with the smaller government/less intrusion on the private citizen position.
The plain fact of the matter, even admitted by many of the pro-prohibitionists, is that the government has been spreading mis-information and downright lies about cannabis since the initial criminalization effort, with the very first ‘drug czar’, Anslinger, being one of the boldest propagandists of the movement.
As for the relative ‘detriment’ caused by the ingestion of cannabis, it pales beside the effects of currently legal products available on the market today. Quibbling about such detriments completely misses the point – being the freedom of an individual to choose.
As a policy, the prohibition of cannabis has created exponentially more misery, tragedy, disruption, and death than the use of the prohibited substance itself will ever achieve, even if it was given away freely to 10 year olds. All while managing to fail, spectacularly, in the achievement of the stated goals of the policy – the biggest one being “keep it away from the children”. It is easier, in this country today, right now, for an adolescent to acquire cannabis than to acquire tobacco products or alcohol. The reason for this is simple – regulated merchants running law abiding establishments are infinitely better agents of social responsibility than illegally operating cannabis distributors who face the same sanctions for selling to a 16 year old as to a 60 year old.
The ‘crime explosion’ fear fantasies are just that – fantasies. We have a model of what happens to the criminal elements engaged in the trafficking of an illicit product – the end of alcohol prohibition. We did not experience a takeover of society by the rum runners – the mob moved on to other, existing vices for income, getting out of the booze business because the profit model had been destroyed. Which is the most likely outcome of cannabis legalization. The large producers will either adapt and commercialize (such as the folks in Humbolt County are contemplating) or, if their business model stays afloat only because of the wildly inflated profit margins due to prohibition, get out of the business entirely.
We’re spending billions and billions of dollars year in and year out for the failed social experiment of cannabis prohibition, destroying the lives of our fellow citizens over a relatively innocuous substance, and taking a position antithetical to the concepts of personal liberty envisioned by the founders – who, by the way, were, after all, a significant few of their number, just a bunch of pot smoking, long haired rebellious hippies. Was Jefferson wee wee’d up when he penned the Declaration of Independence? Likely not – too early in the season for the cannabis he cultivated to have budded.
Wind Rider on April 5, 2010 at 11:25 PM
She could say she isn’t for full legalization but supports medical marijuana and that it’s a States Rights issue.
John the Libertarian on April 5, 2010 at 11:28 PM
She can also say she’s played Dark Side of the Moon to the Wizard of Oz, and guess what — it works!
John the Libertarian on April 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM
Ya know who doesn’t smoke funny stuff?
The Duke Blue Devils, that’s who.
hillbillyjim on April 5, 2010 at 11:36 PM
You’ve got to be sh**ting me, Pyle!
Really?!?! That’s funny because…
…I remember an article in Forbes’ where 500 economists, headed by Uncle Miltie himself, called for legalization of cannabis…
… based largely on…
Now, if you’d like to provide a link to your Forbes’ article, I’d be glad to read it.
Beyond your ability of prognostication, can you point to any legalization initiative, in Nevada, or otherwise, that legalizes only one type of cannabis?
I’ll bet you can’t.
You mean like the 40 billion black market for bootleg tobacco avoiding a 300% tax on cigarettes? Or a $40 billion market in bootleg liquor?
Oh that’s right, there is no black market anywhere near that size in tobacco or liquor. Because even with those extreme taxes, it just isn’t worth it to break the law to edge out legitimate distributors.
Funny how that works.
Oh, my God… you mean we’d actually have to release people from prison because our courts haven’t convicted of crimes they might have done?!?!
The horror! The HORROR!!
In the republic that I like to think I live in, we don’t hold men for crimes they didn’t commit. If the best argument you have for the Drug War is that it helps keep people in prison we think committed some other, unspecified crime, then the War on drugs truly is morally bankrupt.
JohnGalt23 on April 5, 2010 at 11:44 PM
I can always tell a post by Allah by just reading the title. Dude, are you in love with the Cuda or what? Give it a rest man. What’s next? Birthers to Palin: Join Us? For crying out loud.
tdavisjr on April 5, 2010 at 11:45 PM
Nothing:
She strikes me as being among the 77%, and principled.
2ipa on April 5, 2010 at 11:49 PM
This bears repeating.
JohnGalt23 on April 5, 2010 at 11:54 PM
The idea that this is a shrewd political move is just plain silly.
Palin simply isn’t this stupid, people.
It’s a dumb blog idea, frankly.
AnninCA on April 6, 2010 at 12:07 AM
Remember (a misquoted) Frederick the Great:
L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace.
JohnGalt23 on April 6, 2010 at 12:18 AM
FIFY.
platypus on April 6, 2010 at 12:20 AM
Sarah rolls and smokes liberals daily. Which reminds me, I could use some Cheetos.
Mr. Wednesday Night on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 AM
Eating Cheetos while you’re stoned makes you look like the Joker.
platypus on April 6, 2010 at 12:22 AM
Don’t know, but whatever you’re smoking let me get some.
How the heck did you make that conclusion? The only ones who made a big deal out of it was the press. And guess who won out in the end? It’s the same thing as the “reload” tweet. A turn of phrase, that became more than what it was intended to be. It went from “Hey guys, we should regroup”, to “Hey guys, kill everyone who is not you!!” The only people who can do those types of mental gymnastics are loony lefties and the media.
I will admit that she does like poking the press in the eye every now and then. Especially after that Final Four facebook post.
xax on April 6, 2010 at 12:26 AM
Why electrify debate on a relative non-issue rather than the economy or health care, both of which would benefit her as Americans disapprove of Democrats on both?
Yeah and I’ve got a bridge to sell you if you’re in the market. You really most libertarians will give her a serious look because she supports legalizing marijuana?
So the media will largely ignore the announcement, cover it but attack her anyway, or follow the announcement with an attack on her from another front.
Not sure it matters at this point.
amerpundit on April 6, 2010 at 12:29 AM
As a Mormon, I agree with you. Mormons have a zero tolerance policy with drugs.
And no, its not IMHO.
Its GHO. Its God’s Humble Opinion. ;)
Conservative Samizdat on April 6, 2010 at 12:33 AM
Except to say that pot is no worse than alcohol is to react positively towards it unless she has a negative opinion of alcohol. She can still be pro legalization, but calling it as harmless as alcohol might turn off too many voters.
Esthier on April 6, 2010 at 12:45 AM
Palin should avoid this, since it is a credibility-loser issue.
The media would love to tar her as a stoner-enabler bud-hugging flakey mamma.
You betcha.
Stick with DRILL HERE DRILL NOW!
Not BONG HITS FOR JUNEAU.
profitsbeard on April 6, 2010 at 12:47 AM
For those who don’t know, Palin admitted she smoked pot in Alaska when it was legal to do so.
technopeasant on April 6, 2010 at 12:48 AM
Here is a poll I wish someone would conduct now among conservatives:
Who is despised more-Jane Fonda or John McCain?
technopeasant on April 6, 2010 at 12:51 AM
As a christian, i’m thankful that our constitution respects individual liberties regardless of anyones interpretation of what “gods humble opinion” is on how people exercise them. If only our current government would adopt the same perspective…
ReformedAndDangerous on April 6, 2010 at 1:15 AM
She could say, “The only weed that should be illegal is poison ivy.”
HellCat on April 6, 2010 at 2:22 AM
You are not missing anything. I personally don’t smoke pot anymore, but as a libertarian who really believes that the R party needs to be picking up slack wherever it can, I would seriously consider this. The media angle alone would be worth the price of admission. What would they do? Cognitive dissonance would set in rapidly and amusingly. We HATE her… but we agree with her… Does. Not. Compute.
otherkid on April 6, 2010 at 3:23 AM
Yeah, it would be like the Anheiser-Busch/Miller Brewing Company turf wars in the ’50s.
Bloody piece of business that was.
The hijackings, murders, threats to bar owners to use one product exclusively…or else./
(seriously, do i really need that tag?)
soundingboard on April 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM
this just goes to show you Pto heads can not count. Palin gets 100,000 per speech not $25,000. I guess the drugs do things to the mind.
unseen on April 6, 2010 at 3:59 AM
I have no problem with making drugs legal as long as the progressives/drug users also understand that my tax dollars will not go to help them out of the gutter.
If they want to be addicts more power to you brother. but when you get fired form your job, lose your house, the wife kicks your sorry butt to the curb don’t come to me ofr food stamps, wic, and Social security disability checks.
I believe in freedom. everyone should have the freedom to destroy themselves if they want.
unseen on April 6, 2010 at 4:02 AM
You mean NEOCONS! THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECRIMINALIZING AND LEGALIZING! THEN AGAIN THIS ALL COULD BE A NEOCON NWO GLOBALIST PLOT!
BobAnthony on April 6, 2010 at 6:12 AM
If Republicans want any chance of not getting completely clobbered by the youth vote, they should go after pot decriminalization.
Speedwagon82 on April 6, 2010 at 6:13 AM
Nothing that you are actually capable of understanding…
doriangrey on April 6, 2010 at 6:40 AM
That we should not determine right or wrong based on the cost of doing it. How much money could we save if the police just shot people instead of arresting them, holding them, trying them, and imprisoning them? How much money could we save if we closed every US military base outside of our borders and recalled our naval fleet?
Kafir on April 6, 2010 at 7:02 AM
For $25,000, Sarah Palin will show up and wave to the crowd — assuming it’s not too far off her planned route.
These people think they can dictate the content of her speeches for that amount?
Geeze, what are they on dope or something?
logis on April 6, 2010 at 8:26 AM
If she isn’t running, then what the heck is the point of worrying about it? The $25,000?
This has to be the most pointless, stupidly reasoned Palin post that you have ever put on this site.
What a waste of time reading this has been.
Exit question:
Second look at Spicoli 2012?
Brian1972 on April 6, 2010 at 8:31 AM
1-If most of your readers write over and over to NOT post the winking pic, then don’t. You know you’re pis$ing them off, just to satisfy your sarcastic pleasure. Please change the pic to the “green hat” and you will be praised, even commended. Is that too much to ask, or to miss?
2-In answer to your question above, it should be either John Kerry or John McCain to deliver that speech. Heh, Obama would do it for free, since he needs any stupid excuse to use AF1 to our expenses. I hope that his pilots release a “tell-all” book.
ProudPalinFan on April 6, 2010 at 8:45 AM
I’ve never smoked pot. When I was around the drug “culture” (hard to say “drug ‘culture‘” without a laugh) and people were doing speed, I was tempted.
I’ve always been lethargic, slow metabolism and all that, so I thought maybe speed would help.
Fast forward from the 60s-70s to 1989, I was diagnosed with ADD. Ritelin helped me focus and all that but did not speed me up.
I’ve always wondered what pot would do to me. Prescription drugs usually don’t work in me like the Docs say they will.
I was diagnosed hypothyroid, prescribed Synthroid, and was told I’d feel like a new man. Nuthing’. Even overdosing on it made no difference.
I’ve tried Provigil. I can lay down and go to sleep after taking it.
In this rambling ADD way, what I what to know, has anyone here with ADD (not ADHD) smoked pot and how did it affect you?
davidk on April 6, 2010 at 8:49 AM
Well, since they’re high already and don’t mention the “medical marijuana” supporters (!?!?!?!?) I’d tell you this: I would have given so much to keep my mom alive and better during her breast cancer 13 years ago (may God keep her with Him), that I laugh at the idea of her laying on the couch with an IV &constant exchange of wound kits, “smoking the pain away”.
Sarah won’t support people that are high. She was teased to death for writing on her right hand. C’mon!
ProudPalinFan on April 6, 2010 at 8:51 AM
Pretty dumb political ploy. Not gonna happen, but it will get them in the news, and get allahpundit some hits/comments.
About the only response I can offer to this… strategy…(ha)
They’re gonna have to come up with a lot more than $25K to entice Palin to speak to their group. She can make that in what, 15 minutes in front of a Fox camera?
cs89 on April 6, 2010 at 9:02 AM
Stupid stunt by braindead dopers. Naturally, always having Palin’s interests in mind, allah thinks it would be a wonderful idea for her to court the stoner vote. But Palin isn’t about to cozy up to the dopers.
Mitt Romneycare 4.0? that’s a different story. He’s going to need a new political personna to replace that Healthcare Guru gig that suddenly looks like a loser. Mittens the Libertarian?
james23 on April 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM
Um, no. Making it legal now has nothing to do with whether it was legal when they were arrested (and anyway, like JohnGalt23 said, why would you possibly want the government to be able to jail people for crimes that they can’t prove? This is an American blog, right?
I think there is some obscure legal principle involved that says you aren’t supposed to throw people in jail based on the fact that they “likely” committed a crime. It’s some weird fancy lawyerly thing, “innocent until proven guilty” or something like that.
RINO in Name Only on April 6, 2010 at 9:22 AM
Palin wouldn’t support this because she ain’t a true conservative. She is a social con, and social cons have issues with how other people live their lives. She is Huckabee in heels.
keep the change on April 6, 2010 at 10:03 AM
I can’t understand how people who advocate for smaller government, less government intrusion, and more freedom for the American people will still support marijuana prohibition and the ‘war on drugs’ that has militarized civilian law enforcement.
Just replace the word ‘marijuana’ with the word ‘guns’ in all the arguments above to keep marijuana illegal, and see what you’re really supporting.
I reluctantly have to agree with keep the change’s post above … the social cons are bringing this country down every bit as much as the liberals, because their ‘issues’ are keeping fiscal conservatives from getting elected. When ‘conservative’ Americans start realizing that the government’s role in this society is not to enforce their minister’s Sunday sermon on the rest of the population, we may be able to bring the USA back from economic destruction. Unfortunately, I am not holding my breath.
Barneys Bullet on April 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM
This is probably Allah’s dumbest Sarah Palin post yet. Sarah Palin doesn’t need ANOTHER issue–her best issues are energy, free enterprise, and being pro-life. She was harshly criticized for “allowing” her daughter to get pregnant while she was Governor, and it’s pretty common knowledge that potheads like “free sex” which can lead to unwanted babies.
While there may be a few people (cancer patients, etc.) who might need “medical marijuana” for pain relief, there are many more who want to legalize pot for their own amusement, and it DOES impair people’s judgment, and some weak-willed people can be led to much worse drug addiction through use of marijuana.
Sarah Palin should stay away from this issue, both for her own integrity and her potential political future–there are far more votes to be lost than gained by coming out for legalized marijuana.
This is an issue for AllahPundit’s favorite dumb blonde: Meghan McCain. Sarah Palin is much too smart for this!
Steve Z on April 6, 2010 at 10:32 AM
The right to keep and bear… hemp?
/sarc
cs89 on April 6, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Not hardly. I know you’re just joking around but that’s not what I said at all. In no way, shape, or form is marijuana, alcohol, or any such substance a ‘right’ in the same sense as the 2nd amendment. My point was only that gun control advocates use the same arguments to support their position that supporters of the “drug war” use to support theirs. The assumption that underlies both camps is that too much freedom is a bad thing, and that it is better that government manage peoples’ behavior than to require that people take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Barneys Bullet on April 6, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Barneys Bullet on April 6, 2010 at 11:08 AM
I was joking, but putting pot & arms in the same argument was clearly a laughable argument.
There are people in the “drug war” that go too far, sure. Some arguments are spurious.
One can also swing the pendulum too far in the direction of libertinism (not libertarianism, though there is some overlap). Govts. make laws for a reason, ideally by the consent of the governed.
The arguments tend to be over which laws to make, restricting what behaviors, and how to enforce them.
cs89 on April 6, 2010 at 11:16 AM
umm….actually….no.
potheads are why we have Barky the Commie as POTUS….
who is also a ‘head’…or so i hear.
lobosan5 on April 6, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Unfortunately, too many people don’t realize the distinction between the two. I’m with you, though. Possession by an adult without intent to sell should be decriminalized. Protect the children and enforce the laws on the books to go after those that try to profit off other’s misery.
I’m pretty certain that’s what the Founders would tell us, too.
rmel80 on April 6, 2010 at 11:40 AM
But what would that do to the cartels?
molonlabe28 on April 6, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Unfortunately.
davidk on April 6, 2010 at 11:44 AM
+100. I fully support and defend anyone else’s right to completely destroy and derail their own lives. If there are people out there with limited ambition who would rather smoke their lives away than realize their ambition, that’s their business. It only becomes my business if and when it starts affecting my life and my freedoms and my pocketbook. If you choose to live this way, don’t come to society looking for a handout.
NoLeftTurn on April 6, 2010 at 11:48 AM
The point was not to equate them. It was to point out that little distinguishes the arguments used by those who support prohibiting them.
Barneys Bullet on April 6, 2010 at 12:00 PM
???
I’m not sure what culture the “THEOCRACY!!!!” paranoid are living in, but the communities I’ve lived in over the past few decades (in multiple states) haven’t exactly had the Feds making sure the peeps do whatever Preacher Jones said on Sunday.
Just my observation.
cs89 on April 6, 2010 at 12:02 PM
That Palin will do what she thinks is right, not what might possibly get her an extra few points in the polls or help her image with the right constituencies.
I think it’s hilarious that they would ask Palin, and … odd … that you would take the request seriously.
tom on April 6, 2010 at 12:15 PM
I never said the social conservatives were accomplishing anything, except preventing fiscal conservatives from getting elected. The overwhelming majority of independents in this country are not going to vote to outlaw abortion, gay marriage, adult movies or whatever else the social conservatives find repugnant. And pretty soon this marijuana legalization issue can be added to the list, since supporters of legalization will cross the 50% threshold probably within the next decade. If the republican party wants to pull independents to their side of the fence (which is a necessity now), it has to let its base know that trying to return us to 1950′s morality will no longer be the priority. We have to get the federal government’s tentacles out of the private sector, and scale back the handouts. I’d love to see the republican party declare war on the welfare state, instead of touting its own slightly less generous version of it.
Barneys Bullet on April 6, 2010 at 12:17 PM
It was on Larry King? Then no, no one saw it.
Akzed on April 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM
I think it would be a valid question to ask what other politicians this group has approached for support? Is the overture to Palin just one of many in a scattershot attempt to find somebody crazy enough to take up this cause? I suggest Ron Paul. He is crazy enough.
Hawthorne on April 6, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Can’t believe I totally spaced on the day this first went up. Hell yea!
abobo on April 6, 2010 at 12:49 PM
You people who always whine about the dreaded “social cons” have done more to lose elections than all the “social con” bogeymen put together. If you can’t get a majority, you’re not going to win an election, plain and simple. If you really think you can throw away those conservatives with social concerns but pick up enough votes from independents to make up for it, then you’re politically delusional. That’s exactly what McCain tried to do in 2000 and 2008, and both times it failed. The first time gave us President Bush, who had the good sense to not p*** off his base, and the second time gave us Obama, who … also had the good sense to not p*** off his base.
It’s time to learn from previous mistakes.
tom on April 6, 2010 at 12:51 PM
McCain’s not a conservative in any meaningful sense. Poor example. I DO want a conservative candidate … one that will be conservative with revenue. Not one that will be conservative in how long it allows my leash to be.
It’s the libertarian pipe dream (pun intended), I know.
Barneys Bullet on April 6, 2010 at 1:03 PM
It’s time theocons learn what it means to be a conservative.
And if they reject that, then they are Statists on the other side of the coin, and almost just as dangerous.
jjraines on April 6, 2010 at 1:21 PM
Support legalization, restrict access to those 18 and over, and allow employers to continue to discriminate against users (drug tests continue if desired).
astonerii on April 6, 2010 at 1:31 PM
Dave Schwanz and his merry band of stoners need to take a deep – clear – breath.
Jaibones on April 6, 2010 at 1:53 PM
People actually watch Larry King?
Metro on April 6, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Well, keep an eye on California, because a measure to legalize MJ has qualified for the November 2010 ballot:
I expect it will pass. I’m so looking forward to all the stoners in America moving here and going on welfare… as if CA weren’t screwed up enough already…
Mary in LA on April 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM
What are you missing?
My opinion is that you are missing the fact that Palin does not make a decision like this as part of a pure political ploy. If she doesn’t truly believe in legalizing marijuana, then she should not and will not take up this issue merely to prove that she is not radically conservative, and not merely to pick up votes in the West.
I don’t think she believes in legalizing marijuane, and I would be shocked if she was the least bit ambivalent about that topic.
connertown on April 6, 2010 at 4:49 PM
Obama in ’10: DuuuUUUUde, where’s my House?
DrAllecon on April 6, 2010 at 4:50 PM
Conservatives don’t want their kids smoking dope and ruining their lives.
No, that doesn’t fit the template.
Conservatives are witch-burning hypocrites that have a vote only because of some vestigial adherence to egalitarian democratic principles invented and wholly preserved by atheists and irreligious humanists.
spmat on April 7, 2010 at 2:18 AM
“Legalization” is no longer the point, since its been legal de facto for years.
What is the point is that “libertarians” are still busily convincing normal people that it’s a “harmless vice” and that users are at no risk.
Wise up:
http://washingtonrebel.typepad.com/washington_rebel/2010/03/they-dont-call-it-dope-for-nothing.html
http://washingtonrebel.typepad.com/washington_rebel/2010/03/okay-now-what.html
http://washingtonrebel.typepad.com/washington_rebel/2010/03/coming-soon-to-a-neighborhood-near-you.html
People better get hip to what the real issues are, because it’s not going away. There will be no possible way to regulate the sale and use, and it’s coming downhill like an avalanche.
warbaby on April 7, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3