Mitt Romney: Federal Law Should Prohibit Marijuana Use

[robert9712000]

I think this Video will help the naysayers too see why smoking pot is bad

 

[jay_dub]

Note....this is NOT a defense of Obama, but he has explained his position on busting pot dispensaries is that the ones that have been busted were nothing more than fronts for recreational use. He has said that he will not enforce federal law on 'legitimate' medical marijuana dispensaries.

That is a difference between him and Romney. it sounds like Romney would shut 'em all down.

I would just like to smoke a legal joint before I die.

 

[dannno]

Note....this is NOT a defense of Obama, but he has explained his position on busting pot dispensaries is that the ones that have been busted were nothing more than fronts for recreational use. He has said that he will not enforce federal law on 'legitimate' medical marijuana dispensaries.

That is a difference between him and Romney. it sounds like Romney would shut 'em all down.

I would just like to smoke a legal joint before I die.

Ok, first of all, it's not medicinal vs. recreational, it's within CA state law and outside of CA state law. I have to say that because there is a separation between doctors who give recommendations for cannabis and the dispensaries. Therefore there is no way for a dispensary to know if the patient is using it for recreation or medicinally or in MOST CASES BOTH. All they are looking for is whether 100% of the cannabis goes to patients under CA state guidelines or whether less than 100% goes to patients under CA state guidelines. If it is 99.9% going to patients, but they believe or find that any portion may not be going to patients, then theoretically they will try to shut them down. But it could be that the owner of a dispensary sells hundreds of thousands of dollars worth on the black market or it could be a lowly employee who sneaks a few grams out for one of his buddies. Or maybe even a couple of patients who buy in bulk at the club and then take it to the streets. Who knows? It doesn't matter that they are serving 99% legitimate patients, the feds will use any excuse.

HOWEVER.. In my experience, dispensaries are being shut down, given false charges and later either the charges are dropped or they are found not guilty. So what you said isn't entirely true. There were plenty of legitimate shops in my town, ALL storefronts have been shut down from Fed pressure.

Also, Obama in 4 years has raided over 3 times as many medical dispensaries as Bush did in 8 years. So I have no idea who will be better on this issue.

I do know that there were A LOT more protests over cannabis policy when Bush was President. Now that Obama is President, not a whole lot of complaining even though he's done a lot more damage.

 

[Elwar]

I personally asked Romney if he believed in states rights when it came to medical marijuana.

He said that he felt that the federal government should be involved.

 

[jay_dub]

Ok, first of all, it's not medicinal vs. recreational, it's within CA state law and outside of CA state law. I have to say that because there is a separation between doctors who give recommendations for cannabis and the dispensaries. Therefore there is no way for a dispensary to know if the patient is using it for recreation or medicinally or in MOST CASES BOTH. All they are looking for is whether 100% of the cannabis goes to patients under CA state guidelines or whether less than 100% goes to patients under CA state guidelines. If it is 99.9% going to patients, but they believe or find that any portion may not be going to patients, then theoretically they will try to shut them down. But it could be that the owner of a dispensary sells hundreds of thousands of dollars worth on the black market or it could be a lowly employee who sneaks a few grams out for one of his buddies. Or maybe even a couple of patients who buy in bulk at the club and then take it to the streets. Who knows? It doesn't matter that they are serving 99% legitimate patients, the feds will use any excuse.

HOWEVER.. In my experience, dispensaries are being shut down, given false charges and later either the charges are dropped or they are found not guilty. So what you said isn't entirely true. There were plenty of legitimate shops in my town, ALL storefronts have been shut down from Fed pressure.

Also, Obama in 4 years has raided over 3 times as many medical dispensaries as Bush did in 8 years. So I have no idea who will be better on this issue.

I do know that there were A LOT more protests over cannabis policy when Bush was President. Now that Obama is President, not a whole lot of complaining even though he's done a lot more damage.

Thanks for fleshing all that out.

As I said in my post, I was not defending Obama. I was only relating what I remember him saying about it.

Here's an excerpt from Rolling Stone's interview with Obama.

RS: Let me ask you about the War on Drugs. You vowed in 2008, when you were running for election, that you would not "use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana." Yet we just ran a story that shows your administration is launching more raids on medical pot than the Bush administration did. What's up with that?

Obama: Here's what's up: What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it's against federal law. I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, "Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books." What I can say is, "Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage." As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes.

The only tension that's come up – and this gets hyped up a lot – is a murky area where you have large-scale, commercial operations that may supply medical marijuana users, but in some cases may also be supplying recreational users. In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we're telling them, "This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way." That's not something we're going to do. I do think it's important and useful to have a broader debate about our drug laws. One of the things we've done over the past three years was to make a sensible change when it came to the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. We've had a discussion about how to focus on treatment, taking a public-health approach to drugs and lessening the overwhelming emphasis on criminal laws as a tool to deal with this issue. I think that's an appropriate debate that we should have.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...terview-with-barack-obama-20120425?print=true

 

[DeMintConservative]

So you are defending trying to legislate personal morality? Check.

I've already asked for you to show any evidence supporting this claim. I never defended such a thing and I find your repeated lies insulting. You were irritated because I exposed that Romney's positions is exactly the same of Obama and decided to start lying about what I said.

Again, explain where I defended such a thing. Quote me defending that.


If you can't show it, please apologize. Your consistent blatant and shameless lying gets a bit tiring.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Its a disgrace that he wants to have people thrown in the slammer for inhaling the smoke of the wrong plant. You ever thought about it? Its ok to smoke nicotine laced cigs and drink alcohol which actually kills people every day, but if you smoke a plant which has been around since the start of time you...
- get thrown into a jail and forever tagged as a criminal
- get taken away from your family
- have your family lose a member who needs you
- lose job opportunities
- suffer financial hardship due to legal costs, loss of work, loss of future opportunity
- possibly physical harm to you or nearby family/ friends
- possibly property damage or forfeiture
- possible loss of life, you, or dog

There is probably much more. But anyone who is openly supporting the federal law as romney has, is an enemy to the free people of this country.

That's completely unrelated to my post.

We can all agree Romney and Obama common position on the war of drugs doesn't make sense in a free society.


I'll repeat it:

View Post
I do agree Romney doesn't smoke marijuana and believes doing so is wrong, but I find the idea of criticizing politicians for that kind of moral positions - regardless of what they might be and my agreement or disagreement with them - offensive and an absolute disgrace.

Maybe some of you need to learn the difference between immoral and illegal.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who finds drugs, alcohol, sodomy, pre-marital sex (or post-marital sex or life-long sexual abstinence) immoral. I might agree or disagree with their stances, but it's not a legitimate political issue.

Criticizing someone for being personally pro or against one of those things as a political point is an absolute disgrace.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Also, Obama in 4 years has raided over 3 times as many medical dispensaries as Bush did in 8 years. So I have no idea who will be better on this issue.

I do know that there were A LOT more protests over cannabis policy when Bush was President. Now that Obama is President, not a whole lot of complaining even though he's done a lot more damage.

Because Obama is a Democrat.

Same reason why people here somehow manage to pretend Romney has a different policy than Obama on this issue.

 

[dannno]

I've already claimed your evidence of this. I never did such a thing. You were irritated because I exposed that Romney's positions is exactly the same of Obama and decided to start lying about what I said.

Again, explain where I defended such a thing. Quote me defending that.


If you can't show it, please apologize. Your consistent blatant and shameless lying gets a bit tiring.

I think the idea is that Romney saying, "Oh, marijuana is bad, I want to continue locking people in jail for using it" is basically the same as saying, "Oh, I hate broccoli, I think everybody who eats broccoli should be thrown in prison".

It's not a moral position, period, and to hide behind some defunct and irrational concept of morality in order to execute violence against non-violent individuals is very sick.

If Romney thought using cannabis was bad, BUT he didn't want to take away others' rights to do it then I would still attack him on the basis that his reasoning for thinking it is bad is completely faulty. But he wouldn't be as horrible of a person.

Now Obama, on the other hand, here's a hypocritical asshole who has toked it up big time. To see this guy in office, it would be like the President saying, "Holy shit, do I loooove broccoli!! I want it all to myself, anybody who grows or eats broccoli besides me is going to prison!!"

 

[Peace Piper]

Perhaps a "reporter" could dig up the fact that the Feds have patented the use of this plant

and then maybe ask why, if there's "no medical use" the Feds went to the trouble of taking out said patent

Many many people just don't seem to understand the importance of this US Patent.

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia... (much much more)



There SHOULD be no more debate on the federal level about the medical use of Cannabis.

Because they've done the research and THEY TOOK OUT A PATENT!!!

The Significance of US Govt Cannabinoid Patent 6,630,507

So, why is this important? Here is a legal document, in the public domain, which flies in the face of the US Government's stated position with regard to the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance having no "currently accepted medical use". Believe me, citing this patent stops the "medical marijuana is a myth" advocates dead in their tracks. They simply cannot argue with it. The forces that would keep cannabis illegal are vocal and well funded, but they are not impervious to persistent effort. The lynch pin in the War on Drugs is cannabis. Without the suppression and interdiction of this popular and widely used substance, there simply would not be enough "illegal drug use" going on to justify the huge amount of money and resources spent on "fighting drugs."...

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/jul/23/significance_us_govt_cannabinoid

 

[asurfaholic]

I think the idea is that Romney saying, "Oh, marijuana is bad, I want to continue locking people in jail for using it" is basically the same as saying, "Oh, I hate broccoli, I think everybody who eats broccoli should be thrown in prison".

It's not a moral position, period, and to hide behind some defunct and irrational concept of morality in order to execute violence against non-violent individuals is very sick.

If Romney thought using cannabis was bad, BUT he didn't want to take away others' rights to do it then I would still attack him on the basis that his reasoning for thinking it is bad is completely faulty. But he wouldn't be as horrible of a person.

Now Obama, on the other hand, here's a hypocritical asshole who has toked it up big time. To see this guy in office, it would be like the President saying, "Holy shit, do I loooove broccoli!! I want it all to myself, anybody who grows or eats broccoli besides me is going to prison!!"

I guess I need to be more clear. This ^^ is what I was really trying to say. Its not a moral position that Romney is taking, it is purely an authoritarian power grab.

 

[pcosmar]

Are Romneybots really this stupid?

I suspect so.

 

[liberty2897]

Obviously it shouldn't be a moral issue. Obviously it shouldn't be a Federal issue. I might be okay with it being a state issue (that would be a lot better), but it really shouldn't be an issue in the first place. If the Federal government wants to do something positive related to drugs, then I think they should instate a new national holiday called "Smoke Weed Day". I'm pretty f**ing sure the rest of the world would agree with me on this one. The entire US population needs a nice relaxing day to reflect on it's shortcomings.

 

[DeMintConservative]

I think the idea is that Romney saying, "Oh, marijuana is bad, I want to continue locking people in jail for using it" is basically the same as saying, "Oh, I hate broccoli, I think everybody who eats broccoli should be thrown in prison".

It's not a moral position, period, and to hide behind some defunct and irrational concept of morality in order to execute violence against non-violent individuals is very sick.

If Romney thought using cannabis was bad, BUT he didn't want to take away others' rights to do it then I would still attack him on the basis that his reasoning for thinking it is bad is completely faulty. But he wouldn't be as horrible of a person.

Now Obama, on the other hand, here's a hypocritical asshole who has toked it up big time. To see this guy in office, it would be like the President saying, "Holy shit, do I loooove broccoli!! I want it all to myself, anybody who grows or eats broccoli besides me is going to prison!!"

I must conclude you have serious reading comprehension problems.

I'll repeat myself, again:

We can all agree Romney and Obama common position on the war of drugs doesn't make sense in a free society.


I'll repeat it:

View Post
I do agree Romney doesn't smoke marijuana and believes doing so is wrong, but I find the idea of criticizing politicians for that kind of moral positions - regardless of what they might be and my agreement or disagreement with them - offensive and an absolute disgrace.

Maybe some of you need to learn the difference between immoral and illegal.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone who finds drugs, alcohol, sodomy, pre-marital sex (or post-marital sex or life-long sexual abstinence) immoral. I might agree or disagree with their stances, but it's not a legitimate political issue.

Criticizing someone for being personally pro or against one of those things as a political point is an absolute disgrace.

Again, in terms of policy, Obama and Romney positions are exactly the same.

Criticizing Romney's personal/moral position on drugs is an exercise that only a total troglodyte would do and completely irrelevant from a political standpoint.

 

[jkr]

remember that when the "cops" kick in your door and shoot your pets after getting the wrong house!

 

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/mitt-romney-marijuana_n_1931995.html?ir=Politics

Also just got into an argument about this with a Romney supporter and they said that if we legalize marijuana, we might as well legalize pedophilia.

Are Romneybots really this stupid?

Just agree with them and say that you think that liquor and cigarettes should be banned too. They won't give a shit unless it is something THEY like.

 

[Shane Harris]

Just agree with them and say that you think that liquor and cigarettes should be banned too. They won't give a shit unless it is something THEY like.

I did this once and they agreed

 

[paulbot24]

Oh, and tell ole Mittens that he can kiss my non-pot smoking ass. He is a theocrat, and HE knows better than you "little people" what you should put in your body. Sounds like he and Michelle have a few things in common!

Either I need new contacts or my mind is playing games with what I am reading. When I read your post and got to the Michelle part, I immediately thought about Obama and my next thought was, "Yes, Michelle is probably very knowledgeable about how to put little things in your body being being married to Obama." Wait a minute, re-read. Damn, I'd relax my eyes with a joint right now but they keep falling out of my pockets. That's from another article in this forum. Hmmmm.

 

[paulbot24]

Yes there's a difference. Barry claims to be for loosening up on regs, yet does the opposite, while he probably secretly tokes. Romney thinks it leads to child pornography and shooting smack.

Maybe Obama's ideas on this are "evolving"? Have to ask Biden. Now we know Romney's are spiritually devolved likely from his religion's "good book." Such a huge collection of writings, past and present that we have to choose from, and everybody is still reading the same tired old garbage...oh and "Fifty Shads of Grey" of course. Whatever.....grrrrr....(clutching my old Reason magazines)......I think I'm still too young to act this way.

 

[hauntedbaby]

Are you trolling, or just this ridiculous? How are you confusing a personal opinion with a belief that you should be able to impose your standards on other people through government function?

I must conclude you have serious reading comprehension problems.

I'll repeat myself, again:





Again, in terms of policy, Obama and Romney positions are exactly the same.

Criticizing Romney's personal/moral position on drugs is an exercise that only a total troglodyte would do and completely irrelevant from a political standpoint.