He Who Pawns
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,045
Where does Sanford stand on the drug issue?
Where is Sanford on the failed "war on drugs"?
- Thread starter He Who Pawns
- Start date
Chieftain1776
Member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,395
Unfortunately when in Congress Sanford voted Yes on "Vote to pass a bill that provides $429.1 million in funds for the District of Columbia and approves the District's $6.8 billion budget. Among other provisions, the bill prohibits the use of federal funds for needle exchange programs, prohibits implementing an approved ballot initiative to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Istook, R-OK; Bill HR 3064 ; vote number 1999-504 on Oct 14, 1999 " http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm#Drugs
But out of all the votes on drugs in congress they could only find him voting for a budget which has only a provision that's anti-drug. Not bad...I don't think he needs a Bob Barr like conversion. I think he may already be there:
One really bright spot is his position on Phelps. His says Phelps shouldn't be prosecuted and seems really uneasy about saying that b/c he's considered a "conservative governor". Here's the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7HAA6MS3yw
I think Sanford is libertarian but governing a hardcore Christian conservative state so holds back a great deal. SC is the target of basically a theocratic project.
We'll see how it goes. But watch the speech I posted to see that why I really think this guy might be for real.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Istook, R-OK; Bill HR 3064 ; vote number 1999-504 on Oct 14, 1999 " http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm#Drugs
But out of all the votes on drugs in congress they could only find him voting for a budget which has only a provision that's anti-drug. Not bad...I don't think he needs a Bob Barr like conversion. I think he may already be there:
One really bright spot is his position on Phelps. His says Phelps shouldn't be prosecuted and seems really uneasy about saying that b/c he's considered a "conservative governor". Here's the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7HAA6MS3yw
I think Sanford is libertarian but governing a hardcore Christian conservative state so holds back a great deal. SC is the target of basically a theocratic project.
We'll see how it goes. But watch the speech I posted to see that why I really think this guy might be for real.
He Who Pawns
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,045
Does he have an official position on the failed and illegal federal "war on drugs"?
slacker921
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 3,143
He's in the running for 2012 and has many within the GOP on his side.... that means:
- he supports the War on Terror
- he supports the War on Drugs
... anything else is irrelevant to the GOP.
- he supports the War on Terror
- he supports the War on Drugs
... anything else is irrelevant to the GOP.
He Who Pawns
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,045
If he supports the "war on drugs", he will never get my support.
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
He Who Pawns
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,045
Anyone who supports the federal "war on drugs" actually completely fails to understand the meaning liberty and personal responsibility, and therefore is someone I could never support enthusiastically.
0zzy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 6,397
Someone who supports the federal war on drugs but is agreeable moreso on other issues can garner respect from me. I do not claim to be perfect and I don't expect others to be either, they can be educated over time, but if they are a lesser good rather than a lesser evil than I shall vote for them enthusiastically.
Spirit of '76
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,128
Be careful about relying on ontheissues.org to interpret people's voting records. A few months ago I posted this in another discussion where people were using information from ontheissues.org to criticize Sanford:
It's sad how misleading that ontheissues.org site is...
Wait a minute! Ron Paul voted against it too?
Hmmm... Interesting... Let's dig a little deeper.
According to ontheissues, that refers to H.R.2122, voted on 6/18/99. This bill was also known as the "Omnibus Gun Control Bill".
It dealt mostly with gun shows. While it is true that it would allow for 24 hour background checks at guns shows, it also would have made it illegal for private individuals to sell firearms to each other at or near a gun show and given the BATF unlimited access to search any vendor at a gun show without a warrant.
Here's the GOA page on the bill:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=244&chamber=H&congress=1061
You'll note they say, "In sum, the bill took more negative steps than positive ones" and gave members voting AGAINST the bill a positive score.
Overall, the GOA gives Sanford an A rating: http://gunowners.org/106hrat.htm
This was a budget bill, and the amendment Sanford voted for didn't "prohibit needle exchanges", it prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs in DC.
The other amendment he voted to approve in this case did not "ban medical marijuana". It prohibited the use of federal funds granted under the budget to legalize "any schedule I substance".
This amendment was also known as the Barr Amendment, after its author, Representative Bob Barr (R, Georgia).
This was another amendment to the above budget bill that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to subsidize gay adoptions.
I would highly advise people not to take ontheissues.org at face value. It can point you in the right direction if you're willing to read the fine print and then do some actual research, but their one-sentence summaries of the bills in question are ultimately very misleading.
Last edited:
ClayTrainor
Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 12,840
Must say, i disagree with this. The War on Drugs should be common sense, imo.
If he can't understand how the WOD is violating and destroying the lives of millions of people, then i doubt he really has a full understanding of Foreign Policy amongst other things.
The war on drugs is one of the simplest, most disgusting issues to comprehend. if Sanford doesn't get it, then what else doesn't he "get"?
Support of War on Drugs, means 100% unelectable in my own opinion.
FourTwenty666
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 46
Truth. There is really nothing I can add to this it is the perfect comment for this guy. I almost feel like even if he did come out and say all this stuff that he might not even be truthful, like a certain president we have now. I have a feeling this guy will just be another neo-con GOP puppet, he won't change anything... Leave that job up to Mr. Paul please, he will do it right.
Indy4Chng
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 418
Mr. Paul will never be president. Sanford can be. We need to undue over 100 years of horrific policy. That doesn't happen overnight. To get my support you have to 1) have constitutional principles 2) showed you could stick to these when it wasn't possible 3) Have a chance to win... Sanford is the only one that passes those three tests. Even if he will support the war on drugs... I don't think we would expand it, if he was president for four year, did not increase spending and returned education to the states that would be a very successful four year if you look at the last 100+ years. We need realistic goals, now utopia goals.
specsaregood
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 39,143
I'm not buying it, he isn't a winner nationwide. A republican hick with a lisp isn't winning the presidency; not in this era.
FourTwenty666
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 46
Meh I guess I'm just too sick of these horrific policies. This guy has some serious proving to do if he wants my vote. Otherwise I'll just dream how great it would have been if America could have came together and made the most brilliant man (Dr. Paul) in America president.
Indy4Chng
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 418
I dream about it too... but then I wake up and see the world I am living in and just want to a step in the right direction rather than running the other way. Based on what I have read and see Sanford say I believe he has many liberty principles he wouldn't sacrafice... is he perfect NO!!... but a republican who would go on record when it wasn't popular that he doesn't believe in policing the world or premptive war... gives him a lot of credibility. He seems genuine in the things he believes in... that is plenty for me. The thought of having a choice of Palin or Romney or Obama for president makes me a lot sicker that not having a perfect liberty candidate.
FourTwenty666
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 46
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
Be careful about relying on ontheissues.org to interpret people's voting records. A few months ago I posted this in another discussion where people were using information from ontheissues.org to criticize Sanford:
It's sad how misleading that ontheissues.org site is...
Wait a minute! Ron Paul voted against it too?
Hmmm... Interesting... Let's dig a little deeper.
According to ontheissues, that refers to H.R.2122, voted on 6/18/99. This bill was also known as the "Omnibus Gun Control Bill".
It dealt mostly with gun shows. While it is true that it would allow for 24 hour background checks at guns shows, it also would have made it illegal for private individuals to sell firearms to each other at or near a gun show and given the BATF unlimited access to search any vendor at a gun show without a warrant.
Here's the GOA page on the bill:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=244&chamber=H&congress=1061
You'll note they say, "In sum, the bill took more negative steps than positive ones" and gave members voting AGAINST the bill a positive score.
Overall, the GOA gives Sanford an A rating: http://gunowners.org/106hrat.htm
This was a budget bill, and the amendment Sanford voted for didn't "prohibit needle exchanges", it prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs in DC.
The other amendment he voted to approve in this case did not "ban medical marijuana". It prohibited the use of federal funds granted under the budget to legalize "any schedule I substance".
This amendment was also known as the Barr Amendment, after its author, Representative Bob Barr (R, Georgia).
This was another amendment to the above budget bill that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to subsidize gay adoptions.
I would highly advise people not to take ontheissues.org at face value. It can point you in the right direction if you're willing to read the fine print and then do some actual research, but their one-sentence summaries of the bills in question are ultimately very misleading.
great post, opened my eyes
RP just gave Sanford a shout out at the Missouri rally.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Sanford echo RP's rhetoric more and more over the next couple years to try to tap into the support. It will be tricky to determine if Sanford is just mining for libertarian votes or if he is truly sincere, but was held down previously due to the realities of party politics.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see Ron Paul endorse Sanford in some fashion in 2012, and possibly receive a VP bid if Sanford gets the ticket.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Sanford echo RP's rhetoric more and more over the next couple years to try to tap into the support. It will be tricky to determine if Sanford is just mining for libertarian votes or if he is truly sincere, but was held down previously due to the realities of party politics.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see Ron Paul endorse Sanford in some fashion in 2012, and possibly receive a VP bid if Sanford gets the ticket.
scandinaviany3
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,976
this is why omnibus's got to go like in WA state has
Although it makes for a whole lot more bills...we definitely need to get rid of omnibus's. Even the confederates knew this and made it a major issue in their constitution during the civil war. Makes you wonder.....
Be careful about relying on ontheissues.org to interpret people's voting records. A few months ago I posted this in another discussion where people were using information from ontheissues.org to criticize Sanford:
It's sad how misleading that ontheissues.org site is...
Wait a minute! Ron Paul voted against it too?
Hmmm... Interesting... Let's dig a little deeper.
According to ontheissues, that refers to H.R.2122, voted on 6/18/99. This bill was also known as the "Omnibus Gun Control Bill".
It dealt mostly with gun shows. While it is true that it would allow for 24 hour background checks at guns shows, it also would have made it illegal for private individuals to sell firearms to each other at or near a gun show and given the BATF unlimited access to search any vendor at a gun show without a warrant.
Here's the GOA page on the bill:
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/votes/?votenum=244&chamber=H&congress=1061
You'll note they say, "In sum, the bill took more negative steps than positive ones" and gave members voting AGAINST the bill a positive score.
Overall, the GOA gives Sanford an A rating: http://gunowners.org/106hrat.htm
This was a budget bill, and the amendment Sanford voted for didn't "prohibit needle exchanges", it prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for needle exchange programs in DC.
The other amendment he voted to approve in this case did not "ban medical marijuana". It prohibited the use of federal funds granted under the budget to legalize "any schedule I substance".
This amendment was also known as the Barr Amendment, after its author, Representative Bob Barr (R, Georgia).
This was another amendment to the above budget bill that would have forbidden the use of federal funds to subsidize gay adoptions.
I would highly advise people not to take ontheissues.org at face value. It can point you in the right direction if you're willing to read the fine print and then do some actual research, but their one-sentence summaries of the bills in question are ultimately very misleading.
Although it makes for a whole lot more bills...we definitely need to get rid of omnibus's. Even the confederates knew this and made it a major issue in their constitution during the civil war. Makes you wonder.....
Last edited:
Similar threads
