Talk-Polywell.org

Obama attacks pot prohibition.

http://classicalvalues.com/2014/01/it-begins/

"It's not something I encourage, and I've told my daughters I think it's a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy," he said.(obama)

Let not reality interfere.
Obama is for drugs. Obviously.

I can totally see the Democrats making this a 2016 election issue. That's going to hurt Republicans still attached to the old liberal substance control legislation.

It's ironic, modern conservatives are defending an ancient prohibition-era piece of radical liberal legislation. Next thing we'll know, conservatives will be defending government healthcare in 2050.

palladin9479 wrote:I can totally see the Democrats making this a 2016 election issue. That's going to hurt Republicans still attached to the old liberal substance control legislation.

It's ironic, modern conservatives are defending an ancient prohibition-era piece of radical liberal legislation. Next thing we'll know, conservatives will be defending government healthcare in 2050.

Well a few idiots calling themselves conservative thought pre-emptive forced "responsibility" was a good idea. That is where the idiot Obama got the idea. "Conservatives" who didn't know what government shouldn't try to do.

Romney[cough]

palladin9479 wrote:I can totally see the Democrats making this a 2016 election issue. That's going to hurt Republicans still attached to the old liberal substance control legislation.

It's ironic, modern conservatives are defending an ancient prohibition-era piece of radical liberal legislation. Next thing we'll know, conservatives will be defending government healthcare in 2050.

An increasing percentage (probably a majority) of young people, let us say under 40 support legalizing pot. But I will bet the majority of non-hispanic whites over 55 say still support the WOD. And they probably vote in a higher percentage than people under 25 do. Our best hope is still at the state level, hoping for change there, but I still think the Republicans will keep the house and gain seats in the Senate, maybe enough for a slim majority, maybe not.

williatw wrote:

palladin9479 wrote:I can totally see the Democrats making this a 2016 election issue. That's going to hurt Republicans still attached to the old liberal substance control legislation.

It's ironic, modern conservatives are defending an ancient prohibition-era piece of radical liberal legislation. Next thing we'll know, conservatives will be defending government healthcare in 2050.

An increasing percentage (probably a majority) of young people, let us say under 40 support legalizing pot. But I will bet the majority of non-hispanic whites over 55 say still support the WOD. And they probably vote in a higher percentage than people under 25 do. Our best hope is still at the state level, hoping for change there, but I still think the Republicans will keep the house and gain seats in the Senate, maybe enough for a slim majority, maybe not.

The 2014 election will not turn on this. It is an attempt to staunch the bleeding. It may get the kids out for the mid-terms if the D party (not just the President) can make it an issue.

Now the 2016 election? The Rs better work hard for Rand Paul.

Republicrats have no chance, the press love Hillary, you may remember she was named after that mountain climber? (sarc, just in case it was needed). Republicrats of course will run a blue blood, Christy. The only drama will be the running mates. Marco Rubio will wait for this drama to play out and go for much later election. Rand Paul also.

That is what the 8-ball said when I turned it over several times while asking the right questions...

ladajo wrote:Let not reality interfere.
Obama is for drugs. Obviously.

He is for winning elections. Evidently he can read the polls. Of course given the Republican base - well represented here - what can they do? Other than lose on the issue.

The question is - can he bring enough people to the polls to counter his losses on Obamacare?

My friend Eric is in despair over what this will do to Republican election chances:

http://classicalvalues.com/2014/01/does ... -this-war/

MSimon wrote:Obama attacks pot prohibition.

http://classicalvalues.com/2014/01/it-begins/

So you have the dumbest President in History on your side. Not sure i'd be crowing about that.

Headstrong big government holdouts are ignoring the big worry of little people who are themselves drug adverse, like myself, as well as big corporations, and that is the surveillance state needed to enforce your drug laws and drug war.

Obama fails to ease concern over spying, US national security establishment is at war with tech companies over internet and computer security

This is an article about the consequence of another big government war.

You see, you bargain with the devil to get your nanny state, with protecting overlords, needed to wage the drug war. Instead you need to think in terms of dealing with drug issues without making it a police state criminal matter. Children and drugs came much later and happened after the drug war made such "trade" profitable. One more collateral massive damage. Just what you were trying to avoid. Stupid.

Employment for instance can be predicated on no drug use...that effects the job. Machine operators can't be drunk, inebriated by any chemical, even prescription drugs. Schools can be drug free without criminal laws.

What is it that makes people think if there is a problem, criminal law is the solution? Or more and big brother government is needed. Come on. I personally hate use of drugs, I avoid them, but you guys worry the heck out of me in your pursuit of the police state, and don't kid yourself that that is not what you're doing.

Some of us regard the pot smoking loon occupier of the White House more reliable than not as a reverse barometer.

hanelyp wrote:Some of us regard the pot smoking loon occupier of the White House more reliable than not as a reverse barometer.

Well, you have the leetle problem of 55% favoring legalization.

Last October Gallup found that for the first time a majority of Americans, 58 percent, said marijuana should be legalized. In that Gallup survey 39 percent said the drug should remain illegal.

That’s a huge swing in national attitudes from 1969, when Gallup first asked the question. That year only 12 percent of respondents said they favored legal pot.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-speaks-mari ... 17311.html

The thing is Obama and the Democrats want to win elections. The Republicans? Not so much.

Whether he meant to or not, Obama is positioning himself and his party in such a way that “many Democrats feel could reap serious political rewards in the coming months and years,” writes Zornick.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-speaks-mari ... 17311.html

My article at American Thinker might be a little amusing. I was about a year and a half early.
The Democrat's 2012 Victory Plan

Did anyone read the questions in that poll??
As mark twain said "there are lies , darn lies and statistics"
Jan. 3-5
2014
Would you say the use of marijuana is a very serious problem in this country today, a moderately
serious problem, not too serious, or not really a problem at all?
Very serious 19%
Moderately serious 32%
Not too serious 22%
Not really a problem at all 27%
No opinion 1%

By their own poll one could say, its a problem. By 73 percent and even if you weight it the other way its still a problem so how are they getting their numbers, by a practice called weighted numbers where you guess what the intent of the poll taker is.
Mark twain said it all. The real question is to what end does the media want to achieve.

hanelyp wrote:Some of us regard the pot smoking loon occupier of the White House more reliable than not as a reverse barometer.

Just to be clear, you are referring to the current occupier and not one of the previous acknowledged drug using occupiers?