politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: "Why do Republicans Respect Marijuana Prohibition Like it Came From Moses?"
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2016/07/20/ ... s-against-marijuana-prohibitio
Published: Jul 20, 2016
Author: Anthony L. Fisher
Post Date: 2016-07-21 09:08:33 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 8701
Comments: 76
"Bad law needs to be dealt with, we don't need to follow it blindly," says 86-year-old Ann Lee, the founder and executive director of Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition (RAMP). In an interview with Reason at a Cleveland hotel near the Republican National Convention (RNC), Lee adds, "The mystery to me is why Republicans respect this law like it came from Moses, and when you read how it came about in 1937 under FDR...why Republicans support that is beyond me." Lee is a staunch pro-life social conservative who had her come-to-Jesus moment in when it came to marijuana prohibition after her son suffered a devastating accident in 1990. While recovering, he told his mother that unlike synthetic painkillers and other drugs, marijuana actually provided him physical relief. Lee, who grew up in Jim Crow-era Louisiana, says she grew up living under bad racist laws that needed to be changed. She argues that drug prohibition is the modern-day version of Jim Crow and also needs to be changed. RAMP's treasurer Bonnie Lugo tells Reason that she was also a staunch drug warrior until she met Lee while running against her for a spot on Texas's Republican Executive Committee. Lugo's first impression of Lee was that "she was this crazy lady" advocating for drug legalization but that the "tenacious" Lee ultimately convinced her to do her own research on the subject. When Lugo learned about how much safer marijuana is than alcohol or cigarettes, combined with the fact that people's lives were being ruined in myriad ways because of its criminalization, she did a 180 on the issue. Lugo says, "Once you figure out that your government has lied to you, it's easy to figure out all the rest." Lugo laments that too many of her fellow Republicans have bought into "60 years of indoctrination by our government that marijuana is a gateway drug, that it leads to harmful acts." Lee adds, "it's very hypocritical" of her fellow Republicans to be "pro-life and anti-medical marijuana." In trying to sell marijuana legalization to fellow RNC attendees—who are very much of pushing a "law and order" agenda this week—Lee says she is trying to convince her party cohort that they can be for law and order but need to "remember laws can be bad, too." When asked if RAMP has any plans to advocate for the legalization of drugs other than marijuana, Lee says, "this is all I can say grace over. I can't handle anything else. But I know this issue." 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-25) not displayed.
.
.
.
#26. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
Is that what it was? Here I thought you were arguing that if a dangerous substance is legal, a less dangerous substance should also be legal.
All I claimed was that a tax stamp was required and if you didn't have one you were violating the law. You're the one who expanded the argument from there.
the ... swarming pothead Make love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Because legal weed is a (D) platform staple, dipshit. I've tried telling you a million times that most of what you desire IS FILTHY LIBTARDED. Legal weed, fag marriages... cop hatred... ALL JANE FONDA SHIT. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Which comparison doesn't make the more dangerous substance "the standard" contrary to your feeble straw man. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. No, you also claimed that marijuana was nonetheless not illegal. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Booze is a much quicker trip to the graveyard. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. So Republicans must oppose everything Dums support and thereby let the Dums set the Republican platform? Good strategy, dipshit. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. There isn't anything on the libtard platform that's worth supporting, unless you're a paultard liberal hippie asshole. Dipshit.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You only address a majority of any legislation (51%) probably signed by a politically powerful ally that was paid for by lobbyists. That means it is bad law.
There isn't anything on the libtard platform that's worth supporting So that's a yes to letting the Dims set the Pub platform. Thanks, dipshit. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. What the HeLL is that?
For or against, dipshit? "we must stay vigilant. The al-Qaeda core may be on the path to defeat, but the organization and its affiliates remain active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. For that reason, we are committed to an unrelenting pursuit of those who would kill Americans or threaten our homeland, our allies, our partners, and our interests around the world." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. libtard platform What the HeLL is that? The manifesto you live by. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Perhaps you should do some actual research into the actual effects of marijuana then. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
It means FireIsland needs his Depends changed. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Don't know anything about it. I can't even get into the site. The reference is to the last chapter of a proposed political textbook on political psychology of twelve to fourteen hundred pages to be reviewed for possible publication. It analyzes the 2016 presidential campaign from several aspects, including electorate life styles, of which the recreational drug based life style is one. The last two sentences in the book propose a question: Question: What do you get when you send a hyena to college? Answer: A politician.
What manifesto is that?
Sorry, not doing your homework for you ... YOU make a claim, YOU supply the research. Put up or shut up. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. And don't forget Iraq, Lybia, and Turkey which have become transformed into jihadist islamic caliphates.
He can't even handle his bladder anymore than understanding that some of us acually believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
All you have to do is a simple search on any search engine with the terms "marijuana" and "panic attacks." I would rather you see the evidence rather than claim I am giving you a biased point of view.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
You mean faggot bathrooms, open borders and heroin for children. We aren't equal, suckhole... we never were. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Sorry, not doing your homework for you no matter how easy you claim it will be ... YOU make a claim, YOU supply the research. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You do all that besides walking chidren across the street while wearing a whistle and holding a STOP sign? Good grief, man, are you all there?
Marijuana was legal with a tax stamp. The law was broken by not having a stamp, not because you had marijuana.
The majority of states that passed medical marijuana laws did so exactly that way. You're saying those are bad laws?
Alcohol and tobacco were the substances YOU cited for comparison to determine legality. This is totally different than the criteria set out in §811(c) of the Controlled Substances Act, thereby making it the new standard. However ... if you're simply making a comparison but NOT advocating a legal change because of that comparison, then I retract my statement.
I noted the article's statement about them, and in reply YOU propped up straw men about legality and standards. I note that the law is out of whack by regulating the more harmful drugs while banning a less harmful drug; there's more than one way to resolve that. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. A bad law is a bad law is a bad law is a bad law.
federally the paperwork for which would expose one to prosecution under state marijuana laws The law was broken by having marijuana and no stamp. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Ever occur to you that the illegality of a recreational drug may be determined by more than "harm"?
The law is broken by having a car and speeding. Are you ticketed for having a car?
No. I simply commented on their relative safety. You turned it into a legality issue.
"Harm" is an argument often dragged out by anti-pot frothers, like the LFer whose still-unsubstantiated claims started this exchange - and even on those nanny-state terms the marijuana ban fails. But what the hey, I'll play along: By what criteria is marijuana more worthy of banning than alcohol - and are any of those criteria the proper business of government? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. No, actually, you commented on absolute safety - "alcohol and cigarettes kill millions" - (without contesting the relative statement) and then in post #18 dragged in the straw man about "standards." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Better question... why do hippy libtard assholes love weed so much? Get high on life, losers. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
For the third time, §811(c) of the Controlled Substances Act spells it out. "and are any of those criteria the proper business of government?" Protecting the people from the interstate transportation of a dangerous substance? What do you think?
I said, "Given that alcohol and cigarettes kill millions, saying a drug is safer than them is hardly a ringing endorsement." I made a relative statement about safety, not legality. "and then in post #18 dragged in the straw man about "standards." Legal standards, yes. Because in post #16 you stated that marijuana should have "no greater legal restrictions" than alcohol and cigarettes. How is that NOT setting a new standard for legality?
Especially when they're the same people trying to ban cigarettes. Marijuana contains four times the tar and twice the carcinogens as tobacco. Yet these yahoos say, "Marijuana good. Cigarettes bad."
Comments (67 - 76) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"A basis for comparison is not a "standard".
#27. To: ConservingFreedom (#22)
"So why were you claiming otherwise?"
#28. To: rlk (#20)
more dangerous and destructive
... natives
are
restless
... graveyard
America
great
again
boris
#29. To: Deckard (#0)
Why do Republicans Respect Marijuana Prohibition Like it Came From Moses?"
#30. To: misterwhite (#26)
Here I thought you were arguing that if a dangerous substance is legal, a less dangerous substance should also be legal.
#31. To: misterwhite (#27)
All I claimed was that a tax stamp was required and if you didn't have one you were violating the law.
#32. To: BorisY (#28)
pothead ... graveyard
#33. To: GrandIsland (#29)
Because legal weed is a (D) platform staple
#34. To: ConservingFreedom (#33)
#35. To: misterwhite (#1)
The law is respected because it's the law.
#36. To: GrandIsland (#34)
"So Republicans must oppose everything Dums support and thereby let the Dums set the Republican platform? Good strategy, dipshit."
#37. To: GrandIsland (#34)
libtard platform
#38. To: GrandIsland (#34)
#39. To: buckeroo (#37)
#40. To: ConservingFreedom (#13)
I know of no evidence that "many, many" marijuana users have had panic attacks so bad that they qualify as "harm".
#41. To: buckeroo (#37)
What the HeLL is that?
#42. To: ConservingFreedom (#24)
(Edited)
Here? theanalyticpapers.com/
#43. To: GrandIsland (#39)
#44. To: no gnu taxes (#40)
Perhaps you should do some actual research
#45. To: ConservingFreedom (#38)
(Edited)
"we must stay vigilant. The al-Qaeda core may be on the path to defeat, but the organization and its affiliates remain active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. For that reason, we are committed to an unrelenting pursuit of those who would kill Americans or threaten our homeland, our allies, our partners, and our interests around the world."
#46. To: ConservingFreedom (#41)
It means FireIsland needs his Depends changed.
#47. To: ConservingFreedom (#44)
#48. To: buckeroo (#46)
(Edited)
some of us acually believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
#49. To: no gnu taxes (#47)
All you have to do is a simple search on any search engine with the terms "marijuana" and "panic attacks."
#50. To: GrandIsland (#48)
You mean faggot bathrooms, open borders and heroin for children.
#51. To: ConservingFreedom (#31)
"No, you also claimed that marijuana was nonetheless not illegal."
#52. To: buckeroo (#35)
"You only address a majority of any legislation (51%) probably signed by a politically powerful ally that was paid for by lobbyists. That means it is bad law."
#53. To: ConservingFreedom (#30)
"Which comparison doesn't make the more dangerous substance "the standard" contrary to your feeble straw man."
#54. To: misterwhite (#53)
Alcohol and tobacco were the substances YOU cited for comparison to determine legality.
if you're simply making a comparison but NOT advocating a legal change because of that comparison
#55. To: misterwhite (#52)
You're saying those are bad laws?
#56. To: misterwhite (#51)
Marijuana was legal
with a tax stamp.
The law was broken by not having a stamp, not because you had marijuana.
#57. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)
"I note that the law is out of whack by regulating the more harmful drugs while banning a less harmful drug"
#58. To: ConservingFreedom (#56)
"The law was broken by having marijuana and no stamp."
#59. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)
"I noted the article's statement about them, and in reply YOU propped up straw men about legality and standards."
#60. To: misterwhite (#57)
Ever occur to you that the illegality of a recreational drug may be determined by more than "harm"?
#61. To: misterwhite (#59)
I simply commented on their relative safety.
#62. To: Deckard (#0)
#63. To: ConservingFreedom (#60)
"By what criteria is marijuana more worthy of banning than alcohol"
#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#61)
"No, actually, you commented on absolute safety - "alcohol and cigarettes kill millions"
#65. To: GrandIsland (#62)
"why do hippy libtard assholes love weed so much?"
#66. To: misterwhite (#65)
"Marijuana good. Cigarettes bad."
Deaths Per Year
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]