Sarah Palin: Marijuana Policy Reformer?

Anyone who favors decriminalization is a friend and not an enemy. The idea of dramatically changing drug policy overnight is not realistic and just like any good drug deal, somebody's got to show the money before they get the stuff.

That said, Sarah Palin does not even support decriminalization from the comments that she made. Although it seems from previous reports that when it was decriminalized in Alaska that she partook herself.

This interview was on Freedom Watch with The Judge and Ron Paul as the other guest. I just think she was trying to be nice and not piss off all the libertarians who were watching the show, because if she really wanted be to clear about it, she would.

It wouldn't be a hard audience in which to say something that definitive.

I even saw one later blog post out there based on the interview that said she was for repealing the Patriot Act, when all she said is that the government shouldn't be spying on our emails. She may not even know the Patriot Act allows the government to do that.

I thought the judge was a little soft on her, but maybe it was just graciousness for endorsing Rand.
 
Last edited:
You have to let it go. Even hard news sources, credible news sources, the comment about, you can see Russia from Alaska. You can! You can see Russia from Alaska. Something like that, a factual statement that was taken out of context and mocked, what you have to do is let that go.
 
Topspin said:
Yeah what sense would it make to just stop jailing smokers over night.
Click to expand...

Decriminalization achieves that. Only California is even marginally ready for legalization, so to expect folks in states like Utah to get on board with full legalization is just too much.

The gradual approach on these issues is working and people are coming around.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Decriminalization achieves that. Only California is even marginally ready for legalization, so to expect folks in states like Utah to get on board with full legalization is just too much.

The gradual approach on these issues is working and people are coming around.
Click to expand...

All powers not granted to the feds, is the right of the states.
 
Liberty said:
Well I'll stop giving you any respect. Which isn't my nature!

Hay smart guy;

Which party is for doing away with the 16th amendment?
The federal reserve?
The department of education?
The EPA?
The war on huminity? (Drugs)
Social Security?
The 17th amendment.
And a bunch more I haven't the time for?
Neither faction, or as your limited amount of int knows as parties!

Which means, "very smart guy", that there is no diference.

What you're saying is "which slave owner is better, or will I worship".
Click to expand...

Well checking off your laundry list of things you would like to see changed, it doesn't appear you are undecided at all. It appears you have a very clear agenda of things you'd like to see made different. The problem is, most of the things on your list, the American public, by and large, doesn't want eliminated entirely. So it's not likely that either major party is going to support doing something that most people don't want. I have to assume you DO want these things eliminated, and a smaller limited government... if that is the case, the Democrats are not the party you need to be in power. They believe in bigger government, and would never even consider your proposals. So the natural choice for you, would be the Republican party, they are closer to your ideals than the Democrats. You stand a far better chance of actually realizing smaller limited government through Republicans. But rather than give the Republican party your support, you choose to criticize them equally with Democrats and so the, Democrats who have solidarity of all the special interests, will continue to have a stronghold on power in our government, because you are too stupidly caught up in your personal ideals to do the right thing.

Yeah, I would say I am markedly smarter than you.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
are you over the age of 20? Because in my last 25 years of being a registered voter, i've seen one obvious trait that both parties hold dear to them, and that is doing whatever they can to deny me my rights and liberties. BOTH parties do it, they just divvy up which parts they want to infringe upon.
Click to expand...

I am 51 years old.

What you 'see' is whatever the media and propaganda organizations feed you. It's too difficult for you to think for yourself, or use your god-given common sense on things, you just listen to whatever pinhead is blathering about your freedoms today, and that's where you are at intellectually. It is people like you who have caused us to decline into the cesspool we've become as a nation, because you either lack basic common sense, or you are too lazy to use it.
 
Socrtease said:
I agree with you Dixie. THe thing is, even during the cocaine drenched days of the 80's mexican cartels did very little smuggling. The Columbians had it sowed up and the coke came directly from Columbia to the US via airplanes. If we take the money out of Marijuana the cartels in Mexico will die. It is there bread and butter. In this corridor we see very little large scale trafficking cases. Here in NM ANY hand to hand sale of Coke is considered trafficking, is punished by 9 years in prison and judges typically give them every minute of that. They still get good time that results in 4.5 years for a first offense. But almost never see amounts above one or two ounces.
Click to expand...

You missed my point I think. IF pot were decriminalized, it has the same effect on the cartels as if it were legalized. It is not worth the risk for them to try and smuggle a decriminalized drug into the country. Decriminalizing would also probably lower the cost, since the inherent risk of dealing is eliminated.
 
UOTE=Adam Weinberg;666721]Anyone who favors decriminalization is a friend and not an enemy.
Click to expand...

fair enough

The idea of dramatically changing drug policy overnight is not realistic and just like any good drug deal, somebody's got to show the money before they get the stuff.
Click to expand...

so we should go through decades of prohibition? this is not about "dramatically" changing drug policy, this has been 'changing' for decades. it can change now, just as swiftly as prohibition came to its end.
 
Dixie said:
You missed my point I think. IF pot were decriminalized, it has the same effect on the cartels as if it were legalized. It is not worth the risk for them to try and smuggle a decriminalized drug into the country. Decriminalizing would also probably lower the cost, since the inherent risk of dealing is eliminated.
Click to expand...

do you know the difference between decriminalize and legal?
 
I'm seeing way more republicans for decrim, there is a chance if the repubs get somebody under 85 to run and steal this issue that Obama took a big shit on. Get the youth vote Tea Party!!!
 
Dixie said:
I am 51 years old.

What you 'see' is whatever the media and propaganda organizations feed you. It's too difficult for you to think for yourself, or use your god-given common sense on things, you just listen to whatever pinhead is blathering about your freedoms today, and that's where you are at intellectually. It is people like you who have caused us to decline into the cesspool we've become as a nation, because you either lack basic common sense, or you are too lazy to use it.
Click to expand...

ok, 51. my bad. i'm 43 myself. My opinion, I think you're too ideologically blinded by partisanship to understand just what it is I said, which is fine. That's your right. As for the inability to think for myself, maybe you haven't paid too much attention to what I post, but I don't vote for either party most of the time because of the exact nature of their hypocrisy. Both parties talk about restoring freedoms and liberties from one mouth, then do everything they can to take more away. I'm sorry you can't see that. Are the dems worse than the republicans about it? most definitely, but the lesser of two evils is still evil.
 
that's why decrim is 100% up for grabs for the tripping overthemselves stupid cons. Dems have shit on that wing of thier party, just like the anti-war wing.
 
Dixie said:
Well checking off your laundry list of things you would like to see changed, it doesn't appear you are undecided at all. It appears you have a very clear agenda of things you'd like to see made different. The problem is, most of the things on your list, the American public, by and large, doesn't want eliminated entirely. So it's not likely that either major party is going to support doing something that most people don't want. I have to assume you DO want these things eliminated, and a smaller limited government... if that is the case, the Democrats are not the party you need to be in power. They believe in bigger government, and would never even consider your proposals. So the natural choice for you, would be the Republican party, they are closer to your ideals than the Democrats. You stand a far better chance of actually realizing smaller limited government through Republicans. But rather than give the Republican party your support, you choose to criticize them equally with Democrats and so the, Democrats who have solidarity of all the special interests, will continue to have a stronghold on power in our government, because you are too stupidly caught up in your personal ideals to do the right thing.

Yeah, I would say I am markedly smarter than you.
Click to expand...

The whole point of what I tried to show you is that you are supporting a Marxist party, and what the real issues are.

Which means there is no real difference.

It's no different than the communist competing with the nazis for power.

You're a product of your environment with limited thought.
 
Liberty said:
The whole point of what I tried to show you is that you are supporting a Marxist party, and what the real issues are.

Which means there is no real difference.

It's no different than the communist competing with the nazis for power.

You're a product of your environment with limited thought.
Click to expand...

No, there is a huge difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism"]Marxism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Karl_Marx.jpg" class="image" title="Karl Marx"><img alt="Karl Marx" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Karl_Marx.jpg/100px-Karl_Marx.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/f/fc/Karl_Marx.jpg/100px-Karl_Marx.jpg[/ame]

Marxism is a particular political philosophy, economic and sociological worldview based upon a materialist interpretation of history, a Marxist analysis of capitalism, a theory of social change, and an atheist view of human liberation derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The three primary aspects of Marxism are:

1. The dialectical and materialist concept of history — Humankind's history is fundamentally that of the struggle between social classes. The productive capacity of society is the foundation of society, and as this capacity increases over time the social relations of production, class relations, evolve through this struggle of the classes and pass through definite stages (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism). The legal, political, ideological and other aspects (e.g. art) of society are derived from these production relations as is the consciousness of the individuals of which the society is composed.
2. The critique of capitalism — Marx argues that in capitalist society, an economic minority (the bourgeoisie) dominate and exploit the working class (proletariat) majority. Marx argues that capitalism is exploitative, specifically the way in which unpaid labor (surplus value) is extracted from the working class (the labor theory of value), extending and critiquing the work of earlier political economists on value. He argued that while the production process is socialized, ownership remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. This forms the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society. Without the elimination of the fetter of the private ownership of the means of production, human society is unable to achieve further development.
3. Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now do any of you fellow teabaggers want to chime in and tell us which of the three major principles of Marxism you support the most? I think even an absolute moron can see, the principles of Marxism have nothing to do with modern American conservatism, or libertarianism for that matter. They do, however, seem very curiously aligned with the views of Liberals and Democrats. So stop being an ignorant boob, claiming both parties are Marxist, when it's simply a baseless and ignorant charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top