Most pro Marijuana Presidential Candidates

I'm pro legalization, but is that really the one issue you use to pick a presidential candidate?

 

To me that's the issue that will have me not choose a candidate. If you are anti pot, you are just a flat out dumb ass and therefore cannot hold the office of the presidency. Legalization makes sense on every level, unless you are in the DEA or the private prison industry, big pharma, or alcohol and tobacco.

 

So what if a candidate is in favor of everything you are in favor of except for the legalization of pot?

 

I hear you, and I've come to really just not care anymore about it. For instance bringing up that Jeb smoked pot 40 years ago, BFD. Like really? With the issues that we have to face and correct after the mess that obama, and the two stooges Harry and Nancy got us into I could not give less of a shit what anyone's stance on weed is

 

Deal breaker, I'd probably abstain

 

That's the thing it's so insignificant and could bring much needed revenue. We could decrease the size of government and make more money. Seems like a no brainier to me.

 

It should be legal but I have lived this long as a lawbreaker so what's the difference. Now get over to the Tiger's Den and start a game thread. Neither Shane nor I will do it because we don't want to jinx the Tigers

 

I think a better hypothetical would be "What if a candidate is opposite of everything that you are in favor of except pot". Then NO, i obviously could not support them. But their position on this issue is very telling, and the same reasoning usually permeates other issues as well....like Rand Paul. I'm generally a libertarian/objectivist, and agree with a lot of his platform. And there is really not enough REAL difference between the Dems and Reps to matter.

 

Not exactly. What makes you think that anything for sale or requiring licensure would somehow decrease the size of government?

"On Friday afternoon, both the California Senate and Assembly are expected to pass amended versions of Assembly Bill 266, AB 243 a nd Senate Bill 643 — the three bills containing California’s historic new medical cannabis regulations.

What precisely was in those amendments had been anyone’s guess, right up until they dropped. Here is the latest text of AB 243.

Assemblymember Jim Wood's part of the regulations focus on cultivation regulations and licenses.


“This bill would require the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the State Water Resources Control Board to promulgate regulations or standards relating to medical marijuana and its cultivation” — including pesticides.

AB 243 provides $10 million to fund the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (the BMMR)."

Further explanation....
"Personal and caregiver medical marijuana rights go untouched, but everything else is considered commercial and requires one of about twelve different types of licenses.

Californians would get tested products and organic certifications. Cities could ban pot activity. Licensees would need both local and then state approval for a license.

Farms are capped at one acre, or 20,000 square-feet. Deliveries would be allowed, but only if tied to a physical dispensary. Farmers could process or extract, but can’t retail pot. Retailers could extract or process their own products, but couldn’t own the farm. Transporters would be separately licensed and independent.

The governor’s draft language deletes certain layers of bureaucracy and trims expenses. A General Fund loan would pay for the $20 million program’s startup costs, and would be paid back through licensing and taxes."

So now growers need a license, need to conform, need to obey, need to pay. The Emerald Triangle just might be sorry to get what they asked for. And the government will hire a bunch of new nosey-butts who will try to assert their pencil authority and CA will once again be the state of legislative/licensing hell and more taxes. Brilliant.