Ken Buck, Leader Of Group Opposed To Pot Legalization, Used To Support State Rights ForPot

[specsaregood]

remember the C4L ken buck-gate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/ken-buck-said-in-2010-pot_n_1594483.html



The Campaign To Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the pot advocacy group behind Amendment 64 which seeks to legalize and regulate marijuana in Colorado, has discovered an inconsistency in Ken Buck's thoughts on pot and state's rights.

Ken Buck, a former senate candidate and now the leader of Smart Colorado, the group opposed to pot legalization and whose organization just asked for the federal government's help in fighting back pot legalization in the state, apparently used to have very different ideas when it came to federal government intervention in state's rights, even when it comes to marijuana.

In 2010, the Centennial Citizen reported that Ken Buck had this to say about marijuana in Colorado:

If the State of Colorado decides it wants to legalize marijuana, the marijuana is grown in Colorado, it is distributed in Colorado, it is used in Colorado, it is none of the federal government’s business what happens here -- the federal government needs to understand what the 10th Amendment says.

Does that sound like the future leader of a anti-legalization movement that would ask the federal government for help on anything?

Smart Colorado sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday asking for the federal government to help defeat the statewide initiative to legalize and regulate marijuana like alcohol, The Denver Post first reported.

more at link above


yet another douche, thats all im gonna say about that.

[Brian4Liberty]

Just goes to show that it's just a paycheck for most politicians.

[SneakyFrenchSpy]

Turncoat! Kinda glad he lost back then...

[Feeding the Abscess]

Turncoat! Kinda glad he lost back then...

He would have had to have been a believer in liberty at one point for him to be a turncoat.

[AJ Antimony]

C4L fail haha

[Brett85]

I was really disappointed after he lost that race. I'm over that now.

[jj-]

pos

[JK/SEA]

yeah maybe someday when he has a real close loved one dying from cancer and the ONLY thing that will help them eat and feel better is cannabis, maybe he'll change his tune. God i hate ignorance. Watched my mom waste away from colon cancer. We kids tried to get her to take a few tokes..she smoked cigs most of her life...but BECAUSE it was/is against the law, she wouldn't do it.....anyway.....morphine was perfectly ok though....still pisses me off, and that was in 1992.

[LibertyEagle]

C4L fail haha

I guess you mean Ron Paul fail, eh? Because he said he was involved in the decision.

[jmdrake]

remember the C4L ken buck-gate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/ken-buck-said-in-2010-pot_n_1594483.html


yet another douche, thats all im gonna say about that.

Yes I remember. And I remember that lots of folks were at first claiming that the endorsement/non endorsement of Ken Buck was done without Ron's knowledge just like some people claimed (still claim?) that Rand didn't clear his endorsement of Romney with Ron. When it came out that Ron cleared the Buck endorsement lots of people had egg on their face. It's obvious now (wasn't it always) that Ron cleared Rand's endorsement of Romney. That does not mean Ron endorses Romney any more than a police captain sending an undercover officer in to infiltrate the mafia means the police endorse the mafia. (And please no "Police are the mafia" jokes. It's the best analogy I could think of.)

That said, this shows the risk of the "stealth" strategy. You never know who's really on your side and who's just "playing along". Still, even following the "purist" path you can still get burned. Remember "libertarian" candidate Bob Barr who later endorsed Eric Holder for attorney general?

[trey4sports]

i thought Buck was pretty good back in the day. I wont rush to judgement. Maybe he signed the letter without looking at it?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yes I remember. And I remember that lots of folks were at first claiming that the endorsement/non endorsement of Ken Buck was done without Ron's knowledge just like some people claimed (still claim?) that Rand didn't clear his endorsement of Romney with Ron. When it came out that Ron cleared the Buck endorsement lots of people had egg on their face. It's obvious now (wasn't it always) that Ron cleared Rand's endorsement of Romney. That does not mean Ron endorses Romney any more than a police captain sending an undercover officer in to infiltrate the mafia means the police endorse the mafia. (And please no "Police are the mafia" jokes. It's the best analogy I could think of.)

That said, this shows the risk of the "stealth" strategy. You never know who's really on your side and who's just "playing along". Still, even following the "purist" path you can still get burned. Remember "libertarian" candidate Bob Barr who later endorsed Eric Holder for attorney general?

Barr's not a good example of purity, there were quite a few people pointing out that he was a compromise candidate from before he was even nominated.

[JK/SEA]

We can't all be like Ron Paul. We know as a politician Ron likes to build coalitions. Fine and dandy. How successful is he at this tactic?...and does it really matter?...maybe in some cases it does, depending on the issue that he feels is important to him and his constituents, but this can be a 2 edged sword if your not careful. Alienating potential supporters who have litmus tests and purity ideals are not to be ignored, and doing so can have consequences....but hey, i suppose once your an elected official, you sometimes gotta do what you gotta do, and be ready for blowback. Ron is no exception here apparently.

[jmdrake]

Barr's not a good example of purity, there were quite a few people pointing out that he was a compromise candidate from before he was even nominated.

Yeah. But he was saying all the "right things" while running as a libertarian. Those pointing out the flaws in Barr were pointing to his past. Ken Buck didn't pass the purity test of his (then) present. I soured on Barr when he snubbed Ron's joint endorsement.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Barr's not a good example of purity, there were quite a few people pointing out that he was a compromise candidate from before he was even nominated.


Barr was a dirtbag for years, and it was no secret the LP decided that name recognition was more important.