Pardon all non-violent drug users = 10+ Million Votes!

[TNTCAN]

This idea could generate MILLIONS of VOTES for Dr Paul

"During 2006 the total Federal, State, and local adult correctional population — incarcerated or in the community - grew by 159,500 persons to over 7.2 million. The growth of 2.3% during the year was about the same as the average annual increase in the correctional population since 1995 (2.5%). About 3.2% of the U.S. adult population, or 1 in every 31 adults, were incarcerated or on probation or parole at yearend 2006." (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm)

Great Grant Parents, Grandparents, Parents, Brothers, Sisters, Cousins, In-laws and Friends; if each person that is tied up in the legal system for drug use, got only 2 people to vote for Ron Paul? How about 5 each.

[kotetu]

We really do need to get this message out to the minority communities. They have been hit the hardest by this "war on drugs". Using drugs is not a good idea, in my opinion, but to put users in prison will just make them into harder criminals.

[Mental Dribble]

you lose your ability to vote when you are convicted of a felony and it would take more than just a pardon to get it back, you have to go through the court system, and in many states its complicated.

[Paul10]

....

[TSOL]

I don't do drugs. Had my fun as a youngster experiementing ...

But the war on drugs is a joke. This is an old link; but interesting

http://www.ukcia.org/research/DutchPolicyAndCrimeStatistics.html

Press, Public and Cultural Affairs

Drug Policy and Crime Statistics

Recent accounts in the U.S. press about the Netherlands drug policy have included incorrect and misleading statistics about drug use and drug-related crimes in the Netherlands. What follows is a short list of facts and comparisons to refute those accounts, and sources are given to permit and encourage third party verification of facts.

Last month use of cannabis (marijuana) by high school seniors:
18.1% in the Netherlands (1996);
23.7% in the U.S. (1997).
(Sources: The Trimbos Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Monitoring the Future Survey, University of Michigan and White House Office of National Drug Control Policy)

Any lifetime use (prevalence) of cannabis by older teens (1994):
30% in the Netherlands;
38% in the U.S.
(Sources: Center for Drug Research, University of Amsterdam; Monitoring the Future Survey, University of Michigan and White House Office of National Drug Control Policy)

Recent (last month) use of cannabis by 15 year olds (in 1995):
15% in the Netherlands;
16% in the U.S.;
24% in the U.K.
(Sources: Trimbos Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Monitoring the Future Survey, University of Michigan and White House Office of National Drug Control Policy; Council of Europe, ESPAD Report)

Any lifetime use of cannabis by 15 year olds (in 1995):
29% in the Netherlands;
34% in the U.S.;
41% in the U.K.
(Sources: Netherlands Institute of Health and Addiction, U.S. National Institute for Drug Abuse; Council of Europe, ESPAD Report)

Heroine addicts as a percentage of population (in 1995):
160 per 100,000 in the Netherlands;
430 per 100,000 in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport;
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy)

Murder rate as a percentage of population (in 1996):
1.8 per 100,000 in the Netherlands;
8.22 in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Bureau of Statistics; White House Office of National Drug Control Policy)

Incarceration rate as a percentage of population (1997):
73 per 100,000 in the Netherlands;
645 per 100,000 in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Ministry of Justice; White House Office of National Drug Control Strategy)

Crime-related deaths as a percentage of population:
1.2 per 100,000 in the Netherlands (1994);
8.2 per 100,000 in the U.S. (1995).
(Sources: World Health Organization; Uniform Crime Reports, U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation)

Per capita spending on drug-related law enforcement:
$27 per capita in the Netherlands;
$81 per capita in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Ministry of Justice; White House Office of National Drug Control Strategy)

[coastie]

:eek:

Wow, who were the five (as of now) that voted "no"?

I cannot imagine a Dr. Paul supporter having a rational explanation for that.:confused:

[BeFranklin]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=87910&page=5

We need a money pledge page that describes the issues and facts mentioned on this thread, including the terriable effects this is having on families and our country, how Ron Paul would pardon all non-violent drug users.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

I'm ready to canvas in Compton, Watts, Long Beach, South Central.... just give me some material. :)

[BeFranklin]

Image for new MLK pledge site:

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/149000/149190PvXU_w.jpg

[Ilhaguru]

War On Drugs Clock:
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm

[BeFranklin]

Rosa Parks image for new MLK site - need source for this?

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h181/aspears4/drpaulatnursinghomewk9.jpg

[Jhe]

Felons may not be able to vote, but their loved ones CAN.\
Consider if your child was incarcerated, would you take the time to vote for a chance to get them out?

This same tact can be allied to the war; the way I put it to my mother is vote for Paul or Kucinich or your sons 14 and 18 are already on their way to the middle east. I think fear of the draft is an un-tapped issue.

Kind of makes sense; destroy the economy so everybody is dirt poor, then offer a lucrative signing bonus for the military. It costs them nothing to print more dollars!

[BeFranklin]

///

[plb]

Are there any videos out there of him saying this directly? Get them on youtube, digg etc...

[AEMsupra]

:eek:

Wow, who were the five (as of now) that voted "no"?

I cannot imagine a Dr. Paul supporter having a rational explanation for that.:confused:

i voted yes but i dont have to agree with everything paul says to be a supporter

[niall]

Let's find blogs, support forums, etc., and make sure relatives of drug "offenders" know about RP.

Here's one: http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/

[BeFranklin]

Pardoning all non-violent drug users would instantly save a *LOT* of money, and have drastic and immediate beneficial effects on all levels of government, not just federal.

[jp5065]

I don't think this is going to get us any votes though.

I would say most conservative voters would rather have drug offenders in jail than on the streets.

But I don't think its a bad plan once he gets in office.

[pcosmar]

you lose your ability to vote when you are convicted of a felony and it would take more than just a pardon to get it back, you have to go through the court system, and in many states its complicated.

Please do NOT spread this FALSE CRAP.
Most states restore rights on the completion of sentence.
Some states do it automatically, some you need to apply.
Every State is different.
I Know this because I am an Ex-Felon
I VOTE


What are the laws governing felon disenfranchisement?

Each state has different rules regarding when and whether individuals can vote once they have been convicted of a felony; individuals who are convicted of federal felonies fall under the felon disenfranchisement laws of the state of their residence. Thirteen states permanently disenfranchise convicted felons; eighteen states restore voting rights after completion of prison, parole, and probation; four states re-enfranchise felons after they have been released from prison and have completed parole; thirteen allow felons who have been released from prison to vote, and two states do not disenfranchise felons at all.
http://www.reformelections.org/feature.asp?menuid=%7B2C21F24C-F920-4FAE-81E2-715512C100BA%7D

[dawnbt]

I don't think this is going to get us any votes though.

I would say most conservative voters would rather have drug offenders in jail than on the streets.

But I don't think its a bad plan once he gets in office.

Most people who have family and friends incarcerated over this drug war are black! Most who vote are Democrat! This is how we could win over Democratic voters!!

[DahuiHeeNalu]

End The War On Drugs.period.

[VoluntaryMan]

1,000x YES!

And pardon all tax resisters, and everyone who is currently paying fines and penalties to the IRS, or rotting in a federal prison, "for holding out on" Uncle Scam.

And pardon everyone who is in prison for unlawful possession of some banned firearm (as long as there were no accompaying violence charges, from which the conviction was pleaded down).

[kotetu]

Can we get in contact with some big names in the minority communities? Maybe do an interview or something. I'd think that Jesse Jackson would absolutely desire to free as many blacks as Ron Paul's pardons would undoubtedly free.

[BeFranklin]

///

[BeFranklin]

90% is a really solid figure. We haven't discussed this issue much, just flew into it, but I think the other 9% would be convinced too if they knew what was being said.

[cjhowe]

I voted no.

I completely agree on ending the war on drugs. I agree not only with the legalization of drugs but the removal of the need to have a prescription for any drug. While the president certainly has the power to pardon, he should ideally only use it under the auspice of a miscarriage of justice. Finding someone guilty of possession or intent to sell drugs today is not a miscarriage of justice. The law, while ineffective, is certainly within the purview of the state legislatures and insofar as the Supreme Court continues to find the federal drug laws constitutional, they are within the purview of the federal legislature. Since it is currently the will of the people to have drug laws, it would need to be the people that decide to repeal the drug laws, through their legislature. In that discussion determine whether that repeal should be retroactive. A president who acts in such disregard to our system of government is acting as a monarch or dictator. We need a president strong enough to resist such temptation.

[ValidusCustodiae]

you lose your ability to vote when you are convicted of a felony and it would take more than just a pardon to get it back, you have to go through the court system, and in many states its complicated.

Full pardon, including restoration of voting rights.

[ValidusCustodiae]

I voted no.

I completely agree on ending the war on drugs. I agree not only with the legalization of drugs but the removal of the need to have a prescription for any drug. While the president certainly has the power to pardon, he should ideally only use it under the auspice of a miscarriage of justice. Finding someone guilty of possession or intent to sell drugs today is not a miscarriage of justice. The law, while ineffective, is certainly within the purview of the state legislatures and insofar as the Supreme Court continues to find the federal drug laws constitutional, they are within the purview of the federal legislature. Since it is currently the will of the people to have drug laws, it would need to be the people that decide to repeal the drug laws, through their legislature. In that discussion determine whether that repeal should be retroactive. A president who acts in such disregard to our system of government is acting as a monarch or dictator. We need a president strong enough to resist such temptation.

You DO realize when the federal government oversteps its Constitutional authority that whoever is involved IS breaking the law? The federal government has no authority to tell people what they can and cannot put in their bodies in the first place, so it is ludicrous to say that they should be able to decide when to release the restrictions. The restrictions are illegal in the first place, and THAT is Ron Paul's point.

[pcosmar]

I voted no.

I completely agree on ending the war on drugs. I agree not only with the legalization of drugs but the removal of the need to have a prescription for any drug. While the president certainly has the power to pardon, he should ideally only use it under the auspice of a miscarriage of justice. Finding someone guilty of possession or intent to sell drugs today is not a miscarriage of justice. The law, while ineffective, is certainly within the purview of the state legislatures and insofar as the Supreme Court continues to find the federal drug laws constitutional, they are within the purview of the federal legislature. Since it is currently the will of the people to have drug laws, it would need to be the people that decide to repeal the drug laws, through their legislature. In that discussion determine whether that repeal should be retroactive. A president who acts in such disregard to our system of government is acting as a monarch or dictator. We need a president strong enough to resist such temptation.

Where do you get this "Will of the people".
As I remember several states had decriminalized Marijuana, only to be overturned by the Fed.
States have legalized it, but the fed still attacks people for it.
The will of which people?
I don't ever remember it being on any ballot.
Maybe it should be.

[BeFranklin]

The % is awesomely overwhelmingly. A few % is probably people from other campaigns but

I think in the black community, we may find they agree just as strongly. This is a real chance to get Ron Paul's message heard.

[RonPaulwillWin]

You in here for some marajuana? That is some bullsh*t!

[runderwo]

A president who acts in such disregard to our system of government is acting as a monarch or dictator.

Is that true? What monarch or dictator would be in the business of restoring rights to people who have never violated someone else's rights? Sounds more like this person would be referred to as a savior.

[constituent]

cjhowe, lol.

[cjhowe]

You DO realize when the federal government oversteps its Constitutional authority that whoever is involved IS breaking the law? The federal government has no authority to tell people what they can and cannot put in their bodies in the first place, so it is ludicrous to say that they should be able to decide when to release the restrictions. The restrictions are illegal in the first place, and THAT is Ron Paul's point.

Our system of government consists of three branches. The Judiciary is responsible for determining what does and what does not overstep Constitutional authority. At the current time, the judiciary says that the federal drug laws do not overstep the Constitutional authority of the legislature. Unless you can change the position of the Judiciary or the position of the Legislature, anyone convicted of a crime should should serve out the sentence.

[NoMoreApathy]

you lose your ability to vote when you are convicted of a felony and it would take more than just a pardon to get it back, you have to go through the court system, and in many states its complicated.

Not completely true.

In most states, you're ineligible to vote only if you are currently on parole, or probation. Just having a felony conviction doesn't disqualify you. I think there are 7 states that disqualify you from voting if you have a felony conviction, but I don't know which ones. I do know that NJ isn't one of them, though.

[ValidusCustodiae]

Our system of government consists of three branches. The Judiciary is responsible for determining what does and what does not overstep Constitutional authority. At the current time, the judiciary says that the federal drug laws do not overstep the Constitutional authority of the legislature. Unless you can change the position of the Judiciary or the position of the Legislature, anyone convicted of a crime should should serve out the sentence.

That's where you are wrong. The judge is supposed to play referee while the JURY interprets the law. This sort of "if they all agree on it (branches of govt), that makes it ok" thinking is what GOT us into this mess. If the legislative oversteps its authority by making drugs illegal, and then the judiciary oversteps its authority by upholding the decision, what's wrong with the executive standing up for the Constitution and enforcing it?

For that matter, the people have a responsibility to understand the Constitution and ensure it is enforced.

What Bush is doing is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL whether the supreme court and congress agree or not. Their complicity in his crimes most definitely should not go ignored.

Do you realize a Jury has the power to ignore a judge's instructions and even to nullify bad laws? Judge isn't supposed to have any power. Supreme Court ASSUMED the power to interpret the Constitution, but it does not belong to them.

[Galileo Galilei]

Ron Paul Plays Drug War Card

"What about the war on drugs? What other candidate will stand up and say, I would pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody, who are convicted for non-violent drug acts, and drug crimes? This is where the real discrimination is."

"I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate for president, democrat or republican, who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws."

Ron Paul, January 10, 2008

[Malakai0]

If you believe in libertarian principles and a constitutional government, then a victimless crime is not a crime and people should not be jailed for such.


We know the rich get off on drug charges at will. A double standard like we have here, where the poor are punished the hardest by drug laws, is not justice.

We are the idealists, remember =)

[cjhowe]

That's where you are wrong. The judge is supposed to play referee while the JURY interprets the law. This sort of "if they all agree on it (branches of govt), that makes it ok" thinking is what GOT us into this mess. If the legislative oversteps its authority by making drugs illegal, and then the judiciary oversteps its authority by upholding the decision, what's wrong with the executive standing up for the Constitution and enforcing it?

For that matter, the people have a responsibility to understand the Constitution and ensure it is enforced.

What Bush is doing is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL whether the supreme court and congress agree or not. Their complicity in his crimes most definitely should not go ignored.

Do you realize a Jury has the power to ignore a judge's instructions and even to nullify bad laws? Judge isn't supposed to have any power. Supreme Court ASSUMED the power to interpret the Constitution, but it does not belong to them.

This is my last post on this topic as we really should be out in our Voter ID/ GOTV efforts.
1. Juries do not have the power to nullify laws. They have the power to nullify the application of a law in a particular case.
2. The judical power of the U.S. is vested in one Supreme Court and the other courts are inferior to it.
3. Bush is enforcing a law that was enacted by your duly elected representatives. Laws are enacted by the will of the people through their representatives.
4. Whether you and I may like it or not, the Supreme Court believes that the production, possession and sale of drugs in one state that would allow such activity, creates an undue burden on states that would choose to criminalize the production, possession and sale of drugs. This conflict between the states provides the Legislature the opportunity to create legislation to promote "the general welfare" and to "regulate commerce between the states". A president that ignored that position of the other two branches of government is acting as a dictator.

[ValidusCustodiae]

This is my last post on this topic as we really should be out in our Voter ID/ GOTV efforts.
1. Juries do not have the power to nullify laws. They have the power to nullify the application of a law in a particular case.
2. The judical power of the U.S. is vested in one Supreme Court and the other courts are inferior to it.
3. Bush is enforcing a law that was enacted by your duly elected representatives. Laws are enacted by the will of the people through their representatives.
4. Whether you and I may like it or not, the Supreme Court believes that the production, possession and sale of drugs in one state that would allow such activity, creates an undue burden on states that would choose to criminalize the production, possession and sale of drugs. This conflict between the states provides the Legislature the opportunity to create legislation to promote "the general welfare" and to "regulate commerce between the states". A president that ignored that position of the other two branches of government is acting as a dictator.

One of the oldest suppositions of law that goes back to pre-revolutionary England is that for there to be a crime, some damage has to have been done to someone else's rights or property. It is an idea that we have ignored and abandoned in this country, but that does not mean it is wrong or has gone away. I, for one, will hold my elected representatives and those they appoint accountable for the crime they committed when they ignored the Constitution and started regulating people's personal habits.

Check out Badnarik's Constitution Class.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074978323622

[pcosmar]

This is my last post on this topic as we really should be out in our Voter ID/ GOTV efforts.
1. Juries do not have the power to nullify laws. They have the power to nullify the application of a law in a particular case.
2. The judical power of the U.S. is vested in one Supreme Court and the other courts are inferior to it.
3. Bush is enforcing a law that was enacted by your duly elected representatives. Laws are enacted by the will of the people through their representatives.
4. Whether you and I may like it or not, the Supreme Court believes that the production, possession and sale of drugs in one state that would allow such activity, creates an undue burden on states that would choose to criminalize the production, possession and sale of drugs. This conflict between the states provides the Legislature the opportunity to create legislation to promote "the general welfare" and to "regulate commerce between the states". A president that ignored that position of the other two branches of government is acting as a dictator.

Sort of like Lincoln when he attacked the South?

As I remember the Marijuana Tax act was thrown out as un-Constitutional.
The laws were reintroduced. I do not know of any Constitutional amendment that made it illegal.
The one for Alcohol was repealed as a very bad idea.

[malibu]

you lose your ability to vote when you are convicted of a felony and it would take more than just a pardon to get it back, you have to go through the court system, and in many states its complicated.

My thoughts at first but . . .

These non-violent drug offenders - especially medicinal cannabis -
DO HAVE FAMILIES - siblings cousins etc. etc.

And btw, the medical industrial complex pharmaceutical giants peddling synthetic chemical drugs, which destroy hepatic function -
are far, far worse to the health of the nation and health care costs.

And now it's known that the cholesterol-lowering drugs - the statins like Lipitor and Crestor -
will eventually cause dementia because the brain cells need some cholesterol to function effectively.

This might explain McCain . . .

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/50a2a3ab7b.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

[romeshomey]

Is there any video on this topic from Dr. Paul? I'd like to ad something of this topic to a DVD i want to circulate.

[nc4rp]

some retarded republicans might not see the advantage to this, focus on the GOP nomination. i think this could work in the main presidential election though.

[AceNZ]

Is there any video on this topic from Dr. Paul?

Yes. He explicitly says that he will pardon non-violent drugs users in the CNN anti-racism reply:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CoQWAXuUyI

which is probably why that part of what he said was edited out in the later broadcast....

[romeshomey]

Yes. He explicitly says that he will pardon non-violent drugs users in the CNN anti-racism reply:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CoQWAXuUyI

which is probably why that part of what he said was edited out in the later broadcast....

Thanks, just what I was looking for.

[romeshomey]

He touches the topic specifically even better in this video on Medical Marijuana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk

[malibu]

He touches the topic specifically even better in this video on Medical Marijuana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHS_y94H1Dk

and this YouTube has over 51,000 hits to date

[AtomiC]

I know I'd be happy if he pardoned all non-violent drug users and legalized all drugs.

*Puff puff

[runderwo]

Our system of government consists of three branches. The Judiciary is responsible for determining what does and what does not overstep Constitutional authority. At the current time, the judiciary says that the federal drug laws do not overstep the Constitutional authority of the legislature. Unless you can change the position of the Judiciary or the position of the Legislature, anyone convicted of a crime should should serve out the sentence.

Where did the Judiciary get its position as unelected source of extra-constitutional power from? Remember, that power was self-granted in Marbury. That case set a disturbing precedent for judicial activism/tyranny down the road. They are the enablers of Congress's power grabs because we have this attitude that if the Supreme Court says it's okay, then it's okay.

This attitude is provably damaging to freedom because the Supreme Court has never to this day reversed any previous Supreme-Court sponsored expansion of Leviathan's powers or contraction of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Judicial tyranny demonstrably leads us down a road of the ever-expanding state.

Just because the "check" of the Judiciary on the Legislature has failed to protect our rights against a tyranny of the Legislature doesn't mean that the Executive cannot also be a "check" as long as he acts within the Constitution. Pardoning someone whose rights have been violated through a judicial/legislative tyranny is certainly within his powers.

[runderwo]

1. Juries do not have the power to nullify laws. They have the power to nullify the application of a law in a particular case.


If prosecution of a law is predictably hampered due to a reasonable probability of a mistrial, then the juries who acquitted in the past have effectively nullified that law.



2. The judical power of the U.S. is vested in one Supreme Court and the other courts are inferior to it.


Inferior judges are only bound by laws which are enacted pursuant to the Constitution. Everyone's oath to the Constitution is his own to carry out as he sees fit. Judicial tyranny by the Supreme Court does not excuse one's own oath and his own conscience and the judgement of his peers.



3. Bush is enforcing a law that was enacted by your duly elected representatives. Laws are enacted by the will of the people through their representatives.


That would be the essence of the republican form of government, but we are not just a republic, we are a constitutional republic.



4. Whether you and I may like it or not, the Supreme Court believes that the production, possession and sale of drugs in one state that would allow such activity, creates an undue burden on states that would choose to criminalize the production, possession and sale of drugs.


Actually, that's not true. Read the relevant cases. Even non-commercial growing in one's own home is considered economic activity within the reach of the federal government, with no consideration to the inalienable right of liberty in the absence of infringing someone else's rights.


This conflict between the states provides the Legislature the opportunity to create legislation to promote "the general welfare" and to "regulate commerce between the states".

That quote is not in the Constitution, it is the power to regulate commerce among the several states, that is, acts of commerce that occur between actors in two different states, not simple individual activity that has some second or third order economic effect that propagates across state lines. With this interpretation, there is no act you could possibly commit that would not be within the scope of Leviathan's powers, and thus the whole idea of limited, enumerated powers is rendered null at the judiciary's discretion.


A president that ignored that position of the other two branches of government is acting as a dictator.

A president that carries out unconstitutional, rights-violating laws is complicit in tyranny. Which would you rather be?

Also, I don't quite get why you're here preaching that we should acquiesce to the establishment's interpretation of the Constitution, no matter how wrong it may be, simply because they have the reins of power. Isn't Dr. Paul's belief that the establishment has perverted and subverted the Constitution and that we should be returning to a strict textual reading of it?

[dougkeenan]

This is my last post on this topic ...
And some people say there is no God.

[AceNZ]

Pardoning someone whose rights have been violated through a judicial/legislative tyranny is certainly within his powers.

Whether or not someone's rights have been violated, or whether any rulings issued by the Supreme Court is immaterial. Here's what the constitution says:


...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

There are no limits to the President's power to grant reprieves and pardons, other than in cases of impeachment. No reasons need to be given, no one's rights need to have been violated.

[DrCap]

I think this is a fringe issue - people who really want to vote b/c of this will do enough research to find out rapidly that they should vote for RP. Forcing the issue on the table of the mainstream Republicans will only lead to ridicule. Thus you don't loose votes by not talking about the issue but you do loose votes by talking about it.
It's like romney doesn't need to talk about being a Mormon to get Mormon's to vote for him, but if he does talk about, people who don't know he is a Mormon, might no longer vote for him. So he doesn't throw it on the table at the debates.

[ceakins]

you lose your ability to vote when you are convicted of a felony and it would take more than just a pardon to get it back, you have to go through the court system, and in many states its complicated.

Actually the ACLU has a program right now to help convicted felons to get their rights back.

[chrismatthews]

Ron Paul has already stated he would do just that.

http://www.thecitizensperspective.com/content/ron-paul-would-free-most-black-men-lincoln

About halfway through is where I start addressing the drugwar issue.

He's made the statement many times but the first time I read it was in the Detroit Free Press.

[ceakins]

:eek:

Wow, who were the five (as of now) that voted "no"?

I cannot imagine a Dr. Paul supporter having a rational explanation for that.:confused:


Hey you should have seen all the shit we got for going to Seattle hempfest and setting up a RP booth on the meetup groups. You couldn't convince them it was a good thing to reach 200,000+ people a day for 2 days was a good thing.

[amonasro]

Hey you should have seen all the shit we got for going to Seattle hempfest and setting up a RP booth on the meetup groups. You couldn't convince them it was a good thing to reach 200,000+ people a day for 2 days was a good thing.

It's that good ol' government indoctrination of "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?" Even when presented with a wealth of facts that prove the opposite their brains are still programmed to react a certain way. A classic example are people who have no problem with alcohol yet look down their nose at you when you mention you enjoy marijuana.

(Remember D.A.R.E. in 5th grade? It was a five-week program that taught young, fragile minds the horrors of drugs and how they destroyed your life. I remember "graduating" and getting a "diploma". I also remember how it was a colossal waste of money, didn't curb usage at all, and spread lies and half-truths to children.)

Reaching out to these people is a tremendous idea.

[austin356]

Campaigning on this issue will lose the election.

[dougkeenan]

It's that good ol' government indoctrination of "Drugs are bad, mmmkay?" Even when presented with a wealth of facts that prove the opposite their brains are still programmed to react a certain way. A classic example are people who have no problem with alcohol yet look down their nose at you when you mention you enjoy marijuana.

(Remember D.A.R.E. in 5th grade? It was a five-week program that taught young, fragile minds the horrors of drugs and how they destroyed your life. I remember "graduating" and getting a "diploma". I also remember how it was a colossal waste of money, didn't curb usage at all, and spread lies and half-truths to children.)

Reaching out to these people is a tremendous idea.

Yes it is. It's delightful to see Ron Paul demonstrate such courage on this winning issue.