Marijuana is already a multi-billion dollar a year business in California, and with recreational sales to adults coming online next year, it’s about to get even bigger. Now, the legal pot industry is beginning to throw its weight around in state office-level politics, and it’s doing it the old-fashioned way: with a checkbook. Fund-raising for […]
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney will face off on live television in the first of several debates that could shape the upcoming election.
Medical marijuana professionals should tune in: The candidates will most certainly field questions about MMJ and cannabis legalization in general, given that the debate will be held in Denver.
Colorado has one of the largest medical marijuana industry’s in the country, home to more than 1,000 dispensaries, grow sites and infused-product manufacturers. It also has a measure on the ballot this November asking voters to legalize the general use of marijuana.
Additionally, the debate is focused on domestic policy and will be held at a university, so you can bet that medical cannabis will be a particularly big topic.
The biggest question going into the debates, however, is will either candidate actually shed any new light on their vague positions regarding medical marijuana and cannabis legalization?
It’s possible but doubtful. Both Obama and Romney have been asked countless times about MMJ, and in most cases they sidestep the question or offer vague answers. In an interview Monday with the Denver Post, Romney said he opposes “marijuana being used for recreational purposes and I believe the federal law should prohibit the recreational use of marijuana.” But he didn’t directly address medical marijuana, though a campaign spokesman told the Washington Post today that Romney is against MMJ legalization.
Obama has been similarly vague about medical marijuana in recent interviews, and the current MMJ crackdown under his administration is uneven and unpredictable.
Both presidents, however, seem to be against the idea of general marijuana legalization. Romney has made it crystal clear that he would not allow that to happen under his watch. Obama, while less assertive on the issue, has indicated he doesn’t think it’s the proper path for the country to take. It unclear how the presidents would respond if an individual states such as Colorado legalizes cannabis use.
- How Key Medical Marijuana Measures, Cannabis Legalization Initiatives Are Faring Ahead of Election
- Seattle Mayor McGinn Urges Marijuana Legalization as State Mulls New Medical Cannabis Regulations
- 18 States Considering Medical Marijuana Laws in 2012 Despite Pressure on Cannabis Business
Previously in a post I had said that I would support RON PAUL as a write-in for the Presidential Elections in November of this year (2012).
I have since researched and listened to video’s and other information that would lead me to believe and support
This change has come about primarily because he IS on the ballot (vs. a write-in) AND the fact that he has said that RON PAUL would be his pick for his Vice-Presidential Candidate.
I don’t know how much better it could get. We can have TWO for the price of ONE.
Below is some video and information on GARY JOHNSON (Libertarian). Please view and make an informed decision BEFORE everybody runs to the polls to put a democrat or republican back in the White House!
That is something that I do not believe that this Country can withstand anymore at this point. The time for the change has to be NOW NOT LATER – There may not be a “Later”.
Gary Johnson has been an outspoken advocate for efficient government, balanced budgets, rational drug policy reform, protection of civil liberties, comprehensive tax reform, and personal freedom. As Governor of New Mexico, Johnson was known for his common sense business approach to governing. He eliminated New Mexico’s budget deficit, cut the rate of growth in state government in half, and privatized half of the state prisons.
Drug Policy Reform
Despite our best efforts at enforcement, education and interdiction, people continue to use and abuse illegal drugs.
The parallels between drug policy today and Prohibition in the 1920’s are obvious, as are the lessons our nation learned. Prohibition was repealed because it made matters worse. Today, no one is trying to sell our kids bathtub gin in the schoolyard and micro-breweries aren’t protecting their turf with machine guns. It’s time to apply that thinking to marijuana. By making it a legal, regulated product, availability can be restricted, under-age use curtailed, enforcement/court/incarceration costs reduced, and the profit removed from a massive underground and criminal economy.
By managing marijuana like alcohol and tobacco – regulating, taxing and enforcing its lawful use – America will be better off. The billions saved on marijuana interdiction, along with the billions captured as legal revenue, can be redirected against the individuals committing real crimes against society.
Civil liberties are so foundational to America that the first eight amendments to the Constitution address them directly. These amendments enshrine government’s duty to protect individual liberties, including the rights to free speech and free association.
But today, government has created for itself sweeping powers to monitor the private lives of individuals and otherwise intrude upon our daily activities, our households and our businesses. The extent of the government’s reach today would be unrecognizable to the Founders.
Much of the recent erosion in civil liberties has occurred in the name of national security. But we can – and must — combat threats to our safety while adhering to due process and the rule of law.
THE FREEDOMS ON WHICH AMERICA WAS FOUNDED are now under attack from the very people charged with protecting and upholding them.
- The PATRIOT Act should be repealed, which would restore proper judicial oversight to federal investigations and again require federal investigators to prove probable cause prior to executing a search.
- Habeas corpus should be respected entirely, requiring the government to either charge incarcerated individuals with a crime or release them.
- The TSA should take a risk-based approach to airport security. Only high-risk individuals should be subjected to invasive pat-downs and full-body scans.
- The TSA should not have a monopoly on airport security. Airports and airlines should be encouraged to seek the most effective methods for screening travelers, including private sector screeners. Screeners outside of government can be held fully accountable for their successes and failures.