Posted on 11/01/2010 3:27:51 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Conventional wisdom says tea party conservatives would vote against marijuana legalization in California. Yet Prop. 19 could test how serious tea partyers are about states' rights.
Ronald Reagan didn't start the war on drugs, but he made it a mainstay of his presidency. So it would make sense for tea party members who are inspired by Mr. Reagan to oppose Proposition 19 in California, which would legalize marijuana possession.
But conventional wisdom and current small-government electoral fervor may meet in a strange (and potentially smoky) place on Election Day.
Instead of opposing Prop. 19, parts of the tea party – including some of its stalwarts like Tom Tancredo in Colorado and Rand Paul in Kentucky – have hailed drug legalization as an ideological linchpin in the fight between progressivism (a broader role for government) and the ideals of states' rights (get the government out of living rooms).
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
I would rather there be less pot in America, not more, but I agree with Palin: this isn’t a big issue, especially now.
I think Tea Partiers in CA see this as a Sacramento scheme to get more tax revenue so they can keep spending beyond our means.
Read the actual proposition. It’s not libertarian in the slightest.
Maybe some would because they believe that the WOD is stupid. Maybe not. Maybe they are individuals and can’t be conveniently put into boxes. Maybe the group isn’t everything. Sure, liberals are knee-jerk lock-step marching zombies but tea partiers aren’t.
You are either for the Republic as founded or against it.
Unionize the labor picking that pot leaf and you’ll take all of the profit out of it (but not the corruption it breeds).
I’m all for it. It would be a voluntary tax anyway. No doubt it would hurt the cartels and gangs.
Nonsense. They could support State's Rights just as well by voting for a death penalty for potheads.
Latest polls here in cali show it’s going down in defeat. But then again do stoners put down the oreo’s and answer the cell/phone to take the survey? We voted no on this. Seemed to pacify the druggies under the shroud taxation would bring more money. Doesn’t add up and very reluctant to fall for a potential long term scam.
Is Frito Lay or Hostess backing it;)
Do you know the proposition does not allow companies to test their workers, or restrict it’s use?
Idiots for Pot and that is about it.
Idiots for Pot and that is about it.
Probably...but don't harsh my mellow...I'm voting for it on the grounds it will breed confusion in the zombie ranks (whoa! with taxes, pot costs more? )
Yes and no.
Drug laws, like abortion or education or any number of things, should have been kept to the states. If it isn’t mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, then the federal government shouldn’t be involved.
No doubt drugs are awful for you - and I’m including marijuana here, having both smoked it and seen its effects back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. I frankly don’t want it legal. Isn’t that the problem, though - using the power of the federal government to “do good” even though those things aren’t in the Constitution? You would think that we would have learned this lesson after federalizing prohibition of alcohol, but instead we’ve just kept federalizing one concern after another, until a large proportion of the citizenry think that the federal government’s job is to be ultimate fixer of problems.
If the people of California want legal pot, fine. Just don’t impose their ideas on the other 49 states.
Wishful thinking by Mexico and the libertarians - and various states that want a new tax revenue stream.
The last thing we need is a country of stoners. That’s one of our problems now, in fact. Too many young people with fried brains.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.