Last year around this time I was asked to become a featured blogger for a great women’s activist website called Ladybud Magazine. I started one of my original articles asking “what’s a nice girl like me, writing in a place like this?” When approached by the Orange Juice Blog I had to ask myself, why would a libertarian-leaning Republican like me be willing to write in a Mosh Pit like this? [Besides fitting right in – ed.] This week I answered my own question and realized that I wanted to have a voice in the political process, have some fun, and possibly affect change in the community I live in.
My foray into writing about drug policy reform was an easy transition, but politics is a stretch in some ways. However, this week I am able to tie politics and drug policy reform which makes this a great week for me. A few days ago I was forwarded an email from the Mimi Walters campaign concerning what at first glance would appear to be her endorsement by the California Republican Assembly (CRA) over her opponent John Moorlach. Who or what is the CRA? According to Art Pedroza at the OC Politics Blog the CRA “is a grassroots organization that doesn’t have many members” but whose endorsement carries weight in conservative political circles. Sort of like a CPAC lite!
Aaron Park, a writer for that blog, is a member of the CRA and the author of the article that the Walters campaign quoted. There are two issues that I need to address. The first issue is that the Walters campaign only quoted a portion of Park’s article and left out the fact that she actually did NOT win their endorsement, coming in short on votes (14-9). I know we don’t expect much from our politicians but it is disingenuous of the Walters Campaign not to admit that frankly she didn’t live up to CRA’s “conservative” ideals either.
My second issue, though, is that as a Republican in California I’m extremely frustrated by the Party’s unwillingness to evolve in order to stay relevant here. There are many reasons why we keep losing races and this quote by Mr. Park in his article on the recent CRA endorsements illustrates one of the big reasons why:
“Moorlach supports the decriminalization of Marijuana… However, within CRA supporting legal dope is a loser.”
[A brief interjection from Editor Vern: The Moorlach tells me that Park mischaracterized his position, which is “I voted for the Medical ID card and was supportive of the proper usage of medical marijuana.” He suspects Park’s exaggeration as due to Aaron’s being a “paid blogger,” something which we know about Aaron. But Aaron tells me he is not being paid by Walters. I’m sure he’ll be here to explain himself soon enough. In any case, Diane’s points still stand, as Moorlach’s position is more forward-looking and freedom-loving than Walters, who is proud of having OPPOSED EVERY medical marijuana and drug policy reform bill, and yet somehow Moorlach’s position is considered a liability by these “conservatives.” Right, carry on, Officer…]
As my face de-contorted from my Edvard Munch Scream moment, I thought this might be a good time to point out to the CRA and the Orange County GOP that even at this week’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington DC that Marijuana was a focal point with its own panel presentation. Molly Ball, a journalist for the Atlantic, reporting from CPAC had this to say about “The Republican Parties Pot Dilemma”:
“It adds up to a quandary for the GOP: Should it embrace the unpopular position still disproportionately favored by its members and risk marginalization as a result? Or will the burgeoning conservative voices in favor of legalization win out? Simply put, do Republicans want to be on the losing side of yet another culture war?”
Significant polling has been and continues to be done on the issue of marijuana. In particular let me point out that a 2013 Pew Poll shows that, despite differing on legalization and the morality question of allowing marijuana use, both parties shared the following views on the enforcement of the marijuana laws:
“57% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats say that the federal government should not enforce federal marijuana laws in states that permit its use. Substantial majorities of both Republicans (67%) and Democrats (71%) also say federal enforcement of marijuana laws is not worth the cost.”
As I write these words, CPAC itself has just released a poll showing support of full or partial legalization among self-identified “conservatives” :
It is these numbers, consistent polling and conservative voices and media outlets such as Tom Tancredo, Pat Robertson, Andrew Sullivan, The National Review, and Outside The Beltway to name just a few that is fueling the change. All these factors are contributing to Ball describing a one-side browbeating of conservative darling Christopher Beach by many members in his own party who recognize that the drug war is an abject failure and that marijuana should be legalized. No different than the culture war surrounding gay marriage even CPAC conservatives are making arguments that support ending the drug war as a way to reduce government and promote liberty. Mary Kathy Ham, a conservative blogger and journalist stated during the panel:
“… the truly conservative position is to let people make their own choices and to avoid wasting taxpayer dollars enforcing laws that don’t seem to work and that often have negative consequences. Even if legalization ends up having unanticipated negative consequences, those should be weighed against the lives no longer ruined by the drug war and the “moral value” of increased freedom.”
Can I get an AMEN, folks? And now let us send out a collective prayer that the California GOP, the CRA, and that the Walters Campaign in particular, finally gets a clue that the elephant in the room (pun intended) is that their support for the drug war, and marijuana prohibition in particular, fuels the continued lack of relevancy that we are experiencing in our party – locally, at the state level, and nationally.
And let’s also give props to John Moorlach for being part of the FUTURE of the Party, on this issue at least. I know it’s a rhetorical point, but I wonder if Republicans like Beach, Walters and others even recognize that their ideological view of marijuana is experiencing its last gasp, similar to the dinosaurs dying in the La Brea Tar Pits. The only difference for me is that I would have enjoyed seeing dinosaurs while I look forward to the extinction of this particular species of Republican.
It appears that Walters is in the grip of the police unions, who can’t abide the thought of stopping the drug war.
Moorlach is somewhat in the religious right camp but overall he is a far better choice than Walters, for this and many other reasons.
Hey you! That reminds me, you’re STILL going around telling people that this blog has become too “partisan” since I’ve been in charge. People think you’re crazy when you say that. The latest person you said that to was some nice Norwegian girl who’s studying the new media in Minnesota and has chosen us out of hundreds of blogs to write her term paper on, precisely BECAUSE we have such a wide variety of unpredicatble, NONPARTISAN opinions. She’s all “What IS that Pedroza guy talking about?”
Maybe time to get over that idea, pal, whether you like Diamond or not…
That (police, prison, etc. unions) probably explains why the legislature can’t do marijuana legalization and it has to be done by ballot initiative!
Are there any Dems in this race? Also, what if anything has been said on the issue by Loretta or Linda Sanchez and Alan Lowenthal?
Paul: Drew Leavens will be the endorsed Democrat in this race. He was originally running against Darrell Issa, but as the other candidate against Issa had a substantial head start, he was persuaded to switch to Campbell’s seat. I’ve met him only once (I think), but he was very impressive: a businessman with a good story to tell. I don’t know his thoughts on MMJ, nor those of the three incumbent Dems you mention, but I vaguely remember Loretta’s position being something like “allow the state law to work as intended.” I could be wrong there.
The issue of de-criminalizing marijuana or even making it a legal substance is a polarizing one. While the United States’s “War on Drugs” has not been a roaring success (an obvious understatement), to automatically believe that legalizing marijuana and maybe all other illegal substances is the right path going forward is fraught with its own set of dangers and society liabilities.
What I do believe is that based on the limits of our war on drugs, a national conversation on how we approach this complicated subject is way overdue!
Some may read my comments above and not be happy with my lack of endorsing wholesale changes immediately in our drug laws. The reason for this is simple in my view. I am most concerned with the laws of unintended consequences if we as a state and a nation move to quickly to change our current drug laws!
We need a conversation about what is best moving forward and it must include the best and brightest from many fields including doctors, drug counselors, recovering addicts, etc.
So let us not be afraid to discuss this very important national topic. But let us proceed with intelligence, knowledge and caution!
Marijuana shouldn’t even be discussed in the same breath as meth, cocaine, heroin, etc – which can kill you AND make you do crazy fucked-up things.
Here’s the theory I’ve always had about why people call marijuana a “gateway drug” to those other dangerous ones – it’s because it’s illegal. So
1. You figure you’re already doing something illegal, why not do something else illegal.
2. Someone’s selling you something illegal, and they likely have something else illegal to sell you.
3. If you’re young, and you were lied to about the dangers of pot, as we all were in the 60’s, then you think the authorities probably lied about everything. Which they didn’t.
I think that your hypothesis there is exactly right. I am troubled by your ability to communicate so succinctly.
All that said, I know that parents’ concerns in this regard are deeply felt — and that we have to prevent things like commercial pitches on marijuana aimed at kids. I think that we’ll actually be able to do a better and more rational job of presenting the proper message to send to kids once marijuana laws are reformed, because they’ll recognize that we’re (finally) being straight with them.
http://bit.ly/1fjnXwC
Right on Crime is a conservative criminal justice reform group out of Texas.
Greg do you mean like the ads on alcohol? The tittie sisters hangin with spuds McKenzie the most interesting man in the world? joe camel, bud man, st paulies girls? etc etc? why the hell do cannabis users have to toe a lone that more damaging substances blatantly cross over as matter of business development to attract younger and newer customers?
Yes I do. I don’t like beer commercials aimed at underage kids. I’d suggest that beer manufacturers attract customers by making better beer.
In general, I’m libertarian about what people may do, even if it may cause self-harm, but not libertarian about the use of the public airwaves to induce people to do such things. If it were left up to me (and even if I become DA, it wouldn’t be) marijuana would be legal and taxed, we would allow legalized prostitution with strong safeguards to ensure against disease and ANY sort of coercion into the sex trade, you could have more casinos, you could sell beer — but you couldn’t build up demand for your product that would not otherwise exist through the airwaves. (Purely informational ads, “here is where you get this,” might be allowed.)
In other words, we’d treat such “vices” as we do cigarettes, wine, and hard liquor. Anyone with more than half a brain can figure out how to get them (and people with less than half a brain probably shouldn’t try, but we should not have people appealing to human vulnerabilities in order to impel people towards their addictions.
I’m a psychology Ph.D. as well as a lawyer — and I’m well aware of how human frailties leave us vulnerable to manipulation by profit-seekers. I want adults to be able to do what they wish without harming others, but we have no constitutional obligation to allow publicly owned airwaves become a vehicle for encouraging people towards vices that they and their families can’t afford.
If I had the power, by the way, I’d also get rid of all public advertising for the public lottery (beyond plain factual reporting of the size of the pot.) If you are 18+ and can’t figure out where to buy a lottery ticket, maybe you need to hang onto your money.
Yes, this leaves a lot of questions regarding other addictions unsettled — what about food? what about non-commercial sex — and those would lead to a much longer and more nuanced discussion.
As a matter of fact, why don’t you go after those advertisers instead of making cannabis users adapt a more conservative nature? Seriously? You want me to have to make an add that shows my serious illnesses to advertise a particular strain of cannabis I use to alleviate my symptoms but you don’t have any probe, with over sexism in alcohol ads? Or ads of bravado on copenheigen ads?
COMEON DOWN AND GET YOUR 30 PACK OF BUDWEISWR AT 7-11 FOR THAT SUPER FEELING ON SUPERBOWL SUNDAY. But make sure grandma has to show her durable medical equipment and her serious illnesses to justify the use of cannabis? How about taking on an initiative to call out guys like Dan C who talk about the use of medical cannabis as if it is a point of ridicule or something to be mocked? That would be more honest and better than trying to make me toe some arbitrary line set by a racist in 1937 who thought marijuana would make white women go out and hump every jazz musician and negro field hand she can find. You are only perpetuating the stereotype and the continuation of the criminal persecution of cannabis users by your suggestion. I mean seriously why the hell should I be ashamed of my cannabis use?
Ill tell you why. Its because guys like Dan C are successful in making guys like you say shit like we need to be more conservative in our advertising. Fuck that. And Fuck Dan C, if we can have an anti bullying campaign for kids not to be bullies to gay kids we can have an anti bullying campaign for guys like Dan C who think its a point of ridicule to mock someone’s medicinal use of cannabis. And a campaign to make the kinds of things that Lou Correa is doing shameful and worthy of rebuke and ridicule and expulsion form the party.
Where did I say that you should be ashamed of your cannabis use? If you as an adult want to use cannabis, you should be able to do so. But you don’t need to be sucked into be buying a particular brand — and especially not by using cartoon characters like a talking bong named Billy. (I have no idea whether such a character exists.)
While I’m libertarian about the rights of adults, I understand and respect the desire of parents (me included) not to have to wrestle on the airwaves with campaigns designed to appeal to the insecurities and inexperience of children to turn them into “high-using” clients. If you want people besides you to use cannabis — and why should you care that much? — you can talk it up. If you want them to use your brand, you can give out free samples. The tradeoff I propose is that you then have to compete on quality of product, not of merchandising — especially not shady advertising.
If this is insufficiently libertarian for you, so be it. I’d still have one of the better positions around — and I’d always be open to reason.
Nonsense Vern.
Methamphetamine is chemically and in its actions on brain receptors, cognition, affect, and behavior virtually IDENTICAL to the extremely popular prescription drug Adderall. See the work of Dr. Carl Hart for details.
Cocaine is chemically and in its actions on brain receptors, cognition, affect and behavior virtually IDENTICAL to the extremely popular prescription drug Ritalin. See the book “The Cult of Pharmacology” for details.
Heroin is an incredibly unfairly stigmatized drug which was the legal standard for pain relief until its vilification by US drug warriors. It is still commonly used by doctors and surgeons in the UK. It is no more dangerous than any other opiate, and in fact safer than many. Users can be addicted and otherwise lead a normal, functional human existence including family life and work. Overdose deaths are almost always “poly drug” deaths such as the recent death of Philip Seymour Hoffmann. See the book “Heroin Century” for details.
Cannabis – “marijuana” as Anslinger dubbed it – is a safe herb that has been used for spirituality, medicine, and nutrition for literally 5000-7000 years. It is SAFE if used properly by adults and should no more be illegal than caffeine (FAR more physiologically addictive) or sugar (far more likely to lead to major diseases). As anyone who is paying the slightest attention knows, cannabis is fast becoming a frontline medical treatment for MAJOR medical problems, including children’s epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, and many types of cancer. I can support this with over 100 peer-reviewed studies.
The stigmatization of drugs has got to stop and anyone who won’t inform themselves enough to learn the real facts about all of these substances has no place in public office. I don’t care what party you’re in or what your political views are – you misrepresent ANY of these substances I will be supporting your opponents.
The time has come to end prohibition. Get on board or get out of the way. You too Barry! With all due respect….
Jonathan Taylor, PhD
“The reason for this is simple in my view. I am most concerned with the laws of unintended consequences if we as a state and a nation move to quickly to change our current drug laws!”
Oh, Barry, think about what you wrote for a second or two. Unintended consequences are a part of human activity; but really, why worry about the ones that might happen when we are already so acutely aware of the ones that HAVE happened under the current regime?
Of course I’m talking about the militarization of the cops at home and abroad, the soaring cost of our penal systems, the number of people in jail, the stupid confiscations, the erosion of justice (see Paul Lucas, et al.), the scofflaw attitude of half the population.
Well, Hell, I could go on all day and well into the night.
Now I know why Vern Emailed me!
umm… yeah? and?
ok, for one thing, how did you get to John Moorlach “supports decriminalization?” I wish he did, but that’s not what he ever said.
And you confirm here that Mimi Walters is not one of the politicians or candidates you are working for?
And do you disagree with Diane’s overall point, that liberalization of our marijuana laws is the really CONSERVATIVE thing, and that the OC GOP and CRA hanging onto prohibition desperately is a self-destructive act? And if you do disagree, you wanna argue your case?
Vern – Do me a professional courtesy, unless I say I am getting paid by a campaign, I am not. I am not getting paid by any campaigns in and around Orange County.
Also – my article on the 45th endorsement was an amalgomation of comments from CRA delegates. I suppose I should have specified that. I don’t know Moorlach that well.
http://bit.ly/1iqZ0AR From Chris Nguyen’s Blog that was linked on Art’s piece on the CRA endorsements.
A delegate asks about medical marijuana. Moorlach says he is open to use of medical marijuana for legitimate medical purposes. He speaks of his vote for medical marijuana ID cards and of his late brother-in-law’s use of medical marijuana.
Aaron – I might do you that professional courtesy, bro, if I were actually a professional (like you, LOL)
Aaron have you evolved on the issue of cannabis? I think the last time we chatted you were coming around to de-criminalization. Have you come to embrace the idea of medicinal use yet or are we still too far apart on this one? The fact is, that the candidates who hold the old ideas on cannabis are being shown the door on all sides of the political spectrum. The GOP must come to the table or suffer irrepairable harm.
“The GOP must come to the table or suffer irreparable harm.”
And on immigration.
And on women’s reproductive rights.
And on gay rights.
And on warmongering.
Wait, I’m afraid we’re overwhelming them…
It’s All in the Implementation by Jonathan Rauch | The Washington Monthly http://bit.ly/1h4DYTv
Hi All,
I have always said that the devil is in the details, but I would say Barry that the discussion should be around what the regulatory system should look like, different for cannabis than other illicit substances, and who should control it. The good guys (I know that’s questionable sometimes if gov can ever be good) or the real bad guys? But the discussion should clearly move the matter of drug use/abuse into the public health domain versus enforcement which by every metric has failed. I recommend that you read the article I have linked that describes some of the issue that you are talking about.
CPAC: The Conservative Case for Criminal Justice Reform
So another CPAC Gem short and sweet which continues to discuss why our voices are important in this discussion. It’s actually cool to be smart on crime versus just tough on crime.
Huh. Is that copyrighted? Would it work as a campaign slogan? 😉
With regards to cannabis, it should not be more difficult nor should there be more hoops or barriers to jump over or through than those of tobacco or alcohol. If I can go to the corner and buy a six pack of beer and have no more hoops other than to show my ID to prove Im of age, and pay the tab, then I should be bale to od the same thing with cannabis.
With regards to other drugs and illicit substances, I think we should take on the Portugal model of total and complete De-Criminalization.
Oh and Fuck Lou Correa in the neck. Do not let this guy into any other office after he is termed out from the Sate Senate. Do not let this clown be elected to anything not even dog catcher.
Make everything legal and if someone damages you by their use, you must settle it in civil court at your own cost. No criminal court to stand up for you and no restitution to make you whole.
Cook, I think you are evolving on this issue. At least the first half of your comment the n you go off track.
Matt Welch and Alexander McCobin Debate Libertarianism, Social Conservatism, and Gay Marriage at CPAC – Hit & Run : Reason.com http://bit.ly/1iqV8Qs
So along the same lines. The video of this discussion is about 45 minutes. Well worth the watch as there are some interesting comments made including that of Michael Medved in discussing on how conservatives helped to reduce abortions through non legislated actions. In other words supporting small government conservatives did it through education, outreach and discussion. This link will take you to an article that discusses how young conservatives are pro marijuana, pro-gay marriage and pro-life.
The conservative movement is changing and if the Republicans here in California actually understood this maybe we could actually adopt both policies and platforms that were both fiscally conservative while support small government and ultimately freedom. But hey that’s my 2 cents.
How to Win a Culture War | The American Conservative http://bit.ly/1erDRA1
And today the California Democratic Party, passed the plank calling for the legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana like alcohol or tobacco.
It appears that both the Democrats and Republicans have realized that Cannabis Policy Reform is a #winning issue.
California Democrats Back Marijuana Legalization In Party Platform http://huff.to/1cHvV26
First press article on the plank.
Now all we need to do is stop Lou Correa from getting elected to ANYTHING once he is out of the Senate. This guy has carried water for the for profit prison industry and the prison guards and police unions for too long. He does not reflect the attitudes values and beliefs of Democrats and never has. It is time we shun these kinds of pols that pander to the groups that are antithesis to our core beliefs. And this goes doubly for those who would go on to the senate and Assembly such as Quirk and Solorio.
I agree Paul. The Democrats must “weed out” any prohibitionists and criminal cop defenders from their midst. (pun intended)
Paul,
You tell me when ANY elected leader in California didn’t carry water for the CDC boys. They got Gov. Davis recalled for Christ’s Sake.
The influence of public employee unions (especially POA’s and Corrections) is a real threat to democracy, addressing these issues HONESTLY may be detrimental to the short term interests of California democrats, but ignoring them will certainly take the whole ship down along with the “privileged few” politicians who sell us out.
I understand the argument of “labor” and their importance and influence on democratic politics, but at what cost? The Costa Mesa case is a microcosm of the system of abuse.
PUBLICLY FINANCED ELECTIONS IS THE ONLY ANSWER.
I was in the room when it passed, Diane, and there was a sweet smell in the air!
(That’s a metaphor.)
I like Governor Brown’s measured approach. Let’s see what happens in Colorado and Washington. We can wait until 2020 to make a move on this if need be without any serious threat to society.
Medical use continues to be governed (loosely), which allows for a wide stream of access.
Ironically, I am not sure that the “advocates” for legalization understand the forces at hand. I am not sure I want to regulate “weed like wine” anymore. I am troubled by what I see in Colorado, for example, when you see the former President of Schwinn bicycles (and Elway’s center at Stanford) getting into the game with wall street powers I am cautious.
There should be NO rush to do this. rather a thought out “organic” process. Think farmers market guys, not Walmart.
Weed-Mart! I call it! I’m running off to the trademark office! lol!
Bullshite. Too many people in prison for weed,with prison admin funded by my tax contribution.
As a DA candidate, I agree. If we really needed to fill the prisons, we’d be better off getting serious about domestic violence. THAT kills people. Of course, I think that filling prisons just to have more guards is immoral and sickening. It also tends to hurt those who can’t afford top lawyers.
I believe, and I hope that the candidate for District Attorney would agree that that is a complete and separate issue, moving forward. There is no question, in my view that there are “over” convicted persons in custody for marijuana.
But, that is a deflection of the argument.
I appreciate Diane’s thoughtful response and don’t disagree with much of it.
But, again there is NO compelling reason to rush for legalization in California.
In reality, the “Black Market” has become the “Grey Market”, which has synthesized the “market” as a whole.
I don’t disagree, but am trying to implore you to act sensibly. The issue that you have with Sacramento is another story, Go find a Freshman Assemblywoman, some dead soldiers and a slick campaign flyer and as they say in San jose: AWAYYYY BABY.
I can think of several compelling reasons to rush to legalization:
(1) It is well overdue.
(2) Lives are still being ruined.
(3) Drug money still includes a “risk premium” that is going to cartels.
(4) We could be taxing it like Colorado and putting that money to good use.
But, as I said before: as DA I will follow the law and use prosecutorial discretion judiciously. Of course, judicious use of such discretion will very likely mean far fewer people in jails for that offense, because our current system over rewards jailing such people.
Again, the moderate position seems radical in an immoderate world.
Hi Nameless,
A couple of things with regard to what the market will look like. No different than wine or craft beer you will see market niches created around high craft or winery business owners model. You also may have the budweisers of bud. The consumer will drive the market by their choice. My problem with waiting though is the social cost and collateral consequences of criminalizing behavior and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars in a policy that is schizophrenic in my experience in law enforcement. Clearly all of us want to get this right which will include finding a balance around age restrictions, advertising to minors, land use regulations, and taxes that are so high that it continues to fuel the black market. The problem is and has been in CA has been that our legislators refused to develop good working regulations. Cannabis is slightly different in that there are two tiers, both medical and adult recreational use. It’s more nuanced than alcohol. A two tier system should include a different regulatory process starting with production that I would assign to the department of Agriculture and then assign different tax rates. If it’s medical there should be no tax, if it’s recreational similar to alcohol or tobacco.
*Lady Di,
You are on to something that surely needs to be addressed: Access to both Medicinal and Recreational use of any drug or prescription. Many states that were considered Dry States after the repeal of Prohibition solved the problem using the Scandavian Alternative: Government Approved and Regulated Stores. As you might recall, in Utah or Idaho back in the ’50s you had to buy your liquor at an approved store…then take it to a restaurant and buy what they called “a set-up” which was for example – a bottle of tonic, a squeeze of lime and a glass with ice cubes. You got to add your own Gin or Vodka.
OK, first of all Downtown Jerry Brown has the right idea. We need oversight if indeed Recreational use is approved by the voters. 2ndly, we need stronger oversight on access today…even for Medicinally Approved use: There should be NO open access stores for Restricted Drugs of any kind. All the opiates and severe pain medications like Oxycotin should by highly regulated and dispensed with bio-security. But back to the issue: All Marijuana legally dispensed in the State of California for Medical use should only be available on the web from an authorized State Dispensary….which can audit trail all sales and additionally make sure that straw man sales are held to a minimum through vetting the prescription process and the doctors that do the proscribing. If the voters decied that Recreational use of Marijuana is OK……again, all these drugs should be only available through State Controlled Dispensaries, which then are responsible for not only the access, but the quality of the products available. There indeed may be several levels of potency and each one needs to explain the potential side effects and lasting high effects – if any. This would be no different than having the FDA approved the Quality Control of the products dispensed. Want to grow your own at home? NO problem……but if you get poisoned, sick or die along the way – because you grew your own or somebody else gave you some – guess what……no recourse bucko. Additionally, if you buy Prescription Drugs or Marijuana from someone else, they should be a CA licensed dealer and pay taxes on every purchase. Hey, no different than what happens with firearm purchases…..eh?
Mimi’s cuter.
Not all THAT cute.
Governor Moonbeam is afraid society will go to pot if cannabis is legalized? Hello!!! Maybe if more people smoked weed they would chill-the-hell-out!
How many members of Congress show up and decide laws after a few “drinks?”
Taxpayers should not be paying for their booze. What a bunch of hypocrites! And we let them get away with it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/2/last-call-for-liquor-state-department-buys-180000-/?page=all
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/28/government-shutdown_n_4010592.html
and Jerry is worried about pot…spare me
We’ve been talking about this for way too long.
Those of us who have been using it as medicine for a while, when it was easy to get are now out of what we stashed away. Where the hell do I go now and who do I have to see, now that they have run everyone underground again?
I actually thought as a society we had finally found some compassion. I was so freaking wrong. Once again while that A-hole in the Oval Office lied about his agents, they closed down all of the “good guys” that took care of me while I was sick.
Now that I need them again, guess what…? They’ve been driven out of business, by the feds and the local do gooders. Thanks a lot AssHats!
As far as I’m concerned the people voted it in. Those who have by virtue of their sworn office obstructed the will of the people should be removed from their positions.
BAM!!
The actual “do-gooders” I know — like the majority of the state and local Democratic Party delegates — favor legalization. So I think you should look for a different word there.
He’s right and you know it. Which is probably why you immediately got defensive.
The Democrats have been chicken on this since Day One. Who gives a damn about delegates? Where are your electeds? In hiding, like they always are from the Cop Lobby.
Read more carefully next time, Zenger. He wrote:
“They’ve been driven out of business, by the feds and the local do gooders.”
He wasn’t mentioning Democrats — he was mentioning “do-gooders.” I know a lot of “do-gooders” within the Democratic Party — and, increasingly, within the Republican Party, third parties, and no party. They’re not the kind who are trying to “drive MMJ dispensaries out of business” — in fact, I was proud that the DPOC took a pro-Prop 19 position when the state party didn’t.
Where are our electeds? Mostly, they’re in the same place as your electeds. Sure there are honorable — well, actually, mostly just self-interested — elected Republican exceptions on this issue like Rohrabacher and some of the group in Fullerton, but they are few and far between. I’m disappointed that you put a partisan spin on this: the best reaction to “hey, grassroot Democrats are coming around on this one” would have been “so are Republicans, here’s how.”
So here’s my offer re electeds: I do what I can to influence mine and you do what you can to influence yours. We both have a hard task, largely because the electorate overall is not yet libertarian enough on these issues; because the “public safety” unions and donors fight so powerfully and relentlessly, while the pro-MMJ forces are capricious and unorganized; and because we don’t have public financing of elections that would free politicians from such influence.
I’m all for having a debate on this issue between Sharon Q-S and Young Kim, if that’s what you’re leading up to. If this is your main issue, my question to you is: why didn’t Norby or Whitaker run in AD-65? I tried to get Norby in — did you?
He mentioned “do-gooders” and you immediately thought “Democrats”!
No, I was answering with respect to the people I know best. Had I had your background, I probably would have answered with respect to Republicans — if I could.
I guess it depends on whether you put “do-gooders” in quotation marks or not.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t — and the choice isn’t capricious.
The delegates are pushed around by the CDP leadership. The elected get their marching orders from the police lobby in order to keep their gravy train rolling for grants, asset forfeitures, and fear mongering over refer madness. Alex Coe is right. Sharon, Jose, Lou, Loretta, et al, take their cues from those who would attack real patients and leave real criminals to prey upon society.
This social justice issue must be taken up by our elected and carried over the line for their constituents of all stripes. Hardly any family in America has been immune to the negative effects of the war on drugs. It must end and our electeds must be told to stop listening and taking money from police unions who use the electeds as conduits to advance their agenda to the detriment of society and to the benefit of their wallets and budgets.
Paul — again, the CDP delegates just adopted this in the party platform. If you think that they were “pushed around by the CDP leadership” into doing so — well, good for the leadership. If you think that they did this despite the leadership — then your statement is wrong. I would think that you would be celebrating this.
I have my issues with electeds on this issue and I have conveyed them. (Well, not to Lou — but I don’t convey anything directly to Lou. That may be the price of having created some really good graphics about the guy over the years.)
No the delegates did this in spite of the elected. And good for them. Im saying that up until now the elected pushed the delegates away form these kinds of measures.
My frustration is with the elected and their collusion with the LEO unions who work to keep the drug war raging on and on. And the cost is going to bankrupt the whole country. There has been progress lately but then we have guys like Lou Correa. Good God this guy has to go!
I am celebrating but this resolution is just that. A resolution. It is ineffective unless we hold the electeds accountable to it. Lou’s latest bull and his last one are in direct contrast wit thios new resolution. So if we don’t call him on it and hold him accountable nothing has really changed nor will it.
Lou seems to agree with you, unless he’s running for some City office.
I’m told that he doesn’t live in Anaheim anymore, but in Santa Ana.
Did you absorb that information, Miguel Pulido? Correa lives in Santa Ana — and he currently has nothing lined up for next year.
And he ain’t Moorlach, if you know what I mean.
The Political Group You’d Least Expect Is Now Calling for Marijuana Legalization – PolicyMic http://bit.ly/1nAQBtx
This link includes the video of the debate. Worth your hour whatever side of the fence you maybe on.
As a Republican (not so proud one these days) all I can say from meeting those representing me in my party.. You had better embrace the future and pay attention to those putting you in your seat… History will remember you, how you move forward from here is up to you…. We are not a bunch of old rich white guys smoking cigars…. We are parents and grandparents an the future is not going to be nice to those who want to hold to the past’s failures…. JDA Pro215.com #OCDAISABULLY
A program to watch tomorrow after getting stoned with another Anaheim’s council giveaway to Pringle’s related business …:
“Weed 2: Cannabis Madness: Dr. Sanjay Gupta Reports,” premiering Tuesday, March 11 at 10 p.m. ET, looks at U.S. federal laws that consider marijuana a drug with no medicinal value and serious scientists who say they’re wrong. It is the politics of pot – the politicians vs. the patients.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/health/medical-marijuana/index.html
Sadly, The Moorlach has just dropped out of the race, leaving Mimi Walters as the almost certain winner. The OC will be sending one more drug warrior to DC, not to mention an immigrant-basher, climate-change denier, and serial LIAR, sigh…
http://johnmoorlach.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/moorlach-campaign-update-its-about-time-march-10-2014/
The insider Republicans I know were yesterday predicting that this will set off a “mad dash to fill Mimi’s State Senate seat” when it’s inevitably vacated in November. And THAT looks at this point to be a “battle royale” between OC GOP chairman Scott Baugh and Assemblyman Don Wagner. I wish they could both destroy each other; like how Kissinger said about iraq and Iran in the 80’s, “If only there was some way they could both lose” … but we’re moving afield from the topic of this post. Carry on…
If someone will give you really good odds against Mimi, take them. I like Leavens and I respect Raths. Lots of people — including Republicans — don’t want ethically-challenged Mimi to settle herself into that seat for the next couple of decades. Plenty of people would like it to remain open to competition in 2016.
Moorlach, talking to me last night about Michelle Steel’s pretend apartment in Surfside (while she and rich hubby really live in a Palos Verdes mansion) said, “It’s gonna be Mimi Walters all over again!”
So, at least SOME Republicans noticed that, despite what one might think from OC Political’s coverage.
I will vote for Wagner over Baugh anyday. Wagner has some libertarian in him similar to Moorlach.
Hm. Libertarian?
I will probably have the opportunity to write about all the problems I have with Don Wagner… especially now that he’s no longer my brother’s boss.