[scottwww]

Mike Gravel is running for the Democratic party nomination for President of the United States.

Do you support his idea to end the war on drugs?

Gravel To Teens: Marijuana Safer Than Alcohol

[NaTuReB0Y]

[scottwww]

To me, whether a president or candidate smoked marijuana in his distant past or not isn't a deciding factor of whether to support him. A president or a candidate who advocates selling marijuana in grocery stores is out of his mind. Mike Gravel is very wrong when he says that marijuana is not a gateway drug and that he would end the war on drugs.

[Neurorad]

If marijuana is illegal, then alcohol should be too. Alcohol is much more destructive, addictive, and impairing. It's abused constantly.

I could see, in the distant future, marijuana being sold like liquor, with the states deciding how it's distributed/sold. It will be legal once the government recognizes that it is a HUGE source of tax revenue.

[f80]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

If marijuana is illegal, then alcohol should be too. Alcohol is much more destructive, addictive, and impairing. It's abused constantly.

I could see, in the distant future, marijuana being sold like liquor, with the states deciding how it's distributed/sold. It will be legal once the government recognizes that it is a HUGE source of tax revenue.

The government recognizes that it is a HUGE source of tax revenue...
It's that religious right wouldn't vote for them if they support its legality.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

To me, whether a president or candidate smoked marijuana in his distant past or not isn't a deciding factor of whether to support him. A president or a candidate who advocates selling marijuana in grocery stores is out of his mind. Mike Gravel is very wrong when he says that marijuana is not a gateway drug and that he would end the war on drugs.

What is the deciding factor for you if we all know you voted for W in 2000/04??? He was a drunk - -showing his weaknesses to control himself, to be moderate and to diplomatically deal with himself. Lacking those (basic leadership) characteristics has shown deadly for us and World for 7 years...

WHat did W show that attracted your vote to him? Or was the other one just too bad? If second, why didn't you skip voting?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

What is the deciding factor for you if we all know you voted for W in 2000/04??? He was a drunk - -showing his weaknesses to control himself, to be moderate and to diplomatically deal with himself. Lacking those (basic leadership) characteristics has shown deadly for us and World for 7 years...

WHat did W show that attracted your vote to him? Or was the other one just too bad? If second, why didn't you skip voting?

Much of the time in voting you don't have the opportunity to vote for the one you want, because that one already lost, or didn't run at all. In the primary I supported another candidate. When he lost, I supported the party nominee. There is no way I would have even considered voting for Algore. The choice was clear and I was active in the effort to elect George W. Bush.

President Bush has been a better President that I had expected of him. No doubt you are of a different opinion. You liked Clinton and defended Carter. That explains a lot.

Since you seem to have a different approach than I to making your vote, what will you do if your preferred candidate loses in the primary? Will you vote for whomever is left in that party? Will you go over to another party? Not vote?

[scottwww]

One of the problems in our primaries and caucus' is that so many of them are open. Whether or not you register a party affiliation you can vote in either party's caucus or primary. The problem with this is that a lot of partisans will go and vote for the opposite party's weakest candidate. They figure that this makes their own party candidate stronger.

Take this to the extreme. Suppose that all the Republicans voted for Dennis Kucinich in the primaries. Suppose that all the Democrats voted for Ron Paul. In the general election, it is Kucinich vs. Paul. Neither party liked either candidate. These were the two weakest nominees possible. But they won because of the people who perverted the process. Then we end up with Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul as president. Either one would be disastrous.

I know people who do this. They are Democrats and go to the Republican primary to try to screw it up. They would never vote for the Republican in the general election.

I have not heard of any good solution to this problem.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Much of the time in voting you don't have the opportunity to vote for the one you want, because that one already lost, or didn't run at all. In the primary I supported another candidate. When he lost, I supported the party nominee. There is no way I would have even considered voting for Algore. The choice was clear and I was active in the effort to elect George W. Bush.


President Bush has been a better President that I had expected of him. No doubt you are of a different opinion. You liked Clinton and defended Carter. That explains a lot.

Since you seem to have a different approach than I to making your vote, what will you do if your preferred candidate loses in the primary? Will you vote for whomever is left in that party? Will you go over to another party? Not vote?

I was far away during Carter era and Clinton bombed my homeland for no reason. No, I don't like Clinton at all. However, over and over again -- Bush has done nothing positive for us and for this country and the World. WHat the hell did you expect from him when you say he did better??? No way that ANYONE could have done worse.

Now, I put the past behind (Clinton crap) and I look into the future for my kids -- healthcare, education, jobs, world respect, free travel around the world wearing USA t-shirt...and much more. Putting these into equation only points to Democrats debate. F'h republicans only debate on how they will lower taxes in the bankrupted country and how he served in vietnam, how God is important and how he did great in NYC during the 9/11 events... Did, served, ...ed... I see no bright future with them (ones that have chance to be nominated). I trully don't give a shit if the Prez is a Republican or a Democrat. But what I hear they propose for the future of my kids, the choice is simple and clear...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

I was far away during Carter era and Clinton bombed my homeland for no reason. No, I don't like Clinton at all. However, over and over again -- Bush has done nothing positive for us and for this country and the World. WHat the hell did you expect from him when you say he did better??? No way that ANYONE could have done worse.

Now, I put the past behind (Clinton crap) and I look into the future for my kids -- healthcare, education, jobs, world respect, free travel around the world wearing USA t-shirt...and much more. Putting these into equation only points to Democrats debate. F'h republicans only debate on how they will lower taxes in the bankrupted country and how he served in vietnam, how God is important and how he did great in NYC during the 9/11 events... Did, served, ...ed... I see no bright future with them (ones that have chance to be nominated). I trully don't give a shit if the Prez is a Republican or a Democrat. But what I hear they propose for the future of my kids, the choice is simple and clear...

You can have your opinion about the effectiveness of the President. My opinion differs highly. My criticisms of his presidency would likely be very different than yours on most points. Where we may agree is on the deficit. Early in his presidency this nation needed to run on a deficit. It was what pulled us out of recession. After his re-election, there should have been a different approach because the economy had largely recovered. He should have vetoed some spending bills forcing congress to pay down the defict. He didn't do it until last year. The delay of the inevitable has been unhelpful because his leverage is less than what it was when there was a Republican congress. Now it is opposition all the way.

This does not place all the blame on the President. The congress is supposed to be more responsible themselves.

Mike Gravel is a fruit loop.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

If marijuana is illegal, then alcohol should be too. Alcohol is much more destructive, addictive, and impairing. It's abused constantly.

I could see, in the distant future, marijuana being sold like liquor, with the states deciding how it's distributed/sold. It will be legal once the government recognizes that it is a HUGE source of tax revenue.

Alcohol was illegal for a few years. Alcohol is more physically destructive than marijuana. Either will go a long way toward harming one's future. I believe that marijuana is more psychologically addictive than alcohol.

That one vice is legal does not prove that another should be legal.

Twenty five years ago I would have supported legalization. Certainly not now.

I have known more marijuana smokers who have given that up than alcoholics who have been able to quit alcohol. The addictiveness may be a significant factor. Another is the availability. With marijuana, although it is accessible, it is not as accessible as alcohol. Alcohol doesn't have the same repurcussion in drug tests at work as marijuana. If marijuana were legal, it would have far more users and persistently so.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

You can have your opinion about the effectiveness of the President. My opinion differs highly. My criticisms of his presidency would likely be very different than yours on most points. Where we may agree is on the deficit. Early in his presidency this nation needed to run on a deficit. It was what pulled us out of recession. After his re-election, there should have been a different approach because the economy had largely recovered. He should have vetoed some spending bills forcing congress to pay down the defict. He didn't do it until last year. The delay of the inevitable has been unhelpful because his leverage is less than what it was when there was a Republican congress. Now it is opposition all the way.

This does not place all the blame on the President. The congress is supposed to be more responsible themselves.

Mike Gravel is a fruit loop.

It is not my opinion -- it is the opinion of the majority in this country and about 97% of the world's population.
If you trully believe that the only thing he messed up is his budget, you live in ID. Ah, wait a minute...
And by him, I mean directly W and his Administration (or whatever is left, not jailed or under investigation or removed for knowing the truth...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

It is not my opinion -- it is the opinion of the majority in this country and about 97% of the world's population.
If you trully believe that the only thing he messed up is his budget, you live in ID. Ah, wait a minute...
And by him, I mean directly W and his Administration (or whatever is left, not jailed or under investigation or removed for knowing the truth...

I don't feel a need to point out the shortcomings of this President. There are enough critics that anything I would offer would be tame compared to their attacks.

I don't feel a need to defend this President. He is not running for any office.

I could offer criticism of some matters in the Reagan administration. His was the greatest presidency of the 20th century. I don't feel the need to defend this President. He is not running for any office.

You turned this thread toward a debate about George W. Bush (I assume because Natureboy posted a quote that although it wasn't related to the person of Mike Gravel who object of this thread at least it was related to marijuana smoking presidential candidates). This thread is not about George W. Bush except as it may relate to marijuana use. In that way it can also apply to Bill and Mrs. Clinton. It could apply to Barak Obama. It does not relate to your usual rant. There are other threads where your rant about GWB are more appropriate.

Mike Gravel apparently supports decriminalization or legalization of all illegal drugs. This is irresponsible and would be an immense tragedy if it were done.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

I could offer criticism of some matters in the Reagan administration. His was the greatest presidency of the 20th century. I don't feel the need to defend this President. He is not running for any office.

.

WOW, do we really need to continue discussing the politics with you after the comment like this???
Before Reagan we had a chance, he completely drained our reserves and basically started this whole mess called debt and deficit...

Regonomics was the worst scheme ever invented...

[Los Angeles]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

If marijuana is illegal, then alcohol should be too. Alcohol is much more destructive, addictive, and impairing. It's abused constantly.

I could see, in the distant future, marijuana being sold like liquor, with the states deciding how it's distributed/sold. It will be legal once the government recognizes that it is a HUGE source of tax revenue.

I commend your recognition of our flawed 'drug enforcement' system.

[Neurorad]

If you drink beer, or wine, or any alcohol, then you do drugs.

[f80]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

If you drink beer, or wine, or any alcohol, then you do drugs.

^^+1

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

If you drink beer, or wine, or any alcohol, then you do drugs.

Originally Posted by e90im

^^+1

Are you calling for beer, or wine, or any alcohol to be made illegal? I am not.

[Comet]

Originally Posted by scottwww

If marijuana were legal, it would have far more users and persistently so.

works for Amsterdam, why not the rest?

a lot of people do pot because it is illegal... it loses it's appeal if it were legal
just like drinking booze before u r 18...

it is tolerated to own 30grams of marijuana in Montreal..
u are not allowed to sell or buy it... but u can grow it...

either way it's gonna be done... people who have moral objections to it now, will still object to it later... so not much will change I feel

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Are you calling for beer, or wine, or any alcohol to be made illegal? I am not.

I thought the point is not legal or not, but that the effects are same or similar.
Tell us why you think marijuana is worse for you than beer/wine/cigarettes that are legal? WHy is it in a different category from beer/wine/smokies?
I never used it but my understanding is that it is as addictive as others, less harmfull than cigaretts and if inhaled have the same/similar effect as booze...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

I thought the point is not legal or not, but that the effects are same or similar.
Tell us why you think marijuana is worse for you than beer/wine/cigarettes that are legal? WHy is it in a different category from beer/wine/smokies?
I never used it but my understanding is that it is as addictive as others, less harmfull than cigaretts and if inhaled have the same/similar effect as booze...

I don't know that marijuana is as addictive as alcohol. Maybe. It's certainly a far different addiction. The effects are far different than alcohol. Maybe a current smoker could better describe it for you.

[ATG]

Alcoholics are easier to control than pot smokers. Alcohol helps brainwashing.

The current civilization is a herd of hyper-active psychotic people fueled by coffee, alcohol, and sugar. A type or energizer-bunnies.