Pot, Gay Marriage and Overturning the supreme court

[DaveW]

Why are these even topics in a presidential debate?

[TheLeviathan]

To just prove that Republicans are morons.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

To just prove that Republicans are morons.

Case Closed.

[Squirrel]

speaking of pot ... Colorado collected more in taxes from marijuana sales than liquor sales ... wonder if that will convince more states to legalize marijuana?

[TheLeviathan]

 

speaking of pot ... Colorado collected more in taxes from marijuana sales than liquor sales ... wonder if that will convince more states to legalize marijuana?

 

That would require logic and good sense to be a part of the opinion for these guys.

[Willihammer]

Its ironic because the Republicans are biblical about the Constitution but when the courts exercise judicial review they moan about activist judges.

 

Their base is the problem. Look at the 2012 party platform and you will find the same circle jerking about American exceptionalism, gay marriage, voter ID, immigration - all the instant losers for anyone within shouting distance of the middle. That platform is written at the RNC by the delegates elected at party caucuses and primaries. Its a grassroots process.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, the absurdity of the Republican base is the problem.  I wonder when, if ever, the party is going to have to have (pun intended) it's own come to Jesus moment.  There are many, many people that would describe themselves as opposing most left-wing programs or financial planning....but time and again the Republicans stand up and declare themselves totally unelectable.  

 

Until guys like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee aren't welcome on that stage, I'm not sure they'll have my vote.

[DaveW]

Yeah, it's kinda embarassing to have nuts like Huckabee and Cruz up there, if that was another country putting up guys with those opinions, American's would be ripping them for being so uncivilized/women hating etc.

 

I know I am insanely biased on this, but the repubs don't have a single candidate that any moderate/independent will vote for IMO. Fiorna seems sorta ok until she starts talking about starting a freaking war with every single country in the world.

 

Trump is just a troll at this point, just enjoying the ride.

[ashbury]

I know I am insanely biased on this, but the repubs don't have a single candidate that any moderate/independent will vote for IMO.

Kasich maybe? If he somehow squeaked through with a nomination, he'd tack hard to the left to try to stake out the middle, conveniently forgetting whatever Republican-base shibboleths he had felt obligated to repeat during the primaries, IMO.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah Kasich and Rand Paul are the only ones you can even make a case for. Carson at least seems like a reasonable, good person too.

 

But that's it.

[DaveW]

Yeah Kasich and Rand Paul are the only ones you can even make a case for. Carson at least seems like a reasonable, good person too.

 

But that's it.

Carson came from such an insanely hyper focused profession I'm not sure I would trust him. That's not a knock on him personally, just when you are that skilled of a surgeon in that field I'm not sure you can"see" the bigger picture all the time. I think there is some value in having a president with at least a tiny bit of political or at least international experience.

 

Paul and Kasich are ok, but neither has a shot in hell to get the nomination IMO.

[Willihammer]

In the last debate Trump made everyone on the stage look weak. Bush and Paul especially. He has absolutely no substance and lies through his teeth but somehow wins almost every exchange. The Repubs need to find someone who doesn't look like such a pansy against him. Fiorina was the only one who "won" an exchange when she called him out for his 4 bankruptcies.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Carson came from such an insanely hyper focused profession I'm not sure I would trust him. That's not a knock on him personally, just when you are that skilled of a surgeon in that field I'm not sure you can"see" the bigger picture all the time. I think there is some value in having a president with at least a tiny bit of political or at least international experience.

Paul and Kasich are ok, but neither has a shot in hell to get the nomination IMO.

 

Oh I agree, Paul and Kasich are non-factors.  But they are at least reasonable candidates.

 

I like Carson as a person and I think he'd genuinely try to do a nice job, but I also agree that his total lack of political experience is a bad thing.  I wish he'd run for Senate and come back to the Presidency in 4-8 years.

 

As it stands, none of the guys with a chance to be the nominee have a chance to get my vote.

[Hrbowski]

 

speaking of pot ... Colorado collected more in taxes from marijuana sales than liquor sales ... wonder if that will convince more states to legalize marijuana?

Why would it? Greed?

[Squirrel]

Why would it? Greed?

Um, revenue? It's no different than the taxes you pay on cigarettes, liquor, gas ...

[Mike Sixel]

We should legalize it because every country that does sees a dip in crime and other problems. And, if you believe in less regulation and more freedom.....It should be on your platform. But it isn't really about freedom, is it?

[Hrbowski]

 

Um, revenue? It's no different than the taxes you pay on cigarettes, liquor, gas ...

So, we should just put a tax on murder and robbery? Or are we only supposed to legalize and tax nonviolent crime?

[TheLeviathan]

Smoking weed is only a crime because we deemed it so, it's not remotely in the same group as rape and murder.  It's going to be hard to take your views seriously if you keep making comparisons like that.

[Squirrel]

So, we should just put a tax on murder and robbery? Or are we only supposed to legalize and tax nonviolent crime?

Um, what? What the heck are you talking about? I really fail to see the correlation here.

[USAFChief]

So, we should just put a tax on murder and robbery? Or are we only supposed to legalize and tax nonviolent crime?

Are you also opposed to legalized alcohol?

 

If not, you might want to consider the similarities between prohibition--a colossal failure that succeeded only in making honest people criminals, actual criminals rich, and many innocents dead or injured--and current marijuana laws.

 

Marijuana use is no more damaging to society than alcohol, and the only logical response is to treat them similarly. Yet here we are, in 2015 for Pete's sake, still having this discussion. It's ridiculous, and I'm tired of seeing my tax dollars wasted on it, if nothing else.

 

And I don't even use marijuana.

[biggentleben]

Heck, I'm one of the rare people who'd actually be harmed by marijuana as I have an allergy to marijuana smoke (along with the smoke of a number of other things like sweet grass and sage), and I still don't have a single reason I can point to other than in a mocking manner for having marijuana still illegal, especially when marijuana as studied on a scientific level has less addictive qualities than tobacco or alcohol and also less damages to the body in general.

 

The malicious reports of marijuana joints being worse than tobacco cigarettes is 100% based on commercial cigarettes, which are regulated to include filters to prevent tar. A similar filter on a marijuana cigarette results in less than a third of the tar as tobacco cigarettes in testing. However, I will tell you that a growing amount of people are rolling their own cigarettes due to the high price of filtered cigarettes, which means that comparing the two isn't apples to oranges in the consumption in the community.

 

The biggest worry I have is in the synthetic market. Legalizing real marijuana would quickly put a kibosh to the industry of synthetic marijuana if the real stuff was legal and available. The synthetic stuff is sold legally for "non-consumption" purposes, but it's incredibly dangerous stuff, as much or moreso than straight heroin. I truly believe this market would significantly reduce, if not disappear entirely, upon the federal legalization of marijuana.

[Hrbowski]

 

Smoking weed is only a crime because we deemed it so, it's not remotely in the same group as rape and murder.  It's going to be hard to take your views seriously if you keep making comparisons like that.

That wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but what about heroin, cocaine, and prostitution? If smoking weed is a crime only because we deemed it so than it should be the same for those crimes, which are absolutely not acceptable.

[biggentleben]

 

That wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but what about heroin, cocaine, and prostitution? If smoking weed is a crime only because we deemed it so than it should be the same for those crimes, which are absolutely not acceptable.

 

Many would have the same opinion on prostitution, though that one is hairy because if the only prostitutes in the world were consenting adult women, I think many would be good with legal prostitution (and many are for that reason). I struggle due to the heavy amount of prostitution done through the kidnap or forced labor of underage girls.

 

As far as heroin and cocaine, there's a mammoth difference in the effects of cocaine and heroin on its users compared to marijuana. Marijuana, effects-wise, is most comparable to alcohol with less addictive qualities than alcohol. Marijuana vs. cocaine/heroin is like comparing apples and T-bone steaks.

[formerly33]

 

That wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but what about heroin, cocaine, and prostitution? If smoking weed is a crime only because we deemed it so than it should be the same for those crimes, which are absolutely not acceptable.

It was still a ridiculous analogy. And while I'm no proponent of the legalization of marijuana, you really have to consider the practicality of the situation. Smoking tobacco and drinking are both perfectly legal (under certain situations, I should clarify), but marijuana, which allegedly is no worse, is not. Given time, it will inevitably all balance out; tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, sugar ... you name it ... will all be prohibited, or marijuana will be legalized. What do you suppose is the most likely (and practical) outcome?

 

Heroin and cocaine present a completely different scenario. My main concern when it comes to the legalization of marijuana is that those will be next on the list. But again, my personal opinion is that drug users ​are proceeding at their own risks. I'm not saying I support it - quite the opposite. What I'm saying is that maybe we should forget about being so hard on the users and focus more on the dealers. Drugs are really a non-violent crime, and the person you hurt the most by using them is yourself. (I know there are arguments against that, but if you take that stance, you have to add that drinking an alcoholic beverage is ​committing a violent crime.) Drug dealers ... different story. All they care about is making a king's ransom off of the demise of others. Heroin and cocaine should never be legalized ... but punishing the users? What they really need is therapy. Fining/jailing isn't going to "help" anyone overcome an addiction.

[TheLeviathan]

I'd sooner see all drugs legalized and regulated.  I have a hard time fearing the consequences of legalizing anything when we're so content with the catastrophic social effects of alcohol.

 

Seriously, how much worse could legalizing and regulating everything be than the abuse of alcohol and the effects that has on violence, rape, and a host of other issues?

[Shane Wahl]

I would ask that you guys look a little deeper into Carson. He is in the running as actually the most monstrous up on that stage. He just has the most kind little demeanor, doesn't he.

 

Kasich, Paul, and Bush are the only non insane people up there, in my view. All are profoundly morally repugnant, in my view.

[Shane Wahl]

Another one of the benefits of legalization of marijuana is the very likely decrease in alcohol use. Alcohol has pretty bad health costs all around for society.

[ashbury]

I would ask that you guys look a little deeper into Carson. 

Here's a Cliff's Notes version, not up to date yet with his latest Muslim comment.

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/twentysixteen/2015/05/04/9-ben-carsons-most-controversial-quotes

 

Yes, a soft-spoken extremist is still an extremist.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I would ask that you guys look a little deeper into Carson. He is in the running as actually the most monstrous up on that stage. He just has the most kind little demeanor, doesn't he.

 

Kasich, Paul, and Bush are the only non insane people up there, in my view. All are profoundly morally repugnant, in my view.

Yeah, all of this. Rubio isn't completely toxic as a politician, either... I'd put him under the "morally repugnant" label.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, Carson is a bit of a crackpot, but we were talking about tolerability relative to the rest of that field.

 

The only guys I'd seriously consider voting for are Paul or Kasich.