Gary Johnson on Legalizing Marijuana

[Oakminster]

I don't know much about this guy, but I like his position on the "War on Drugs" outlined in this CNN commentary (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/07/johnson.legalize.pot/index.html?hpt=hp_t2).

He's a candidate for the GoP nomination in 2012, a former governor of New Mexico, and now I'm going to give him serious consideration as my candidate of choice. Anybody know of any looming scandals or outright nuttery that could torpedo his run?

[MPB in Salt Lake]

No looming scandals, but he has admitted, unapologetically, to years worth of recreational use of illegal drugs (cocaine, marijuana, LSD) in his past, so I am not sure how the rank-and-file GOP are going to feel about a doper (small d) leading the party of George W Bush, who I am sure would be shocked at such blatant disregard for The Law....

[appleciders]

He's looked pretty attractive to me, too. I'm leaning against re-registering Republican in order to vote in the primary because it seems a little unethical, but if I do, he'll likely get my vote in the primary.

[Chronos]

Gary Johnson has positions?

[Simplicio]

He's a candidate for the GoP nomination in 2012, a former governor of New Mexico, and now I'm going to give him serious consideration as my candidate of choice. Anybody know of any looming scandals or outright nuttery that could torpedo his run?

I don't think his run is seaworthy enough to really be torpedoable. He couldn't even get an invite to the latest GOP debate. He won't break the top four in any of the primaries except maybe NM.

But if you don't mind voting for a guy that won't win, you could do worse. He's a pretty extreme libertarian, which IMHO makes him pretty nutty, but he at least seems sincere in his nuttiness, which is more then I can say for much of the rest of the GOP field. He'd probably be a more worthy recipient of a libertarian protest vote then Ron Paul anyways.

[aruvqan]

Given the Republicans assorted track record for drug abuse, whoring about, spousal abuse, gambling abuse, shagging interns and lying in general why not? Hell, the current and past governmental record of all parties for drug abuse, whoring about, spousal abuse, gambling abuse, shagging interns and lying in general I can't see what harm he could actually do if he got into the White House and started passing a bong around compared to what the current crop of elected officials probably has going on.

Maybe the general quality of weed in the US would go up....

[Chimera]

I'd love to see his other positions. Has he been pandering to Teh Crazy?

[Simplicio]

I'd love to see his other positions. Has he been pandering to Teh Crazy?

Basic extreme libertarian stuff. He's basically Ron Paul without the racism.

[waterj2]

Basic extreme libertarian stuff. He's basically Ron Paul without the racism.I don't think he's advocated returning to the gold standard either.

[Simplicio]

I don't think he's advocated returning to the gold standard either.

This article (http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20110613/NEWS05/110613003/Iowa-GOP-bus-tour-revives-gold-standard-debate) claims he's strongly in favor, though he certainly isn't as vocal about it as Paul.

[Recovering Republican]

I don't know much about this guy, but I like his position on the "War on Drugs" outlined in this CNN commentary (http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/07/johnson.legalize.pot/index.html?hpt=hp_t2).

He's a candidate for the GoP nomination in 2012, a former governor of New Mexico, and now I'm going to give him serious consideration as my candidate of choice. Anybody know of any looming scandals or outright nuttery that could torpedo his run?

You mean other than the nuttery he's already expressed?

I do agree, the war on drugs is a waste of time and money.

It's also not a priority right now. Getting people back to work is.

[syncrolecyne]

He was a good governor in New Mexico, and worked to attract high-tech business. He cut government expenses, without simply targeting the poor and elderly. He also has a much better understanding of immigration than most conservative politicians. Sadly, his work was largely undone by his successor, Bill Richardson, who I used to admire tremendously.

[Strainger]

I'd love to see his other positions. Has he been pandering to Teh Crazy?Gary Johnson on the issues. (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues) Gary Johnson's blog. (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/blog) Give them a read and make your own decisions. I don't see "teh crazy" there; I see pragmatic, tolertant, economic arguments for each position.

While I don't agree with him 100% on everything, he's the candidate whose positions I most align with and will therefore be voting for him.

[Chronos]

I had understood that his M. O. as governor was to simply indiscriminantly veto everything that crossed his desk. Not so?

[Strainger]

By 1995, he'd vetoed 200 out of 424 bills, indicating that he signed 224 bills, so I wouldn't call that indiscriminate vetoing. He did do a lot of vetoing though, compared to other governors.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/record

[Chronos]

Oh, OK, I guess my hyperbole detector was broken when I saw that claim somewhere.

[gazpacho]

Oh, OK, I guess my hyperbole detector was broken when I saw that claim somewhere.Vetoing 47% of bills seems huge to me. While perhaps not completely indiscriminate it shows a real problem working with the legislature.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Basic extreme libertarian stuff. He's basically Ron Paul without the racism.

Since when was Ron Paul a racist.

[VarlosZ]

Yeah, seriously, there are a million (at least) seemingly bizarre things about Ron Paul that you could throw out there for a one-liner which would be accurate, but the racism charge is really weak. The whole newsletter kerfuffle speaks more to the, er, "eclectic" mix of supporters that he attracts.

That, actually, is the difference between the two candidates: Gary Johnson is Ron Paul without the oddball following (which, perhaps unfortunately, leaves him with basically no following).

[Typo Negative]

No looming scandals, but he has admitted, unapologetically, to years worth of recreational use of illegal drugs (cocaine, marijuana, LSD) in his past, so I am not sure how the rank-and-file GOP are going to feel about a doper (small d) leading the party of George W Bush, who I am sure would be shocked at such blatant disregard for The Law....I am soooo voting for this guy. :)


spooje
D) California

[MPB in Salt Lake]

I am soooo voting for this guy. :)


spooje
D) California

In all seriousness, you have to respect someone who has the balls to say, "Yes, that's right, I most certainly used illegal drugs when I was younger, but I don't anymore, and I am not going to look you in the eye and lie to you about it or try to weasel out of my lawbreaking actions (I didn't fucking inhale) that I undertook at the time."

The way the politicians (of all party and stripe) are constantly trying to parse their words and re-write their personal history is a mollyfocking joke, and is actively insulting to all thinking Americans....

[Chronos]

In all seriousness, you have to respect someone who has the balls to say, "Yes, that's right, I most certainly used illegal drugs when I was younger, but I don't anymore, and I am not going to look you in the eye and lie to you about it or try to weasel out of my lawbreaking actions (I didn't fucking inhale) that I undertook at the time."Isn't that pretty much the approach Obama took?

As for Ron Paul's racism, he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. That's enough for me.

[MPB in Salt Lake]

Isn't that pretty much the approach Obama took?.

I think you are right, as I don't ever recall Obama trying to minimize (or deny outright) his youthful illegal activities. He came out and said he had made some poor choices in the past but had moved on and wasn't going to let his political opponents define him by it.

The way GWB lied thru his teeth for many, many years about his (by all accounts EXTENSIVE) hard-core drugging made me so sick to my stomach that I had to smoke a huge lump of pure, raw gummy bear opium ("Saigon Shoogar") to settle my Goddamn gut....:dubious:

[shiftless]

Gary Johnson on the issues. (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues) Gary Johnson's blog. (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/blog) Give them a read and make your own decisions. I don't see "teh crazy" there; I see pragmatic, tolertant, economic arguments for each position.

While I don't agree with him 100% on everything, he's the candidate whose positions I most align with and will therefore be voting for him.

The desire to greatly reduce our central government comes through loud and clear though and, I think, approaches "teh crazy" sometimes. Most of the positions I agree with, some I am horrified by. For example, it sounds like he is avocating for the Federal government completely stop regulating industry and to remove itself from education entirely. Maybe that experiement would work but it is scary enough to me that I would never vote for the guy, even if he will let me have pot.

[Chronos]

I think that voting single-issue on marijuana legalization is a mistake, anyway. We're heading in that direction no matter who wins. Some might get us there a little quicker than others, but it's looking pretty inevitable.

[Bosstrain]

Does anyone here know why drugs are illegal (the real reason :dubious: )? I don't do drugs (I used to take some puffs of mary jane), but the problem with telling any US citizen what they can and cannot do is in direct violation of his/her rights stated in :eek: THE CONSTITUTION :eek: ! Treading lightly here, I'd rather not get banned just for telling the truth, but seems to me that anyone fighting for a constitutional right is fine by me. I realize that our current government would rather burn the old document our forefathers wrote (not that I care much for said forefathers), and anyone standing up for the piece of parchment has been ridiculed more and more throughout the nation's history as time goes on. Still, the reason for banned drugs is much deeper and more insidious, and no, if your wandering, I'm not some crackpot like you all will un-doubtedly think I am. Do a little reseach and you'll find the reason way each drug that's been banned (there's a very good reason for each one), you'll also find the reason why alcohol has prevailed (even though its about as dangerous as any other when used unwisely). I'm stopping there, don't want to make anyone mad (especially not the admin's), just think about it, then follow the $$$ like everyone says to. ;)

[Chronos]

Telling citizens what they can and can't do is exactly what government is. What did you think the Constitution was setting up, if not a government?

[Bosstrain]

Telling citizens what they can and can't do is exactly what government is. What did you think the Constitution was setting up, if not a government?

I meant what they do to themselves, not others. Plus, the citizens ARE the government, or at least should be, that was the point of the Constitution. Of course, it didn't take long for people to forget. Presidents used to have to pay for everything that happens in the White House out of their pockets (the staff, the security, etc), now it comes out of our pockets (that's only been recently mind you), but nobody talks about that...strange isn't it....we also have to pay for the jet fuel don't worry (AF 1 doesn't fly itself either).

[Chronos]

If the citizens are the government, then don't they have the right to tell themselves what to do?

[Bosstrain]

@Chronos...I'm through discusing this, it's a pointless argument that cannot be won. The point of my original post was merely to educate on a completely different subject other than the actual government itself. I have no issue with the way things are done today, what you need to realize is that things used to be done differently, but again, the point of my first post was jabbing at another thing entirely.