7 Responses to Marijuana in the 2008 Presidential Election

1. Pachacutec October 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am «

   Hell, sell it and tax it. Get the feds out of it.
2. Teddy Partridge October 9th, 2008 at 9:56 am «

   The feds have made life miserable for people who use marijuana for palliative care and relief from pain here in California. Almost all of our medical dispensaries have closed here, because the DEA wrote letters to all their landlords saying that they, by renting to an “illegal” enterprise.

   We need a compassionate re-thinking of all our drug laws, but we must begin by making the feds respect state laws about medical marijuana.

   Thank you for this great contribution!

   (Recommended)
3. ubetchaiam October 9th, 2008 at 10:09 am «

   Thanks for the posting but Obama said a lot of things in Iowa that he has ‘altered’; When he says the ‘doctors and science’ will guide his decisions, that is all well and good EXCEPT for the Supreme Court rulings on this issue. That means it will require Congressional action via statute for any changes to occur. And what Congress critters will take such a stand?
4. ratfood October 9th, 2008 at 12:44 pm «

   Nader’s stance is the best of the lot. I suppose I could cast a symbolic vote for him in November, since it is safe to say that Illinois will go to Obama.
5. Boston1775 October 9th, 2008 at 3:21 pm «

   Well done.
   Thanks for posting this.
   Can’t we all just make sense?
6. nonplussed October 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm «

   They’ve criminalized so many non-violent people over this issue and made so many people despise Law Enforcement. Once citizens regard Law Enforcement as the enemy, it would seem that you have something less than a free society.
7. ThingsComeUndone October 9th, 2008 at 5:36 pm «

   The prohibition issue solidified the wet vote for Roosevelt, who noted that repeal would bring in new tax revenues.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

   Just how much did that tax bring in lets face it we are desperate to pay the BUSH WAR DEBT!