GOP lawmaker ain't tokin' after all

[hank moon]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/28/tom_tancredo_pot_pledge_ex_gop_lawmaker_backs_out_ of_promise_to_smoke_pot.html


Guy's a true conservative...and I love this quote:

"Throughout my career in public policy and in public office, I have fought to reform or eliminate wasteful and ineffective government programs. There is no government program or policy I can think of that has failed in such a unique way as marijuana prohibition."

----

Former GOP congressman Tom Tancredo won't be smoking pot after all.

The 67-year-old former White House hopeful tells ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/tom-tancredo-wont-smoke-pot-after-all/) that he'll renege on a pledge he made last year to do so if Colorado voters approved a state referendum making recreational pot use legal (something they did by 55-45 margin in November). The reason he's backing out now, only days after he confirmed he'd go through with it? Dirty looks from his grandkids, apparently:



Tancredo cracked under pressure from his grandchildren. They were “very upset with grandpa," Tancredo told ABC News, and for him, that was it. "Will have to welch. Political heat is one thing. Am use to that," Tancredo wrote in an email. "Heat from my family is quite another."

The outspoken conservative—who is best known for his hard-line stance on immigration—was a vocal backer of his home state's pro-pot push in 2012. "I am endorsing Amendment 64 not despite my conservative beliefs, but because of them," he wrote in an op-ed for a local paper back in September (http://www.gazette.com/opinion/marijuana-144943-prohibition-amendment.html). "Throughout my career in public policy and in public office, I have fought to reform or eliminate wasteful and ineffective government programs. There is no government program or policy I can think of that has failed in such a unique way as marijuana prohibition."


Tancredo's pot-smoking pledge first came to light last week in a promotional trailer for a crowdfunded documentary about the passage of the amendment. Near the end of the 10-minute video, which you can see below, comedian/filmmaker Adam Hartle asks Tancredo, "True or false: When Amendment 64 passes and marijuana is legal, the next time I'm out in Colorado, we're going to smoke a joint together?" To which Tancredo quickly responded: "Deal." (Exchange comes at about the 9:23 mark):

[rockgremlin]

So he's backing out because of the opinions of his ill-informed grandchildren, who have gleaned their education about pot from media scare tactics. Bravo, Tancredo. :facepalm1:

If we as a society are going to ban a substance that we deem harmful and destructive, let's start with ALCOHOL first.

[rockgremlin]

He should have had his grandchildren read this article: http://www.policymic.com/articles/16255/ron-paul-legalize-marijuana-bill-8-reasons-why-it-makes-sense

Here's a summary of that article:

It is time Congress acted to decriminalize the use of marijuana and here are eight reasons why.

1. Our congress is supposed to recognize the will of the people, not impose their will on the people. Even though recent polls (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2012/56_favor_legalizing_regulating_marijuana) show the majority, 56% of the public, is in favor of legalizing and regulating marijuana, and a full 47% of citizens are in favor of taxing cannabis, there still has been no action by Congress. Maybe election polls are the only ones that get attention in Washington.

2. The Global Commission on Drug Policy report (http://www.policymic.com/article/%20http:/www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/reports/) admits the global war on drugs has failed. In fact, consumption has increased. Doesn't taking action just make sense, even if we just consider the economics?

3. The War on Drugs has cost over a trillion (http://www.policymic.com/article/%20http:/www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/ap-impact-years-trillion-war-drugs-failed-meet-goals/) dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives have been spent. The availability of drugs has increased instead of decreased since Nixon enacted tougher drug laws in the 1970s. In a time our country needs to cut spending, it seems like this would be a no-brainer. But then there are the lobbyists (http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/) adding to election coffers. And the people in jail aren't making campaign contributions. Seems that in addition to those who have invested in private prisons, local police need that federal drug war money to keep the cash flows going.

4. There is also the cost to states. In addition to fighting the drug war, the cost (http://www.vera.org/download?file=3542/Price%20of%20Prisons_updated%20version_072512.pdf) to jail non-violent drug offenders averages about $47,000 per year (depending on the state). This is causing a massive drain on state budgets. And because Medicaid covers medical care for prisoners it is a burden to that program as well. Since so many prisons have been privatized they need every penny of profit they can get.

5. Data proves 51% (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p10.pdf) of all incarcerations today are for drug offenses and less than 10% of those offences involved violence. If marijuana was decriminalized, and non-violent offenders released, the privately owned prisons would lose vast numbers of clients and the flow of new clients delivered to them through their customers, the state criminal court systems, might come to a screeching halt. But wouldn't that free up our over burdened court systems as well. Of course, we need to think of the economic shock this would be to local attorneys across the country.

6. Another reason to decriminalize is racial disparity. Blacks are 57 times (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Group-sees-racial-bias-in-drug-war-3058152.php#ixzz28vRvmDj4) more likely than any other group to be incarcerated for crimes involving drugs, but they only make up 15.4% of drug users arrested. Whites make up 83.5% of those charged with drug violation, but a white person is less likely to go to jail. This is simply another clear area where the war on drugs combined with our criminal justice system has failed miserably.

7. Scientific research is another area that our congressional leaders choose to dismiss. At one time this "science" was key to criminalizing the use of marijuana. Relying on "experts," the nation was told how dangerous marijuana was. We were told how violent it made people (it actually makes people passive (http://www.druglibrary.org/special/goode/mjsmokers9.htm)) and it how addictive it is. Now we learn it not addictive. Cigarettes are addictive and kill people. Marijuana actually is medicinal and helps many who suffer from a variety of ailments. And even more recently we have learned it may actually halt or cure (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/marijuana-and-cancer_n_1898208.html) cancer. We are now told it is a "gateway" to other even more dangerous drugs. Let's face facts, the only reason it is a gateway drug is because the drug dealers are often a one-stop shop for illegal substances. And if marijuana were decriminalized, there would be no need to visit the local drug dealer. Anyone could grow it in his or her back yard, or in a flowerpot inside his or her homes for that matter. Which is why, along with police and investors in the private prison system, pharmaceutical (http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/) companies are also among those who lobby against decriminalizing marijuana. It might decrease sales of the addictive pain killing drugs that are one of the major contributors this nations drug addiction (http://www.painkiller-addiction.org/) problems.

8. Ron Paul explains the most important reason for decriminalizing marijuana. Personal liberty. It's what this country is supposed to be about.
Slowly, state-by-state, people's voices are being heard and the ridiculous laws banning a natural herbal plant (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Herbs-For-Healing/) are being changed. The federal government continues in its arrogance believing it can legislate morality. H.R. 2306 is still in committee but with a concerted effort of phone calls and e-mails to our representatives and senators there is still time to get this legislation to decriminalize marijuana passed. It is not just a matter of economics; it is a matter of personal liberty.

[hank moon]

i think it's ok that he backed out. pot's not for everyone - and i guess grandkids' opinions are pretty important. he did stick to his guns on supporting the amendment that legalized weed in CO - megabravo for that. A few more key states legalize and maybe we'll finally wake up from the nightmare that is the U.S. war on drugs.

[rockgremlin]

i think it's ok that he backed out. pot's not for everyone - and i guess grandkids' opinions are pretty important. he did stick to his guns on supporting the amendment that legalized weed in CO - megabravo for that. A few more key states legalize and maybe we'll finally wake up from the nightmare that is the U.S. war on drugs.


It doesn't HAVE TO be for everyone -- but the right to choose for oneself SHOULD be preserved. His grandkids don't like it? So what? I'll bet they don't like waterboarding prisoners of war, but that doesn't stop us from doing it.

[hank moon]

RG, what is it that you think his grandchildren wanted him not to do? I'm kinda getting the feeling that you might be the ill-informed party here :)

[Sombeech]

1. Our congress is supposed to recognize the will of the people, not impose their will on the people.

Well I've just gotta ask the question right now, would you agree with the will of the people if they voted against it, like the Federal Government's definition of Marriage, or would you then in that situation believe the congress should override the will of the people?

[rockgremlin]

RG, what is it that you think his grandchildren wanted him not to do? I'm kinda getting the feeling that you might be the ill-informed party here :)

Tancredo cracked under pressure from his grandchildren. They were “very upset with grandpa," Tancredo told ABC News

So his grandkids gave him a big disapproving frown - meaning they didn't want him to side with the pro-pot crowd and smoke that dooby he promised in the vid, thus causing him to renege. How else can you interpret that?


And for the record, I don't base my personal morals on whether or not congress finds it to their liking. Personally, I don't believe congress has a right to define marriage based solely on what version of genitalia a person was born with. If 2 people love each other and want to make it official in the eyes of the law, then so be it. So what? All life on earth isn't going to end if homosexuals decide they want equal rights as heterosexuals. (And please don't come at me with that lame rebuttal that "well if everyone on earth was homosexual, then the human race would die off." That notion is so unbelievably retarded that I can't believe it has ever been postulated by a thinking, breathing individual).

The will of "The People" and/or Congress doesn't carry any weight in my world. I decide what's right for me based on interactions and observations I have made in real life. That said, you could probably deduce that I am pro-pot, pro-gay marriage, and pro-choice. Wasn't this country based on the ideals of freedom? Sometimes it seems like Congress is just another version of a dictatorship.

[rockgremlin]

Personally, I don't believe congress has a right to define marriage based solely on what version of genitalia a person was born with. If 2 people love each other and want to make it official in the eyes of the law, then so be it. So what? All life on earth isn't going to end if homosexuals decide they want equal rights as heterosexuals. (And please don't come at me with that lame rebuttal that "well if everyone on earth was homosexual, then the human race would die off." That notion is so unbelievably retarded that I can't believe it has ever been postulated by a thinking, breathing individual).

And I would also add that I don't believe any religion has the right to define marriage as solely being a heterosexual institution either. I believe that is thinly veiled discrimination. Side step it and try and justify it any way you want, but at the end of the day, any way you dice it it's still discrimination. Since when does God's will justify outright discrimination?

Go ahead and throw your rocks at me....my skin is thick.

[Scott Card]

And I would also add that I don't believe any religion has the right to define marriage as solely being a heterosexual institution either.. So government should control religious beliefs? I really hope you are not going there. Perhaps we should have a king too?

[hank moon]

Hey RG, my bad. I had the impression from your posts that you didn't understand that the only thing the guy reneged on was smoking a joint. Note that he came through on the important stuff (like supporting legalization).

[Byron]

Yeah man...who's going to punish those who "discriminate"? Wait for it..........

[hank moon]

And I would also add that I don't believe any religion has the right to define marriage as solely being a heterosexual institution either. I believe that is thinly veiled discrimination.

Well, of course it's discrimination, and not the least bit veiled, either. Most religions are deeply rooted in discrimination, it's a defining characteristic (i.e. we are the chosen ones - want to be one, too?) Obviously a religion can define marriage however it sees fit for its adherents. It's when a religion tries to impose its definition on others that trouble starts.

Personally, I think marriage is an inherently religious concept, and that no gov't should have any say about it, there should be no legal benefits, tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, etc. that go along with it. However, as long as our gov't remains heavily influenced by money and religion, our theocratic ways will continue. C'est la vie.

[rockgremlin]

So government should control religious beliefs? I really hope you are not going there. Perhaps we should have a king too?

This question deserves some clarification before I respond. Specifically, I disagree that marriage is inherently religious. It may have been that way in the past, but I think the sacredness of marriage is lost on today's generation. I have plenty of friends and family that got married for reasons that are anything but religious, and I think that mind set applies to a large percentage of Americans.

The gov'ment should keep their noses outta religion, and vice versa. Separation of church and state. Most Christian sects of today believe that marriage is a sacred ordinance between one man and one woman, and wish to impose those beliefs on the general populace (ie the Prop 8 debacle in California). That was a shameless attempt to impose religious ideals on everyone -- not just members of their church.


And keep in mind....these are just my opinions. If your opinions differ, we can agree to disagree. I doubt I'm gonna change anyone's mind, and I doubt anyone else will change mine. :afro:

[Sombeech]

And I would also add that I don't believe any religion has the right to define marriage as solely being a heterosexual institution either.

Actually, they do. And they do have the right to define marriage between two Left Handed people, or two redheads, or two people on the same side of the river bottoms.

And the People, the general population, have a right to join that religion, or they have the choice to flat out ignore that religion's push for their marriage suggestions.

I have still NEVER heard any of you give me an answer that makes the slightest sense, in how the LDS Church was able to sway the vote in California; Many consider it the "Gayest State in the Union", also the most Liberal State in the Union, and how all these millions of people who regularly ignore EVERYTHING that the LDS Church has to say through any venue, now were totally brainwashed by their extreme views on marriage.

Before anybody posts a link rather than just responding with a common sense answer, don't. NOBODY has a good answer on how the LDS Church dominated the vote in a state like California. Funds? Advertising $$$? A drop in the bucket compared to the $$$ spent on Missionary funding there.

Don't argue whether it was right or wrong for them to use money out of a certain account to campaign, because the source of the money is not the reason the Californians voted the way they did. You are just deflecting the obvious argument.

Now aside from the Prop 8 topic which I will not get an answer that makes sense proving that the LDS Church swayed the vote....

I am still curious whom of you would support the people's will if they continue to vote against legalization of Marijuana. What is the tipping point for you, when you say the People must be overridden and the Government should take this vote out of the People's hands?

[rockgremlin]

I am still curious whom of you would support the people's will if they continue to vote against legalization of Marijuana. What is the tipping point for you, when you say the People must be overridden and the Government should take this vote out of the People's hands?


If the people voted against legalizing it I would disagree. My opinions aren't formed as a result of what the masses decide is right or wrong. I've always thought MJ prohibition was pointless -- even back when it was considered "the most dangerous drug in America." :roll:


And to clarify...there were many other Christian religions that were rallying against Prop 8 - not just Mormons. I guess I didn't make that clear. I wasn't just throwing rocks at Mormons, but EVERY religion that rallied against prop 8. And I would agree that they have the right to define marriage, but once they try to impose that definition on EVERYONE is where I believe they are overstepping their bounds.

[Sombeech]

If the people voted against legalizing it I would disagree. My opinions aren't formed as a result of what the masses decide is right or wrong. I've always thought MJ prohibition was pointless -- even back when it was considered "the most dangerous drug in America." :roll:

I agree, I wouldn't say it's psychologically dangerous. I think alcohol is and has been proven over and over again to be more dangerous with deadly results. But alas in the gun incidents where the shooter was high or drunk, the substance is almost completely ignored and the gun is blamed.

I would disagree with some of the statistics though on Marijuana. When you see stats on "Marijuana has never been the cause of __________ either long or short term", well how can this even be close to accurate when the majority of those polled weren't readily admitting how often they used it?

For instance when comparing Marijuana to Tobacco use, they'll say long term use of Tobacco most likely produces ________ but long term use of Marijuana does not? How can they separate this? Very often, Marijuana and Tobacco gets used by the same person over time. There will be few instances where Marijuana users will NEVER smoke Tobacco (even secondhand smoke?) and in that minority of skewed data, THIS is where they are staking their claim. So as for studies on what extended Marijuana use will NOT cause compared to Tobacco, I can't give any validity.

Such as the harm that Marijuana smoke, or any smoke for that matter, will do to your lungs over time. I see no logical evidence that inhaling Marijuana smoke into your lungs can "Fertilize your lungs and shit, man, like the THC in Hemp just gives it's gift from Mother Earth and bestows it upon the oppressed lung receptacles in your body man". Do people seriously believe that the smoke isn't doing anything bad to their lungs?

[hank moon]

"smoking" weed ain't necessary. There's vaporizers, tinctures, weed butter, oils, and cooking of great complexity. Not to mention the ever-popular pot brownie. Hey, maybe grandkids would be ok with a weedoreo?

[rockgremlin]

"smoking" weed ain't necessary. There's vaporizers, tinctures, weed butter, oils, and cooking of great complexity. Not to mention the ever-popular pot brownie. Hey, maybe grandkids would be ok with a weedoreo?

Yup, not to mention that cigarettes are more than just tobacco rolled up in paper. There's a myriad of nasty shit that is added to cigarettes. The cigarette industry basically conceded this point when they paid out that multi-bajillion class-action lawsuit filed against them several years ago. (In 1998 they were ordered to pay 206 Billion over 25 years!! source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tobacco-litigation-history-and-development-32202.html) In contrast, pot is just the dried bud, crushed, rolled and smoked - or eaten or vaped, etc. There's nothin else added to it.

I agree that over long term use there has to be some kind of negative effects from smokin weed. Breathing in smoke of any kind is inherently bad for your lungs. But if that's the issue holding you back from pot, just bake into cookies or something. Vaping is a better alternative to smoking as HM mentioned.

[Sombeech]

"smoking" weed ain't necessary.

True, but this really is the focus in the studies. When comparing Tobacco use to Lung Cancer, they aren't looking at Skoal or snus pouches.

Trying to say that smoking Marijuana isn't the only use is like trying to legalize hemp just because it can be used to make writing paper and rope.

[hank moon]

True, but this really is the focus in the studies. When comparing Tobacco use to Lung Cancer, they aren't looking at Skoal or snus pouches.

Trying to say that smoking Marijuana isn't the only use is like trying to legalize hemp just because it can be used to make writing paper and rope.

Only aiming to educate - not make a comparison with any studies. I think the general public probably isn't aware of the many ways MJ can be used. In the UK, I hear there's an aerosol available for medical use. Etc.

[rockgremlin]

Trying to say that smoking Marijuana isn't the only use is like trying to legalize hemp just because it can be used to make writing paper and rope.


Whoa there partner! The U.S. is the only nation on Earth that doesn't grow hemp. The U.S. USES hemp in 100's of applications, but we have to IMPORT it because we have deemed it illegal and unlawful. :roll: This is how paranoid we are of MJ - that we won't even grow a useful (and innocuous) plant because it is related to MJ. :facepalm1:


(Hemp is not marijuana for those of you playing at home).

[hank moon]

Hemp's so useful, its cultivation was mandatory in some of the early colonies. And it was even used to pay taxes. Hey, no wonder it's banned :mrgreen:

[rockgremlin]

Here's a handy dandy little article outlining the difference between hemp and pot: http://host.madison.com/what-s-the-difference-between-hemp-and-marijuana/article_fb7c0968-3122-11df-a8de-001cc4c03286.html

[Sombeech]

Hey I'm totally with you guys, Hemp is a VERY useful product. I remember being in England and buying hair gel with particles of Hemp in it. (Not that I noticed if it did a damned thing or not :lol8: )

I think most of the "beginner hippies" here in the US, or maybe we call them the "amateur shock artists" will start to get on this big Hemp kick though, read some internet articles of how useful it is (which it really is) and then use THAT info to fight for legalization of Marijuana. I'm merely pointing out how silly that correlation is. --- and I'm not accusing either of you of this, I'm not putting you guys in that class at all. I think these debates we have are usually rational and full of great points on either side.

Just so I'm clear, I do not think Marijuana is as damaging to your body nor as addicting as Tobacco, and it does have some medicinal value. But if it comes down to a vote, I won't vote yes or no, because I just don't care much for the issue.

[rockgremlin]

Just so I'm clear, I do not think Marijuana is as damaging to your body nor as addicting as Tobacco, and it does have some medicinal value. But if it comes down to a vote, I won't vote yes or no, because I just don't care much for the issue.

I think this is where most Americans are as well. But I perceive a "Marijuana Renaissance" is currently underway, and as the older generation is replaced, so will MJ's negative reputation also be replaced.