Barack Obama

Could Obama's Pot Crackdown Cost Him Colorado?


That's the question posed by this Salon article. Excerpt:

In Colorado alone, 40 dispensaries — all in compliance with state and local law — have already been shut down this year.

The surprising about-face has inspired former supporters in Colorado to try to legalize the drug outright. They managed to get a proposition to that effect on the ballot this November, and […] there are…warning signs that many of these same voters won't pull the lever for Obama in a crucial swing state.

"The element that nobody's really talking about is what I call the Gary Johnson effect," says Denver Democratic political consultant Rick Ridder.

Some testimony from spurned lovers:

"I volunteered for his campaign, primarily because he said he was going to respect state marijuana laws," says Josh Kappel, a Denver attorney who works at Sensible Colorado, a marijuana reform group at the forefront of the legalization effort. […]

Wanda James, a Democratic fundraiser who bundled $100,000 for Obama's 2008 campaign while serving on his national finance committee, runs an edible marijuana business in the state. She is so outraged at the White House that she "won't raise a dime" for his reelection.

"There's a number of major donors that have felt that way — people who've given over a million dollars," she told me. […]

Johnson registered at 7 percent support in a recent Public Policy Polling survey of the state.

I have been encouraging progressives to torture Democrats over the drug war for a while now.

Link via Gary Johnson's Twitter feed.

NEXT: Non-Liberals Live Amongst Liberals, Deceptively Wearing Their Guises: Noted with Alarm

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There and New Mexico. Obama has to lose those states because of people voting for Johnson. If Romney just beats him, the Democrats don't get the message.

    1. Vote for Johnson? John, haven't you heard - there are only TWO candidates for President (except for me) and only TWO political parties in the US. Team Red or Team Blue - those are your ONLY choices, John!

      Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?

    2. The ideal scenario is an extremely close outcome between Team Red Blue with about a 15% vote for Johnson*, which would demonstrate to both teams that they can't just give lip-service to Libertarian issues.

      *Ain't going to happen, BTW.

    3. As a former resident of New Mexico, I don't see Johnson pulling votes away from Obama. I read Johnson doing better in NM weakens Mittens, not Obama.

  2. She is so outraged at the White House that she "won't raise a dime" for his reelection.

    Outraged enough to pull for Johnson? If these are single issue voters, I don't know how they could do anything but.

    1. Outraged enough to pull for Johnson?

      that would be the last of her three options. The others are: vote for Obama anyway or stay home. Since this is a liberal, the smart money is on the former. Liberals tend to have no principle and will vote party over all else. Say what you will about the right, piss them off enough and conservatives will just stay home.

      1. Obama will probably be better on the issue the second term, anyway. Right? RIGHT?

        1. He will if we get rid of that pesky Republican minority in Congress.

        2. He promised he would.
          Well he had a back-room buttboy promise it to some reliable hack, which is just like a solid promise from the Obama.
          Is in it?

          1. Is in it?


            1. Is it in yet?

    2. "won't raise a dime for him"...

      But it doesn't say anything about how she'll vote.

  3. "The surprising about-face...

    After 42 months, only Salon and Obamaniacs could still be surprised.

  4. She is so outraged at the White House that she "won't raise a dime" for his reelection.

    This does not mean she will not vote for the Obamessiah.

    1. she will support him. Ideology conquers all. Unlike conservatives who sat out in '08 because they knew McCain was not one of them, liberals have no principle and will not risk losing.

      1. do you really believe this crap? i feel like i'm at free republic. "liberals have no principle"

        1. Dunphy The "youre not representing the entire spectrum of human view points" Concern Troll.

          For the portion of self-proclaimed liberals who take the time to espouse their "views", what wareagle said has been proven correct time and time again by the aforementioned espousing.

        2. dunphy,
          are you new here? Look around. When Obama evolved on gay marriage, the questions was would blacks not support him, not whether they would support someone who shares their viewpoint. Same thing with this pot story. The pissed off woman is still going to vote for him. Party dogma trumps all.

  5. I have been encouraging progressives to torture Democrats over the drug war for a while now.

    Getting progressives to vote against the Democrats over the drug war, isn't that a bit like trying to get feminists to vote against the Democrats for being pro-choice?

    From what I can tell, there isn't anything about the drug war that's unappealing to progressives. In fact, it looks to me like applying drug war tactics to a host of other issues is what being a progressive is all about!

    I can see how liberals might get upset about the drug war, but progressives? They'd have the police treat homeschooling and selling cheeseburgers like selling crack if they could.

    1. "I have been encouraging progressives to torture Democrats over the drug war for a while now"

      Welch needs a reason? Democrats should be tortured on general principle.

      1. Progressives certainly need to be tortured over what they do.

        No excuse needed.

        But I don't think it bothers them, the damage they do. ...not even if it's poor people or minorities they're hurting.

        They're the ones the old saying "if you're want to make an omelet, you're gonna have to break some eggs" was coined for. They take the pain and suffering they cause as an indication that somebody's finally doing something to fix the problem.

        That's yet another reason why progressives are America's most horrible people.

  6. I'd like to think some of these people will defect to Johnson, but 99% of them won't. They may be mad as hell about Obama's drug policy, but that crazy libertarian guy just wants their grandmothers eating cat food until they die in a gutter. Come November, they'll be pulling a lever for Obama.

    1. They may hate Obama's guts, but they will vote for Obama anyway just because Obama told them to.

  7. Of course, Coloradans and others could just vote for The Turtle Man.

    A TRUE American Hero?.


    1. Apparently, I SF'ed that link. Huh...

      1. The episode where they fly him to North Carolina is hilarious. When he sees the escalator in the airport "uhh... what's that?"

    2. Turtle Man 2016


  8. Anyone thinking the gov't should be telling us how to talk, eat, drive, heat our homes, etc. isn't going to suddenly think they shouldn't doing the same with any other thing. Even IF they flip on cannabis they reserve the right to choose something else to beat the masses into submission with.

  9. Could Obama's Pot Crackdown Cost Him Colorado?

    I doubt it. I think there's enough progreso-tards in Boulder and Denver county who may bitch about this shit, but when push comes to shove they'll vote for him anyway. Not voting or voting for a 3rd party won't even cross their minds. "I don't like Obama anymore, but Romney's worse" will carry the day.

  10. i certainly hope it costs him colorado, but i have no idea if it will

    his relentless drug war pimping is disgusting, and completely contrary to what he said when he ran for president.

    attacking medical mj clinics is way worse than attacking just plain MJ (growers etc.)

    many of these people are legitimately sick, and mj is a valid therapeutic modality

    granted, libs in my state have passed draconian laws making it difficult for chronic pain patients to get opioid (iow effective meds) too.

    people's suffering and personal choices don't mean shit to statists

    1. you have thus answered the question you posed upthread regarding liberals and principle. Until and unless there is video of him snatching a joint out of some elderly terminal cancer patient's hand and stamp it out, these people will support him. And even then, most of them still will.

  11. "I volunteered for his campaign, primarily because he said he was going to respect state marijuana laws," says Josh Kappel

    And on whom should the blame rest, Josh? On him for saying an obvious lie, or on you for being so gullible?

  12. Obama only got elected because so many people thought he was going to decrim or legalize. I almost voted for him for that reason until I got over it and remembered he was probably full of crap as all Hangers-On-Of-The-Regime are. I'm glad my instincts are still good.

    Obama will lose a lot of his 2008 constituency because of this single issue.

    1. One can only hope.

      1. Centrifiers have finally succeeded in making "hope" a dirty word. It only took them a few centuries.

        I do believe we're going to see a lot of abstentions on the Presidential ballot this year.

    2. Obama only got elected because so many people thought he was going to decrim or legalize.

      He made it absolutely clear in the campaign he would NOT do this. He weaseled/waffled/lied on backing off the med mj raids but repeatedly ridiculed those who called for legalization.

      1. Not to be pedantic, but what he said and what people thought are two different things.

  13. On the war on drugs:

    Johnson Obama Romney

    If you're a democrat, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Romney. Game theory indicates they will vote for Obama, since we all agree that Johnson cannot win.

    Or, if you're too stupid to understand game theory, they're EEEEVIL.

    1. There were supposed to be "greater than" characters between the three candidates.

      1. You're a dumbass, and a vain one at that. You refuse to face the reality that Obozo IS an in-over-his-head, flailing hack who doesn't know what he's doing--just like any libtard when they leave the ivory tower.

        1. Do you think that Romney will be better than Obama on the Drug war?

          Do you think Johnson will win?

          If your answer to both of those questions is NO, Obama's the only rational choice.

          1. You're choosing someone that claims his that the powers of his office entitle him to kill you, like any warlord.

            There's exactly no rationality in choosing anyone for that office. The only rational decision is to abolish that office. As this is a nation of irrational fools, whoever wins in November will be the worst choice of the two non-choices offered.

            1. The powers of his office do allow him to kill me in some situations, but, unlike any warlord, those powers are granted to him by the constitution and not his personal army.

              I'm not sure that anarchy is the only rational option.

              1. Anarchy would be a better option that the increasing chaos practiced by Statists.

                1. Is there any non-country I could look at to compare the outcomes of anarchy to statism?

                  1. That was my point. Anarchy isn't attainable but the chaos of Statism is all around us.

                    1. I think your point was about the advantages of anarchy over statism.

                      If anarchy is impossible, how can you know?

                    2. Statists always miss the point.

                      The point is that there's no difference between Obama and Romney and anyone voting for either of them is a fool.

                    3. I'd take Romney or Obama over anarchy. Anyone who thinks that's a better outcome is a fool.

                    4. Cluephone: I'm not an anarchist. I'm also not a statist. My uncomplimentary comparison of the two should have tipped you off.

                      As I said, Statists always miss the point.

          2. Do you think Johnson will win?

            If your answer to both of those questions is NO, Obama's the only rational choice.

            A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson!

            1. Right, and if Gary Johnson can't win, a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for nothing.

              1. We don't have national elections for President. We have State elections.

          3. If your answer to both of those questions is NO, Obama's the only rational choice


        2. Do you think that Romney will be better than Obama on the Drug war?

          Do you think Johnson will win?

          If your answer to both of those questions is NO, Obama's the only rational choice.

    2. Unless and until Team Blue and Team Red understand that they cannot simply give lip service to Libertarian issues then ignore them after the first Tuesday in November, there is absolutely no reason to prefer either of them.

      1. This assumes that Romney and Obama have identical positions on the drug war, which they don't. Any difference is a reason to prefer one over the other.

        1. I believe one wants to crack down harder on illegal drugs, the other wants to crack down slightly harder-er. So yes, differences abound.

          1. I believe the "difference" he refers to is that Obama wants to put you in a prison run by the California Prison Guard Union and Romney wants to put you in a prison run by Jails-R-Us.

            Obviously, the former is much preferable.

          2. I realize this is sarcasm, but what you're writing is literally true. Even if Obama is 1% better than Romney on the drug war, it's a reason to vote for him. Unless you think Johnson has a chance, which I don't, it's a binary choice.

            1. It sounds like it's getting desperate down at Obama HQ.

              1. When logic fails, snark to the rescue!

                1. Those that preach voting for Obamney deserve snark+1. It's like a hooker preaching abstinence.

        2. You are assuming that the WoD is the only libertarian issue.

          Neither team has any cred in the WoD.

          Team Blue wants to put me in jail for selling soda pop and tax me to spend money on dentures for teens or some other piece of 'social justice.'

          Team Red wants to put me in jail for looking at pr0n and tax me to spend money on the USS Dick Cheney and bigger prisons.

          F**k them both.

          1. Its a thread about the war on drugs?

            1. Although I cannot vote in your election, I don't see anyone on this thread who believes that the WoD is the sole issue in the 2012 campaign.

              The main reason I want Obama to win in 2012 is that the economy is going nowhere over the next few years, no matter who is in office, and I want to see Team Blue wear it. (I know there isn't really a great deal the POTUS can do about the economy, but the fact is that voters tend to blame the President's party anyways.)

              1. Also, I find a certain amusement in the ongoing "Blame Bush" thing that Obama and the Blues keep pushing.

                I am wondering if they will keep it up all the way to 2016.

              2. GO TEAM RED ROOT ROOT RAH!

                1. Hey joe, whadya know?

                  Did you gain a lot of weight recently? I can barely recognize you.

  14. lol, Obama is an idiot, plain and simple.

    1. Anon bot is learning. Skynet can't be far away.

      1. One might think so, but then anon-bot will make a comment dissing Lobster Girl.

  15. joe-like typing detected.

    1. It must return to the creator to correct the error.

      1. Run away, dude! joe's back, and this time, he's heard of game theory!

  16. The only way to definitively end the drug war is to eliminate physician licensing by the government. Think about it.

    1. No shit. I've always thought the best way to frame the big picture on drug prohibition was to ask people if they thought it right to have to take off work and pay $20 -200 out of pocket to get a fucking refill on a non-psychoactive prescription of a relatively benign drug they'd taken countless times before.Focusing on "get you high" drugs alone alienates most of those who don't use them and would generally prefer other people don't.

      Ending government prfessional licensure and the gateway would dramatically cut "health care" costs as well. They always focus on cutting edge treatments and heroic end-of-life measures when the bulk of medical costs involve simple tests, answering a few questions and waiting for the quack to whip out his magic pad and pen. You could produce good primary care providers who knew exactly when to "kick it upstairs" with some vo-tech training and an apprenticeship.

  17. Sixty dispensaries have already been closed, and more Federal threats are going out soon. Obama has already forfeited my support, but I will vote socialist -- not for Gary Johnson! While Wanda James may have made significant contributions to Obama's election, I just canvassed for him. The majority of people who use cannabis in Colorado are politically ignorant and disengaged -- most who do vote are probably susceptible to the "lesser of two evils" argument, and will end up voting for Obama despite his failure to end Prohibition or even fulfill his pledges to medical cannabis states.

  18. The majority of people who use cannabis in Colorado are politically ignorant and disengaged

    Sad but true. One of my best friends is always eager to get off work or finish any other serious responsibilities of the day so he can (in his words) "smoke myself retarded".

  19. test

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.