Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan Says Something Sensible About Marijuana Policy, Then Corrects Himself to Match Mitt

|

Running for vice president is turning into the most cowardly thing Paul Ryan has ever done: 

As the Republican vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan gets ready to begin debate preparation on Sunday in Oregon, the Wisconsin lawmaker raised a few eyebrows when he told KRDO-TV in Colorado Springs that states should have the right to choose whether to legalize the drug for medical purposes. Ryan emphasized that while he doesn't personally approve of laws that make medicinal marijuana legal, "it's up to Coloradans to decide." Colorado is one of 17 states, plus Washington, D.C., that allow medicinal marijuana, notes the Associated Press.

Ryan noted that the issue "is something that is not a high priority of ours." A Ryan spokesman later emphasized that he agrees with Mitt Romney that marijuana should never be legalized.

Previously: Romney Vows to Fight Marijuana Legalization 'Tooth and Nail'—Unlike His Opponent? 

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on the Importance of Subjectivism in Economics

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “A Ryan spokesman later emphasized that he agrees with Mitt Romney that marijuana should never be legalized.”

    The article doesn’t give the exact quote, so I can’t tell if he actually “correct[ed] himself.” In his original remarks, he said he didn’t want to legalize medical MJ, but that Colorado had the power to do this. Did his spokesperson go back on that? Or simply reiterate what he’d already said, that he hoped Colorado wouldn’t use its power to legalize the stuff?

    1. Or simply reiterate what he’d already said, that he hoped Colorado wouldn’t use its power to legalize the stuff?

      As best I can tell, ^THIS^

      Obama’s 2008 campaign equivocations on not interfering with state decisions on medical marijuana were hailed in this magazine as evidence of his serious “liberaltarian” cred.

      Paul Ryan’s in 2012 just shows he’s a coward.

      1. Making it easier and easier for some less timid among the libertarian-leaning herd to vote Gary Johnson.

        The disgusting buttinski-ism of these sociopath politicians – forgive the redundancy – seeps into every question.

        1. But I can’t vote against a black man. Obama cares and it is not his fault things are so bad.

      2. Obama’s 2008 campaign equivocations on not interfering with state decisions on medical marijuana were hailed in this magazine as evidence of his serious “liberaltarian” cred.

        “Hailed”?

        Citation, please. I looked through five articles that expressed mild hope mixed with healthy doubt.

        1. “hailed” is a strong word, but you can’t deny BO’s slightest lurches in the general direction of libertarianism were greeted in a more positive way than Romney/Ryan’s are.

          It may just be a case of “fool me once…”, which is unfortunate because the first fooling was done by a rank statist who everyone should have known was a fraud.

          1. It may also be a case of our overly-sensitive HitAndRunPublican triumvirate not recognizing the difference between Obama, the Presidential candidate, saying something vaguely supportive of possible legalization, and Ryan, the Vice-Presidential candidate, saying something vaguely supportive after Romney had already unequivocally said the opposite and then immediately rolling his statement back to match what Romney had said.

          2. If so, it’s probably because everyone was sick and tired of Republican Bush, while Democratic Obama (from a party that hadn’t been in the White House for 8 years) was an unknown entity that certainly seemed to offer some substantial differences. After 4 years of Obama, the Republican alternative is someone…. who seems just like Obama and Bush. To recap: in 2008, Obama seemed to be radically different from both Bush and McCain. In 2012, both Obama and Romney seem pretty much the same.

            1. Obama only seemed radically different if you believed what the media told you. Senator Present was obviously no less a statist than Bush or McCain. He just had better PR in the party, and a media that was fawning all over him.

        2. It seems to me that Obama now has unequivocally promised to back off and allow states to make their own policy decisions about the medical use of marijuana within their own borders. He also seems to be saying the federal government should consider rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act so that doctors can legally prescribe it. Even if that second part never materializes, on this issue Obama is much better than John McCain, who (as the Times notes) has repeatedly flip-flopped between federalism and drug-war dogmatism, with the latter at this point winning out.

          https://reason.com/blog/2008/05…..ijuana-get

          They drank the kool aide. Were you not around for the 2008 Obama love fest?

          1. That’s what I get for not refreshing the comments. Bonus link with the post in which a beloved commenter vows to vote for Obama over McCain or Romney.

          2. So comparing the actual words of the two candidates and saying “if true, this would be better” is drinking Kool Aid. how does that follow?

            1. So comparing the actual words of the two candidates and saying “if true, this would be better” is drinking Kool Aid. how does that follow?

              Because believing a Democrat who says radically different things from the Republican who ruined our country for 8 years is heresy for HitandRunpublicans, of course.

              Here’s how it works: if a Democrat says something nice, he should be assumed to be lying until proven otherwise, and should be accused of such. If a Republican says something nice, they should be assumed to be telling the truth until proven otherwise, and doubting them just means you’re a Democratic shill. Got it now?

              1. ^Spoken like a true DemocRAT shill.^

                Now tell us why we should reelect Obama so you can get your “free” estrogen pills.

                1. SIV, didn’t anyone ever tell you not to go full retard?

                2. ^Spoken like a true DemocRAT shill.^

                  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Coming from a family that, if anything, has almost always voted Republican, that’s an absolutely hilarious accusation.

                  Now tell us why we should reelect Obama so you can get your “free” estrogen pills.

                  Are you stupid? Did I ever say, or even imply “vote for Obama”? I didn’t even vote for him in 2008. That doesn’t mean I think it was completely unreasonable to hope he would be different from Bush.

                  But using different standards depending on who is criticized? That’s your department, SIV.

                  1. “Life-long Republicans” from Republican families are the most reliable DemocRAT voters. They appear in the media and call talk radio every election cycle.

                    Scroll down thread and see the above “libertarian” defending Ezra Klein’s honor.

                    1. Scroll down thread and see the above “libertarian” defending Ezra Klein’s honor.

                      Didn’t happen. He simply stated that not every word written about Klein needed to be in the vein of “Die in a Fire”

                    2. “not every word written about Klein needed to be in the vein of “Die in a Fire””

                      Why the hell not?

                    3. “Life-long Republican”

                      Never said I was. I said my family traditionally has. My grandparents HATE Democrats, they think they’re all socialists. However, I have yet to vote for anyone. I was going to vote for Barr in 2008, but for personal reasons wasn’t able to (fortunately; having voted for Barr would be an embarrassment now). All set to vote for Johnson come the election.

                      “Life-long Republicans” from Republican families are the most reliable DemocRAT voters.

                      Can’t you tell that doesn’t make any sense? By your logic, most people who’ve been Republicans since they were 18 should be voting Democrat. The Democratic Party, just like the Republican Party, will always make special note of the “turncoats”, as Reason called them. There’s no way to reasonably think that means most “life-long Republicans” will vote Democrat.

              2. The instances of HnR assuming a Republican is not laying is pretty damned rare. And the only instances I can think of where when said Republican was waving around an Ayn Rand tome, and even then there was a healthy dose of skepticism.

          1. Still doesn’t read as “hailing”. Reads more like “reporting the words from the source”

            1. Agree.

              That isn’t “hailing” anything.

              Using “seems” twice in 2 sentences shows doubt from the get-go.

              This reads like he was trying to paint Obama in a corner, setting him up for criticism if what Obama seems to believe doesn’t materialize.

              It’s a good thing one can’t get splinters from straw due undue clutching.

      3. And Reason is still pushing the lie that MassCare “paved the way for” Obamacare. Even after I challenged them to actually justify that assertion and they were preternaturally silent.

        1. They are still pushing the GOP is the party of medicare line even though Johnson wants to save medicare too.

        2. Oh here comes the egomania again.

          1. It’s not egomania, it’s a fact. I challenged, they failed to respond.

            Suderman did temper his language somewhat as time went on, though I’m not sure if it’s because of my objections or because he thought matters through more carefully.

        3. If by “paved the way” you mean “modeled on”, then yes it was. Ah, “preternaturally silent”. You mean, just like they are for 90% of the comments here? And then you ignore post after post explaining the similarities between the two, how some of the same people have worked on both, and how one of the main architects for Romneycare (who also consulted for Obamacare) says Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. I can see how that would be confusing for someone like you, Tulpa.

          1. Mitt Romney would keep parts of Obamacare:

            “Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said in an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.”

            Romney also said he would allow young adults to keep their coverage under their parents’ health-insurance

            “Echo not a Choice” springs to mind.

            1. In some Florida Romney commercials, they pointed out how crappy Obama has been for the FL economy. His idea? “Do something” to prevent foreclosures. Wow. Why didn’t anyone think of that before.

            2. Mitt Romney would keep parts of Obamacare

              Yeah, I just read that. Talk about a *facepalm* moment.

              To be fair, he’s talking about the things that aren’t part of Obamacare’s main points, which are 1)the individual mandate and 2) state-(or federal for the opt-outs)run healthcare exchanges. Those are the parts that have gotten so much flack and outcry. The parts Romney would keep are still horribly bad ideas though.

              The Huffington Post version (via Reason 24/7) had something interesting that your article doesn’t mention, though. Romney said this :

              I also want individuals to be able to buy insurance, health insurance, on their own as opposed to only being able to get it on a tax advantage basis through their company.”

              That’s a great idea, and something I haven’t heard from a prominent politician before (though it may have been said; I’m relatively new to politics). It’s also a position Reason has advocated for. Even coming from an echo like him, it’s nice to see someone from the mainstream political set bringing up the idea. I hope other political types at least acknowledge the idea has merit. Fat chance of that, though.

              1. The preexisting conditon thing without the individual mandate would spell the end of the private health insurance industry.

                1. Yeah, that alone is terrible.

          2. If by “paved the way” you mean “modeled on”, then yes it was.

            If by “orange” you mean “blue”, then the sky is orange. Those phrases mean very different things. “paved the way for” indicates that the later event would have been much less likely to occur were it not for the former. No one has demonstrated that ObamaCare was made more likely by the existence of MassCare.

            Anyway, both MassCare and BOCare were modeled after the GOP 1993 alternative to HillaryCare. Oh, a guy whose last govt paycheck came from Obama made a statement that helps Obama deflate Romney’s supporters. Big surprise.

            1. No one has demonstrated that ObamaCare was made more likely by the existence of MassCare.

              Since we can’t see into alternate universes, we can’t know for sure. But it’s a reasonable assumption to make. One instance of an individual mandate, especially one touted as successful, makes it much more likely that another individual mandate will be introduced. It’s an assumption, but it’s not unreasonable.

              Oh, a guy whose last govt paycheck came from Obama made a statement that helps Obama deflate Romney’s supporters. Big surprise.

              That doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Do you have any proof he’s actually lying? It’s pretty reasonable to think that the guy who worked on both mandates might, just MIGHT, know what he’s talking about when saying the second mandate he worked on is based off…. the FIRST mandate he worked on.

  2. threadjack

    In Which Dave Weigel Forgets He Was a Member of JournoList
    …Yeah, I saw him hanging around an Obamacare rally in DC and was kind of shocked by how he looks in person. Granted not everyone can have movie star looks, but he’s pretty cocky for someone that’s short, overweight, and has a bad complexion. He thinks he’s cool but he’s just cynical….

    1. How did this douche ever have a job at Reason?

      1. Delaware Dave fit right in. Reason hired him to cover the extremist Rockwell-ite Ron Paul campaign.

        1. I can honestly say I hated that fucker and thought he was the worst sort of liberal faking it for a paycheck the entire time he was at Reason.

        2. Delaware Dave fit right in.

          I never realized you spied on the Reason offices, SIV.

      2. On a somewhat related note, I’m still wondering why Matt Welch did that recent piece slobbering all over Ezra Klein’s cock.

        1. Because doing a piece on him without calling evil and incompetent at every turn is “slobbering”?

          1. Yes. Klein only deserves to be shat upon.

          2. Is this the Return of the Obamatarians?

            1. Only in your fevered Intra-HyR Kulturkampf imagination.

            2. See my above response to a similar comment from you. Or better yet, I’ll just repeat it: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          3. I fail to be impressed by his career arc considering what he’s done to get it.

    2. He has rosacea, so the rip on his complexion is way below the belt. Assuming you can get past the laughable superficiality of the author wrt height and weight.

  3. [Journolist] E-mails reveal Post reporter savaging conservatives, rooting for Democrats

    …In March, Weigel wrote that the problem with the mainstream media is “this need to give equal/extra time to ‘real American’ views, no matter how fucking moronic, which just so happen to be the views of the conglomerates that run the media and/or buy up ads.”…

    …After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, Weigel stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been.

    “I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats,” Weigel wrote….

  4. THE MARY JANE IS BAD FOR THE ABS.

    1. No it’s not. All that coughing is like doing a dillion crunches.

        1. Energy for more crunches.

  5. “I’m not running on marriage and marijuana. Those are state issues.”

    The “coward” Paul Ryan is in lockstep with the above statement by Mitt Romney.

    Maybe they are lying about it just like Obama did

    1. Yes, SIV, if someone professes strong sentiments towards federalism and then backs off because he really just wants the Vice Ring of Power, he’s a coward.

      Sorry that this little corner of the world doesn’t like Republicans.

      1. Point me to the quote where Ryan reversed his previous position.

      2. Isn’t saying I don’t agree with this but it is up to the states the essence of federalism?

      3. Did he back off? Standard “their lips are moving” disclaimer but the official campaign message appears to be that Romney/Ryan are opposed to marijuana but feel it is a state issue. Kinda like Ron Paul’s position on abortion,no?

      4. The problem is that the neocons are still firmly in control of the GOP. So Mitt and Paul will puppet whatever positions that they are told to by neocon central.

        Neocon official position on marijuana:

        Marijuana – BAD!

        DEA – GOOD!

        Cronyism – DA BEST!

        Solution to problem? Make more things illegal, hire more DEA, build more prisons.

        1. re: Hyperion 9.9.12 @ 11:55AM
          Kind of like dynamiting fish in a barrel as far as difficulty of prediction goes, but well said still counts for something.

  6. Ryan’s statements about his marathon times have varied wildly too. And he is attacking the Obama budget cuts of 2011 that he voted for.

    Etch-a-sketch time again.

    1. Ryan’s statements about his marathon times have varied wildly too.

      OMG! This is huge! Does Maddow know about this? Matthews? We have GOT to get the word out!

      1. I’m sure Matthews’ hack-sense is tingling as we speak.

  7. OUTRAGE METER SET TO MAX! Reading indignantly … not seeing contradiction … outrage ebbing …

    1. This

    2. Yes. This was poorly thought out. He only reiterates what he said before: he doesn’t approve of marijuana legalization. Now, if he had walked back his federalism comment, THAT would be cowardly. As it is, though….. meh.

    3. How do you mean? This is a direct contradiction. His prior statement is that states should decide. For that to happen, Romney and Ryan need to repeal the Federal law so that states can decide. Romney, and now Ryan have said they do not believe Marijuana should EVER be legal, so they will NOT let the states decide by repealing the Federal law.

      This goes directly against his “federalism comment”.

      1. Not true. He doesn’t think marijuana should ever be legalized, but he also doesn’t think it is the federal government’s place to decide.
        Think of it like a restaurant. The chef can say “I don’t think we should sell vodka to our customers.” but it isn’t his position to decide that.

  8. I’m already getting pretty fucking tired of explaining over and over and over again how Paul Ryan is neither an Objectivist nor any sort of reasonable standard-bearer for the views she held.

    1. Well you certainly don’t have to explain that to all of us. Ryan is not even close to being any kind of standard bearer for anything remotely liberty related.

      GOP set to lose yet another presidential election, and against the worst president ever. Obama makes Carter look good. GOP are never going to have another POTUS as long as they are controlled by the neocons. Neocon is no longer selling, to the point that the country is willing to vote for batshit crazy socialists instead. Dubyah and McCain pretty much killed the neocon brand.

      1. Does not matter which way the election goes, it’s a lose/win. Lose: because obviously both candidates are the same – you could flip a coin. Win: because if Obama wins the state collapses that much faster leading to a hopeful rebirth, and it will see the end of the GOP. If Romney wins, the state still collapses, but without the added bonus of the GOP implosion.

        1. Why do you think the state collapsing will lead to anything good? Did it lead to anything good in Argentina or Cuba? Or interwar Germany?

          1. “Hopeful rebirth” There’s a teensy bit of optimism in there.

            1. In a couple of hundred years maybe. If the state collapses we will end up with some leftwing nitwit like Chavez. That is what they want I think. It is more fun to be an elite in a banana republic than a western democracy.

              1. John is right. There is no ‘cleansing flame’ to be had in collapse. Only flame, and it will burn liberty.

          2. Well as far as Argentina is concerned, the answer is obviously, NO. They are headed down the same road towards hyper inflation that collapsed their economy last time. And their answer? MOARRRR of the same! Sound familiar?

            1. The Argies are forever attempting to relive the glory days of Peron, when people gave a fuck about Argentina. What they don’t get is that you can only do Peron once, then the money runs out.

              1. Or you print a ton of money and try vainly to tell everyone that the inflation that’s happening isn’t happening.

      2. If the GOP were running Paul they would be down by 20 points. People are not voting for Obama because of Neocons. Shit Obama continued every war. They are voting for Obama because they want free shit and are afraid to vote against a black man for fear of being the racist.

        1. You’re full of shit again. Obama will win because the GOP is insane.

          Even casual Republicans know it because the idiots like Gingrich and Santorum won quite a few state primaries.

          1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v0fT90fBog

            You tell em shreek. You retarded demonic little monkey.

            1. Damn John, that’s funny! PERFECT!

            2. I’m confused. Now when I try to read assplug’s comments, all I hear is that video.

          2. Yes, and the Dems are the standard bearers for sanity. Not sure what that batshit crazy shit being spewed at the DNC was all about. Must have been some sort of anomoly brought on by not being able to read a weather forecast.

            Are you getting enough free shit, Buttwipe, or do you need MOAR!? Get out your pom poms blue team boy and get ready to do a little dance for your masters. Just bend over and get ready for more freebies.

            1. His entire point of existence here is zero-intellectual-honesty “look over here!” babble that’s identical on every article. I’m only surprised that he hasn’t trotted out the “Rush! Right-wing talk radio meme!” bit already.

          3. You’re full of shit again. Obama will win because the GOP is insane.

            I don’t agree with shreek too often, but he’s right here.

            This would be a LANDSLIDE election in favor of Team RED if they could have mustered to nominate a candidate even remotely close to decent. Instead the best that they could come up with is fucking Romney, and because of it they could lose an election against fucking Obama.

        2. There’s also the fact that the media is carrying water for him more shamelessly than ever. Back in the 1990s I used to laugh at people who said the media had a liberal bias, now it’s pretty much like getting a sledgehammer to the head.

          1. THIS. When the conservatives are right, they’re right. There’s just no subtlety anymore.

          2. It’s not a liberal bias, it is a pro-government/pro-controversy bias. It’s only seems like a liberal bias because conservatives pretend to be for smaller government.

            p.s. I am refering to actual journaists of course. The commentating class masquerading as reporters are definitely leg-thrilled partisan hacks.

        3. Paul was no where near down 20 points in polling against Obama. And you can’t say it’s because no one knows who he is or his beliefs, cause his name recognition is pretty high.

          1. Those polls were worthless. His only ‘recognition’ came from his being a novelty. If it came down to a choice, Paul would lose hard. Sucks but that’s the way it is.

            1. You don’t know unless you try.

      3. Dumbya is hands down the worst POTUS ever and Carter is the most libertarian since Coolidge.

        You are a whackjob.

          1. Did you film that at the DNC?

  9. Wow! Leftists are in such denial. They want a better world. But, can’t seem to get communism to work. Even China had to embrace capitalism to keep from being thrown out in a revolution. Why would you die hards think communism can be made to work here? Get over it. Obama has ruined everything he touched. Now, you want to spit on the one man, Ryan, who’s floating a trial balloon to see if they’ll get support to end marijuana prohibition. What’s it going to take for you people to give up on the biggest liar who ever sat in the Whithouse? Proof is in the actions, not the words. Obama has hammered marijuana producers into the ground harder than any president I remember, and lived through the Carter years as an adult. Statists are control freaks anyone who supports them are of the same mind. You want to be left alone over marijuana use. But, you want to think for everyone over everthing else. WTF?

    1. I hope you aren’t writing that for the Buttwipe. He has Obamies little dicky in his ears and can’t hear you.

  10. Liberty is not a partial concept. If you want liberty to use marijuana, then accept the need for adults to exercise their liberty to think for themselves be self reliant, too. It’s time you guys embraced liberty, for all. The most positive think I’ve ever heard coming from a political figure capable of making the war on cannabis uers end, all we get is how Obama is still a better bet? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. How many times do you brainwashed people have to be fooled by the Leftists until you realize they’re serious when they call you, “useful idiots”? Now, all we have a $16 trillion tax debt. There’s no more for Obama to give you he’ll collapse this nation forever, if he’s re-elected. So, you can stop putting your hand out for other people’s money. But, don’t expect a job to back you up, if Obama is still in power. Wake up sleepers! Take this survey if you dare to find out where you really stand politically: http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php Once you’ve pulled your heads out, visit the offcial US Congress website demand your rep support marijuana legalization: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

    1. There are probably a dozen or less votes in congress, and I am talking both houses combined, for a legalization vote at the federal level. So it’s not going to happen. This has to be done at the state level. The feds will resist it every step of the way.

  11. Liberty is not a partial concept

    It is for progressives. It consists of only 2 things. Kill unborn babies and be gay. That is it, everything else needs to be decided for them by the state.

    1. That makes it 2-0 then.

      I know to you wingnuts liberty = “less spending” and then you go vote for Bushpigs who tack on more spending than any president ever. The list is too long to repeat.

      Romney would not be any different as he is already talking about restoring Obama’s budget cuts to full tilt.

      1. trollin’ trollin’ trollin’
        keep them dawgies rollin’
        man my ass is swollen
        rawhiiiiiiiiiiiiide

        1. trollin’ trollin’ trollin’ . . .

          Got a good laugh out of that, thanks.

      2. How many of us here are voting for Romney?

        I think that what SRC said about you is spot on, and you are trying really hard to prove it.

      3. Romney would not be any different

        WOW, you actually spoke the truth for once. I am sure it was an accident.

        Obamney = Obamney

        So why do you worship only the one true Obamney, when they are both the same?

        1. From Bush.

          They are already ginning up Iraq Pt II – (Iran) and “mushroom cloud” talk.

          Spending will skyrocket again (been flat for three years).

          I want more gridlock.

          1. I want more gridlock.

            Yes. Needs moar gridlock.

            1. I expect that means that Shrike will be voting for Republicans for Congress.

          2. That’s right, Obama IS ginning up Iraq Part II. Nice of you to notice.

          3. Because “gridlock” has kept us out of war. Point to a war, and I’ll point you to 2 sides of a 2-sided aisle that voted for it.

            War is a bi-partisan affair.

            And this “gridlock” we keep hearing about is bullshit. You cannot have anything resembling a true gridlock yet still manage to spend $3.5T EVERY FUCKING YEAR. That kind of spending is proof-positive that Teams RED and BLUE work perfectly well together. The gridlock is a trope sold to us by the media in an attempt to show that there’s somehow a difference between their respective policies.

  12. If you don’t like marijuana, then don’t use it.

    1. And if you do like it, go to jail. That is the current federal policy.

      1. To be fair, I think you actually have to possess it or smoke it first.

        1. possess it. there is no law i am aware of against smoking it

          common misconception

          also, the feds almost never prosecute somebody for POSSESSING MJ, unless it’s huge quantities or occurs on federal property (national park)

          the vast majority of MJ cases are handled on state/local level

          and of course, as explained, for mere possession, it is decrim’d in many states, and in many others even though technically criminal, it’s almost ignored (cops issuing warning, etc.)

          if you have no priors and don’t possess mass quantities, you have about zero fear of incarceration if caught with mj in most places

          1. and of course, as explained, for mere possession, it is decrim’d in many states, and in many others even though technically criminal, it’s almost ignored (cops issuing warning, etc.)

            if you have no priors and don’t possess mass quantities, you have about zero fear of incarceration if caught with mj in most places

            This isn’t even subject to examination. How can you possibly support this with any proof or statistics?

            1. i’m not grokking your objection, if that is what this is.

              are you claiming you don’t believe what i am saying is true, or that you would like some data to support it or what?

              do you SERIOUSLY deny that in many (if not most) jurisdictions, a person with no priors, getting caught with personal possession amounts of MJ has statistically next to no chance of getting jail time?

              seriously?

              where ARE these people who are getting thrown in jail (for more than the time it takes to process their arrest IF they are arrested it’s usually a few hours until they are released)

              seriously

              WHERE are they?

              again, no priors and personal possession

              where are they?

              i really wish we had more defense attorneys in this blog because maybe you’d believe them, if you don’t believe me.

              again, in many places it’s DECRIM’d .. that means fine NOT jail

              1. in most other states, even if technically criminal, about the worse you have to fear IF the cop even bothers to cite you and IF the prosecutor bothers with a case is a fine of $250 or less and probation

                fuck, look through your local jail roster (my local jail has it accessible to anybody via the web)

                talk to a defense attorney

                there are 13 states that do not even use imprisonment for mere possession (meeting certain priors etc. criteria)

                Massachusetts, New York, Maine, Ohio,
                North Carolina, Mississippi, Minnesota, Nebraska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, California, and
                Alaska

                like for example, in minnesota, the max penalty (MAX) for possession up to one ounce is a $200 fine

                again, i get so tired of this rubbish. the war on MJ sucks, but as a USER in MERE possession, you have next to ZERO chance of getting a sentence involving jail time

                i’m not aware of any statistical database that tracks average sentences for MJ possession.

                these are simply facts, though.

                1. We need to talk to more police officers who try to find evidence that the simple possessor is actually a distributor.

                  Because there’s a lot of manufactured “with intent to distribute” charges tacked onto simple possessors.

                  your claim is totally not falsifiable, given that police very frequently try to ‘find’ (read: make up) additional evidence that the possessor intended to distribute.

                  1. yawn. i know i know. no matter what we are discussing, it’s always “but the police but the police”.

                    spare me the “make up” crap

                    if there are facts and circs relevant to a posession w/intent charge, then they will be considered.

                    scale, customer lists, multiple packets labeled for sale, large quantity of cash, statements made, etc. are all relevant

                    but again, my point is simple and consistent with the facts

                    simple possesion of small amounts in most jurisdictions results in either a verbal warning, or in some cases a prosecution with very minor penalties

                    the chance of jail time, if no priors, is infinitessimal

                    pot users KNOW this. cocaine, meth etc. users are (justifiably so) much more worried about being caught “dirty” and MJ users in most places are not

                    because they know of what i speak. they may have a friend who was busted and got a piddly fine, for example. they may have been stopped by the cops and given a warning.

                    etc.

                    1. It actually is not me making things up, dunphy.

                      simple possesion of small amounts in most jurisdictions results in either a verbal warning, or in some cases a prosecution with very minor penalties

                      Do you have any evidence that the verbal warning outstrips the prosecutions?

                      I bet you don’t.

          2. If I tested for it, I could theoretically be charged with conduct unbecoming or failure to obey a lawful order on top of my firing. Those can come with jail time. I don’t know if it happens like that often – I think most military folks get administrative discharges. But it’s likely different for officers.

  13. Romney is going to do an Obama on gay marriage pivot and support legalization of marijuana when President.

    An angel in a dream told me this.

    1. So Ryan will make potheads happy by just saying he agrees with marijuana legalization but doing nothing about it at the state level?

      1. Embrace hope!

      2. No, Ryan will make no one happy by saying he no longer believes it should be legal, and the states will have no say in it because neither him, nor Romney will even consider repealing the Federal law to let this happen.

        He doesn’t believe it is up to the states anymore. He’s changed his position.

  14. Let’s hope one of Romney’s kids gets picked up for minor trafficking – passing a joint – then we’ll get real change.

  15. Well, if folks want to see contradictions, checkout this new Obama video on youtube – 360,000 views in six days. May be of interest and worth sharing with friends. See at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8R5GvwUFU8

    1. What does this have to do with Ryan and states rights?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.