Tom Tancredo vs. Ken Buck on Pot Legalization


#1

Tancredo was a Congressman from Colorado from 1999-2009. He was a Presidential candidate in 2008, and won 36% of the vote as the Constitution party candidate in the 2010 Colorado Gubernatorial race. He is known to be one of the strongest voices against illegal immigration and for strong border control.

Buck is a district attorney and former U.S. attorney. He was the Republican Senate candidate in 2010 from Colorado, and won 46% of the vote. He is known as a strong social and fiscal conservative.

Most of you know I side with Tancredo on this issue. We can’t keep drugs out of prisons or schools, and drug prohibition does not substantially reduce usage but instead props up drug cartels and encourages violent crime.


#2

While I’m 100% pro-legalization, I’m glad to see that even someone against it like Ken Buck realizes it’s a state issue.

I really hope legalization passes in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington in November and that other states (California probably will) follow their lead very soon.


#3

This one back again, eh?


#4

free weed!!! Not sure why someone needs to get elected president to get it done. Seems to be happening in the most liberal states already :slight_smile: Kinda ironic tho.


#5

Free weed?


#6

Yes, its on the ballot on 3 states.


#7

And will most probably pass in 2 (Colorado and Washington).


#8

[quote=“Jebby, post:2, topic:36724”]
While I’m 100% pro-legalization, I’m glad to see that even someone against it like Ken Buck realizes it’s a state issue.

I really hope legalization passes in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington in November and that other states (California probably will) follow their lead very soon.
[/quote]I’m voting no on the Oregon measure. It’s the stupidest way to try to do this. It creates a new state board (unironically run by potheads), state-run pot shops, requires the state to teach the “real” truth about pot in schools (I’ll do that on my own, thank you) and even requires the state to support efforts to legalize pot outside of the state.

A lot of folks complain that it doesn’t limit the total amount a person may possess. I think that’s a ridiculous reason to vote against this measure. If it should be or is legal, who cares how much a person possesses. We don’t limit the amount of alcohol or tobacco a citizen may possess.

I favor legalizing it without the promotion and massive state involvement. Give me a better bill, one that potheads didn’t write. Apparently, they’re just proving their idiocy.


#9

I think Oregon’s is the most likely to fail. I do agree with all your points, but I don’t think we will see outright legalization for at least the next decade. I don’t like Washington’s ballot measure much either, as it doesn’t legalize the substance, just possession under 1 ounce and does not legalize industrial hemp! I think Colorado’s is the best out of the bunch and I really hope it passes, if not for the marijuana part for the legalization of hemp, which could be a huge boost to the state’s agricultural industry.


#10

Just what the country needs more drug addicts and brain dead morons voting.


#11

Marijuana isn’t addictive nor does it have any lasting effect on an adult’s brain. Alcohol is a far more addictive, destructive, and dangerous drug than marijuana.

The fact of the matter is:

  1. People are going to smoke pot regardless of whether it’s legal or not
  2. Does the government have the right to tell you what you can smoke, drink, eat, etc?

#12
  1. People are going to molest kids whether its illegal or not so that’s a non argument.
  2. Yes when it impacts other people. I am the child of addicts I have seen what pot can do. I was 8 years old when my dad got out of prison and spent my time separating the stem and seeds. So that argument it does not harm others is complete BS

#13

The question is, is keeping it illegal a benefit of negative? I side with the latter.

I mean, I agree it is harmful. Jill Stein said during the third party debate that it is not harmful, and that is a complete lie. There are a lot of harmful things though that aren’t banned.


#14

Should the government ban alcohol, then? After all, drunk driving impacts people, and it is far more addictive.

You see, with alcohol, we do the smart thing, which is to outlaw the crimes associated with alcohol rather than alcohol itself. Similarly, crimes associated with marijuana use should be legislated against, but the actual drug itself should not be banned. People should have the right to ingest whatever they want. It’s their body.

I’ve heard it said that if alcohol was discovered today, it’d probably be outlawed.


#15

If there wasn’t away to test for drunk driving (breathalyzer, blood test) I would say yes ban it, however there is a way. Can you test a pot smoker for THC levels with a breathalyser or blood test? Show me that equipment and I’ll change my stance.


#16

[quote=“Dacabeti, post:15, topic:36724”]
If there wasn’t away to test for drunk driving (breathalyzer, blood test) I would say yes ban it, however there is a way. Can you test a pot smoker for THC levels with a breathalyser or blood test? Show me that equipment and I’ll change my stance.
[/quote]That is the MAIN reason it is still a criminal offense.


#17

I dont care what a person does in the privacy of their own home. Shoot heroin whatever, but when you endanger others or bring them into that world you should pay a severe price.


#18

Well, for driving, any impairment is bad. We could simply state that if you fail a sobriety test, you cannot drive. Both marijuana and alcohol would cause someone to fail an adequate impairment test.


#19

Specious argument is specious. You should next argue concrete is the same as gefilte fish and should be considered a foodstuff


#20

Yes, you can test for TCH with a cheek swab test. Takes about 3 minutes.

SalivaConfirm Premium 7 Panel (6 Drug + Alcohol Instant Saliva Drug Test)