• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chris Christie vows to 'crack down' on marijuana as president

Chris Christie vows to 'crack down' on marijuana as president

yeah, i'm not going to vote for a drug warrior.
 
yeah, i'm not going to vote for a drug warrior.

So far, the only person in the GOP roster who doesn't seem to be a total drug warrior is Marco Rubio. However, I think that's cause he's got family that's done hard time because of it. Correction: There is also Paul, but he doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting the nomination.
 
It's a nice thought, but I now believe that most people are too stupid/weak to think for themselves on most political matters...they just think what they are told to (but convince themselves it was their idea).

Throw in religion...which is a bastion for social stagnation...and humanity is probably doomed to centuries more (at least) of staggering ignorance (assuming it survives that long).

How is religion "a bastion for social stagnation"? Please be specific.
 
Religion isn't the problem. We have these people in religion too - we call them "legalists" and their approach to religion "legalistic." They believe that as long as you follow all the rules, and there are rules for everything, then you are, or can become righteous. It's no different in the secular world; in fact the philosophy is precisely the same.

Jesus warned against legalism. ;)
 
You cannot argue the philosophy behind legalizing booze and reefer is people will consume it so make it legal. So, taking that to the next step why legalize 100% of all stimulants, depressants mood boosters, crack, etc.? The logic is the same. It parallels making poverty against the law or out lawing not sex but the sex drive itself. Until we adopts the "shoot on site" policy for drug use it will never, never, never change.

Do you advocate such a policy? WTF?
 
I didn't say religion IS the problem, but it supports the problem.

Religion is nothing...it's just a bunch of clubs set up by people who like to feel superior and like power. And their members are those that like to be told what to do...it make them feel safer and cozier.

Fortunately, those members (at least in the West) are slowly 'seeing the light' and leaving these clubs...but FAR too slowly, I am afraid.

That's just idiotic. Your ignorance about religion is truly astonishing. How could a seemingly intelligent person be so completely oblivious?
 
So far, the only person in the GOP roster who doesn't seem to be a total drug warrior is Marco Rubio. However, I think that's cause he's got family that's done hard time because of it. Correction: There is also Paul, but he doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting the nomination.

To be fair, there aren't exactly a lot of "legalize it" proponents on the D side of the roster either. What's Hillary's stance on legalization?
 
To be fair, there aren't exactly a lot of "legalize it" proponents on the D side of the roster either. What's Hillary's stance on legalization?

Well, there is only one person running for president on the D side as of right now. Hillary is in favor of letting states deal with it. I was shocked too. However, that's definitely not a drug warrior as it still allows a path to legalization at the state level.
 
Well, there is only one person running for president on the D side as of right now. Hillary is in favor of letting states deal with it. I was shocked too. However, that's definitely not a drug warrior as it still allows a path to legalization at the state level.

That's good to hear, too bad I don't believe a word she says. :D

I guess I meant "aisle", not "roster". :)
 
That's good to hear, too bad I don't believe a word she says. :D

I guess I meant "aisle", not "roster". :)

You don't really have to believe it. However, the proof is in the pudding. Obama has let states do what they need in regards to marijuana. The federal government has stayed away from the issue for quite some time. If Hillary is anything like Obama, there is nothing to suggest that she'd have a different policy on drugs.

What we do know for sure is that no Republican candidate who hopes to get the Christian Evangelical vote will EVER come out in favor of marijuana legalization. That leaves anybody who finds weed legalization important with a single viable option: The candidate that isn't entirely against it and favors the policy that is already in place.
 
NA-na-na-na-na-na-na-na Fatman!

He's gwine save us all from da debil weed.
 
So far, the only person in the GOP roster who doesn't seem to be a total drug warrior is Marco Rubio. However, I think that's cause he's got family that's done hard time because of it. Correction: There is also Paul, but he doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting the nomination.

sucks that Christie did a deal killer this early. i liked his attitude. the reefer madness **** is too much, though.
 
The only context where this makes sense is if as President he would be obliged to enforce all laws.

Yes, I laughed at that one too!
 
Economy, jobs, immigration, foreign policy...and he wants to throw down on marijuana?

Christie is not a serious candidate.
 
The only context where this makes sense is if as President he would be obliged to enforce all laws.

Yes, I laughed at that one too!

He's going much further than being obliged to enforce the law. He's proving what many have been saying about Republican views on states rights. It's only a thing if they're on the right side of the issue. ;)
 
He's going much further than being obliged to enforce the law. He's proving what many have been saying about Republican views on states rights. It's only a thing if they're on the right side of the issue. ;)

Pardon me, but you've seemed to have left some hack on my post.
 
Pardon me, but you've seemed to have left some hack on my post.

There is no hackery. Republicans have a support of 'states rights' that is spotty at best. They scream states rights when the discussion is gay marriage, but were all in favor of DOMA. They scream about big government interfering with state governments immigration laws (see: Arizona), but support making E-Verify mandatory. Yes, Republican support for 'a state's rights are highly dependent on the issue.
 
I would hope that for most people a politician's stance on the legalization of Marijuana isn't important. It's not an issue that belongs in the Presidential election, just like abortion doesn't belong there.

And while I completely disagree with Christie's stance, it wouldn't prohibit me from voting for him because of it.
 
There is no hackery. Republicans have a support of 'states rights' that is spotty at best. They scream states rights when the discussion is gay marriage, but were all in favor of DOMA. They scream about big government interfering with state governments immigration laws (see: Arizona), but support making E-Verify mandatory. Yes, Republican support for 'a state's rights are highly dependent on the issue.

Covering your hack items with straw doesn't take the hackery away. Please stop.
 
Covering your hack items with straw doesn't take the hackery away. Please stop.

Denying reality seems to be your strength. When you can refute anything I've said with facts showing different, you're welcome to join the thread? :)
 
Denying reality seems to be your strength. When you can refute anything I've said with facts showing different, you're welcome to join the thread? :)

I did join the thread, It is your "Go Team" attitude towards politics I'm attempting to get unstuck from.
 
If this is the hill on which Christie wants to plant his flag, be my guest.

What other hill does he have?

NJ's credit rating has been downgraded eight times in the time he's been Governor, the most recent about a week and a half ago, so he has no fiscal credentials to run on.

Gun laws in NJ are more draconian than virtually anywhere else in America and Christie is an avowed and proven gun grabber, so he's got nothing there.

Illegal immigration?

Chris Christie said:
"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."

I guess maybe he could sort of hang his hat on gay marriage, he's at least been consistently opposed, though he's argued that it's a states rights issue.

So yeah, if Christie wants marijuana to be the hill he dies on I guess it's as good as any issue and better than most.

That said, he's so liberal, and in some cases so reasonable, that there is no way in hell he'd win a Republican primary.

For all practical purposes this is a moot issue beyond how it effects the people of NJ.
 
I did join the thread, It is your "Go Team" attitude towards politics I'm attempting to get unstuck from.

There is no go-team attitude. It's acknowledging a fact. Republicans support states rights when it suits them, and dismiss it when it doesn't.

As it stands:

- Republicans don't have a states right argument for marijuana because the evangelical right is strongly against drugs. That is a fact.
- They also didn't support gay marriage being a "states right" issue when every single one of them who voted on DOMA voted to pass it.
- They also support passing federal government bans on abortion, ignoring the many states in which there are predominately pro-choice stances.

The biggest proof that Republicans are flaky when it comes to states is the retelling that Southern Republicans have of the Civil War. It's a retelling that paints their new understanding of states rights as an institution that needed to be protected. As opposed to the fact that the institution being protected was slavery. It also purposely ignores that Northern states were exercising their states right to try and influence the federal government. Why? Because it's much easier to get the Southern vote if you ignore the fact that the 'state right' in question was the right to have slavery. :lol:

Again, these are all well accepted facts. Acknowledging them is not a 'Go-Team Attitude'. However, your attitude makes you look like you don't have much to counter with. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom