We don't imprison anyone in California for marijuana, heroine/meth/etc. yes. Considering what those things do to people, and I have first-hand observational knowledge, there is no upside to society for allowing it.

Hemp production could generate millions. It can be used to make fabric and plastic. Which would also go to reducing our dependency on foreign oil, and would also impact climate change for the greenies.

It's more about decriminalizing it. It would save the tax payers a lot to not have to pay to keep these people in prison. They may very well be tax paying citizens. The war on drugs is a big fail and is costing us on both ends of the equation

That was a pretty small straw so you must have been right on the verge. What were the major issue based straws that put you in that position?

Brewing at home is completely legal if for personal consumption. It's illegal to sell.

I don't think any market for narcotics that leave a lasting effect on the body makes any sense. To each their own, but like I said, drive while using it needs to result in significant jail time, hurt or kill someone and it needs to be lifetime imprisonment to make sure it doesn't happen. Someone else's poor choices shouldn't be everyone else's risk.

We have been asking for more energy efficient appliances, light bulbs, cars, even a demand for electric cars. Solar panels, etc. if we demand it, the market will supply it.

So you should be arrested for your "occasional" brewing? And do you think that a black market in marijuana provides better quality control?

The other reason is that, for example, in Colorado it is well-established that state law has nothing to do with federal law or employer policies. If your employer has a zero-tolerance for doping and does random drug testing, it matters zero that it's a 'legal' activity, if you test positive, you can be terminated for it. Anyone that works for the federal government, or in any kind of research / medical / environmental / military / etc program funded by the federal government is also prohibited.

If we make the assumption that Republicans tend to be anti-tax because they 'pay taxes' and have incomes that are in the upper 50% of society to require them to actually 'pay taxes', then most often the jobs that generate the income to pay taxes are going to also prohibit that kind of activity.

I'm sure people are going to freak out about that concept, but in Colorado and California, both at-will employment states, people can be terminated for no reason at all, so how is it a stretch to include a zero-tolerance policy? Answer: it isn't. The employee's choice is always to go work somewhere else if they don't like it.

You've never heard of the proverbial "The straw that broke the camel's back?"
It takes many, many straws to break a camel's back.
I was already pretty much buh-bye I'm out of here when I saw that.
I'd rather "cop a dirt nap" than vote for Evil Cackles.
Afraid I'll either "roll the bones" for him who speaks like a "skipping record" who looks like a "bad hair day" or just "shuck it" and "chill."
Or I could always write in "Who is John Galt?

Millions of innocent victims died 'getting through' the driving while intoxicated issues. The same people regularly partaking in pot smoking are probably the same ones with the state-mandated minimums for car insurance and don't have much for assets either, so the victims will probably just get screwed.

As for legalization in California, it's on the ballot here every few years, always seems to fail. Last time I checked, it had not yet gathered enough signatures to make it on the ballot - which is only about 1/20th of the voter base. With something like 1200 amendments to the state constitution here, getting something on the ballot is pretty easy to do, I could probably get a state holiday for my dog's birthday if I wanted to spend the $4 per 600,000 signatures it takes to get it on the ballot.

And no, I'm not speculating on the percentages, I looked up the poll numbers. Those are the hard numbers.

California doesn't really enforce laws that are anything below assault/battery or robbery or manslaughter, as Moonbeam Brown diminished everything else to pretty much just a citation. The cities enforce speeding tickets because they get revenue for that, but for most anything else, it's not even enforced anymore. One would think you would see potheads running wild in the streets, and probably do in some areas, but at least here in Placer County where 9.73% are military veterans and 69% are Republicans, it seems like the only ones running around with pot are the young-ones and obviously visitors to the lakes & recreation areas.

As someone that does some occasional home-brew of beer, I have to admit, I would be very leery of letting people brew it up randomly and distribute without adherence to health/safety. It's very easy to brew a very toxic substance if someone doesn't know what their doing, sadly, few do very well in chemistry class.

Hi, I'm Donald Trump. Trump. Some call me The Donald. I am Donald. Donald Trump.
Mia sent this email. I got this email. He asked a question. I got a question with this email he sent.
He never got a reply. I never sent a reply. No, I never sent it. That email. That reply I never sent.

Yes, Johnson does believe in keeping the government out of the bedrooms - and I support that 100%. But the social net? I must have missed that in my readings of either the Constitution or the writings of the Founding Fathers. If you're talking about private organizations, or individuals, giving to charity, yes, that can be considered a de facto safety net. Johnson is talking about the government providing it. Which means someone is being robed to pay for someone else not working, at the barrel of a gun. As to Weld being a socialist, I don't think that I need to do much research on that subject - just listen to any of his interviews, look at MA, look at his RINO politics. Any true Libertarian should be puking at Weld, not asking him to join as a VP.

How can the free market address a problem that, according to those who say it exists, is due to inconsiderate actions of humans who regard certain of their waste products, in this case carbon dioxide, as an externality? How does one define a property interest in "the climate as it is or ought to be"? Is not the admission of a problem with anthropogenic global warming, a pretext for dictatorial control of human economic activity? If AGW is true as charged and described, does not the most ordinary motorist worsen the problem with every mile he drives, using internal combustion for motive power?

They can't afford it; that's why they voted no overwhelmingly.

yeah, I read about that. apparently one of the scandinavian countries is going ahead with a "trial" program. what a disaster that will be. It will take awhile for the secondary results to take hold- where no one works

The cake thing was, he feels the gov was right regarding businesses making gay cakes against their faith. I can ignore that, because as it stands, it's the law of the land until challenged.

Even the founding fathers believed we should have a minimal social safety net, but it should be uncomfortable. Communal Responsibilities as in volunteering, like Volunteer Fire Dept. Neither of which has anything to do with markets.

I've reads his last two books, I read nothing of such "socialist" tendencies. He believes in good neighbors, It takes a village, not a government.
The most liberal stance he has is, the gubermnet should stay the hell out of our lives, and bedrooms. He wants to roll back the budget to Clinton era spending.

I think there are more then 10% of Repub's that wold support decriminalizing pot. They really dont care anymore. As for the bad rpeorts from Colo? Won't hear it. Dems love pot, Calif has it on the ballot this november, MSM will provide cover.
Add to that, better than 50% chance, Obama take Marijuana of the Sched 1 list of narcotics on his why out. We had problems with alcohol to, will get through potheads driving while toking.

I don't want to be imprecise and wishy-washy; I will look up the references tonight. However, I did listen to several interviews of him and he was very clear about propagating a social safety net and communal responsibilities. That is 180 deg from free markets.

The party did not "ha[ve] a guy strip." He did it on his own to loud boos. An unfortunate and unforeseeable incident. The LP lost your vote solely over that event? Are you going to vote for Kim Il Clinton or Benito Trump because of that alone?

I don't think Gary is pandering. He is what he says he is. AND, he has a track record to show it.
Trump, actually sort of moves with the wind. He says over the top conservative oriented statements, then spends the next 2 days semi-back peddling. I'd call that pandering.
He has no views other than what draws crowds.
I've read his book, there really is no "there", there.
I've read Johnson's books.There is a philosophy, and logic to his thinking. Trump has no philosophy other than it makes Conservatives cheer.

Switzerland just voted no by 77% on a referendum mandating a 2500 per month payment from the government to every adult in the country for life.

He believes in letting the free market address it.
You can believe the climate is upside down, that doesn't mean you believe the UN has to do anything about it.

You seem to view the drug legalization issue solely through the lens of who has or will use the drugs in question. Have you ever viewed it as an issue of individual freedom? I have never used marijuana but I strongly support your right to grow, sell, purchase or use it just as I support your right to sell, transport or partake of alcohol.