I don't want you to shoot yourself, Dino. I was being sarcastic. Sorry if that was lost. Do you really think that marijuana is more "addictive" than nicotine or alcohol?

I do think someone like Ed.Begley has an effect. he shows it can be easy and not inconvenient (other than peddling a bike to make toast).
I hear you on the rest. I work with a greenie, buys into GW, and then goes out for lunch every day.

I agree except I am afraid that there will be tariffs and perhaps a trade war if Trump is elected.

It is, if instead it drives statism. Innovative, waste-avoiding or even waste-recovering technologies are one thing. Commands to cease and desist from economic activity, and to jam ourselves into ultra-dense cities with an ostensible view to "conserving power," are quite another.

The neo-Luddites do, however, have one weakness. They don't believe it themselves. With rare exception, you don't see them turning in their car keys or selling their single-family residences (often on vast lots having two acres or more) and moving into apartments. Even penthouses don't seem good enough for them. Until they start paying any of the price they demands others pay, they'll never get universal acceptance. But if what you say is correct, then Ed Begley, Jr. (Living With Ed) will accomplish far more, by his own example, than the neo-Luddites can ever hope to accomplish.

I agree with you there. But there's always extremist. Lets face it, they do drive the demand by the rest of the population. They won't get what they want.
Call the ones influenced by those extremist sheep but is catering to their wants so bad if it drives innovation and helps the economy?

He is pandering. He is saying what that core voting block wants to hear to get him nominated.
There won't be a wall. Mexico is not going to pay for it. The man wants Tariffs - won't happen. Watch his tune change after he's nominated. And, should he get elected, see how none of his want-list gets addressed.
My pet peev is the debt - and no one is talking about that - other than Johnson.

marijuana is Mexico's top export. Imagine if that were all grown here?
As long as it's not refined, processed, who care what another person ingests.
The problem is, we have this half hearted attempt and stopping drug producers.
Our gov't feeds both sides of that problem.
Fact is, there are some Europeans countries that have legalized pot and it has reduced crime, and harder drug use.
Why is pot any different than tobacco, or alcohol?
I'm only talking pot. Any other drugs are all refined and processed and I do believe they need to be controlled. If it's nature, and you want to sprinkle it on your salad - go for it.

I agree with that also.
As long as it's not being "refined", I don't care what someone does with mother nature.

Than make alcohol illegal.

freedom is a two-edged sword that cuts both ways...you are free to be responsible or otherwise, but you are always held responsible for the consequences of your actions...i do not the offical MAD position on DUI, but i suspect it holds you responsible for your actions...

For #3, here are the specific quotes:
Federal tax incentives for energy, with state decisions.
Johnson co-sponsored the Western Governors' Association resolution:

Western Governors find that states must continue to play a pivotal role in electric power decisions. Specifically:
The existing authority of states over retail electric power sales and transmissions must be retained.
Congress should allow states to create regional mechanisms to decide regional power issues.

We need to pursue a national energy policy that will result in a diverse energy portfolio:
New energy development: Enable exploration and development of promising domestic oil, gas, coal, geothermal or wind resources.
Coal: Implement R&D and tax incentives to promote the development and deployment of new technologies.
Renewables: Accelerate the development and deployment of promising renewable energy technologies through the extension and expansion of state and federal production tax credits.
Environmental Regulation: Review environmental and natural resource policies to ensure they are as efficient as possible.
Permitting Energy Facilities: Streamline state, tribal and federal processes for siting new generation, electric transmission and natural gas pipelines.
Energy Infrastructure: Support economic and environmentally sound energy infrastructure investments to transport energy to markets

All of the above a standard code words for government control.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_...

As to "man-made global warming," there are a multitude of actual scientific studies that present data to show that there is no man-made warming. But, without getting into deep specifics (we can, and perhaps should, in a separate post), simply ask yourself, if man-made warming is a fact, why would "scientists" and organizations, including governments, blatantly falsify the data? I think that there have been too many instances where the falsification of data (an anathema in the world of science) has been uncovered at the highest levels. Any scientist that lies and falsifies data eliminates himself (or herself, if you wish) from the scientific pool. I hope that we do not need to argue about that. Any "scientist" that disallows a different view, backed up by data, to be considered, is not a scientist, but a dogmatic theologian.

I've been out of school since 1976. I do recall that "tree hugger" is a pejorative term for an environmentalist. Defining terms is always good practice. Thanks for your comments about the drug war.

"Man-made global warming is not a fact"
I find this so patently absurd that I could not take seriously a candidate who simply denies an unpleasant reality.
#3 - I did a CNTL-F on that page and couldn't find those issues, but I may have been searching under the wrong terms.
#4 - I hope he has answer for this soon rather than after he hits 15% and is in the debates. Maybe his issue was with Austin Petersen, and he would have thrown away anything Petersen gave him. I'm just guessing. On the page you linked to for #3, it says he supports gun rights.

Not using force is not the same as openly condoning.
Not using forced tax dollars to fund something is not the same opposing that thing.

Heinlein's best novel and a Hugo winner.

You want me to shoot myself.
Long time ago I experimented with weed and one of my brothers got seriously stung out on dope for a while back in the late 60s.
That same brother is now an executive for an insurance company and loves his daily bottle and/or bottles of beer and stores all kinds of wine.
There is a big difference between dope and alcohol beverages.
I classify tobacco products as dope. Kicking a nicotine addiction is the hardest thing I ever did. In that sense Old Dino was a drug addict.
Booze just doesn't reach out and addict people the same way as addictive drugs.

I think you have proved my point. Black markets do not improve quality.

Why should it be legal? I knew a guy who drank all the time and lost his job . . . I knew a woman who drove drunk and killed someone . . . I knew a guy who died a premature death because of cirossis of the liver . . . I knew a college student who died of alcohol poisoning . . . I knew a woman, well you get the point. Death to all drinkers, right?

If I made a false representation regarding value or quality or failed to honor a warranty of course you could sue. Unless of course the prohibitionists continued to make our exchange illegal. Then the courts are closed to you and force is your only remedy.

I don't know what a spotted owl strategy is. I don't know who David Atkins is. I don't know which cartel you are referring to. I do know that creating a black market by criminalization does not lead to better quality unadulterated products.

The prohibition era manufacture was pretty much taken up by a combination of former legal manufacturers, liquor imported from Canada/Mexico/Cuba, and organized crime of course. The latter didn't really care about the skill set of the people brewing up the alcohol.

For example. you wouldn't can your own tomatoes if you had no idea what you were doing, as a hobby, my wife teaches food preservation on an outreach program for the UC, and something like 50-70% of the people that take her course (and actually have experience) do things that they learned from grandma or whatever and are absolutely dangerous. Sometimes she will take a sample of what they canned (before the class) and show the results - horrifying... so they start paying attention.

Brewing and bottling beer is no different, it's encouraging the growth of healthy bacteria which consume the yeast and expel alcohol as a byproduct. If you encourage or introduce the wrong bacteria for example through stupidity or failure to eliminate 100% of the germs on every single thing in the room/air/surfaces/pots/utensils... then you could easily create a perfect environment for other common household germs to take root - botulism, salmonella, etc. If you want to brew it up and drink your own poison, I have no issue with it, your debate point was being free to sell it at the farmer's market or whatever. My point was, only after certification of cleanliness and process. Beer is intentionally a rather pungent tasting liquid, having it full of bacteria may not necessarily dissuade someone from drinking it.

I did a paper on it in grad school actually, in the lowest year during prohibition, around 13,000 died from consuming infested alcohol, it caused a condition call 'Jake Foot', blindness, paralysis, and even death. 100s of thousands fell seriously ill, something in the millions had a bad case of Montezuma's Revenge...