420 Magazine Background

Who to vote for?

safeman

Well-Known Member
WITH THE UP COMING ELECTIONS HOW DOES ONE FIND OUT HOW THE PEOPLE RUNNING FOR OFFICE ARE PR0- MARIJUANA? PLEASE HELP WANT TO VOTE THE CORRECT WAY:peace::420:
 

SweetLeef

New Member
Bernie Sanders is the only one who has said he would re-schedule cannabis.

He was my choice before he said that and he's certainly cemented that. Too many people are in jail, as well as sick and unable to get the relief they need due to this bullshit "War on Drugs"
 

Happy Hemper

Well-Known Member
It is not enough to just vote for and vocally support a pro anti-prohibitionist but to do so for all offices Federal, State and local. We must stand and vocally, very vocally, support intelligent free thinking individuals to every office possible.
 

TorturedSoul

Member of the Month: May 2009, Oct 2010, Sept 2017
Sanders would probably legalize and regulate it - because there's money in it.

I can't see him actually getting elected, though.

I would be mildly surprised if it isn't between the whack job... and Trump (lol).

And in that case, well... In the past, I would have had trouble visualizing a universe in which I actually voted for Donald Trump. But we live in something that is enough of a police state as it is. That's one reason I'm voting against his likely opponent. Another is that she's a sociopath. I wouldn't have voted for one of those as my class president when I was in sixth grade, let alone as... President. Senator McCarthy would have paled in comparison, had they been contemporaries. I'd vote for a partially housebroken orangutan before I'd vote for that woman. In fact, that's probably what I'll do ;) .

Trump can do damage that could take years to repair. His (likely) opponent WILL cause harm that WILL take decades to repair.
 

GoldenEagle

Well-Known Member
Since there is a lot of money that would become available to changing the classification...

B. Sanders would legalize cannabis.
H. Clinton would suggest cannabis be reclassified.

Since there is a lot of money being made through prohibition and the "War on Drugs" is a republican crafted policy...

d. trump... he would leave cannabis in the classification it is in.
 

TorturedSoul

Member of the Month: May 2009, Oct 2010, Sept 2017
Since there is a lot of money that would become available to changing the classification...

B. Sanders would legalize cannabis.
H. Clinton would suggest cannabis be reclassified.

Since there is a lot of money being made through prohibition and the "War on Drugs" is a republican crafted policy...

d. trump... he would leave cannabis in the classification it is in.


I think you're correct about the first, but wrong about the last two (just my opinion, of course!). The sociopath would keep it classified as a "Schedule I narcotic" - and cause an abrupt about-face in regards to the more recent tendency of the federal government to not hassle people in (recreational and/or medicinal) states as much, because her kind - and her in particular - has a fondness for persecuting and victimizing folks, and has a demonstrated history of creating said victims when necessary. Trump... Is a businessman. He'll be open to not only rescheduling, but of moving it into the realm of alcohol or tobacco products, so that the federal and (all) the state governments can enjoy the tax income.

I have an extreme fear the Clinton will be our next President. My buddy must share that fear - he has already made inquiries as to what a person must do in order to emigrate to Canada (sponsorship, hiring a representative to help with the application process, entering the "Express Entry pool" program as a highly skilled worker, find someone willing to give him employment the moment he enters, et cetera). I believe that Sanders is making that even more likely... He could seriously lessen that chance by making peace with Trump (seems somewhat unlikely at this point, lol). In fact, I wish someone with enough media clout to get it into the public would suggest that Trump ask Sanders to be his running mate. Alas, I do not think that is going to happen (even though, to the best of my knowledge, there is no written prohibition against a Republican Presidential nominee choosing a Democratic Vice-Presidential running mate - but, realistically, it is probably about as likely as the College of Cardinals choosing someone who is NOT a Catholic for Pope (which is also theoretically possible). It'd probably be slightly more likely for there to be a tie in the electoral college vote, which would result in the House of Representatives getting to choose the President and the Senate getting to choose the Vice-President - something that could lead to having them be of different political party affiliation. But I'm rambling (as per usual ;) ).
 

GoldenEagle

Well-Known Member
I think you're correct about the first, but wrong about the last two (just my opinion, of course!).

H. Clinton has already suggested that cannabis be reclassified. If you do not think that is true, I do not care.

Ultimately... I do not care if your government changes it's classification of cannabis. I am not citizen of any country. My use of cannabis for medicinal or recreational reasons does not depend on governmental laws.
 

TorturedSoul

Member of the Month: May 2009, Oct 2010, Sept 2017
H. Clinton has already suggested that cannabis be reclassified.

I go by past decisions, voting record (where applicable), and their behavior from the time they started making the news (which in her case, began when she was doing unsavory things in college). Not suggestions. Those have a tendency to conveniently be forgotten about a yoctosecond after the person gets elected to the office he/she was running for when he/she made the suggestion.

Ultimately... I do not care if your government changes it's classification of cannabis.

It's cool either way. I happen to think we should all care about countries' laws (about cannabis - and many other things), who their political leaders are, et cetera. But apathy is okay too, I guess.

I am not citizen of any country.

That's pretty neat! Well... If you mean that you're like a friend I used to have (he has since passed beyond the veil) who decided to pick up and go live on an abandoned oil rig in the middle of the ocean. He had some interesting stories to tell. He also learned that it wasn't so much abandoned as inactive, lol - and ended up having to pay almost $3,000 in fines/damages and spent three months locked up in jail... but you win some, lose some I suppose.

If you mean you're the other kind of "man without a country," one of those unfortunate people that gets their citizenship revoked for doing something illegal - or just plain inconvenient to their nation's leaders - then you have my sympathies. I read a book about a couple cases like that. One guy got bounced around for a while pretty much living in airports whilst trying to find a home, and the other one ended up staying at a total of like four or five different embassies before finally being allowed to settle permanently in the (then) USSR. He died a broken and lonely man.

My use of cannabis for medicinal or recreational reasons does not depend on governmental laws.

I know what you mean there. That describes many thousands (if not millions) of people in my country still. Which isn't as bad as one might think, really. I mean, it's really pretty difficult to actually get busted unless you do something really stupid - unless you're one of the .00005% of the (cannabis-using) population that just gets hit by plain old bad luck. Like being poor enough to live in a trailer (guess they call them mobile homes now) and a big tree falls on the thing, totally destroying the roof and one end wall, leaving your grow in view of everyone that walks by (like emergency service people, folks going around cutting up trees after tornadoes, and electrical linemen). That actually happened in North Carolina (a state in the United States) about 27 years ago.

Of course, people in certain other countries where the local police forces have the power to come right in to people's homes based on purely circumstantial (or NO) "evidence," such as China and England have it tougher.

But... I guess not living in a country means you don't have to worry about any of that.
 

TorturedSoul

Member of the Month: May 2009, Oct 2010, Sept 2017
I read an article somewhere that stated more write-in candidates mean a significantly increased likelihood that H. Clinton will win the Presidential election. The premise - which is probably true - was that each candidate (in addition to the two major party ones) would capture more votes that would otherwise go to Trump than votes that would otherwise go to Clinton.

The assumption was made that no "3rd-party" person will possibly garner enough votes to actually win (which is also probably true, lol) the upcoming election.
 

Dennise

Well-Known Member
Since there is a lot of money that would become available to changing the classification...

B. Sanders would legalize cannabis.
H. Clinton would suggest cannabis be reclassified.

Since there is a lot of money being made through prohibition and the "War on Drugs" is a republican crafted policy...

d. trump... he would leave cannabis in the classification it is in.

You should recheck your facts and look at Bill Clinton for the war on drugs.... He signed it into law not a Republican....:circle-of-love:
 

Nicholas Flamel

Nug of the Month: June 2016, Sept 2017 - Creme de la Creme Photos: Mar 2017
Hillary will do nothing for marijuana. Her game plan is the same game plan they always use. Tell voters what they want to hear. Then write a crappy bill that is guaranteed not to pass into law because they added whats called a poison pill which is basically some crazy shit that no republican will ever vote for. Then she will blame republicans. She will make money, all her lobbyist friends will make money, her establishment politician buddies on the Republican side will make money, she will get re-election campaign donations and she will drag this out forever. They own her. She has taken money from everyone via the clinton foundation. She is the 1%. All her friends and family are in the 1%. The main stream media is owned by the 1%. They are screwing us without even the courtesy of using lubrication. Its going to end.

Trump has been against the war on drugs long before he wanted to be president. I think what your going to find with trump is 1. trump doesn't need much money to win compared to Hillary. 2. just like with Bernie the people will support a leader who supports the people, trump doesn't need big pharmas money.

The facts are that Donald Trump is a very successful businessman, he has never been accused of racism or sexism and anyone who's ever worked with him says he is a great listener and leader. He has promoted women at a higher rate then men. He was against the war in Iraq, he wants to get us out of the middle east, he is against the war on drugs, he wants to simplify the tax code, he wants better trade deals, he is good on the social issues too. Don't believe what you see on CNN or any of the mainstream media. They don't report the news, they report stories and opinions meant to manipulate the masses and advance a certain agenda. If you honestly want to make an informed decision this November you can get the truth right here Breitbart News Network

To anyone interested. You can see a documentary called Clinton Cash for free this weekend only at Clinton Cash Movie - Breitbart before it comes out in theaters. If you want to know how the Bill and Hillary made hundreds of millions you need to check it out. You will be blown away!
image14932.jpeg

:48:
 

Dennise

Well-Known Member
Republicans are totally against any type of drug being legal. They would rather lock up people than help them out.

I've long ago learned my lesson about trying to speak about politics here... I'm most certainly a Republican and understand that is not very popular on 420... And I have no problem with that but it doesn't seem I can even just state facts without starting controversy.... I have to say however... You really should check your facts.... Hope you have a blessed day....:circle-of-love:
 

Nicholas Flamel

Nug of the Month: June 2016, Sept 2017 - Creme de la Creme Photos: Mar 2017
Republicans are totally against any type of drug being legal. They would rather lock up people than help them out.

Like obama has did so much for cannabis in the last 8 years. Come on dude wake up. All of these politicians on both sides of the aisle have sold the people of this country out in every way possible. They use the social issues to keep us divided while they get rich. Most of the Bernie people get it. No more crooked politicians. Trump is part Republican, Democrat, Independent, and Libertarian. He is not perfect but atleast he is real.:48:
 

TorturedSoul

Member of the Month: May 2009, Oct 2010, Sept 2017
Republicans are totally against any type of drug being legal.

Nixon certainly was (and he was a Republican).

Kennedy was a Democrat, and he outlawed (Cuban) cigars, lol.

In considering who to vote for in this election - and all of them - I find that the candidates' stance on cannabis turns out to be of rather low importance to me. I have been high during the tems of Obama, (the younger) Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. Also, my brother and my older friends/relatives were high during the terms of Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson... Many of us have grown cannabis, too. A few people that I know have been locked up for growing (/selling/transporting) cannabis. But it's an extremely small number and the root cause always seemed to be stupidity. Yes, random chance played a part in a limited number of those events - but the intelligent, careful person plans for such things; failing to do so is, well, stupid.

We do not - yet - live in a country where there are CCTV cameras on every corner, where LEO is tasked with monitoring such devices 24/7, where the majority of the Constitutional amendments that make up our Bill of Rights have been rendered moot, null, and void. Sure, there have been some attempts at circumventing such things - many of you are old enough to remember "Operation Green Merchant." <SHRUGS> That was a bad time for a lot of people - but, thanks to our legal system, our ability to exercise our rights, and common sense... Very few people (as a percentage of the whole) actually seemed to go to jail. IIRC, the key targets were High Times magazine, Sinsemilla Tips Magazine, and Nevil Schoenmakers. High Times is still around. Sinsemilla Tips is gone, but the person who created it is (AfaIK) still with us, still free, and still active in the cannabis community. Nevil Schoenmakers - who was once on the FBI's most wanted list - ultimately saw those charges dropped (IIRC), although he did spend some time locked up before that happened. Neville's Haze is a strain that will probably always rank (high) on my top ten list of favorites, lol.

I have misgivings about both candidates, and were they each running in separate elections, I would be strongly considering casting my vote for the other person. But they are running in the same elections - and are the only real choices. They are both egotistical <BLEEPs> and I do not personally like either. Such things, however, do not preclude someone being an effective President and doing positive things (as history shows :rolleyes3 ).

At this point, my worry is about damage. To this country, its citizenry... and to the world as a whole.

Trump... For all his bluster, even he must know that much of what he says is utterly unrealistic. It is just yet another example of the campaign process (an extreme one, almost a parody at times, lol, but...). He knows that one cannot run a large business err... country ( ;) ) by micromanaging. He will need to hire many people who are experts in their respective fields. I can predict that in a Trump Presidency, there would be a great deal of shouting at many (most, lol?) high-level meetings. Many of the people who would end up working for him (and, by extension, for us) would end up hating the man. But other than possibly one person that is kept around to be a general "yes-man" (LMAO), they will be there because they are the best available choices to do their jobs. He may (possibly unconsciously) think of himself as another Kennedy - but there will be no "cult of personality." Things will get done - some positive, some negative. Any potential damage will no doubt be mitigated or even offset by the experts that he will have to have. Trump has never been a "Washington DC insider." Now that he has been officially chosen as his party's Presidential candidate, he is receiving regular intelligence briefings - I expect to see some change due to the fact that he now, well, "has a clue" as to what is going on in the world that is not evident to the general public.

Clinton... What can I say, lol? When researching the candidates in the (Bill) Clinton / Bush Presidential election, Hillary Clinton was the largest negative against him. I thought even back then that the entire impetus behind Bill Clinton running for President was part of Hillary's strategy to eventually become the leader of this country, herself. The woman is a sociopath, pure and simple. We all worry that someone will get in power that thinks only of "their own," that they will chiefly be concerned with helping out those who are important to them. There is undoubtedly more than a grain of truth in such things - and the only person that has any importance in Hillary Clinton's world... Is Hillary Clinton. If people had longer memories, lol, I would not be worried that she might be elected - because she has insulted and alienated just about every race and demographic in existence at one time or other. I forget who she got caught referring to as a "nigger" one day in the White House when she was first lady (actually, come to think of it, between Bill Clinton's Presidency and his term as governor, Hillary was heard to use the term many times). I DO remember that it was Paul Fray that she called a "fucking Jew bastard." She doesn't seem to like state troopers either - one once made the mistake of saying, "Good morning, Mrs. Clinton," to her. I am certain that he never made that mistake again, because her reply was, "“Fuck off! It’s enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day. I’m not going to talk to you, too. Just do your goddamn job and keep your mouth shut.” (Happened when Bill Clinton was governor.) I'm sure she made no friends in the Secret Service community when one tried to explain to her one day that, in order to do his job, he needed to keep both hands free in case of an attack and, therefore, could not carry her luggage from the airplane to the limo. She responded by shouting, "If you want to remain on this detail,” get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags." I would list a few more quotes of her shouting at and belittling various police, Secret Service, and FBI personnel - but the list is so long that I'd have too much trouble picking just a few. She called a judge's wife a whore at one point when Bill was governor, lol. And the list goes on... and on... and on. If I was one of those conspiracy theory people, I'd be believing that the only reason that Trump managed to become a candidate in the first place was because he would be the only person on the planet that Hillary Clinton would have even a snowball's chance of beating. But, anyway... I suppose that even her seeming need to insult/harass/abuse every person that she came into contact with (or heard of) who had an opinion that did not 100% fall in line with hers, who was not eager to lick her boots... Even that would not necessarily preclude her from being a good President (although most would agree that it certainly would be an obstacle). No, the real reason that I am going to have to vote against her is that, after much research, I have come to the conclusion that a Hillary Clinton Presidency would show us all what a true "police state" really is. That the rights and freedoms upon which this country was founded mean NOTHING to her (for anyone other than herself). And... that we would find ourselves involved in a major war. And, by major war, I do not mean to belittle conflicts such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, et cetera (for all wars are major) - I mean something along the lines of WWI and WWII.

I have never been blessed with children. But I have family and friends who have them. And I understand that there is a great deal of difference between a President who might cause issues that would take years to repair - and a President that WILL cause issues that will take GENERATIONS to fix. Therefore, I am voting for Donald Trump. At the end of the day, he could appear on television and state, "Hey, I've never held any political office in my life. I might f*ck a few things up - but I am, without a doubt, the lesser of two evils." And he would be correct - and I would still vote for him, for exactly that reason.
 
Top Bottom