Marijuana and Voting Defensively
The MPP has put out a little youtube thing on various candidate’s stances on marijuana policy:
Nothing of much consequence in there. So to spice it up, here is a brief little bit of reasoning for all you apoliticals out there on why you should vote:
1 Currently we live under constant threat of imprisonment
2 This can seriously hamper ones ability to organize for ANY cause
2.72 Imprisonment as a form of martyrdom only works if the media highlights your plight and it seems the media is often in cahoots with the oppressors
3 Things can always get worse
3.14 In this case political change CAN help prevent a more oppressive environment. The president does have the power to veto and hinder the passing of more legislation.
4 This could buy you time to either reform the rest of the government or bring social awareness to your cause.
Related posts:
September 11th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
The president also has the power to pardon and the power to not enforce federal law. Ron Paul has said that if he became president he would have pardoned all nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison and stopped giving the DEA money and/or tell them to stand down.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Yeah, I would have liked to see how that would play out. I think the Prison Industrial Complex would have flipped out and we would get to see just what the President’s powers actually are. It would have really raised societal awareness though.
Honestly I don’t think president is that powerful of a position and the election does not really change much. At the same time voting is a really simple action and I think the benefits, as minor as they may be, outweigh the trouble.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
On paper the president has litle power burt in reality he has lots. Both as the usurper of authority from the Congress and an influence on the other branches as well as the people.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Who is this Burt guy, why does he have so much power and when do we elect him? Seriously though, it would be interesting to see a President who REALLY wants to shake things up. That would be a great test of what the president can do.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Bosco has a point. If Ron Paul or any third party candidate were elected president, they would automatically become the weakest president ever. Without a congressional mandate and carte blanche from the establishment, I bet you’d see a return to Constitutionally granted powers at best.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:33 am
burt is what happens when I write comments from my blackberry which doesn’t have spell check.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:23 am
So you get someone that may work on your side and then 4 to 8 years later someone else who tries to undo that work. Reminds me of what the English were going through with all the switching around from different churches until it some people woke up enough to disregard the whole damn thing.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:06 am
@invisipunk – Are you talking about the English Reformation?
September 12th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Ron Paul would act constitutionally. And that’s all that’s needed in order to make huge changes. Bring home the troops, stop the drug war, pardon nonviolent drug prisoners, defund the IRS, etc.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am
bile – My point is that the there wouldn’t be a choice in the matter. These candidates could do as much as they wanted to shrink the power of the executive. Half of it would be done automatically by the Democrats and Republicans by marginalizing him. But any attempt at actually reducing the overall footprint of government would probably be rebuked by both party leaders.
I wonder if it is the president’s responsibility to bring home the troops, stop the drug war, defund the IRS, etc. It seems to me that these are mostly within the scope of Congress. They write the laws and establish the budget. The president can only veto. Given my prior point, I don’t see how an outsider president could actually achieve most of these things without Congressional approval.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am
It is the president’s responsibility to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Congress’ actions on these topics makes them enemies of the Constitution and therefore the president has the authority to respond accordingly.
I don’t get what your hangup is. The president is the executor. If he wants the troops home he can he can make it so. If he wants to pardon all nonviolent drug criminals he can. He is constitutionally able to. Congress may allocate funds but the executive branch controls the actual spending. He doesn’t need Congressional approval for any of that. Look at the organizations under the executive branch… he is the top of that hierarchy.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
(Wandering off topic, sorry bosco.)
My hangup — that the problem extends past the presidency and that the larger picture must be corrected or else smaller wins will be reverted back into problems. Apologies for the pessimism.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Ha! You’re apologizing to ME for getting off topic. I’ve had 50+ post arguments with bile.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Sure they do… but an election where a Ron Paul like figure is elected would likely mean a sea-change in Congress. I find it unlikely that those who would be opposed to this sea-change would be left in office or wouldn’t change their opinions on things pretty quick. Most politicians are merely opportunists. They have their beliefs and then they follow the road to the most power. Not everyone of course… but it’d be quite a different looking legislator.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
@beetlbumjl – yep, the English Reformation which can arguably be a catalyst for the Scientific Revolution leading to the Enlightenment. Hopefully I have that history right. In either case, from an academic perspective, the existence of any government no matter how relaxed they are, is a threat/possible threat to freedom.