Why did so many cons vote against prop 19, I thought they were for individual freedom and small government?
Related Posts
Illinois Senate Approves Medical Marijuana
Medical Marijuana is advancing in Illinois. Check out the latest story from NY Times: SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The... Read More »
Kansas appeals court addresses medical marijuana issue for travelers
Kansas appeals court addresses medical marijuana issue for travelers March 15. By TONY RIZZO. The Kansas City Star.... Read More »
Foxborough Needs to Establish Medical Marijuana District Following AG's Ruling
Foxborough Needs to Establish Medical Marijuana District Following AG's Ruling “Unless somebody can articulate something specific I think... Read More »
The Latest from My MMJ
-
Best Vapes at the Best Prices
-
They don’t want people who are high behind the wheel.
I voted yes on it and I lean conservative on a lot of issues. I think you’ll find the newer generation of republicans to be a bit different than the previous generation
No, Libertarians are for individual freedom and small government.
Republicrats use social issue BS, like smoking pot, to convince their voter base that they really are Conservative.
The Base buys the Sneeches arguement, and go with it hook, line and sinker.
There are no conservatives in California to speak of. You get high amendment must have been defeated by California pot dealers who want to continue to get rich off stoned heads.
Considering Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer got reelected, I’d say more liberals than conservatives voted in the election in California. Therefore, more liberals than conservatives voted to shoot down 19.
I have no problem whatsoever with legalizing pot, so there goes that blanket statement about “hypocrisy”! I would have voted against it because it further expands the government under the guise of “granting individual freedom” especially if taxation were truly the underlying cause. How would the government tax “home grown” except to out law it with enforcement by “jack booted revenuers” ala Prohibition? How would they address the problem of “stoned-while-driving” except to continue to blame those on [alcohol] drunk drivers who also smoked primarily on booze? Don’t you find it strange that a government that called it a “gateway drug” not one year ago now wishes to legalize it? I am of the school of “laissez-faire” regarding “as long as it only hurts you” so “smoke up, johnny!” but this law was a flawed in that it did not grant freedom to smoke but freedom to TAX IT… but perhaps those who voted for it were too stoned to realize!
most could care less if you smoke weed in california or not.