alaska marijuana legalization
Ending Marijuana Prohibition

Anchorage Official Wants To Ban Marijuana Sales In Alaska’s Largest City

alaska marijuana legalizationAlaska voters approved marijuana legalization earlier this month during the 2014 Election. Alaska joined Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Washington D.C. in doing so. But, despite the will of the voters, an official in Alaska’s largest city, Anchorage, wants to ban legal recreational marijuana sales. Per Marijuana Business Daily:

Assemblywoman Amy Demboski has prepared an ordinance to prohibit marijuana cultivation, production, testing and sales in Anchorage. The measure was slated to be introduced on Tuesday during an Assembly meeting, and a draft of the proposed ban is available on the Assembly website.

Demboski told the Alaska Dispatch News that she doesn’t want Anchorage to be the “guinea pig” for the rest of the state, and wants to wait until there are clear regulations for the industry before deciding to give marijuana businesses a green light.

The ‘delay tactic’ is one that is used early and often by marijuana opponents. Opponents like Amy Demboski don’t want to ever see legal marijuana sales occur, no matter how many ‘clear regulations’ are created. Marijuana sales in Anchorage, or any other part of the state, will not occur until after regulations are in place Ms. Demboski. Expressing your opposition before the process even starts demonstrates that you are not going to approach the issue with an open mind, and likely will instead do everything you can to derail the process. Ms. Demboski’s tactic is nothing new, and I hope there are enough sensible individuals in Anchorage to overrule her obvious intent to keep marijuana sales from happening.

  • Green Thumb

    Constituents would need to have their head examined if they follow …… Political suicide if you go against the will of the People!

    • The measure passed by a slim margin, and the “people” also elected a state legislature and Governor who opposed legalization.

      • Green Thumb

        Four point majority in a RED State is a huge majority and if 2016 it would of been higher!

        • David

          In 2016 the Republican’s have to defeat Democrat’s in 21 Blue states. Sea Change compared to what just occurred.

      • David

        Arkansas voter’s decided on a cannabis legalization measure for that state’s 2016 election, simultaneously voting for their new Governor, a former head of the DEA under the G.W. Bush administration. Mr. Spock surely would have remarked: Illogical Captain!!

  • It would be helpful to readers who are voters to know the parties of the anti-freedom politicians. Like the vast majority of political opponents to marijuana reform, Amy Demboski is a Republican.

    The AK legislature is controlled by Republicans. Of the 60 members (smallest in the country) Republicans have 39 and Democrats have 21. Anyone want to give me odds on whether this bill will pass?

    The new Independent governor of AK, like his Republican predecessor, does not support legalization*, so I’d guess he’ll sign the legislation.

    So there you go… people showed up to vote for legalization, but then also voted for people who will do what they can to stop legalization.

    Genius.

    For all the talk by right leaning people about how much they wish we had legalized weed, it seems there are other issues they think are more important that keep them voting for authoritarians.

    * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/campus-election-engagement-project/sean-parnell-vs-bill-walk_b_5987430.html

    • painkills2
      • wowFAD

        Don’t take him to Iowa — keep it in Alaska. You’re opening up the argument to be EXACTLY what Scott wants it to be about, which is partisan politics at the national level.

        Scott doesn’t care about cannabis law reform, he just wants Republicans to lose elections. Don’t let him bait you into precisely what he comes here to do, which is to bicker about Red vs Blue.

        • David

          I care about cannabis reform. I’m also an ardent environmentalist. I want Republicans to lose elections too.

        • “Scott doesn’t care about cannabis law reform”

          You’re a liar. In fact, I care so much about it that I spend a considerable amount of my time pointing out how MOST OF THE TIME voting for Republicans works against reform, as I did here.

          • painkills2

            Dude, why do you let him goad you like that? You don’t have to prove yourself to anyone.

          • I’m having fun. Exposing the hypocrisy of right wing nut jobs is like a hobby to me.

          • wowFAD

            LOL — Right, a “hobby.” The self-righteous partisan tirade you’ve been on is a “hobby” — you almost made me snort tea up my nose that’s so funny. I don’t think you’ve written a more haughty, self-pleasing sentence, YET.

            I had not fully understood before now how much you’ve romanticized your role as a partisan hack. You’ve actually canonized yourself for it. That’s astounding! I’m stymied.

            I shouldn’t be the least bit surprised, however. Partisan hacks wouldn’t be partisan hacks if your imagined victories didn’t cause your heads to swell. You had to label me a “rightwing nut job” for the masturbatory ego stroking to feel right. Trust me, Scott — a “hobby” is not this pathological. You skipped right over “hobby,” passed by “passion,” and are heading deeper and deeper into the forest of neurotic obsession with a full bag of narcissistic reinforcement to help you along your way.

            You actually believe you’re *accomplishing* something, here — that’s delusional thinking.

            I suppose arbitrarily labeling the people who disagree with you as “rightwing nut jobs” makes patting yourself on the back that much easier, huh Scott? The “rightwing nut job” straw man is the easiest to knock down, after all — so much easier than evaluating objective evidence and making a topical argument. What *does* surprise me is the inflated sense of accomplishment you’re deriving, given the presupposition that you’re *actually* confronting rightwing nut jobs. That’s not a very high standard to beat, Scott. And yet here you are, congratulating yourself for having an argument with a person you *imagined*. That’s so sad. LOL

          • Here I go… feeding the troll again. It’s just so damn easy.

            “The self-righteous partisan tirade you’ve been on”

            I see… so pointing out that voting for Progressives results in a great many more votes for the very thing you claim to want is partisan? Well, if you want legalization, maybe you should try it. Instead of continuously committing the fallacy of saying that partisanship is always wrong.

            After all, what has your glibertarian party done towards reform lately? I see a lot of you bitching in comment sections and trolling anyone who points out that you’re wasting your votes, helping to get skeletor elected in FL, for example.

            “almost made me snort tea up my nose that’s so funny”

            Glad I could amuse. Sorry I couldn’t cause more pain.

            “I had not fully understood before now how much you’ve romanticized your role as a partisan hack. You’ve actually canonized yourself for it. ”

            Do you even know what cannonized means?

            “I’m stymied”

            I know. And yet you just keep on blabbering anyway.

            “Partisan hacks wouldn’t be partisan hacks if their imagined victories didn’t cause their heads to swell”

            Imagined victories?

            > 70% of Democrats voted against renewing the Patriot Act, only 14% of Republicans did.

            > 91% of Dems voted for keeping the DEA out of medicinal programs, only 22% of Republicans did.

            > 94% of Democrats voted to keep the feds out of pot banking, only 20% of Republicans did.

            Those aren’t imagined. They’re facts. I know you don’t like them, especially so soon after Rand Paul let the perfect be the enemy of the good on the NSA vote… but them’s the facts.

            “You have to label me a “rightwing nut job” ”

            I calls them as I sees them. And what I see is a right wing troll who is so upset that his Republican party has gone down a road that he doesn’t like that he takes it out on EVERYONE except the Republican party.

            “a “hobby” is not this pathological.”

            Do you even know what pathological means? The fact that I’m prolific at exposing your bullshit doesn’t make me pathological. But it is turing into a waste of time since you have long since moved away from the facts, which aren’t friendly to your ideology, and moved into the personal attacks.

            Now, I enjoy a good flame war as much as the next guy, but you’re just not that good at it.

            “I suppose arbitrarily labeling the people who disagree with you as “rightwing nut jobs” ”

            I didn’t label you arbitrarily. I watched as you refuse to say anything bad about Republicans, refuse to acknowledge that you are right wing economically and probably on other issues, and that you care so much more about those issues than you do about marijuana reform that you just can’t bring yourself to vote for the party most likely to bring marijuana reform. I’ve asked you what those issues are, but you refuse to answer. I’m sure it’s some combination of abortion, guns, and taxes, but who knows? Could be something else. But whatever it is, I’m quite sure you’re not to the left of the Democrats. And since you never have anything bad to say about Republicans, I figure you’re out there on the right somewhere, especially when it comes to supply-side economics.

            But, again, who knows. Maybe you’re just a nut job.

            “”rightwing nut job” straw man”

            This from the guy who’s lied about me every time he’s commented in order to argue with some Democratic Party hack he’s imagined, since he can’t be bothered to, or just plain can’t, argue with me.

            “so much easier than evaluating objective evidence and making a topical argument.”

            That’s a hoot because it’s exactly what I’ve been trying to do when I point out, time and time again, that your precious Republicans are–almost all of them–against reforming marijuana laws. In fact, it’s the objective evidence and topical arguments that you’ve abandoned to make direct attacks on me.

            And I can only take so much of that before I start pushing back against the obvious pain you feel and are lashing out over–ie, that your precious Republican party has been, on every issue that matters in this world, horribly and spectacularly wrong.

            “What *does* surprise me is the inflated sense of accomplishment you’re deriving”

            I have no sense of accomplishment other than pissing you off, since liberals don’t get to the polls and vote, and Glibertarians just keep voting for Republicans for some reason.

            “given the presupposition that you’re *actually* confronting rightwing nut jobs.”

            Jetdoc is a right wing nut job. And you said you’d never talk to me again, only to prove yourself a liar in order to defend Jetdoc.

            “having an argument with a person you *imagined*”

            If I imagined you, I hope I wake up soon, because this is a very boring dream.

            Now pay close attention as this Republican in Alaska tries to stop legal weed while she runs for mayor of Anchorage. Pay close attention as the even more Republican House and Senate try to shut down legal weed in DC. Watch closely as the GOP nominates an anti-weed Theocrat for President. Watch very closely as Rand Paul moves to the right on this issue in order to win the nomination, which he won’t. Watch closely as the party you apparently love so much, that you defend so often here, becomes more and more authoritarian, pushes to make this country a police state, builds more prisons, intensifies the drug war, and slowly but surely crushes any civil libertarians left.

            I’m sure you won’t mind, since they’re you’re friends who you love to defend, even when they blatantly lie, like Jetdoc did about a majority of Republican voters being for legalization.

          • wowFAD

            Wow, Scott — you’ve lost your temper so completely, you’re arguing about individual sentences, again. Just keep ripping your hair out in chunks as I take this discussion back to where it started: ALASKA.

            Your motivations here are so transparent, Scott, when you consider what state we’re discussing. In fact, let me cut and paste something from your comment, just so I can point out how, once again, your partisan hackery doesn’t match up to the discussion. Observe:

            “I see… so pointing out that voting for Progressives [in Alaska] results in a great many more votes for the very thing [cannabis legalization] you claim to want is partisan? Well, if you want legalization, maybe you should try it. Instead of continuously committing the fallacy of saying that partisanship is always wrong.”

            Yes. That’s the very definition of partisan hackery, as well as demonstrably false — you keep forgetting this was an article concerning cannabis legalization in Alaska, which PASSED with 52.3% of the vote, while only 19% of Democrats showed up to the ballot. And as we’ve shown in the past, the “Progressives” you defend so dearly are simply a subset of Democrats. Logically, there are even *fewer* progressives in Alaska — and legalization PASSED. It passed with almost no help from Democrats (or Progressives), so the assertion that cannabis legalization won’t come unless I vote the way YOU want me to is false — as demonstrated.

            There is now an actual instance of cannabis reform passing without Democrats pulling most of the load. That’s why you hope Alaska fails — that little tidbit undermines all the “messaging” you’ve been doing.

            That’s the crux of this discussion you keep dancing around — Alaska did not need Progressives to accomplish legalization. That’s why you’re having yet another verbal tantrum. But I’d wager that you’ll make me point out how your efforts on this article are moot at least five or six more times before it finally sinks in and you go back to writing love notes to Harry Reid.

            Here’s another attempt — Alaska has no Progressives and next to no Democrats, so proselytizing on THIS article isn’t only pointless, it’s completely *thoughtless* as well. I wonder how many different way I’ll have to write that sentence before you finally understand.

            Just for funzies, we should closely examine the passage in which you attempt to justify labeling me a rightwing nut job, because that’s truly where your logic became unhinged. Your justification is a list of things that I did NOT do: I refused to do ______, I wouldn’t say _____, and from that, you jumped to your own conclusions.

            And yes, I’m partially responsible — I let you do that just so you would humiliate yourself. You see, I’ve been posting on this blog for YEARS. Trying to label me a rightwing anything makes you look foolish, which is why I allowed it. No, I did not answer your baiting, off-topic, partisan questions — why would I, when this is the WEED blog? Despite not getting those answers, despite having no solid information at all, with only your partisan assumptions, you proceeded to draw conclusions in a fact-free vacuum — which political party does that sound like?

            I suppose you must have started to realize these numerous mistakes, given all the “probably” coming off that passage, especially when you conclude “Maybe [I’m] just a not job.” I’ve deliberately avoided pointing out your ad hominem during this exchange because I wondered how off-the-rails you’d go if I didn’t specifically point out your fallacies. And I was right — if I don’t actively try to keep your behavior in line and on topic, you have absolutely no governor.

            Sadly, I suppose I’m not playing that game with you, anymore. So I’ll go ahead and point out how weak that makes you (and your partisan hackery) appear.

            Changing the subject, moving goal posts, constantly shifting the conversation to areas in which you feel you have the high ground — that’s how you keep partisan sheople on message. Which, I imagine, is why you brought up the Patriot Act, abortion, and guns. Must I explain what “off topic” means, Scott? I hope not — I don’t know how to reduce that phrase into simpler components. LOL

            What you don’t want to accept, what people in Alaska have figured out — when you simplify things to party vs party, the issues are no longer of any importance, as you demonstrated by jumping from one topic to another. You don’t *actually* care about cannabis, or the Patriot Act, or abortion, or gun laws. You just want your team to win, Scott. Electing “Progressives” means more to you than logic, facts, or human suffering <– things the blue team conveniently ignores when they're scared of political blowback. Unfortunately for you, you'll live the rest of your life and die with the same misapprehensions. Some people are incapable of change. I don't believe you can be helped, anymore.

            So I won't try to stop you, anymore. I'll just reply to everything you say with the objectively true information that you've deliberately ignored or didn't bother finding, to constantly remind you that Democrats don't walk on water. By all means, keep the bad logic and ad hominem coming. It's a good place-marker for when you've been beaten. I like to know when I can relax and just enjoy watching you flail about. Usually that comes after you try and fail to enact more than several subject changes, though. I *think* you don't start using ad hominem until you try (and fail) to bait me down at least six or seven tangents, but I'm not certain. I haven't been counting.

            See, Scott? You're not quite 100% predictable — yet. LOL

            And just so I only have to do it three or four more times… Alaska did not need Progressives to accomplish legalization. Nothing you can say will ever change that fact. So please, leave me something equally butt-hurt and off-topic, like your last reply. I'm looking forward to seeing it after my evening. Toodles!

          • My God, what a horrific pile of stinking shit.

            Here, let me just pull out ONE stupid thng you said as an example of how I’ve wasted enough time on you today.

            “only 19% of Democrats showed up to the ballot.”

            19% of the people who showed up to vote describe themselves as Democrats. Big difference. But we can all see why you lie like this…

            Let’s get to what you call the “crux” of this:

            “Alaska did not need Progressives to accomplish legalization. ”

            I don’t know what percent of Democrats in AK consider themselves progressives. But I do know that without Democrats, this wouldn’t have passed.

            In fact, as I just said in another WAY TOO LONG REPLY for a bullshitter like you:

            “It won by 9,624. Democrats provided 31,917, or over 3 times the margin of victory.”

            Now, pull your anal sex obsessed head out of your butt hurt long enough to think about that. The margin of victory was 30% of the total votes by Democrats. Think 30% of Democrats consider themselves progressives in AK?

            ” I’ll just reply to everything you say with the objectively true information that you’ve deliberately ignored or didn’t bother finding”

            That is hilarious. You mean, like this:

            In the US House, 91% of Dems voted for keeping the DEA out of medicinal programs, only 22% of Republicans did. 94% of Democrats voted to keep the feds out of pot banking, only 20% of Republicans did.

            How many Glibertarians? Oh, right. THERE AREN’T ANY ELECTED GLIBERTARIANS IN THE US HOUSE.

            Look, Ma! More projection:

            “Changing the subject, moving goal posts, constantly shifting the conversation to areas in which you feel you have the high ground — that’s how you keep partisan sheople on message. Which, I imagine, is why you brought up the Patriot Act, abortion, and guns.”

            You are the one who changes the subject, moves the goal post, constantly shifts the conversation… I only mentioned the PA, abortion, and guns in passing… as explanations, or examples, of things that Republicans, and, apparently, you, find more important than ending prohibition. If you saw those things as a red flag to charge at, that’s because you took them out of context.

            You do know how EXAMPLES work in a conversation, don’t you?

            Since apparently my in-depth writing (that includes examples that push your buttons) is too hard for you to understand, I will state ONE MORE TIME: Democrats aren’t perfect. But they do win elections. And the ones who win are much more likely to end prohibition than Republicans who win elections.

            Show me the Glibertarians who win elections. Heck, show me the “independents” who win elections and are for ending prohibition.

            This simple fact that I keep repeating is apparently so powerful that you continue to ignore it while accusing me of ignoring what you say.

            AGAIN: Since we have two choices (which is what REALLY PISSES YOU OFF) we can choose to vote for a party that overwhelmingly supports prohibition, or we can choose to vote for a party that overwhelmingly opposes it.

            So, have a nice day in the steaming pile of shit you’ve surrounded yourself in.

          • Well exposing the anti-science left and the anti-science right are my hobbies. Partisans are not real bright. Just look at Manchester United fans. Political Party fans are the same.

            What amuses me is that the left and right can exchange positions and arguments when it comes to cannabis and climate. Evidence doesn’t count. It is always the team not the evidence. Well the end of Prohibition will wise up the right some and the coming Maunder like minimum will wise up the left some.

            Well one can hope.

          • wowFAD

            Scott is a Liberal troll who thinks Democrats walk on water, and I’m of a mind that we should stop thanking them for doing the absolute minimum they have to do to be considered “less bad” than Republicans. That’s a pretty low bar. Especially when we should be accepting any/all allies we can get. Scott’s polarizing, partisan mentality ignores the fact that conservative VOTERS are polling more and more in favor of cannabis, everywhere, with every passing year.

            I used to think we had to make this partisan — think back a couple years to when I defended the Obama administration tooth and nail against all criticism, constantly telling people to “wait and see” — I was as bad if not WORSE than Scott in this regard. In fact, look at the most recent Eric Holder article in which someone specifically says to me, “I told you so” after I posted a 2000 word laundry list of complaints I have about Eric Holder.

            I’d also like to point out Scott didn’t even attempt to justify Holder’s inaction. Not one comment from him to be found on that thread because there’s no way he can blame Republicans for Holder *not* doing something he’s consciously aware he should have done, which is rescheduling cannabis.

            Just because I’m done being a Democrat apologist doesn’t mean I’m batting for Republicans, either. What Scott doesn’t get, that 52% of Alaska DOES get — not everything has to be D’s and R’s, and in fact, making them partisan is the easiest way to ensure NOTHING ever changes. Hell, I used to theorize that Democrats could splinter the Republican party to bits, had they spearheaded cannabis law reform with a united front as a platform issue, thus forcing it to be a national issue, subsequently forcing Republicans to choose between their fiscal and social ideologies. But the Democrats have not done that, and they never will unless they feel they *must* — Democrats are far too well practiced at playing it safe, especially when the standards we hold them to are so incredibly LOW.

            Scott wants to label me a “rightwing nut job” having gotten precisely ZERO information about how a feel about ANY actual issue, simply because I refuse to slurp up and choke down the same excuses he does from apathetic Democrats, anymore. Which I mostly find hilarious, given the number of conservative trolls I’ve gleefully stomped into dust, but it kinda bothers me that you actually buy it. We’ve been posting on this blog a long time, and it’s a little hurtful that you’d so quickly believe I’m a rightwing ANYTHING.

            Look at the exit polling demographics in Alaska and tell me that initiative passed along partisan battle lines. More than two thirds of the people who supported legalization in Alaska were *not* Democrats. Cannabis is not a partisan issue. It used to be that sharing objectively true information was the fastest way to be labeled a leftwing nut job, and it depresses me to think the left has blind followers like Scott, just like the right.

            Everyone who has bothered to look at the exit polls from Alaska are all thinking exactly the same thing, especially considering this was a midterm election! That hammers the point home. It would have been hammered home twice as hard had Florida’s amendment passed, but even then, they got 57.3% of the electorate, 1.16 million of whom identified as Republicans who supported Amendment 2, despite their candidates. The word is out. Hearts and minds are changing, and have *already* been changed. It’s not strictly team cannabis vs. team Republican — at least not anymore. Reagan is long dead, so we should stop acting like it’s 1984.

            Scott is, quite literally, HOPING legalization in Alaska gets obstructed just so he can blame Republicans. Doesn’t that seem incredibly selfish, heartless, and petty, as well as fantastically short-sighted and ultimately counterproductive to cannabis law reform? It does to me, which is why I don’t tolerate his partisan hackery. Go ahead and keep thinking this has to be partisan if you really think that’s wise, but I can’t think of a single issue that was *helped* in the last 20 years by making it partisan.

          • And then there was the 57+% in Florida. Musta been one or two Republicans in that crowd given that the Republican running for Governor got 48% of the vote.

          • wowFAD

            The exact number of Republicans who supported Amendment 2 was 1.16 million — 40% of all self-identified Republicans supported cannabis at the ballot box. Never would have gotten 57.3% of the Florida electorate without those people. However, some folks do not care. The partisan hacks batting for the blue team only care that 60% of Republicans voted against it.

            They also don’t care that 29% of Democrats in Florida voted against Amendment 2. It only failed by 250k votes, and 29% of Democrats was at least 823k voters who *showed up* and voted the wrong way. Cannabis reform is encroaching on both parties because the “Silent Majority” of moderates are fed up with the Red and Blue teams playing paddy-cake with this issue.

            Everyone knows why 60% of Republicans voted against it — they’re old, stubborn, and socially conservative. Simple. We don’t need Scooby and the gang to crack that one open. But the real mystery is that nobody wants to talk about what was going on with 29% of Democrats — 823k people who voted wrong. That’s what shocked me most about Florida’s exit polling.

          • painkills2

            Dude, I’m not the one making this partisan. And just like I don’t know why Scott lets you irritate him, I don’t know why you let him do the same to you. Why do you care if he calls you names? What’s so special about his opinion? I mean, sure, being called “right-wing” is a low blow, but I’ve been called that before — since I know that’s not accurate, its not a problem.

            Are ya’ll twins that were separated at birth? Does he make more money than you? Does he know more about cannabis than you? What seems to be the problem? Let Scott do… whatever he wants to do… it’s not like most people can’t see right through him. And he’s certainly entitled to his opinions, just like you and I are.

            And I don’t like any terms that are derogatory to people who suffer from mental illness — it’s an untreated epidemic in this country. We’ve criminalized the mentally ill and the homeless, just like the DEA has criminalized pain patients. Nut jobs, wing nuts, pillheads, and like terms are not something I would use in regular conversation, let alone in a hash tag. And that has nothing to do with partisanship either.

          • I just want to keep him talking (#KeepTalkingWingnuts). But, then, I guess you guys know him much better than I do.

          • painkills2

            Name calling just makes you look weak. And I have no idea who wowFAD is, just like I don’t know who you are.

        • painkills2

          I like Gary Johnson — he’s from New Mexico, and he’s the only one (besides Paul) who has been, and always will be, for cannabis legalization. He won’t waffle or change his mind if he’s elected.

          Do you expect me to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016?

          • He won’t be nominated on the GOP ticket, and he got what? 1% in the general as the Libertarian?

            Hillary has been sounding a lot less authoritarian on weed lately. But, no, Johnson is not the only one for legalization, and Paul is only for letting states decide, which would let states continue prohibition.

            Bernie Sanders has said he’s open to legalization. I’ll vote for him in the primary, if he runs as a Democrat, and I might even vote for him if he runs as an independent, since Hillary will carry New York by a landslide.

            But if I had to bet, I’d bet that Hillary will be the next President, so here’s hoping that she listens to some reasonable people on this issue.

            Still, though, look at the likely GOP nominees. Christie, Jeb, Walker, Huchabee… all right wing authoritarians who are a hell of a lot LESS LIKELY to reschedule than Hillary.

            And no matter who wins, the change will happen slowly and incrementally, until it reaches some kind of peak where it takes off, like gay marriage did.

            —-

            Here’s a little food for thought:

            Nevada Senator calls marijuana Democrats’ ‘Q3’ for 2016:

            http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/13/nevada-senator-calls-marijuana-democrats-q/18978521/

            Democrats add recreational marijuana legalization to party platform:

            http://stateandcapitol.bangordailynews.com/2014/05/31/democrats-add-recreational-marijuana-legalization-to-party-platform/

          • You are confusing Ron and Rand. Do keep up.

          • painkills2

            I don’t see that there’s much difference between the father and the son.

          • How did I do that? And, as painkills2 points out, they’re pretty much the same bullshitter.

            And remember, they’re not for nationwide legalization. They would allow states to continue to prohibit.

          • painkills2

            Sure, it looks like mainstream democrats are pushing for Hillary, making her win seem almost inevitable… kinda like it was in 2008.

          • Oh. Yes. Hillary “there is too much money in it” Clinton.

            I’m getting behind Rand Paul for now. Who ever runs the best anti-Prohibition candidate. So far he leads the pack.

          • painkills2

            Rand Paul needs a haircut :)

          • David

            Paul should join the no hair for men Club: Their motto is: “No Plugs”, No Rug’s, No drugs”

          • painkills2

            Dude, I believe that’s his real hair. It’s just a little… wild. :) (see picture)

        • David

          I want Republicans to lose elections too. Why? Mainly because of their extreme anti-environmental agenda. Try defending that.

          • wowFAD

            Hey David, tell me something, first — why would I let you bait me into an argument about the environment on a blog about cannabis? Oh, right, I wouldn’t.

            Just because I don’t identify as a Democrat and refuse to pull a muscle patting them on the back for doing the absolute minimum they have to do to be considered “better” than Republicans doesn’t mean I think Republicans are any better — it just makes me a realist, and not a partisan hack.

            Just in case you’re curious, the Governor elect of Alaska, the independent candidate, was also a challenger in the 2010 Republican Primary. He was a career Republican — who also supports protecting the environment, if his interviews and policy stances are to be believed. I would have voted for him, too, despite his formerly being a Republican, just because of that fact.

            Vote for candidates. Not for parties. Be an active constituent. Hold YOUR representatives responsible instead of allowing them to get you swept up in the partisan bickering. Don’t let them make you into just another Red vs Blue sheople, like Scott. Truth be known, I almost always vote Democrat because Republicans suck on virtually every issue I care about. But honestly, that’s only because Democrats suck just a little less. Just because I vote for them doesn’t mean I’m not tired of their apathy and complacency with the status-quo. Sometimes I feel as if today’s caliber of “Leftist Radical” would look at the 3/5’s Compromise as if it were a great deal, which just depresses me. People aren’t voting FOR Democrats, they’re voting AGAINST Republicans, and vice-versa… Meanwhile, nothing changes. What I call “Congressional Recidivism” is well above 90%.

            Eric Holder, the Secretary of HHS, and the President, himself, could reschedule cannabis at any time they want to, according to section 812 of the Controlled Substances Act. But they don’t. Not because they’re Democrats, not because they’re Liberals — it’s because they know they don’t have to. People in the cannabis community have been kissing Holder’s butt to thank him for politely carrying on the drug war for the last five years, and it sickens me. The only reason he gets away with it is the same reason it always is: “Republicans would be worse.”

            Forgive me for thinking that isn’t good enough. I spent several years trying to explain why the Obama Administration has not done something about rescheduling cannabis. I went to great lengths making excuses for them. I was all about the HOPE message, and I told a lot of people to “wait and see” for years. Well, not anymore. I’m done acting as if “D” means anything other than just barely good enough to pass.

          • David

            I’m seriously not trying to “bait” anyone. I simply don’t vote Republican. Period. Their anti-environmental agenda is something I could never support. Regardless of their position on marijuana policy. Which, btw, also stinks.

          • “just another Red vs Blue sheople, like Scott.”

            See, another lie… I do look at the politicians, not the party. I look at the issues that matter to me, and I vote accordingly.

            And, in my 50 years on this planet, 32 of them as a voter, I HAVE NEVER voted for a Republican. Not once. Not because I’m a partisan hack, as you want to believe, but because there has never–NEVER–been one worth voting for. Every single election in which I’ve voted, I look at the issues that are important to me, then I look at the people running, and it turns out that every single time the Republican was horrible. I’ve voted green. I’ve voted independent. But never Republican.

            To you, that makes me a hack. But that’s because you don’t care about the truth. That’s why you’re in here defending Jetdoc and his lies about a majority of Republicans being for legalization when a majority of Republicans isn’t even for medicinal.

            So, keep it up, whatever your name is.

          • People in the cannabis community have been kissing Holder’s butt to
            thank him for politely carrying on the drug war for the last five years,
            and it sickens me.

            President “I inhaled, that was the point” could do the same. Several of the three letter agencies have a similar power and are NOT agitating for change.

            Cannabis cures cancer. Cancer kills 586,000 Americans every year. Every Prohibitionist is complicit in mass murder.

            I believe we have ANOTHER mass murdering executive.

          • David

            President Obama has almost two years remaining in office. He doesn’t strike me as a stereotypical “Lame Duck” President. Who knows? He did allow legalization to move forward contrary to long-standing Federal law. Anyway, I can’t read the future but do know two years is a lifetime politically.

          • wowFAD

            Agreed — a lot can happen in two years, which is a lifetime, politically — especially in the legislature. By that logic, we’ve been waiting three lifetimes since Obama entered office. I spent the better part of that time with my fingers crossed, not just hoping for real change, but also defending the administration at every turn, bending over backwards not only attempting to justify what they *haven’t* done, but also turning a blind eye to what they *have* done.

            Johnny has done a wonderful job over the years cataloguing the President’s “cannabis two-step” — everything the administration says gets our hopes up (memos, stump speeches, and supposedly off-the-cuff remarks), while everything they DO brings our hopes back down again (the 2011 Crackdown, fighting rescheduling in Federal court, their official response to the NYTimes editorial, incarcerating Marc Emery and thousands of other cannabis consumers, business owners, and advocates, etc. etc.).

            Look for any article on the Weed Blog which uses the graphic of Obama with fingers in his ears from several years ago, onward. Odds are good you’ll find comments from me, passionately defending the administration, trying desperately to justify their (in)actions, or ignoring them, entirely. I was *convinced* cannabis law reform at the federal level would come after the 2012 election was decided in Obama’s favor — I used to speculate about its likelihood, all the time. But here we are, years passed 2012, the 2014 election is in our rear-view mirrors, and still nothing. In short, I’ve run out of plausible excuses to prop up my wishful thinking, so I’ve quit being an apologist for the administration on the subject of cannabis law reform. I simply can’t do it, anymore.

            Six years down, two left, and I’m so disillusioned by how little things have changed from the top down, that I’m more and more convinced cannabis will languish in Schedule 1 for the duration of his presidency. If the President leaves office and has the audacity to suggest *someone* should do something about rescheduling cannabis when he had eight years and the legal power to do so, I am going to react poorly, to say the least.

          • David

            The opposition in Congress would most likely question the President’s legal authority to reschedule cannabis using an Executive Order as he just did over immigration deportation. Heaven help cannabis lovers if state legalization ever makes it to the John Robert’s Supreme Court.

          • wowFAD

            Clarence Thomas would’ve beaten Scalia to death with his bare hands if there were any justice to be had in the SCOTUS — but that’s a much larger sentiment.

            As far as an Executive Order is concerned, they are certainly subject to judicial review and it *could* go to the SCOTUS, but according to §811 of the Controlled Substances Act, the legal power to reschedule is *specifically* granted to the AG, and by extension, the President. All the Attorney General has to do is provide proof that an adequate investigation was carried out in which it is found that there is no tenable reason for cannabis to remain classified under schedule 1.

            The AG would not even have to do a new investigation if he did not want to do so — DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young’s official recommendation to remove cannabis from schedule 1 still exists. As long as the law is followed to the letter, the AG can reschedule cannabis unilaterally, and there would be no grounds for a legal objection — the law *explicitly* grants that power to the AG.

            It’s so cut and dry, a lawsuit objecting to an Executive Order telling the AG to investigate and reschedule cannabis wouldn’t even make it to the docket of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, let alone the SCOTUS.

            The CSA was written so that the executive branch has unilateral control over scheduling, and there’s no changing that without changing §811 of the CSA. The AG *could* do it — there are no legal obstacles preventing it, and only paltry PR excuses to justify NOT doing it. It’s not like the President has another election to worry about.

      • Hey, look! You found one of the few Republicans who supports reform! Good for you!

        But as the GOP ass kisser wowFAD just said, we should keep this thread about Alaska, which, contrary to what wowFAD said about me, is exactly what I was doing here. Alaskans voted in legalization, to be implemented by people they voted for who are against it.

        • painkills2

          There’s no need to take that tone with me, young man. WowFAD is not the boss of me, nor is he/she the boss of you.

          • I’m 50. And anyone who posts any kind of GOP ass kissing nonsense, especially about a Faux Libertarian like Paul, I will take a tone with. Now, if you want to act like you’re the result of 4 billion years of evolution, something Rand “Two Faced” Paul won’t even admit is real*, then stop stroking his balls and support people who are for legalizing weed for EVERY American.

            * http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/06/29/206327/rand-paul-refuses-how-old-the-earth-is/

          • David

            Paul is a wolf in sheep;s clothing. I’ve never heard Paul refer to himself as a libertarian (which is in essence, only a harder right-wing Republican). Voting for a man hailing from dirty “coal country” who wants to eliminate the EPA, The Consumer protection Agency, The FDA and those agencies Governor “Good-Hair” of Texas couldn’t recall during a 2012 debate. I’m with you Scott!

          • Socially liberal, Fiscally conservative. Is the generally accepted definition of libertarian. The Koch Bros. support Reason Foundation which is very pro-legalization. And quite pro-abortrion rights.

            The purpose of those three letter agencies is not to protect the consumers but the cartels (legal and illegal). Just extrapolate from the DEA.

            Ever hear of Regulatory Capture? Look it up.

          • David

            MSimon

            Socially liberal, fiscally conservative used to be mean moderate Republican. These no longer exist. I support those who oppose the Koch’s Below you’ll find some reasons why. The icing on the cake for me is that the k- Bro’s also operate and fund the extremist Far-Right wing anti-environmental group “American’s For Prosperity”( One title of this summer’s event was “The Evils of Cannabis Legalization Nationwide”). The Koch’s and the Paul’s are the new Marcher Lords (Look it up). When I read the pollution /Earth destroying services listed below, I made to large donation to Greenpeace, after I washed my hands. Thanks

            Koch Industries, Inc. is an American multinational corporation based in Wichita, Kansas, United States, with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch also owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Molex, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals and Matador Cattle Company. Koch companies are involved in core industries such as the manufacturing, refining and distribution of petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, finance, commodities trading, as well as other ventures and investments. The firm employs 50,000 people in the United States and another 20,000 in 59 other countries.

          • “The Koch Bros. support Reason Foundation which is very pro-legalization. And quite pro-abortrion rights.”

            Well, they do and they don’t. They say they’re for it, but they pour money into races to elect politicians who are against it.

            Read the fine print. They care a lot more about cost-shifting negative externalities than they do about weed. Or abortion.

          • painkills2

            You will always be younger than me…

          • David

            Wow fantastic picture. Thanks!

          • painkills2

            One of many winners in a BigPicture photo contest, but all of them are awesome shots. The rest are here: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/calacademy/sets/72157645790809003

          • David

            Very very Cool! again, thank you.

    • CallMeRandy

      Censor this..

      • Censor what? I don’t believe in censorship. That’s usually Republicans. Just look at what they try to do to science.

        • Ah. You are referring to the coming Maunder type minimum I expect. I think that 50 to 80 years of cold weather might have some effect on the science debate.

          BTW real science is never settled. Only political science. And that often not for long.

          And note: preparing for the wrong catastrophe can have catastrophic effects.

          • What the hell are you talking about? You think we’re preparing for what global warming will do? You think what little preparation we’re doing is going to have catastrophic effects?

            What catastrophe do you think we should be preparing for? The Second coming? A new ice age? Maybe you think we need more liberty crushing laws like the Patriot Act (mostly used in the drug war) to protect us from the evil Muslims?

            Spell it out for me.

            And if you ever want to bet on future temperatures, let me know.

    • CallMeRandy

      From the Huffington Post:

      11/19/2014, All The Progress Made On Marijuana Legalization Could Vanish With A New President

      So what do some of the likely 2016 presidential candidates say about marijuana?

      On the Republican side, according to HuffPost’s Pollster model, the front-runners are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

      ***Paul has been supportive of D.C.’s new recreational marijuana law, and he’s also introduced legislation aimed at protecting state-legal medical marijuana operations from federal intervention.***

      Huckabee, meanwhile, is opposed to both medical and recreational marijuana, and Bush came out against Florida’s recent medical marijuana bill. At the same time, Bush has made generally supportive comments about keeping the federal government out of state marijuana laws.

      On the Democratic side, the current front-runners are former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). While Clinton hasn’t offered a full-throated endorsement of marijuana legalization, she has left the door open, saying she supports medical marijuana “for people who are in extreme medical conditions.” She’s also said she wants to “wait and see” how recreational pot works out in Colorado and Washington state.

      Biden has called legalization a “mistake” in the past, but he’s also said that cracking down on marijuana users is a “waste of our resources.” Warren has offered some support for medical marijuana legalization, but is opposed to recreational legalization.

      • “he’s also introduced legislation aimed at protecting state-legal medical marijuana operations from federal intervention”

        Good for him. He also says he’s a civil libertarian, but when push comes to shove, he was the deciding vote on reining in the NSA, and he voted for more authoritarianism.

        “At the same time, Bush has made generally supportive comments about keeping the federal government out of state marijuana laws.”

        This is typical of Republicans who some say are supportive of reform. Well, they are supportive AND not supportive. They would let states both legalize and NOT legalize. I support an end to federal prohibition, and I support federal law that would protect the rights of ALL AMERICANS to not be subjected to prohibition. I believe ALL Americans have that right, not just those who live in states where they managed to vote to legalize it. Even people in Mississippi deserve to live free from prohibition. Anyone who says they support states’ rights also support the state’s right, over that of the individual Americans, to continue prohibition.

        And as for you focus on Presidential politics, if you think anyone who supports full federal legalization will ever become President anytime soon, then you’re a fool. The way this ever happens on the federal level would be if we manage to get enough Progressives–who support full federal legalization and not just the states’ rights to both punch and hug hippies–into congress, and the President is put into a position that makes it very hard politically not to sign it.

        But the electoral college combined with a GOP party primary that rewards authoritarianism make it pretty much impossible to elect a progressive Democrat, or even a libertarian Republican, President.

        By the way, contrary to what wowFAD will tell you, I’m not so partisan that I won’t vote for Bernie Sanders if he runs on a third party ticket.

        • painkills2

          I don’t mind being seen as a hopeful fool, and I could vote for Mr. Sanders too.

          • David

            Me too. Go Bernie!!!

          • I hope you do.

          • painkills2

            I don’t think he’s serious.

        • This is typical of Republicans who some say are supportive of reform. Well, they are supportive AND not supportive.

          So what is the matter with President “I inhaled, that was the point”.

          • The matter is that Obama is a moderate. We don’t elect progressives as President in this country. The best Democrats can do, if they want to actually win the presidency, is put forward a moderate who can win swing states. You think someone in 2008 or 2012 that was openly suggesting the whole country legalize weed would have won FL? OH? VA?

      • David

        State Governor’s in new (or fairly new) medical marijuana states, are in the forefront of what can only be seen as a State Governor driven, anti-THC /Anti-dispensary/ only high CBD / medical marijuana policy fight. Republican Presidential hopeful, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, makes a perfect example. Governor Christie, makes no bones about his personal desire to purposely monkey-wrench his states medical marijuana laws. He is certainly not alone in his strongly held belief’s. That’s because Governor Christie is also the current Chairman of the National Republican Governor’s association.

        Below is Governor Christie (R)- NJ on the subject in his own words:

        “See this is what happens. Every time you sign one expansion, then the advocates will come back and ask for another one. Here’s what the advocates want: They want legalization of marijuana in New Jersey. It will not happen on my watch, ever. I am done expanding the medical marijuana program under any circumstances. So we’re done.

        “There’s no outpouring of people signing up for this program. This is another one of those narrow group-think policies put forward by the Legislature and I’m not going to continue to expand it. Because what they want is legalization. They’re not getting legalization under this governor.”
        Do you need any better example illustrating why not to vote Republican for Governor in 2016?

    • wowFAD

      Oh look — Scott is happy that a cannabis reform initiative has obstacles ahead of it because it gives him an excuse to encourage partisan bickering. What a shock…

      Instead, why don’t we try something new? Why don’t we objectively examine the facts, here? BOTH candidates for Governor of Alaska were Republicans who have said publicly they don’t support cannabis legalization. Both chambers of the legislature are controlled by Republicans.

      Alaska is a redder than red state — where 52.3% of the voters just said yes to cannabis in a MIDTERM election. Republican lawmakers are going to get on board with cannabis law reform in Alaska, or there will be blowback from the Alaska voters.

      Do you honestly believe Alaska voters will sit idly by while their representatives try to block it? I don’t think so. More importantly, Scott — what will you have to say if your doom/gloom prediction doesn’t come true, and the Republican controlled state legislature in tandem with their “independent” Republican governor stops opposing the will of their constituents, and starts implementing the law?

      That was rhetorical. Everyone knows if you don’t have anything partisan to say, you have nothing to say at all.

      • “Scott is happy that a cannabis reform initiative has obstacles ahead of it ”

        What a disingenuous little liar you are. I’m upset that there are obstacles. I’m upset that Alaskans didn’t have a pro-pot governor to vote for. I’m upset that they’ve elected a bunch of hippie punchers to their legislature.

        “BOTH candidates for Governor of Alaska were Republicans who have said publicly they don’t support cannabis legalization.”

        Wrong again… just as you were wrong about no democrats supporting 2 in FL. Alaska’s new governor defeated the Republican. The new governor, Walker, is an Independent. This is exactly what I said, and easy to check, so I wonder why you had to say something that’s the opposite of the truth?

        “Alaska is a redder than red state”

        Not really. They just voted out their Republican governor. Murkowski is one of the more moderate Republican Senators. And in Presidential election years, when liberals actually show up to vote, they even elect Democrats sometimes.

        “Republican lawmakers are going to get on board with cannabis law reform in Alaska, or there will be blowback from the Alaska voters.”

        Well, we’ll see… What are they going to do? Vote for Democrats? I thought it was redder than red?

        “Do you honestly believe Alaska voters will sit idly by while their representatives try to block it?”

        I think they will continue to vote for Republicans no matter what. I’d even bet on it. Except in Presidential election years. And even then, they keep electing Don Young, one of the biggest assholes in congress.

        “Scott — what will you have to say if your doom/gloom prediction doesn’t come true, and the Republican controlled state legislature in tandem with their “independent” Republican governor stops opposing the will of their constituents, and starts implementing the law?”

        I say Assemblywoman Amy Demboski’s ordinance for Anchorage will become law. You say it won’t? If I’m wrong, I’ll admit I was wrong, and congratulate the Republicans who vote against her. What will you do if you’re wrong? Disappear until you feel like bullshitting again?

        “Everyone knows if you don’t have anything partisan to say, you have nothing to say at all.”

        Obviously more hyperbolic bullshit. I have said many times the exact percentages of Republicans who vote the right way on these issues. If you don’t like the percentages, you should take it out on the party you claim not to be part of but are very willing to defend.

        • wowFAD

          LOL — No, Scott. You’re upset cannabis won big in Alaska with little to no help from your team. That’s what upsets you. Exit polls are just so telling, aren’t they?

          It appears as though only 19% of the total Alaska electorate identify as Democrat, and even then, one in four voted against the cannabis measure. And only 22% of Alaska voters call themselves “liberal” — and again, one in four voted NO on the cannabis measure.

          Oh, btw, Bill Walker was a Republican his entire career — that’s easily checked. He was in the 2010 Republican Primary. He only declared himself an independent for this election. But I’ll do you the courtesy of not harping on your mistake.

          So how did cannabis pass in Alaska when Democrats/Liberals had such a pathetic showing at the ballot box, this year? Perhaps it’s because 52% of the voters in Alaska who turned up in a MIDTERM election don’t identify as Democrat OR Republican. Thank goodness they’re not partisan douche nozzles like *some* people I know.

          It saddens me that you’ve fallen into old habits so easily, but it doesn’t surprise me, anymore. For example, besides being a partisan hack, you’re also deliberately skipping the parts of my comments you don’t wish to discuss when you’re cutting and pasting things. As I’ve said elsewhere, doing that makes it VERY obvious what you do not want to talk about. And what you didn’t want to talk about was this:

          “Alaska is a redder than red state — where 52.3% of the voters just said yes to cannabis in a MIDTERM election. Republican lawmakers are going to get on board with cannabis law reform in Alaska, or there will be blowback from the Alaska voters.”

          Yep, I capitalized MIDTERM for a reason, and even though you already know what that reason is, I’m going to throw it in your face, anyway. Had cannabis failed in Alaska, you *might* have had the right to do your happy dance, Scott — but unfortunately for you, it passed, and furthermore, it did so with very little help from “your team.” Because as we all know, Scott, your team is very VERY lazy in midterm elections (19% — wow).

          What the exit polls in Alaska tell us, what you don’t want to admit, what Republican lawmakers in Alaska are figuring out (except Amy Demboski, obviously), is that cannabis is NOT a partisan issue.

          You’re the one who pointed out how well Republicans did on the ballot in Alaska, as you were trying to frame your dire case for cannabis legalization, up there. How only, what, a third of their legislature bats for the blue team? Ha! As if your beloved red/blue distinction meant anything when it came to cannabis legalization in Alaska — or do we need to go over the numbers in a way that’s easier for you to process? LOLOL

          Honestly, the only reason you’re trying to argue about Alaska politics is because a Republican decided to end her political career by not checking the exit polling numbers before filing this boneheaded legislation. She definitely won’t win the Mayoral race — probably some other Republican who *did* check the exit polling will win, simply by staying as far away from Amy Demboski’s cannabis ban bill as possible. Were this an article about, I don’t know, an apathetic Democrat Attorney General who weaves and dodges matter-of-fact questions about cannabis rescheduling, I bet you wouldn’t have one bad thing to say — in fact, you would have nothing to say, at all, would you?

          Again, I must wish you consolations. No matter how butt-hurt you get, Alaska will never bat for your team. As bad as Republicans are, Democrats are part of the same problem. I’m very glad such a large chunk of Alaska feels the same way I do, and not just because it drives you up the wall (that’s just a bonus).

          • an apathetic Democrat Attorney General who weaves and dodges matter-of-fact questions about cannabis rescheduling

            ^^^ This ^^^

            And don’t forget President “I inhaled, that was the point”.

            As bad as Republicans are, Democrats are part of the same problem.

            So true.

            Let us not forget that it was Democrats at the behest of Harry “its effect on the degenerate races” Anslinger who passed Cannabis Prohibition 1937. Not to mention their worry about “cocainized Negroes raping white women” in 1914.

          • wowFAD

            Indeed, it was the Democrats who were responsible for Prohibition — however, I’m not certain the word “Democrat” means the same thing, today, as it did in the 1930s.

            There was the mass-exodus of the “Dixie-crats” in 1960s due to Democrats making racial equality a platform issue — the Democrats who stood up for Civil Rights were heroes, in contrast with the Democrats of the 1930s (and the Democrats of today).

            Truly, what’s in a name? It doesn’t matter if you call them Democrats, Republicans, or Beliebers — their *actions* tell you who they are and what they’re all about.

          • “their *actions* tell you who they are and what they’re all about.”

            They sure do…

            70% of Democrats voted against renewing the Patriot Act, only 14% of Republicans did.

            91% of Dems voted for keeping the DEA out of medicinal programs, only 22% of Republicans did.

            94% of Democrats voted to keep the feds out of pot banking, only 20% of Republicans did.

          • wowFAD

            Oh Scott — it’s truly pathetic that you must insert yourself into a conversation you’re not involved in just so you can keep selling the lie that Democrats care about cannabis reform. I was discussing the utility of the label “Democrat” and not making a moral case to excuse their spinelessness.

            I feel like skipping ahead in the conversation. Shall I tell how this exchange will end, Scott? You won’t be pleased. Here, I’ll map it out for you.

            You’ll try (and fail) to bait me into a partisan argument. You’ll demand one thing after another that I’ll refuse to give you, simply because I know you want it. You’ll become increasingly unnerved as I shoot down one attempt after another. Eventually, after roughly half a dozen of your sad attempts to steer the discussion fail miserably, you’ll devolve into your typical pattern of ad hominem attacks, at which point I’ll simply sit back and take you apart, just like the last three or four conversations I *owned* you.

            So if you really want me to put you in touch with how truly pointless and ineffectual your efforts are, then please, continue. You should, however, consider how miserable you’re going to feel, afterwards. Your ego is already stretched pretty thin, buddy. Can you really take another trouncing? You don’t handle it very well. This might be the one that knocks you off the rails, permanently.

            If it helps, I’ll reply with a *DING* the moment you begin the name-calling, just to mark the exact moment you give up the paltry, transparent pretense that you’re accomplishing something. You know, your “hobby.” LOLOL

          • “you must insert yourself into a conversation you’re not involved in”

            Scroll up. Look at the comment these comments are nested under. Now apologize for being wrong.

            “ad hominem attacks”

            Like calling me a douchebag? Or saying I’m not part of a conversation that I’m part of?

            “take you apart”

            Like when I pointed out that without Democrats, Measure 2 would have lost, the exact opposite of what you said?

            “just like the last three or four conversations I *owned* you.”

            You mean like when I pointed out how 75% of Democrats voted for Measure 2, while 70% of Republicans voted against it?

            Or how I showed the insulated anti-pot Republicans will do just fine if they oppose pot?

            Or when I showed how you’re the one who keeps changing the subject, moving the goal posts, and avoiding points… You know, like you’re doing now?

            Or how about when I proved you were wrong about Democrats endorsing FL’s amendment?

            “So if you really want me to put you in touch with how truly pointless and ineffectual your efforts are, then please, continue.”

            You mean there’s something you could say that’s different than all the bullshit you’ve said so far?

            “You should, however, consider how miserable you’re going to feel, afterwards. ”

            Again, your self agrandizement isn’t going to help you here.

            “Your ego is already stretched pretty thin, buddy.”

            My ego is somehow important to this conversation how? You want to stay on point and avoid ad hominemem attacks, but you are talking about my ego?

            “Can you really take another trouncing? ”

            What trouncing? Please, show me where you trounced me. Talk about egos…

            “You don’t handle it very well.”

            Says the man (?) who is avoiding the subject while accusing me of avoiding the subject.

            “This might be the one that knocks you off the rails, permanently. ”

            When you’re done stroking that little hard on, let me know.

            “I’ll reply with a *DING* the moment you begin the name-calling”

            Hmmm… Just in this post alone… let’s see…

            “partisan hack” Ding. “butt-hurt” Ding. “resident cheerleader” Ding. So many more…

            But enough of that. I see you have so much more bullshit for me to waste my time on.

          • wowFAD

            I was replying to someone else — so yes, by definition, you were not part of the conversation. Simply because you’re sitting by your computer waiting for my next post doesn’t mean it’s meant for you, Scott. Truly, I’m flattered, but not every post I make is a personal invitation.

            Your response to my comment as well as the content of my comment demonstrates how you don’t really care about *any* topic of conversation at all. It’s only about soothing your poor, wounded ego, which is just pathetic. I said objectively true things about the progression of the label “Democrat” through the 20th century, and oh boy, did your pride flair up.

            You see, I didn’t HAVE to imply Democrats today are worthless, but I wanted to see if you’d bite. The reason I’m so entertained at the moment is that you believed you saw an opportunity to bait me into the partisan argument you’ve been wanting for months — but ask yourself, Scott, who’s baiting who?

            All I have to do is write the word “Democrat” in any context and you come running. So far, you’re dancing on the end of my string like a little blue marionette. Dance, progressive! Dance! LOL

          • “I was replying to someone else — so yes, by definition, you were not part of the conversation. ”

            NO, you were replying to him IN MY THREAD. See how that works?

            Gee, next time I reply to someone else in one of your threads, you better shut yer yap.

            “you’re sitting by your computer waiting for my next post”

            You really think that’s what I do? And you’re talking about my ego? Boy, you trolls really do grow when fed.

            It’s hard work keeping up with a Gish Galloper like you.

            “not every post I make is a personal invitation.”

            You’re talking in my thread, right in front of me, you’re damn right I’m going to speak up. And the idea that you can somehow boss me around and make me do what you want is so very telling. About you. Guy who doesn’t like teases, anal sex, Democrats, or people who stand up for themselves.

            “Your response to my comment as well as the content of my comment demonstrates how you don’t really care about *any* topic of conversation at all.”

            Gee, I was hoping for some specifics. But all I got was that same old lousy T-shirts… insult my ego. Insert bonus word “pathetic.” No specifics. Just moved the ol’ goal posts some more…

            ” I said objectively true things about the progression of the label “Democrat” through the 20th century, and oh boy, did your pride flair up.”

            So freaking funny. I was happy for you. You got something right.

            “I didn’t HAVE to imply Democrats today are worthless”

            Sure you did.

            “I wanted to see if you’d bite”

            You admit you’re a troll?

            “The reason I’m so entertained at the moment is that you believed you saw an opportunity to bait me into the partisan argument you’ve been wanting for months”

            You really do read way too much into what people write. I’m not trying to bait you into anything. I don’t think I’ll convince you of anything. But I when I got to this blog, I found you and Jetdoc bullshitting. Both of you vowed never to speak to me again, which is understandable since I expose your bullshit, and you have both broken this extreme word you should have never given in the first place.

            And what I have learned sitting at the peculiar poker table in an odd little corner of the internet is that it, like so many other places I go, is full of people who get so many things wrong, for so damn long, including their predicitons of their own future actions, that I want to make a BIG, LOUD bookmark here so I can come back during election season and get some of you to put your money where your bullshitting mouths are so I can make you finally pay a real price for being wrong.

            Ya falla?

            Nighty night.

          • wowFAD

            LOL — Right, you’re *not* trying to bait me into a partisan argument by asking me about my feelings on abortion, gun laws, the Patriot Act, etc etc etc… On the *Weed* blog. That’s such an astoundingly obvious fiction that I’m amazed you’re still clinging to it. You’re like a little kid with chocolate all over his face, insisting he doesn’t know what happened to all those half-eaten cupcakes. It’s almost like a Hallmark moment.

            I mean, it would not be difficult to go find all of your blatant attempts *just on this thread* to pick a fight with me, Scott. I can’t remember the last time you even tried discussing Alaska, the subject of this article. Apparently, all you care about is me. Again, I’m flattered.

            All I have to do is write “Democrat” or +1 a comment and you’re all over it.

            Watch, I’ll do it again.

            Democrats are spineless wimps who are going to tease their sheep with ending cannabis prohibition until they realize they *aren’t* the only game in town, anymore. And the funniest part is that people like yourself are left with the arduous task of apologizing for them, or rather, dodging every instance in which an apology would be appropriate, usually by citing something Republicans did that was worse. Besides ad hominem, the blatant subject change is the only arrow in your quiver.

            Now we’ll all watch as you continue plodding along as everyone’s favorite Democrat apologist, like we know you will. I had a Labrador who was the same way — he couldn’t help chasing whatever I threw him, either. The difference is I cared about my dog, so I would eventually stop before he was worn out. But you, Scott? I’m going to keep lobbing tennis balls until your legs burn and your lungs explode.

            Now FETCH, Progressive! LOLOLOL

          • Heh. A wanna-be P. J. O’Rourke…

            “asking me about my feelings on abortion, gun laws, the Patriot Act”

            Again you read too much into what I say… It’s as if your hatred of liberals is so flaming that my words go through a filter that causes you to see something that’s not there…

            What I did was point out that people often have other reasons for not voting the way that would result in the best result for a particular issue. In your case, despite the fact that, as I’ve show with EXAMPLES like the Patriot Act and the recent votes in the House on weed, electing Democrats increases the odds of good votes on marijuana, yet you won’t vote for them. I think it’s because of those other issues. The ones I gve examples of.

            I don’t give a flying fuck in a rolling donut if you talk to me about your feelings. I don’t give a shit about your feelings. And I didn’t ask you about your feelings. I simply stated that other issues, whatever they are–and I listed some EXAMPLES–are keeping you, and many other people, like Jetdoc, from voting for the people with whom you most agree on marijuana reform.

            “I can’t remember the last time you even tried discussing Alaska, the subject of this article.”

            Sure you can. Just go up and look. I’m the one who keeps talking about it, you’re the one who keeps changing the subject.

            “Apparently, all you care about is me. ”

            And you talk about MY ego. If you ego gets any bigger it’ll form a black hole.

            “Democrats are spineless wimps who are going to tease their sheep with ending cannabis prohibition”

            Maybe Reason magazine will buy you a thesaurus. The whole sheep thing is SO over used. It’s the new Kool Aid.

            A large group of Democrats, known as the Congressional Progressive Caucus, doesn’t tease on Marijuana reform. They vote the way you want. They walk the walk. You ignore them. Becuase you can’t stand them for some other reason.

            And the moderate Democrats, who aren’t part of the CPC–the largest caucus on the hill, bigger than the tea party caucus–at least tease on reform. Which is the same thing Rand Paul or any Republican does, and there are only a handful of them. The vast majority of the GOP, as you well know, are authoritarian prohibitionists.

            But if you think a whole bunch of people are suddenly going to start voting for Glibertarians, who are, quite frankly, much FURTHER to the right economically than Republicans, then you’re delusional.

            As if I ddin’t know that already.

            “people like yourself are left with the arduous task of apologizing for them,”

            You tend to stretch definitions of words beyond their intended meaning. I don’t apologize for anyone. I can’t stand ANYONE who votes against liberty. I don’t like authoritarians. I don’t like them in the GOP. I don’t like them in the Democratic party either.

            But I also know that when it comes to the whole Gestalt thing of my issues, that Democrats are nowhere near as bad as Republicans when it comes to authoritarianism. So, I vote for the least evil.

            What do you do? Vote for spoilers who get Skeletor elected?

            “usually by citing something Republicans did that was worse”

            You glibs have no sense of degree. To you, voting for the lesser evils is the same as voting for the more evil. You have this delusion that your precious, nut-case-ridden, gold standard toutin’, let locals and states discriminate kinda of politics is attractive to people. What you fail to realize is that we’re sick of this state by state determination of our rights. We want ALL AMERICANS to have the rights of marriage, of non-discrimination, of adoption, of smoking weed.

            ALL AMERICANS. Not on a state by state basis. On a national basis. Enforce our rights as Americans. No state gets to violate our rights.

            “I had a Labrador who was the same way — he couldn’t help chasing whatever I threw out there, either.”

            I’ve been letting you strut your troll bullshit all over this blog for a while now, even after you broke your word not to speak to me again. I think I’ve made my point. Now that I’m a little more busy, you have fun with the last word.

            But just remember, your delusion of control over me would disappear the moment you got in my face.

            Ya hear?

          • wowFAD

            Good boy! Who’s a good Progressive? Yes, you are! Now FETCH!

            By all means, cut and paste the comment in which I gave my word to leave you alone. We both know it’s your favorite thing to do. LOL So let’s see it.

            Oh my goodness, Scott. I skimmed your comment so quickly, I almost missed that last paragraph, which is pure gold.

            In your face, huh? LOLOLOLOL Wow wow wow. This is truly the moment I’ve been waiting for — you’ve given up on even pretending that you care about cannabis law reform or even partisan politics for that matter — now, you’re just trying to keep your fragile ego from shattering.

            You want me in your face, huh? LOL Well come at me, bro! HAHAHA

            You’ve assumed so much about me, letting you wallow in ignorance was fun all by itself. But now, you’re so utterly defeated that you want me to get in your face because you *assume* that would make a difference. Think about that, Scott… You’d have to confront ALL of your misapprehensions, face to face. You’d never show. You don’t have the spine for it — after all, you’re a spineless Liberal. And when’s the last time a Liberal made a threat *ANYONE* respected? LOL

            Although, I must admit, the idea of humiliating you in person DOES have some appeal. You might wet yourself on route when you finally, and for the first time, take full stock of all the assumptions you’ve made about me. Thinking about you having *that* particular panic attack warms my heart, Scott. You have no idea.
            As pain pointed out, you don’t even know my gender, Scott. LOL
            I think it’s funny you imagined me promising to leave you alone, because now that I can forever throw this “come at me bro” moment back in your face, I’m never going to leave you alone. I’m really going to enjoy watching you chase this tennis ball, Scott. In fact, I also can’t wait to tell the other bloggers about it, as well. Your credibility is worth even less than it was, yesterday, which makes me so incredibly happy.
            I feel a little guilty about living rent-free in your head, Scott. I should at least help out with the water bill — at the rate you’re producing tears of impotent rage, you need to stay hydrated. ;-)

          • Bullshit. Democrats are demonstrably better, as a whole, than the GOP. Do I really have to post the numbers again?

            And, as what’s his name points out below, we had this thing called the Civil Rights Act, and the parties switched as the GOP adopted the southern strategy.

          • “You’re upset ”

            You continue to wrongly assume what I feel. It’s really quite revealing.

            “won big in Alaska with little to no help from your team”

            Well, it didn’t win big. It won by 4.3%.

            “But I’ll do you the courtesy of not harping on your mistake.”

            I didn’t make a mistake. He IS an independent. What he was doesn’t matter anymore. Lincoln Chaffee was a Republican too, but I’m pretty sure it’d be a stretch to call him one now. These people are leaving your favorite party for a reason.

            “19% of the total Alaska electorate identify as Democrat”

            It’s like you don’t listen. Do I really have to get the multitudes of research that show that “independents” actually lean strongly one way or the other?

            “one in four voted against the cannabis measure.”

            Here we go again… Just like your bullshit on FL 2. I see that 3/4 of my people voted for legalization. What percent of your people did?

            http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/2014/AK/I1/exitpoll

            Hmmm… Looks like your favorite party has a real problem with liberty.

            I wonder, if we split out the “independent or something else” into leaners, how many of those who lean Democratic voted for liberty, and how many who lean Republican voted against it? I’m sure even you can extrapolate that simple fact. As if you care about facts.

            None-the-less:

            70% of YOUR TEAM voted AGAINST liberty.

            “partisan douche nozzles”

            Awww… what’s the matter? Upset we don’t all line up and vote for Glibertarians (Republican economics and Democratic socially)? Pissed off that your vote for the Glibertarian in Florida helped elect the more evil gubenatorial candidate down there in soon-to-disappear-under-the-sea land?

            Let’s nozzle the numbers, shall we?

            Legalization won in AK by 9624 votes. Total votes were 223982.

            19% of 223,982 is 42,557. So, 42,557 Democrats voted, and 3/4 of them voted yes, so… 31,917 or the 116803 yes votes were from Democrats, or 27%.

            It won by 9,624. Democrats provided 31,917, or over 3 times the margin of victory.

            Now, explain to me how this passes without so many Democrats voting for it? And tell me again how “with little to no help from your team” it won? With no help from my “team” it would have lost. In fact, it got almost as much help from my team as it did from the Republicans you love to defend.

            29% of the total votes were Republicans. 64,955. 29% of them voted yes. 18,836.

            So, despite having 22,398 more voters than Democrats, Republicans only provided 2% more yes votes.

            And you’re proud of this?

            No matter how you try to force that through your douche nozzle, it comes out making you look even douchier.

            “you’re also deliberately skipping the parts of my comments you don’t wish to discuss when you’re cutting and pasting things”

            Hey, you skip the parts of my comments that you don’t wish to discuss and you don’t even cut and paste! But, please, I like to address ALL your bullshit, so…

            “Alaska is a redder than red state — where 52.3% of the voters just said yes to cannabis in a MIDTERM election. Republican lawmakers are going to get on board with cannabis law reform in Alaska, or there will be blowback from the Alaska voters.”

            My god, the bullshit you spew. GO back. I NOT ONLY addressed this, I even quoted it. Alaska is redder than red, and yet this won. It won because 27% of the yes votes came from Democrats. Without those votes, it would have lost. If more Democrats had come out, say, in a Presidential election year, it would have won by even more. More than twice as many Republicans voted against it as voted for it! And this is some kind of wingnut awakening to you?

            What the results of the election of so many anti-pot Republicans (and a former Republican) tells me is that a whole bunch of Republicans voted for BOTH legal weed and leaders who oppose it.

            And to you this is a sign that the Republican voters–the redder than red voters–are going to punish anti-pot Republican politicians? You don’t think Alaskans, like most Republicans AND Glibertarians, have other issues that they care more about? They will elect anti-pot politicians, despite being pro-pot themselves, because they care more about other things. They believe lies that Democrats want to take away their guns. They believe lies that tax cuts to the rich create millions of jobs. They believe lies about reasons for starting a $2 trillion war. And those lies–believing in those lies–tells me that pot is way down their list or priorities.

            Sound familar?

            “Had cannabis failed in Alaska, you *might* have had the right to do your happy dance”

            Your lies are so tiresome. I would not have done a happy dance. I’m happy that just enough–barely enough–Republicans voted for weed. I’m just upset that it’s so far down their list of priorities that they will ALSO vote for anti-weed politicians.

            And I’m sad that people like you can’t see that this means they WILL NOT punish any Republicans who try to stop legal weed. Since many of these anti-pot politicans don’t represent the whole state, as is the case with this assymblywoman, they don’t even have to face state-wide voters. Their little pocket of hippie punchers will be enough to keep them in office where they can continue to push for prohibition, as a very large majority of their voters still prefer.

            So, see how this is wrong?

            “what Republican lawmakers in Alaska are figuring out (except Amy Demboski, obviously), is that cannabis is NOT a partisan issue.”

            70% of Republicans vote for prohibition. 75% of Democrats voted against it.

            That’s pretty damn partisan, and I’m sure plenty of Alaska politicians see what I see.

            “As if your beloved red/blue distinction meant anything when it came to cannabis legalization in Alaska — or do we need to go over the numbers in a way that’s easier for you to process? LOLOL”

            Maybe you could stop your teenage cackling (LOLOL? Really?) long enough to explain what you mean? The AK legislature, like so many others, is rigged to help elect Republicans. This is BAD news for AK… It means that they have a legislature ruled by the party who’s voters voted OVERWHELMINGLY against legalization.

            Got that? Their voters, in their districts, oppose legalization. The only reason legalization won was because in a state-wide election in a midterm, JUST ENOUGH DEMOCRATS came out to vote for the law.

            Do you really not understand that? Does your hatred for the liberals who vote for liberty burn so hot that you can’t even understand basic math?

            ” the only reason you’re trying to argue about Alaska politics is because a Republican decided to end her political career by not checking the exit polling numbers before filing this boneheaded legislation”

            Again, she represents an area that is solidly red. If she runs for mayor she may have problems with a more liberal electorate (the entire city of Anchorage). But she’s fine in her little hippie punching area. And, further, it’s possible that the voters of Anchorage will put pot so far down on their priority list that they’ll vote for her anyway.

            “apathetic Democrat Attorney General who weaves and dodges matter-of-fact questions about cannabis rescheduling”

            As much as it gets your panties in a wad, we had TWO choices for President. Do you think Willard “What’s Hemp?” Romney’s AG would have bobbed and weaved? No. He would have punched hippies as hard as he could. Just like every other Goddamn AG appointed by Republicans, like John Ashcroft putting Tommy Chong in Prison.

            As apathetic as this AG is, he has made big strides in taking the drug war away from the constant escalation preferred by the people you continue to defend.

            ” I bet you wouldn’t have one bad thing to say — in fact, you would have nothing to say, at all, would you?”

            I have plenty to say (not that being wrong every shut your trap)… I am not happy with wishy-washy centrists (although you sure are proud of yours). I AM happy that Democrats are weeding out the blue dogs, but I wish we could have a true progressive AG or President who would just reschedule. But thanks to the electoral college and the prevalence of so many Republicans in swing states, the best we can do elect moderate liberals. Democrats could use your help in nominating a real progressive, but I’m sure you think you have more important things to do, like bashing the people who vote overwhelmingly for the position you prefer.

            And this is what you get with moderate liberals. Maybe you would prefer the hippie punching Ashcroft types, judging by your constant defense of Republicans, like the lying sack Jetdoc, but moderate liberals are what you’re going to get. It’s that, or warmongering neocon prohibitionists.

            “I must wish you consolations.”

            I need your consolations like I need your bullshit.

            “No matter how butt-hurt you get”

            You seem to be obsessed with anal sex. You got something against gay people? Is that why you love Republicans so much?

            “Alaska will never bat for your team”

            Wanna bet? They do occasionally vote for Democrats, you know. In fact, their lame duck US Senator, a Democrat, had this to say about Measure 2:

            >>

            Do you support efforts to decriminalize and/or legalize marijuana?
            Begich: Has concerns but will defend Measure 2 if passed
            Sullivan: No. Opposes Measure 2

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/campus-election-engagement-project/mark-begich-vs-dan-sulliv_b_5986790.html

            <<

            So, wishy washy centrist democrat, or full-on hippie puncher… Midterm AK made their choice, HUH?

            "As bad as Republicans are, Democrats are part of the same problem."

            I find this very interesting… You admit that Republicans are "bad" (truly horrific on this issue is more like it: 70% of Republicans voted for prohibition) and then you admit that Democrats are just part of the problem. Since 75% of Democrats voted against prohibition, I'd say we're a SMALL of the problem, and a BIG part of the solution.

            Of course, this is the same thing I keep saying, over and over again, and you REFUSE to listen, as I'm sure you will again.

            And you'll accuse me of that which you do.

            Because you don't give a shit about facts. You hate liberals for some reason… Gay sex disgusts you maybe? You like to violate my 2nd amendment right to regulate the militia well? Maybe you hate the small part of the budget that goes to feed poor kids? Who knows? But whatever it is, it drives you to make the kind of political analysis that would make Chuck Todd proud. It drives you to defend those on the right with whom you apparently share so much.

            "I'm very glad such a large chunk of Alaska feels the same way I do, and not just because it drives you up the wall (that's just a bonus)."

            Your self-aggrandization is a thing to behold. I've been physically attacked by warmongers while protesting the Iraq war. I've been sucker punched by people who didn't like my bumper stickers. I've had dead animals left on my doorstep and hung from my trees by wingnuts who hated my activism. I assure you that there is nothing you with your bad math and shoddy reasoning could possibly do to me that affects me beyond annoyance of the lost time I spend to reply to you.

            But your continued replies to me after saying you would never talk to me again shows me that I have definitely put a big dent in your dome of self-rigtheous bullshit..

      • skoallio

        This isnt a Democrat vs Republican thing. Its the politicians of both parties who are against marijuana vs over half of the constituents that support it.

        • wowFAD

          No, it certainly is not a Democrat vs Republican thing, as demonstrated by Alaska’s exit polling. Only 19% of the voters who turned up at the ballot box identified as Democrat, and yet recreational cannabis passed with 52.3% of the total Alaska electorate voting in favor.

          52% of the Alaska voters identified as “independent or other” instead of R or D, btw.

          That’s why Scott, our resident cheerleader for the blue team, is so upset — because cannabis legalization in Alaska passed *despite* Democrats staying home in record numbers.

          Instead of saying the objectively true thing, which is “That Republican just committed political suicide,” Scott automatically assumed every Republican elected to office in Alaska is going to side with Amy Demboski and go against the will of 52.3% of a MIDTERM electorate, which is asinine. Just because Amy Demboski didn’t check the exit polling doesn’t mean her colleagues in the legislature won’t.

          • “Only 19% of the voters who turned up at the ballot box identified as Democrat,”

            Again, so-called independents usually lean one way or the other, and quite strongly. Do you need me to get you the evidence for that?

            “That’s why Scott, our resident cheerleader for the blue team, is so upset — because cannabis legalization in Alaska passed *despite* Democrats staying home in record numbers.”

            You sure do lie about me a lot… I’m upset that some wingnut Republican is going to try to thwart the will of the voters who showed up to vote for legal weed while also voting for right wing nut jobs who will try to stop the legal weed.

            Can’t just vote for legal weed, folks. You have to vote for politicians who agree with you. Or you wind up with crap like this.

            “Instead of saying the objectively true thing, which is “That Republican just committed political suicide,” Scott automatically assumed every Republican elected to office in Alaska is going to side with Amy Demboski and go against the will of 52.3% of a MIDTERM electorate, which is asinine.”

            Well, that’s quite a mouthful coming from a guy who said AK is “reder than red.” What happened is that we just saw that a great many Alaskans are perfectly fine with voting for legalizing weed while ALSO voting for people who oppose it. What part of that makes you think opposing legalization is political suicide?

            HUH?

            Come on, I’m sure you can figure it out if you try… if you care about facts… if you’re anything more than a sorry ass troll…

            “Just because Amy Demboski didn’t check the exit polling doesn’t mean her colleagues in the legislature won’t.”

            My mistake was pointed out by FarmindaleRes above. She’s in the Anchorage Assembly. I was unaware they called the equivalent of a city council an “assembly.” And I provided a link above that shows that conservatives are just barely in control of the Anchorage City Assembly. So, the question now is, can she get enough of her colleagues to vote against weed… since they all just found out at the polls that opposing legalization WILL NOT cost you your seat, they feel free to go about opposing it. And since the conservatives there on the city Assembly come from conservative districts and are elected by comfortable margins of hippie punching anti-weed Fox News viewers, they probably won’t face any kind of blow back for continuing to oppose legalization.

            You got that?

            Now, I’ll ask you again… What are you going to say if we find out that this woman did NOT commit political suicide? Will you admit you were wrong? Somehow, I doubt it…

            http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7929.html

            “…bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner’s capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”

          • wowFAD

            LOL — yep, nothing you said contradicted that whopping 19%, huh? Nope, all you can do is hope and pray Republicans in Alaska support Amy Demboski’s bill while you point out logical tautologies. You mean people who you’ve put on a dipolar scale can only lean in two directions? You don’t say! LOLOL You could have said “Republicans are Republicans, so Republicans are necessarily Republican” and conveyed more meaning.

            You’ve done nothing to support your premise that Alaskan Republican lawmakers are going to unite against 52.3% of the electorate from a MIDTERM election in which Democrats had a paltry 19% showing. In fact, you’ve done nothing except acknowledge my point — simply saying *something* doesn’t qualify as a rebuttal. For your prophecy of doom to be remotely credible, you need to say something less circular than Republicans will be jerks because they’re Republicans, and cite some plausible line of thought that would prompt a united Republican front against cannabis legalization in Alaska, other than “They’re Republicans,” given the exit polling from this election.
            You could have done a search for every Republican elected in Alaska to see if each and every single one of them spoke out against cannabis, but that would be too much work. Why bother coming up with a sound, valid argument when you can just keep insisting “But they’re Republicans!!!” Or you could look into FEC records for contributions from known cannabis opponents to Alaskan Republicans. There are many things you could do to support your premise, Scott — saying it over and over, but worded differently, adds zero new information.
            But you won’t. Because you can’t. I don’t believe you’re capable of being anything other than a partisan hack. Why would you bother with something as negligibly important as due diligence when it’s so much easier to make broad assumptions and hope for the worst?

            And that, Scott, is what makes it so clear to everyone that you could care less about cannabis reform. You simply wish to control the dialogue about who has been standing in its way so that you can elect more useless Democrats, which is why I’m smiling so wide. Because if that’s your mission, you’re certainly wasting your time doing so with ALASKA state politics as the subject.
            Recreational cannabis passed in Alaska with 52.3% support, of which Democrats were a significant MINORITY, which renders your self-righteous mission to sell cannabis advocates on Democrats ultimately moot, as far as Alaska is concerned. The majority of the support for cannabis in Alaska came from voters who think Democrats can go pound sand, and no amount of pouting will change that.
            Just to once again hammer another nail into this coffin for you, cannabis reform is not a partisan issue, and I couldn’t be happier. Alaska is proof Democrats won’t win anymore elections by teasing an end to the drug war, ever again. Which pleases me, as a former Democrat apologist, myself. You can’t imagine how freeing it is to stop making excuses for wimpy Democrats. It’s liberating.

          • Democrats won’t win anymore elections by teasing an end to the drug war, ever again.

            ^^^ This ^^^

            President “I inhaled, that was the point” has been a HUGE disappointment to me. I expected it in most realms. But cannabis?

            And up coming we have Mrs. “There is too much money in it.” Feh.

            I like Rand Paul and Justin Amash.

          • David

            More people see thru Paul’s Far-Right wing anti-environmental/ anti-Civil Rights masquerade daily. Modern libertarianism is nothing more than just another species of angry hard right-wing, government hating Republican. Plus, after what they say about our current fine President, and previously, the Clinton’s, I want to know if / when Paul knew that his Father was (allegedly) skimming millions of dollars in campaign contributions. I hope, even given modern America’s consolidated Right-wing corporate media machine that the truth will soon be revealed.

          • What the hell does this even mean?

            “Democrats won’t win anymore elections by teasing an end to the drug war, ever again.”

            No elections? Anywhere? Ever?

            What is with glibertarians and their tendency for hyperbole?

            Blue dog Democrats are dying off. But they’re not dead. They will continue to occasionally win here and there, and some of them will probably win by “teasing” an end to the drug war.

            But the sentence is complex in it’s bullshittyness. It’s obviously false on it’s face. But what does it really say? That only Democrats who come right out and say they want legalization will win? That’s funny. Or will only Democrats who come out AGAINST legalization win?

            Only those who “tease” will lose… And what do you do to women who tease? Assuming you’re a man, of course.

            I wonder what “tease” will mean in the future when someone who obviously teased on the drug war wins an election?

            And what about Republicans who tease? Will they ever win again? Isn’t what Rand Paul does “teasing”? Isn’t what Amash does “teasing”?

            Neither one of whom will win the GOP nomination…

            But, I think it’s interesting that you support Paul, who would allow individual states to continue prohibition, and Amash… who… well… what? He voted the right way on two bills that are essentially just state’s rights votes. Where is he on federal scheduling? And if I’m wrong about Paul, please, tell me. What, specifically, has Rand Paul said about scheduling?

            The way we elect Presidents in this country, there is no way ANYONE who ever dreamed of becoming President will come right out and answer that question yet. Not even Bernie Sanders will give a straight answer on it. You know why? Because Republicans have been beating Democrats over their head with the “law and order” crap for decades. You think I just made up the phrase punching hippies? There’s a whole history, there, you know…

            If we elected Presidents by popular vote, then you bet they’d come out for rescheduling. Or, at least the Democrat would. But with this remnant from the slave days? No way.

          • David

            Alaska is not a very good barometer for comparison to the lower 48 politically.

          • wowFAD

            Maybe not for New York, California, or any other prototypically “liberal” state, but Alaska is a good barometer for states like North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, the Dakotas, etc… Places where Democrats don’t reign supreme, and for a variety of reasons, never will. On this blog, there is only one issue, which is reforming our cannabis laws — nobody who cares about this issue should be Ok with Scott’s attitude.

            The moment we draw partisan battle lines, we’ll be extending cannabis prohibition and the drug war at large indefinitely into the future. Democrats and Republicans will tease out the issue for years and years, polarizing their respective bases, making D’s and R’s both as rabid as Scott in their opposition — not their opposition of *the issue*, just their opposition to EACH OTHER.

            Democrats will be use the slow-drip method to bait their sheople, they’ll hint around rescheduling, they’ll drop little marshmallows of hope into our morning cereal (just fluffy, empty calories) for as long as we let them do it. As long as prohibition stands, I’m confident Democrats will milk it for all the political capital it’s worth. And as long as people like Scott are around, the tactic will work. Meanwhile, Republicans will avoid choosing between their fiscal and social ideologies, safe in the knowledge that Democrats will never dislodge their fence posts, either.

            I can’t name one issue in the last 30 years that was *helped* along by partisan bickering. Polarizing the issue is the fastest way to lose a lot of hard-won support — support Scott is determined to ignore and discredit at every turn, which is fantastically selfish and short-sighted, in my opinion. The states I listed, above, will never see cannabis legalized (like Alaska) if Scott has his way, and since I live in one of those states, I’m resolved to make sure he doesn’t.

          • David

            Large urban center’s as found in the lower 48 tend to vote Democrat. Large empty landscapes where cow’s, alligator’s, and haystack’s outnumber people tend to vote Republican. Again, I consider Alaska to be a poor political barometer for the lower 48.

          • wowFAD

            Anchorage is more aptly compared and contrasted to Atlanta, not Seattle, given the folks who live there. My family was stationed at Elmendorf, and I live in Georgia, now. I’ve had first-hand experience with both cities, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, making cannabis an issue inextricably linked to Democrats will set back cannabis law reform by decades for people who don’t have the good fortune to live in Seattle. Scott’s approach will erode support for cannabis law reform among non-Democrats who disapprove of fence-sitters hedging their bets on the outcome, who only act in their political interests.

            Consider how any given lawmaker would weigh these statements:
            “Democrats want cannabis legalized.”
            “Republicans want cannabis legalized.”
            OR…
            “America wants cannabis legalized.”

            I know which one carries the most weight, and it’s not the first one or the second. And thanks to what we saw in Alaska, we can make a strong case for the third sentence, *anywhere*. Not just in urban centers.

          • David

            Wow. I was born at Elmendorf. At least that’s what my birth-certificate say’s. Small world. I agree that Atlanta would not be politically comparable to Seattle, nor most other large West coast urban area’s I have close family members living in Atlanta. It’s a nice place to visit, but brother am I ever glad to get back to the Great North West before too long. I also have family living in Romandie (French speaking Western Switzerland). I’m very fortunate as i get to travel there regularly. I must say, however, being a country which really must run by consensus as does Suisse, when I return to the U.S. it seems very badly broken in so many ways. The good news is they always love seeing their American cousin.

          • wowFAD

            No kidding! I haven’t been back in forever. I heard some dingbat commander arbitrarily renamed all the streets and roads on base, just for the fun of it, and nobody could find their way around, anymore. I’d hoped my sister and her family might migrate that way — she had a lot of friends, there — but they ended up settling down in Florida near her husband’s family. And yes, I made sure they supported Amendment 2. ;-)

          • David

            Cool! I haven’t returned in many years either. I don’t like extreme cold. Seattle’s weather suits me just fine. I was hoping Florida would pass A-2 also. I have another brother living in West Palm. I’d like to visit more but man it’s a long flight from Seattle. I can literally visit my cousins in Switzerland in about the same time i would arrive in Florida. Living in Seattle, I can hop on a plane to Hawaii, take a nap, watch a movie and land in Honolulu in 5 hours or less. It’s a nice perk of living here.

        • David

          Republican voter’s currently poll around 40% for legalization, Democrat’s around 70%. There’s obviously a huge difference between America’s two mainstream political parties regarding cannabis freedom.

          • What is wrong with 30% of the Democrats?

          • painkills2

            Fear. And a lack of shame.

          • What’s wrong with 60% of Republicans.

          • David

            Science has proved that at least some modern humans carry Neanderthal genes. It does make one wonder doesn’t it ?

          • David

            That 30% just needs enlightenment and support. I’ve given up on Republican’s. They’re a lost cause.

          • Jetdoc

            Where is this poll taken? Cuz that’s NOT national!

          • It’s PEW. It’s National. I posted the link to it when I proved you were a liar for saying a majority of Republicans now support legalization.

            http://www.people-press.org/2014/04/02/section-2-views-of-marijuana-legalization-decriminalization-concerns/

          • Jetdoc

            Anybody can CUT & PASTE! That’s all you DO! But THIS says you’re a LIAR! And MY research was later than yours!

            http://marijuana.com/news/2014/07/poll-majority-of-republicans-now-support-marijuana-legalization/

            Don’t EVEN respond cuz I’m once again THROUGH with you!

          • wowFAD

            Naw, we should keep him around as long as we can. Liberal trolls are a rare breed, and I’m learning a lot about how people like Scott justify their actions (it’s pride, mostly).

          • “we should keep him around”

            You really think that’s up to you? And you were talking about my ego?

            “it’s pride, mostly”

            >>

            91% of Dems voted for keeping the DEA out of medicinal programs, only 22% of Republicans did.

            94% of Democrats voted to keep the feds out of pot banking, only 20% of Republicans did.

            <<

            Hey, whadya know! You got lucky; I am proud of that.

            Now, how many Glibertarians voted the right way on this… Oh, wait… There are NO Glibertarians in the US House.

          • Dar Dedar

            Scott kicking rightwing butt again I see.

          • wowFAD

            Nope, Scott’s arbitrarily labeling people “rightwing” so that he can be a partisan hack. He’s throwing a verbal temper-tantrum because Alaska passed recreational cannabis with almost no help from Democrats. Personally, I think it’s selfish for him to wish ill upon Alaska just so he has something to blame on Republicans. 52.3% of a midterm electorate passed the measure, while only 19% of the people who showed up to vote in Alaska identified as “Democrat.” These are facts Scott is desperate to ignore, because it discredits his blind assertion that legalization can *only* come from the left.

            If you really want to tell him he’s kicking butt while I’m manipulating his every action, that’s Ok. It’ll keep him coming back for more.

          • Dar Dedar

            If you’re too dense to see when Scott has taken you to the woodshed on the specifics of this matter, with chapter and verse, then you can’t be helped.
            What you smok’in dude?

          • wowFAD

            Please, by all means, share those specifics with me. And as always, remember we’re talking about Alaska. Scott’s assertion that cannabis legalization can’t happen without Democrats/Progressives was proven patently false by Alaska’s exit polling.

            All Scott can do is *attempt* to divert the conversation to national politics, at large, going so far as to try changing the subject to *clearly* partisan matters, like gun laws, abortion, even the Patriot Act. He brought up the Patriot Act on the Weed Blog, on an article about an obscure Alaska Republican who has precisely no relationship to the Patriot Act.

            In fact, the way he’s been labeling anyone who disagrees with him as a “nut job” undermines his credibility better than any of the objectively true, empirically verifiable, *topically relevant* facts he’s been running scared from throughout this conversation. He’ll do *anything* to avoid discussing how recreational cannabis became legal in Alaska, which is why he keeps trying to change the subject to *any* other issue.

            There’s no way he can refute the fact that recreational cannabis became legal in Alaska with almost no help from Democrats/Progressives. BTW, saying so does not make me a conservative or a Republican — you see, Scott needs to believe that’s who/what I am so that he can continue his straw man. He plucked that conclusion from a pile of assumptions he made about me, simply because I didn’t dance to the music he was playing. Mischaracterizing an argument (and/or your opponent) is yet another recourse of a weak mind defending a weak position.

            It’s why I stopped being a Democrat apologist, a while ago — the intellectual contortionism I had to do to justify all the broken/empty promises from spineless Democrats was too much. It’s why Scott didn’t bother making a single comment on the most recent article about Eric Holder. He can’t blame Holder’s inaction on Republicans, no matter how hard he tries, which is why Scott neglected that comment thread, entirely.

            This thread, however — a lone Republican doing something stupid? Of course he’s all over this one. Getting his partisan jollies on this thread allows him to ignore Eric Holder, guilt-free. Acknowledging reality would tarnish the rosy image of Democrats Scott’s been fabricating on the blog for several months.

            But to be honest, the reason Scott is here is because of me. Contrary to your opinion, this will be the fourth or fifth time I’ve chided Scott for attempting to selfishly polarize the cannabis issue. He’s been trying for months, and I’ve shut him down each time. Every single time, he’s tried changing the subject, hoping I’d chase him down the partisan rabbit hole. But I never have. He’s never successfully gotten me to tell him how I feel about *any* issue other than cannabis, and he never will. It’s not because I don’t have a stance on those issues. It’s not even because I feel as if I cannot defend my stance on those issues. It’s because the discussion of those issues doesn’t belong here. It’s because Democrats and Republicans, alike want us chasing our own tails, round and round, endlessly bickering, muddled over dozens of unrelated issues. It’s all so that we stay at *each other’s* throats, and never actually hold our lawmakers responsible. There are no rewards for playing Scott’s partisan game, and doing so makes ending cannabis prohibition harder and harder to accomplish.

            Notice how I never once tried defending the actions of Amy Demboski (or any other Republican lawmaker), and yet he’s been following me around trying to pick a fight with me. Trust me, he’s not concerned with cannabis, Alaska, or Amy Demboski’s proposed ban — skim his comments and see how often he *actually* discusses the topic of this article, compare that to all the partisan tangents he’s *tried* baiting me with, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

            Alaska’s exit polling shows conclusively that Scott is wrong, which is why that information never makes it through Scott’s selective attention when he’s choosing what to cut and paste for his responses. He can’t win on topic, he can’t bait me into a tangent, and no matter how many names he calls me, I won’t go away. I have complete control over his actions — he cannot help himself — I just don’t see how the old woodshed metaphor applies, here.

          • Dar Dedar

            Not a topic of interest to me. As you were. But I do know a good spanking when I see one.

          • wowFAD

            Then you’re in the wrong place, my friend. I’ll go ahead and consider your “wood shed” metaphor dismissed, if you do not wish to defend it.

          • Dar Dedar

            You really shouldn’t take your shellacking so hard. It’s not that big of a deal. Next time just take more care to get the details straight. You know, like Scott does.

          • wowFAD

            LOL — nice try.

          • Oh, Dar… you know he doesn’t care about the details.

          • Dar Dedar

            Which is why he gets taken to the woodshed.

          • psi2u2

            While your numbers clearly make the point that nationally most Republicans — both in and out of office — are still in the dark ages on this topic, imho ALL of us should be encouraging this to change by searching for common ground on this issue. Its disappointing to read so much intolerant ranting here from both sides of the political aisle. I salute Alaskans of any political party or none at all who saw the wisdom of ending prohibition.

          • “encouraging this to change by searching for common ground on this issue”

            And how, exactly, do we do that? There is no common ground with Republicans on this issue. There are a handful of Republicans who will vote with Democrats on this, and that’s it. A small handful. We can work with them, but what is the common ground with the rest of them?

            There is none.

            “Its disappointing to read so much intolerant ranting here from both sides of the political aisle.”

            The ranting being done here is by a progressive democrat and a Glibertarian troll. And since your first premise, that we should find common ground, is impossible with the Republicans this Glibertarian troll loves to defend, then I’d like to know what your plan B is?

            I have a suggestion. Want to teach prohibitionist Republican authoritarians a lesson on civil liberties? Vote for the people who will protect your civil liberties. Republicans lose a few races over this issue, they’ll come around.

            But people like wowFAD and Jetdoc won’t do that. They have other issues that are more important to them than prohibition.

            “I salute Alaskans of any political party or none at all who saw the wisdom of ending prohibition.”

            So do I. I just wish so many of them hadn’t also voted for prohibitionists.

          • psi2u2

            I would start by considering that one does not have to like the overall political philosophy of another person, or even a group, and still hold a conversation about a topic of possible mutual interest. I am, and basically always have been, a proud liberal on most topics.Liberal is a good word — conservatives should recognize its affinity with something they like to talk about a lot: liberty.

            By the same token, conservative does not have to mean blow up the middle east for oil in the Bush family MO. There’s also Ron Paul, who you have to admit, whether you agree or disagree with any of his particular positions, has more sense of conscience in his pinky finger than the rest of the Republicans in both Houses have put together. The Democrats do somewhat better, but in this corrupt system of ours, based on the nonsensical belief that corporations are individuals and money is speech, it is hard for any politician to maintain the level of ethics the people would like from their representatives.

            Let me put it to you another way. regardless of how you count the ratios, and you are correct that at this point in time the overwhelming strength of the battle to end cannabis prohibition comes from classical liberals and the left, none of the recent elections could have been won, could they, without a modest but essential number of votes from the libertarian right? I don’t think they could have been won without that, do you agree? If that formula was a little different in Alaska, with a higher percentage of Republicans and conservative voters supporting legalization, that’s cool with me. I just think it might be a good idea to look at the problem from a perspective larger than what did or did not happen in Alaska. Most places in the country the Democrats and the left are way more influential *at this point in time.* But the movement as a whole should, in my opinion, welcome anyone who shares a desire to end cannabis prohibition and do its best to avoid letting other disagreements interfere with the common interest of ending prohibition.

            That being the case, all I am trying to say is that it behooves us to consider that from one point of view ending cannabis prohibition is just being a good neighbor, and that we should always try to respect the opinions of those with whom we can work. Neighbors don’t have to vote for the same candidates or belong to the same party to be good ones. That doesn’t mean one has to agree with them, just that in the interest of a common commitment to ending prohibition we should be able to suspend our differences long enough to work together for something that all of us want. If we cannot do that, then the only thing it is harming is the cause of ending prohibition.

            “So do I. I just wish so many of them hadn’t also voted for prohibitionists.”

            I agree with you about that. I was not personally happy with the outcome of the election, since what i saw being elected, in too many cases, was the face of xenophobia and dubious public ethics, you might call it the Sarah Palin factor. O wait, she’s for legalizing cannabis too. I guess that disproves my theory that Pot can make you smarter. ;)

          • David

            Actually, it’s understanding common sense, mostly.

          • wowFAD

            Common sense drove Scott to bring up abortion, gun laws, and the Patriot Act on the weed blog? Common sense says those subjects belong elsewhere.

          • David

            With all due respect, although we often agree with one another politically, I am not Scott. Thanks.

          • wowFAD

            Thank you for the courtesy. You and I probably agree on a great many separate issues, as well. However, with equal respect, discussions about any issue *other* than cannabis law reform don’t belong here. People with blatantly partisan agendas who monkey-bar from one issue to another don’t belong here, either — that’s why I don’t allow Scott to get away with it. I’m sorry you don’t see how selfish and counterproductive it is to make cannabis just another partisan chew toy; just another interchangeable talking point to be used in stump speeches by unscrupulous people who simply want to manipulate how we vote.

            Legalization in Alaska would not have happened if this were truly a partisan issue. Those of us who can see the forest for the trees understand this truth.

          • David

            yes, thanks, I’m sure we would agree on many things non political too. And your point is well taken. however, if cannabis were not such a hot button political issue it most likely would have been legalized nationally or, at least at the state level in the remaining forty-six states where it remains illegal. I don’t try to change anyone’s mind. I simply know where i stand politically and who I prefer to run things in the other Washington. I wish cannabis were legal everywhere and legalization happened many years ago. However, in the Deep South for instance the politic’s of even passing medical marijuana for sick people has been turned into the a galvanizing political issue. Here’s an example which i posted earlier today, regarding NJ Gov. Chris Christie’s recent comments on medical marijuana. Try to see if you can find a path between his political views where it actually makes any sense:

            “See this is what happens. Every time you sign one expansion, then the advocates will come back and ask for another one. Here’s what the advocates want: They want legalization of marijuana in New Jersey. It will not happen on my watch, ever. I am done expanding the medical marijuana program under any circumstances. So we’re done.

            “There’s no outpouring of people signing up for this program. This is another one of those narrow group-think policies put forward by the Legislature and I’m not going to continue to expand it. Because what they want is legalization. They’re not getting legalization under this governor.”

            Thanks have a nice holiday.

          • Oh, gee, wowFad, looks like you +1’d some grade A bullshit here…

            “Don’t EVEN respond cuz I’m once aga in THROUGH with you!”

            You don’t see the irony there? You can’t even be right about what you say you will do.

            What it says to those of us reading without rose colored glasses on, is that a majority of Republicans support COLORADO’s legalization.

            Here’s the money quote:

            “…68% of Democrats, 60% of independents, and 52% of Republicans support Colorado’s push in legalizing cannabis.”

            Got that?

            That means the headline “Poll: Majority of Republicans Now Support Marijuana Legalization” left off an important couple of words that you’d have to read the whole story to get… you know, “in Colorado.”

            Very next sentence…

            “A more general question on legalization was also included, “Do you think the use of marijuana should be legalized?” A majority, 51%, agreed with legalizing the use of cannabis while only 27% of respondents were against it.”

            Do you know what that means? Well, since the story to which you linked doesn’t tell us, we have to actually follow the link and, you know, do some research. But even without following the link, we’d know immediately that with only 51% approval, if a majority of Republicans was for legalization, as you say, then a majority of non-conservatives would have to be against it… Now, what are the odds of that?

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/15/marijuana-poll_n_5588147.html

            > Even Republicans Support Colorado’s Marijuana Legalization Law

            (See how the HuffPo gets the headline right?)

            > Support for the Colorado law crosses party lines despite the fact that a political divide appeared in response to a more general legalization question: “Do you think the use of marijuana should be legalized?” In response to that question, 51 percent of Americans said they think marijuana should be legal, while 37 percent said it should not be legalized. Sixty-two percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents, but only 36 percent of Republicans, said marijuana should be legalized.

            So, the poll you said proved I was a liar actually supports my assertion that a majority of REPUBLICANS DO NOT SUPPORT LEGALIZATION.

            Maybe you should check your facts next time you decide to not depend on wowFAD to defend you.

            But wait! Don’t run away yet! I’ve got more!

            “sample size for the poll was 1,000 of YouGov’s opt-in online panel”

            Yeah, big problems with opt-in surveys:

            http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/study-finds-trouble-for-internet-surveys/

            Go on… read it. Opt in surveys are crap.

            And there’s even more, more recent (Nov. 6, 2014) information than your pitiful attempt at proving I lied.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/06/marijuana-legalization_n_6118050.html

            > Gallup found high levels of support among liberals (73 percent) and moderate support among moderates (58 percent), but only 31 percent of conservatives surveyed think marijuana should be legal.

            So, let me help you out… 31% is not a majority of Republicans. You wrongly quoted a crappy opt-in poll that you got wrong by not actually reading what the article said. Further, this article clearly states that only 36% of Republicans are for legalization. AND, I have provided an even more recent poll (not opt in… you know, a quality poll from Gallup no-less) that shows only 31% of Republicans support legalization.

            But wait, we’re equating conservatives and Republicans here… I suppose there’s a differnce, considering how few people are willing to label themselves a Republican these days…

            So, let’s go to the Gallup poll and actually see if, as you say, a majority of Republicans actually support legalization…

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/179195/majority-continues-support-pot-legalization.aspx

            > This pattern is echoed in the results by party ID, with the same implications about the outlook for marijuana legalization being tied to a state’s partisan makeup. Currently, 64% of Americans who identify as or lean Democratic side with legalization, compared with 39% of Republicans.

            Gee… I keep trying to help you out, and you keep rolling snake eyes.

            Oh, I know… maybe the margin of error will help you out…

            “the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.”

            Nope, sorry. Even in a best case scenario, the best you can get is 43%. Not a majority.

            Now crawl back in your hole.

          • wowFAD

            What I find hilarious is that you care more about my +1 than replying to the person who actually commented. I’m living rent-free in your head, Scott.

            No wonder you blindly vote Democrat, given how easily manipulated you are. Dance, Progressive! Dance! LOL

          • David

            The latest Gallup Poll. I pulled it the from Forbe’s web-site. The latest number’s have changed (dropped) somewhat but still reflect overall national trends 65% Democrats vs. 35% for Republicans: you can read the entire Gallup poll here:

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/22/gallup-poll-finds-58-of-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana/

          • psi2u2

            My clear impression is that those numbers are reasonably close to the national figures.

    • David

      As a native born Alaskan I couldn’t agree more. Call them out!

    • FarmindaleRes

      its an ordinance by the city not a bill by the governor the balance of the legislature is irrelevant

  • wowFAD

    This is where local activism can really shine.

    Amy Demboski has thrown her hat into the Anchorage mayoral race, coming up in April. While she represents the area NE of Anchorage (the Chugiak/Eagle River area, where only ~31,000 people live), Anchorage at large has a population of almost 400k.

    The total population of Alaska is only 735k, which means the majority of Alaska residents live in Anchorage. All local activists have to do is ensure everyone knows she opposes cannabis legalization, and ensure the same people who voted for legalization show up to oppose her in April. Alaska’s lawmakers will get the point.

    Alaska has always been a rollercoaster of decriminalization since the 1970s. Voters are tired of it, which is why legalization garnered 52.3% support. Alaska has already made its choice, and I am confident Alaska won’t let Amy Demboski oppose it.

    • The Mayor of Anchorage is a Republican, the other Dan Sullivan, who regularly crushed his opponents. If Demboski makes it to the runoff, she’ll probably become mayor, They’re redder than red up there, remember?

      If the people of Alaska decide they want to punish the Republicans (and right wing independents) who oppose their will on reform, then they really only have one–gasp!–alternative. They can find a pro-reform Democrat (after all, they’re easier to find than the Republican kind, as I have shown countless times here) and vote for them.

      • wowFAD

        Sadly, the people in Alaska will never start lapping up the lukewarm partisan gruel you serve, Scott. 52% of the Alaskan electorate identify as “Independent” because they think reducing how we select our lawmakers to a sporting event is the recourse of selfish egomaniacs who don’t really care about how (or if) the government functions.

        I tip my hat to 52% of the Alaskan electorate, because without them, recreational cannabis would not have passed. In fact, I’d like to apologize to them for your crass partisan hackery, Scott. We all know it’s just because you’re still butt-hurt after your team lost some fairly large stakes in this past election.

        We get it. You’re upset the blue team lost. But there’s no reason for you to take it out on the voters in Alaska by forecasting doom and gloom for their legalization initiative — that PASSED.

        That’s why your partisan hackery is so obnoxious, Scott — even when something good happens, you can’t help but try to make people anxious *just* so you can tell them who’s to blame.

        Unless of course the person to blame is NOT a Republican. Then, you’re nowhere to be found.

        • “Sadly, the people in Alaska will never start lapping up the lukewarm partisan gruel you serve”

          The fact that you still have to make shit up about me in order to argue with me is quite telling.

          What I serve is facts. The facts I serve are designed to let people know–something you prefer they don’t–that they have a MUCH BETTER CHANCE of getting marijuana reform if they vote for progressive democrats. Next best chance is blue dogs democrats, who are, thankfully, fading away. And the last best chance is Glibertarian leaning Republicans, if you’re lucky enough to be able to vote for the roughly 20% of the GOP that is Glibertarian.

          Or, they can vote for the Glibertarian candidate, like more than enough did in FL to insure that the man running for governor who was against medicinal won. Hope you’re proud of yourself.

          “Scott. 52% of the Alaskan electorate identify as “Independent” because they think reducing how we select our lawmakers to a sporting event is the recourse of selfish egomaniacs who don’t really care about how (or if) the government functions. ”

          Just because you don’t like what the government gets done under liberals doesn’t mean it doesn’t get done. Same with Republicans. I don’t like what they get done… Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich that didn’t jump start the economy as advertised… hell, look at Kansas. The GOP got some stuff done there, HUH?

          But the fact is that most people who describe themselves as “independent” actually lean one way or the other. A whole lot of the new “independents” are just Republicans so embarrassed by Bush that they don’t want to identify as Republicans anymore.

          But they sure still vote that way, HUH?

          “I tip my hat to 52% of the Alaskan electorate, because without them, recreational cannabis would not have passed.”

          I tip my hat to all the people–liberal, conservative, wingnut Glibs, independents, ALL of them. Since the vote was close, they needed every single person who voted for it.

          “In fact, I’d like to apologize to them for your crass partisan hackery, Scott.”

          No need to apologize for me telling people which party OVERWHELMINGLY supports reform. Or, which party–the one you love to defend so much although you won’t admit you vote for them–doesn’t.

          “because you’re still butt-hurt after your team lost some fairly large stakes ”

          My “team” lost what? Now my “team” gets to fillibuster instead of your team? Yeah, big freaking differnce there, wow… whatever your name is.

          I’m actually quite happy with the election. Weed won, minimum wage won… Now in 2016, the GOP has to defend a lot of turf in a Presidential year when my people actually show up and vote. Can’t wait to watch you whine about that.

          “But there’s no reason for you to take it out on the voters in Alaska.”

          What am I taking out on them? Something you made up about me? I congratulate Alaskans, and I hope they show up to defeat any politicians that want to stop legalization there. That would mean, of course, that they have to vote for Democrats. I know that pisses you off, since you hate them and love Republicans so much… but the facts are the facts and it’s a tough world out there for a Glib Pimp, huh?

          “forecasting doom and gloom for their legalization initiative”

          It’s not hard to forcast that Republicans will try to stop the will of the people, especially when it comes to weed. Punching hippies is what they do.

          “That’s why your partisan hackery is so obnoxious, Scott — even when something good happens, you can’t help but try to make people anxious *just* so you can tell them who’s to blame.”

          I’m not making them anxious. This anti-weed Republican is. I’m just pointing out that when you elect anti-pot politicians to oversee the legalization of weed, don’t expect it to go smoothly. No matter which party the anti-weed politician comes from. Although, we know the odds are that they’re Republicans.

          “Unless of course the person to blame is NOT a Republican. Then, you’re nowhere to be found.”

          Wrong again. I am happy that anti-pot blue dogs lost. My party is becoming more progressive, which means even more people who are for reform, and less who aren’t. Meanwhile, the GOP is moving to the right. This makes me happy because in the future, this means we’ll have even more clear choices. Especially on personal liberty issues like marijuana.

          But then, you don’t care about facts… You’re just a bitter old wingnut who really likes Republicans except for this issue. You have to lie and bullshit to have someone to argue with. You defend the GOP every chance you get. You just can’t stand the true libertarians in this country, the ones who consistently and overwhelmingly vote the right way on issues you portend to care about.

          I wonder how people get by with that kind of cognitive dissonance going on in their heads….

          Like poor little Jetdoc, who’s been beaten down so far that he can’t even defend himself (after lying about the majority of Republicans being for reform)… all he can do is click the little up button on his hero’s comments–his hero who supposedly doesn’t like his authoritarian party.

      • Here is the cure.

        Cannabis cures cancer. Cancer kills 586,000 Americans every year. Every Prohibitionist is complicit in mass murder.

        Pass it on.

  • mark_lee481 BSHA

    Of all the opponents of legalization there are many more proponents. This is a lesson I just learned a couple days ago as I discovered city councilpersons that are seeking to decriminalize cannabis use. This is the very reason we must say no to a C-II status. We would seriously rue the day we stooped to that tactic toward legalization. It would be in the same category as cocaine, and honestly, when was the last time you saw a prescription for “crack cocaine.” It never happens as it is only used in certain nasal and optic surgeries. If we stick to a city-by-city method in hard to convince states, eventually the rest will come around. Cedar Falls/Waterloo will be Iowa’s first. So to exclude a city (the major city) from a state regulation will carry about as much weight as a gnat. Especially with major start-ups setting up shop!!! Amy will be voted off the city council by a wide margin.

  • mike1188

    Typical B.S

  • skoallio

    If Alaskas largest city wont allow pot shops, where are they gonna put it? This is like Denver, CO banning pot shops.

  • ted mishler

    so have a cannabis friendly assemblyperson prepare an ordinance to ban all assemblypeople opposed to the will of the voters, and if they do not cease, that very large fines be levied against the tyrants
    move counter move
    they take one step in the wrong direction, take three steps in the right

    • ted mishler

      as i sit here, in this apartment, that is supposed to be smoke free, i can distinctly smell tobacco in the air, changing the subject
      i dont want that crap in my brain
      if i were only under that bridge in denver, i’d be cold, and hungry, and yet, i would have clean air, well, the air didnt smell that clean due to the water treatment plant nearby, but it smelt cleaner than this, and it is legal,

  • Dave Guinn

    What our assemblyman fails to grasp is that marijuana has been sold in Anchorage, is being sold in Anchorage, and will be sold in Anchorage. The only real choice is between regulated and unregulated sales.

    Marijuana got more votes in Alaska than any candidate for statewide or federal office. It’s time we mind our own business and let these people manage their own private lives. This is Alaska, where we should be walking the freedom talk.

    • David

      My twin brother and I are native Alaskan’s (Born in Anchorage). We’re curious, are there medical marijuana dispensaries currently operating in Anchorage? I could only find one, listed as a “Private Cannabis Club” located Downtown. We’re accustomed to seeing hundreds of Medical dispensaries in Seattle. My brother is considering moving back to Anchorage. However, he is disabled and distressed by what appears to be an almost total lack of medical dispensaries there. He currently lives in Coastal British Columbia (we’re both dual citizens). He will have to get a medical approval once he’s established in Anchorage. Like me, his preference is to not have to purchase cannabis from recreational stores. Any information appreciated. Thanks.

  • King

    Cannabis has helped me alot to overcome lack of

    appetite, cure insomnia etc email

    ryanray5050@gmail.com if you want some smoke i can

    meet face to face and give u

    • painkills2

      Can you meet me face-to-face in Russia? If so, find Edward Snowden and give him some free bud. Hey, why isn’t there a strain named after Mr. Snowden?

    • Xia Qiu

      Marijuana is now like the rallying cry for the grass-and-roots of all masses like what the Internationale used to be for the proletariat and communists. “Rise up, those who don’t want to be slaves and oppressed. All my blood is boiling and I will fight for the truth. Lets break the old world order and rise up, slaves! Instead of saying we possess nothing, lets make sure we will be the master of the world. This the final struggle, lets unite and fight for tomorrow when the Internationale will be fruitful.”

      I am from NY and wish I could meet you.

  • xxx

    Dumbitchski

  • Aptosian

    Has she forgotten what a democracy is? Ban Amy Dumbitchski.

  • Paranoia1985

    Lol they legalized it – 10th Amendment boys! I don’t think they should even drug test people in that state

    • Paranoia1985

      for thc

  • Ted Mishler

    first they ban cannabis from the bible and remove kaneh-bosm from it

    recalling all Bibles and reinserting it, would be a great thing, would be nice to get a job with no discrimination

    would be nice to be treated like a human rather than an animal, and made to hike down my pants like some animal, but i am not alone people are discriminated all accross the war loving nation

    Abraham lincoln would turn over in his grave

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4TVECOJzog
    25 billion is spent for drug control programs like and like enforcement, 10 billion goes to prevention and treatment, that money is wasted money, that money could feed and house the homeless, not line prisons with innocent people, to pay off the owners of the prison industrial complex with cheap prison slave labor, and just because they happen to use cannabis that they are somehow thought to be undesirables, and tossed away, like newman said on seinfeld, “And yet, it’s perfectly legal to take a man’s soul and crush it out like a stale Pall Mall” its akin to murder to put innocent people in those cells, what kind of life does the usa embrace? how can the fabric of this country continue as it is, it is a disgrace the monster of humanity that exists in these states, well, some of them anyway
    Mr. Cohen is wrong when he says that no one wants a kid to use marijuana, i could have used it as a kid, yeah, but he is right that until the federal government stops with their lies, no kid is going to believe them, and that every time someone is arrested for marijuana, the arrest its self is a crime that goes against our constitution, where is the funding to arrest those who commits the crime of going against the constitution of the united states of america?
    Arrest the purpeTRAITORS that breaks constitutional laws that guarantee our rights to liberty, religion, and the freedom that the soldiers fought and many tragically dies apparently in vain for, i was going to mention Judge Francis Young’s finding on marijuana, that his finding were that marijuana is the safest substance known to man paraphrasing,
    http://www.ccguide.org/young88.php
    but then i realized that this video is edited, so i found the full video here, which i have not seen yet, so maybe that is mentioned, and even if it is mentioned, the man in charge of the nations drug control policy is Michael Botticelli, and he seems quite comfortable being ignorant of anslinger, and marijuana, as well as the rights of the cannabis community to hold jobs and take part in a FREE society, or else he would not be for their encarceration ever, the only non truth i saw so far is in the assumption that kids can not benefit from its use, i know i could have benefited as a kid through the use of marijuana, here is the original video mr cohen is seen in, its titled Marijuana Policy, and its original running time is 1 hour and 45 minutes, so this is just a small clip, will watch it, as soon as i refill this mountain dew, i am alone for a couple of days, so i finally have some time to myself
    representitive of who? not the cannabis community, more like rep of the pharmaceutical industry, cause he said he is fearful that people will line up like they do at liquor stores, and he fears what? commerce? danny davis, illinois what does he fear? a line of people fears him, he can get over it, danny davis, a true sissy, and all out ignorant, or just bad guy, illinois? why do you vote up people like that? he is afraid, the minds of those who would rather see people in prisons is what the cannabis community should fear, and danny davis does not represent the cannabis community, the hearts of those in the churches that have no rights is something else in illinois he should consider, just look at the lack of moral, the murder rate in chicago alone, that is what should fear him most, it makes a battle zone in other countries look like a playground at times, despicable people he is afraid, of what, a run on cheetos? so lets everyone lock everyone away, idiots, i dont know if i can listen to any more of this nonsense, i am only at the 31 minute mark and already ignorant people are comparing cannabis with alcohol, alcohol kills people, marijuana does not, so his fears, he i noticed he made no claim to fears of all the pill addicts lined up in all of his chicago pharmaceutical outlets, and those pills do kill, that scummy, oh, really all those against marijuana should not even be representatives at all, as they do not represent all the people, including the cannabis community, as they legally and morally should, as they have no inclination to even know about the history of the war in which they wish to promote, who anslinger is, or hurst, that hurst’s castle in san simion, california between san francisco and los angeles, must have cost some money, did hurst think he was king of his castle of lies? the idiots, they know not history, they and due to you know, i wonder just who it is that have lead the churches astray, thousands, or lets see, the dates, many years ago, when they removed cannabis from the bible, forgot the date of the lets see, google says the Septuagint, which is the early translation of the hebrew bible, google of wikipedia: …”The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament, need to re-up, so i am not too uptight to think about this important topic, but it looks like the texts for the bible was written maybe 300 years before christ, but i read somewhere of texts that go back much further, seems 3 to 5 or 6 thousand years, or is that gnostic? – oh, not into looking for the info now, after i reup i will

    it was warned that anyone who alters or changes the bible would be cursed with all kinds of dis-eases, isnt that what has happened? or was that added after cannabis was taken out by warmongers? cause every sense we have been listening to the mentality of those like adam and eve? they always speak with fear of life, the demons they see, their hate for the world they were in, not the love of, and today, it has all morphed into their preparedness of war against all that they fear, and they call themselves normal, well rounded people?!
    oh i will watch this later after i re-up, too disgusting hearing them boast of this and that, and absolutely no remorse for the wrongs done by those who enforce, disgusting, got to be something else to do besides listen to traitors, i really think the liars, the ignorant in suits should be indited for inciting war against the cannabis community, they refuse to allow us work for heavens sakes

    • psi2u2

      Thanks for the video.

      My analysis of this is that Boticelli is backpeddling as well as lying at the same time. He seemed pretty desperate to whitewash the DEAs continuing activities to go after medical marijuana patients and dispensaries in a number of contexts very recently. This is a good sign. He was feeling the heat, and its about time.

      He may not even realize how twisted the “science” is that continues to support prohibition. It is all a shell game. Because it is schedule 1, we will conduct research to prove that it belongs there, and will close our eyes and cover our ears against any science that says otherwise, including the anecdotal testimony of *thousands* — or maybe millions — of patients. And then we will say “our hands are tied, it’s schedule 1,” like a bunch of helpless bureaucrats who lack even the spine to just pull the plug on schedule 1 and let it die a dignified death before it harms any more people.

  • Dom F.

    The people have spoken with their votes. Amy Demboski, apparently does not know how to be American or coexist with us law bidding successful citizens. Key word “successful.”

    Also just saw this video below, Mr. Botticelli really is not a human being that uses common sense. Also should not be on ANY project thats for the people. He sounds more as a “do as your told” type guy, not someone who looks out for the education or evolution of thought. Wait… does he believe in evolution, DNA, or facts? From what he sounded, I think not.

    But, these individuals I have mentioned convinced me, especially Mr. Botticelli. That they are VERY insecure about themselves. Definitely not a good quality in someone in office looking out for the best interest for the people of America.

  • Another Republican for prohibition? Mon Dieux! She’s touted as a “rising star” in conservative circles. Noxious gasses also rise, don’t they?

    • So much for getting the government off your back.

  • Xia Qiu

    A vote for weed is an act of emancipation of nature.