texas norml region conference marijuana cannabis
Ending Marijuana Prohibition

When Will Texas Legalize Marijuana?

texas norml region conference marijuana cannabisOne of the most common marijuana legalization related questions that I get is ‘when will Texas legalize marijuana?’ It’s a logical question, considering how many people get arrested for marijuana in Texas, and how harsh their marijuana laws are. In Texas, selling more than 7 grams of marijuana is a felony, punishable by up to 2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Selling marijuana to a minor carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. I understand that people shouldn’t be selling marijuana to minors, but what if someone is an 18 year old senior in high school and they sell to someone in their class that hasn’t turned 18 yet? 20 years in prison?

Possession of over 4 grams of hash can also result in a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Manufacturing or delivering even 1 gram of hash also results in a similar penalty. Want to fake a piss test to get a job in Texas? Falsifying a drug test in Texas is a crime, punishable by up to 180 days in jail. It’s not hard to see why people in Texas are eager to legalize marijuana.

Unfortunately for Texans, Texas does not have a citizen initiative process. Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana via the initiative process, which allows people to gather signatures to put legalization on the ballot. That’s also how Oregon and Alaska were able to get legalization on the ballot this year (and likely DC!). With no legalization initiative process in Texas, the only way to legalize would be through the Texas Legislature.

So to answer the question ‘when will Texas legalize marijuana,’ I pose the question ‘how marijuana friendly is the Texas Legislature?’ I don’t live in Texas, and I’m not intimately knowledgeable of local politicians in Texas. However, from what I can tell from afar, Texas politicians are very conservative, which doesn’t bode well for marijuana reform efforts. Texas might have to wait until the federal government legalizes marijuana nationwide before people stop getting arrested for marijuana in the Lone Star State.

If you want to get marijuana legalized in Texas, the only way is to pressure your Legislature to do so, or wait for federal reform. Either way, it’s not promising, but you can only do what you can do. Call your legislator early and often. Send them studies that show how harmful marijuana prohibition is. They can’t ignore you forever, and it only takes your time, not money. With enough pressure, they will have to do what’s right and take a new approach.

  • wowFAD

    Rick Perry (on television, at least) has been giving the impression that cannabis ought not be an offense that ruins someone’s life. I strongly suspect his actions have a lot to do with Wendy Davis throwing her name into the next gubernatorial race. She’s come out in favor of medical cannabis as well as decriminalization, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong).

    Oddly enough, it appears as though cannabis is *THE* moderate issue in the state of Texas, given the recent polling. Most polls put full legalization in Texas at about 50% of voters in favor. All the smart money says that number is only going to climb in the next few years.

    As it says above, Texas is a *very* conservative state. Wendy Davis is a realistic “liberal” threat, despite that. That’s why I believe legalization in Texas has a reasonable shot. National politics being what they are, I do not think for a moment that the GOP is going to re-declare war (a-la Nixon) on cannabis due to the veins of Libertarianism within the party — ending the drug war, after all, is sound fiscally *conservative* policy. If the GOP wants to successfully co-opt and harness Libertarianism (which appears to be the direction they’re headed), they won’t be able to peel away cannabis legalization from the basket of hot-button Libertarian issues, the same way they have other social issues, like marriage equality and reproductive rights (two issues with significantly less support among conservatives in Texas than cannabis). The Texas GOP needs an issue that can sway moderate voters away from Wendy Davis without alienating their socially conservative voter base. IMHO, cannabis is that issue.

    Basically, given the political climate heading into both midterms this year and 2016, the GOP (both nationally and in Texas) could split right down the middle if the leadership of their party comes down on the wrong side of the cannabis issue. Republican politicians suck rocks on the cannabis issue, but support for cannabis among conservative VOTERS has been steadily growing. Republicans cannot afford to neglect cannabis much longer because they cannot afford to lose half of their voting block in Texas (and elsewhere) to the *actual* Libertarian Presidential candidate in 2016. More to the point, the GOP would have a unique opportunity to, for the first time in a long time, STEAL votes away from the DNC if their “liberal” 2016 candidate tries to pan the issue of the drug war. I believe that’s why Rand Paul is being framed as the GOP front-runner.

    It’s my opinion that conservative leadership in Texas will start to give more and more on the issue of cannabis as a counterweight to the wild popularity of Wendy Davis. Personally, I hope she wins — she would be good for Texas. But honestly, if the GOP put up a gubernatorial candidate with cannabis decriminalization on his/her platform, Wendy Davis’s chances could slip from slim to none. Whether or not the Texas GOP has that amount of forethought, I cannot say, but it is a possibility given the current state and future direction of the cannabis law reform movement among Texas voters.

    • “if the GOP put up a gubernatorial candidate with cannabis decriminalization on his/her platform”

      You’re adorable.

      • wowFAD

        Hey Scott! Back for more?

        Clearly not. So glad you’ve been getting help for your gish galloping. Or perhaps you simply felt inclined to nit-pick my post because you’re still sore over the trouncing I served you up, last time you let your pride run away with you. That certainly would explain why, of all things, you decided to *vaguely* disparage HALF of a *conditional* sentence at the very tail-end of my comment. I probably need to explain that a conditional sentence (if this, then this) has to be evaluated as a whole, not in bits and pieces. My statement was completely true — a Texas GOP gubernatorial candidate in favor of cannabis legalization/decriminalization would *certainly* steal away potential votes from Wendy Davis and reduce her chances of winning. I’m so very sorry that you weren’t able to find a problem with the COMPLETE sentence.

        I mean, if that’s the only “objection” to my comment you have to make (attempting to cast the first half of a conditional statement as a prediction of future events), then clearly you’re having trouble finding something in my comment to get all hot and bothered about. You should have finished reading the comment, Scott — especially the VERY next sentence where I said: “Whether or not the Texas GOP has that amount of forethought, I cannot say” with regards to the LIKELIHOOD of that conditional playing out.

        You do have my pity, Scott. The way you scampered off with your tail between your legs? It was truly pathetic. So I’ll try harder in the future to feed your massively inaccurate presumptions about me so that you can indulge your wounded pride more easily. LOLOL

        • “Back for more?”

          More bullshit? Sure, let’s see what you’ve got…

          “a Texas GOP gubernatorial candidate in favor of cannabis legalization/decriminalization”

          Who is this candidate?

          Hey, you going to vote for Jody Hice, Ken Dious, or are you going write in a gay Muslim?

          • wowFAD

            Now look who’s trying to be cute. You had absolutely no luck pulling me down any of those same rabbit holes, last time. Why do you think you’d have better success in Round 2? Do you seriously believe the same strategy that failed you last week has somehow improved with age?

            Don’t ever change, Scott. Not like I think you’re capable of it.

          • I sincerely believe that you won’t answer the question because you’re a bullshitter.

          • wowFAD

            I sincerely believe that you asked those questions because you have no response to my dismissal of your original, ehem, “objection” to my post. LOL.

            That’s why you want to change the subject and discuss a bunch of other things about which you believe you have the high ground. We call that “moving the goal posts” in an argument. You completely abandoned the only semi-legitimate (yet entirely vague) objection to HALF a sentence in my original comment, so now you want to talk about something (anything) else that I did not even tacitly touch upon in my post, let alone explicitly mention.

            Well sorry, I’m not biting this time either. My IQ hasn’t dropped since last week. If shifting goal posts is your only avenue to salvaging your dignity, I’m afraid you’ll be walking that path all alone — again! It’s painfully obvious that, because you have zero intention of discussing *anything* in my original comment, your only objective is to pick a fight and win it — and that’s just SAD. Is this really the only way you get validation, Scott? Has your ego been limping around depressed for the past week? It must be pretty bad if your pride has, once again, prompted you to bite off more trouble than your tender self-esteem is prepared to handle.

            Now that I’ve firmly established that I’ll be ignoring ALL of your unsolicited tangents now and in the future, I’ll ask you, again — Why do you think you’ll have more success employing the very same fallacious strategy that failed you, last time? Are you simply a one-trick pony, Scott? LOL

          • Actually, you’re the one who doesn’t want to discuss who this mythical Texas Republican is.

          • wowFAD

            Wow! That backtracking was so quick, you left skid marks. Scott, I’ll be referring you to my first response to your “attempt” at drawing me into an argument. In fact, I’ll just take a queue from your example and cut’n’paste the relevant passage to save you the trouble of SCROLLING UP.

            “You should have finished reading the comment, Scott — especially the VERY next sentence where I said: ‘Whether or not the Texas GOP has that amount of forethought, I cannot say’ with regards to the LIKELIHOOD of that conditional playing out.”

            Does that look familiar, Scott? It should — you ignored it once, already. So despite the fact that you’re trying to put a swami hat on my head and reframe that conditional statement as an iron-clad prediction that I must defend, I’m going to dismiss your objection a *second* time on the exact same grounds as before. You really do *still* need to work on your reading comprehension.

            Now is where you either graciously accept my accurate interpretation of your, ehem, “argument” or once again try leading me down yet another unsolicited tangent. Gee, I wonder which one you’ll go with. LOLOL

          • Dude, I read your comment. The whole thing. Which you admittedly don’t do to my comments.

            So, you admit that you know of no elected officials or prominent potential elected officials from the GOP in Texas that support decriminalization… But you still want to theorize about how many votes this mythical candidate would take from Wendy Davis…

            I’m sure there are a few. And not a single one of them stands a chance in hell of getting nominated by the most hippie punching bunch of science denying homophobes and xenophobes in the whole country?

            Which leads me right back to my original problem with you, which is that you won’t just come out and tell people that if personal liberty is their number one issue, they should vote for Democrats. But, hey, if you can find an anti-prohibition Republican who wants to run for Gubna, by all means, tell the Republicans to vote for him/her!

            “If the GOP wants to successfully co-opt and harness Libertarianism (which appears to be the direction they’re headed)”

            What’s your evidence that the Texas GOP is becoming more libertarian? They’re the most authoritarian bunch of Americans since the Loyalists.

            http://www.harrismediallc.com/2014/06/10/texas-republicans-war-weed/

          • wowFAD

            Wow, Scott. Didn’t even see this one — see what I mean about external links delaying comments? Odds are good this response will post hours before the one I made two hours ago, simply because it has many, many links to ALL the information you demanded, complete with summaries of all the relevant information. Goodness knows I wouldn’t criticize you for making arguments in a context-free vacuum, only to turn around and do precisely the same thing, myself.

            In any case, let’s see if I can redress some of your concerns while you wait on the main retort, which actually DOES answer the question you accuse me of not answering.

            For starters, the first thing I said in my *original* comment was “Rick Perry (on television, at least) has been giving the impression that cannabis ought not be an offense that ruins someone’s life.” That was in reference to his appearance on a special Austin edition of Late Night With Jimmy Kimmel, during which Rick Perry comes out IN FAVOR of decriminalization. I’m quite interested to hear how you think Rick Perry doesn’t fit the “no elected officials or prominent potential elected officials from the GOP in Texas that support decriminalization” criteria you specified. How, exactly, does Rick Perry not count as a prominent elected official from the Texas GOP? I’m burning with curiosity, Scott.

            That’s just me being snarky. In all seriousness, how can you say “I read your comment. The whole thing” when, apparently, you skipped the very first sentence?

            Secondly, there is no “mythical” GOP candidate for Texas governor. His name is Greg Abbott and he is the current Attorney General of Texas. As of February, his office was issuing statements to cannabis advocates that Texas law cannot supersede Federal law, which maintains cannabis as a Schedule 1 substance — a far cry from being anti-prohibition. The official statement left very few glimmers of hope with the exception of a single remark about not filling up Texas prison beds with non-violent offenders. However, he didn’t announce his candidacy for governor until last month, so an official policy position as a candidate for governor has not yet been made. Admittedly, I’m not optimistic that he’s going to endorse decriminalization, given the statements from his office, last February. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if I’m wrong.

            As for other “prominent” elected or potentially elected GOP officials, their candidate for Attorney General of Texas, DA Devon Anderson, released a statement in response to the remarks made by Rick Perry concerning decriminalization. Her statement read “I echo Governor Perry’s support for drug counseling and lesser sentences for marijuana users in Texas.” Since her opponent in the election for Attorney General, Kim Ogg, recently endorsed decriminalization, on July 25th, RAMP (Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition) requested an official clarification of Anderson’s earlier remarks. They’re waiting on the response (http://www.rampgop.org/2014/07/ogg-statement/), but I would wager it’s consistent with the statement from earlier this year. It’s likely she is conferring with the other GOP candidates with whom she’s sharing the ballot this November, so maybe there is slightly more than a glimmer of hope from Greg Abbott — after all, he did publicly denounce several grotesque remarks about the President made by Ted Nugent (that I will not dignify by repeating, here). Maybe I should only pencil in Abbott’s tentative “no” on the issue of decriminalization.

            ANYWAY. I trust that Rick Perry and their candidate for Attorney General qualify, even if Greg Abbott doesn’t? As for the latter part of your comment in which you make the exact same demand you made elsewhere, I piled on the evidence you requested in that other comment, and I’ll refer you to THAT reply. It’s pretty obvious that you made the same demand twice because whichever one you made first did not post quickly enough. See what I mean about comments with external links?

            Well, after seeing this version of your comment, I’m inclined to take back the things I said in that other reply about how proud I was that you were (seemingly) learning your lesson. Clearly, you’re still bent on a penis measuring contest, just like last week. If that’s truly the case, then fine. I’m perfectly willing to start replying to your comments without reading them, indefinitely — AGAIN. It successfully cowed your righteous indignation, last week. No reason to assume it won’t work twice. So by all means, re-engage verbal tantrum mode. But seeing as how we both already know how that drama plays out (wasn’t fun for you, was it?), why not spare us both the effort by skipping ahead in the narrative? Let’s just fast-forward to the part where you only want the last word, I won’t let you have it, so you become emotionally unhinged and rage-quit the conversation. This time, I won’t even spike the football, afterwards.

            OR… You can surprise the hell out of me and ASPIRE to something better than what you’ve shown me, thus far: a wounded ego, bleeding indignation, and a despairing need to feel like you’ve somehow BESTED me. This entire conversation is yet ANOTHER digital monument to your injured pride. The way you’ve been desperately searching for something (anything) to disagree with me about is proof enough of that. Well, if that’s the sort of validation you want (need), then you have my pity, but not my surrender. I don’t feel so sorry for you that I would indulge your sick, obsessive behavior by allowing you to derive a single ounce of satisfaction from this conversation. And make no mistake, Scott — this conversation can drag on forever (we both know I’ll see to it), but if you’re looking for me to acquiesce, that will certainly *never* happen. You will not enjoy this exchange any more than you enjoyed the last one — that’s a promise.

            So make your choice, Scott. But choose wisely.

          • Juicy Jeanette

            Get a room you guys, I will supply the lube

          • wowFAD

            No need. I loosened him up plenty last week, but I appreciate your concern.

          • You wish.

          • wowFAD

            Nice retort, Oscar Wilde. ;-)

          • CBD

            Dear God, wowFAD, you really are quite an embarrassment to yourself, I just wasted far too much time reading this back-and-forth, mostly jaw agape due to how unremittingly you feel you must evince your ‘intellect’, amongst other such argumentative classics I don’t really have the care to go into here :)

            Seriously, go outside or something.
            Evidently, you take a frankly humiliating amount of amour-propre and pride in trying to excessively scrutinize and beat the fuck out of a dead horse in somebody….on the internet’s….comment….on a blog….

            Go outside my friend. You might get laid or something! :) I think that’d do you the world of good. Although you smack of incel…smack of it all over I say!

            No insult meant, just friendly advice: look back at comments such as: “No need. I loosened him up plenty last week, but I appreciate your concern.”, and “a despairing need to feel like you’ve somehow BESTED me” or even this classic, which could fit rather well on a very large t-shirt “You will not enjoy this exchange any more than you enjoyed the last one — that’s a promise. So make your choice, Scott. But choose wisely” (you MUST see how hilariously pathetic these kinds of sentences are?!), go outside and put the internet down.

            And the irony is, the hilarity of your comments has made me waste 60 seconds of my life constructing this comment. I’m almost as bad as you now! :D

          • wowFAD

            CBD, I’m afraid you’re wrong. You’re assuming I don’t know *exactly* what I’m doing. Believe me, I know.

            This wasn’t my first rodeo, nor was it my first exchange with Scott, specifically. Last week, he managed to troll several Weed Blog regulars until they rage-quit their respective conversations with him. Jetdoc can attest to how rabidly Scott attacked him, as well as how frustrating, fallacious, and counter-productive his gish galloping and goal-post shifting was to engage.

            You should know that you’re not the first person to give me similar advice — recommending that I just back down and avoid the trolls. Well I’m sorry — I truly am — but it isn’t my style. I’ve never tolerated bullies in real life, so I don’t tolerate them online, either. Although you’re certainly the first person to insist the advice is both friendly and well-intentioned while you simultaneously peppered it with a few subtle insults. However, I’m choosing to believe you did that because you were shooting from the hip, or you thought it would somehow be encouraging, or you were trying to be funny, or you didn’t think anything you said was particularly provoking.

            So please, don’t worry. Thanks for the advice, but I’m not going to follow it. I know what I’m doing, I know how I’m doing it, and I know why. In fact, I’d like to issue you some advice: avoidance is no way to solve your problems. Try standing up for yourself, more often, and you won’t have to go outside and wander aimlessly, looking for sex — sex will start delivering to your house. It’s the new “Confidence Special” they’re running. So many more benefits than the “Craven Retreat” package which requires an online dating service and several hours of begging.

            I understand the urge to quit a conversation with a troll because you, personally, will not “get” anything out of continuing. And yes, that’s the easiest thing to do. I just cannot stand the idea that the bridge-dweller is not only overjoyed that they successfully chased me away, but that they’re going to *do it, again* to someone else, later. The trick to breaking the cycle is to identify what the troll wants from you, and refuse to give it to them. Whatever validation they’re seeking, don’t let them have it. That’s all it takes.

            Scott, for example, wants the last word. Scott’s case is different in that he’s one of the few liberal trolls I’ve met (most are conservative), which is why I’ve been so chatty with him, and gone so far as to explain to him how, precisely, I was handling him and *WHY* — I’m still awe-struck that he didn’t (and still doesn’t) appear to care.

            That’s how I feel, take it or leave it. You need to understand that Scott’s only goal — the reason he keeps jumping from one argument to another — is that picking a fight (presuming he’d win, this time) was always his sole intention. We’ve done this dance once, already. He doesn’t disagree with what I’ve said, he wants to disagree with me, personally. He’s a troll. So I’m handling him as such. Again, thanks for the advice, but I’m not going to follow it.

          • Your need to lie about me in order to argue with, or against, me, is astounding.

            “Last week, he managed to troll several Weed Blog regulars until they rage-quit their respective conversations ”

            Nope. Just you and Jetdoc. And trolling is not what I’m doing. I said “if you care about personal liberties, vote progressive.” You have turned that into some kind of “blindly vote for one party over the other.” This is not something I said.

            If progressives suddenly started turning away from individual liberties, and the GOP was less Glib about their libertarianism, I might consider changing my statement. As it stands now, only progressives consistently offer voters the libertarian choice when it comes to personal liberties, from choice to civil liberties to weed.

            “bridge-dweller is not only overjoyed that they successfully chased me away”

            I don’t want to chase you away. I want you to stop bullshitting. Which is why I’m busy replying to your other comment, which is full of it.

            Trolling is just people trying to get emotional reactions from people for the hell of it. I”m not trying to piss you off by pointing out your BS. That’s just a bonus.

          • wowFAD

            Sorry, Scott, but your intentions are clear. You hopped from one argument to another, not because you legitimately have “concern” for the state of Texas, but rather because of your wounded pride. You came to this thread, specifically, to bait me. Hence your monkey-barring from one point to another. Do you not recall me pointing this out from the start?

            No rational person could mistake what you’re doing here as anything else — you’re not fooling me, so perhaps you’re still trying to fool yourself? If you can’t handle an accurate accounting of your behavior, then you should adjust your behavior. Simply getting even *more* indignant just further reveals your real intentions. You’re a troll. You’re a liberal troll, but you’re still a troll.

            I still maintain I was never “bullshitting” — that’s yet *another* example of your trolling ways, Scott. You appear to *still* be under the mistaken impression that I refused to let you bait me into unprompted, tangential arguments because I’m not capable. That’s not so, as I’ve been demonstrating, here. I refused to engage your gish galloping last week because I don’t play with constantly shifting goal posts.

            I do, however, keep score. So far, you’ve ceded two separate arguments to me simply by dropping them. (now let’s watch the needle on your indignation meter snap off)

          • You don’t even know who’s running for AG of Texas. I grew up in Arkansas. I have a lot of friends in TX. I have legitimate concern for them.

            So, you’re wrong there… Your assumptions tend to get you in trouble…

            My pride is not wounded. It’s just fine. Yours, however, must be hurting after that horrific display of your knowledge of Texas politics.

            “If you can’t handle an accurate accounting of your behavior, then you should adjust your behavior.”

            Really? The guy who was so horrifically wrong about TX political races is going to preach to me about accuracy?

            “I still maintain I was never “bullshitting””

            And yet you went on and on with the bullshit about the Texas AG race as if you knew what you were talking about….

            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.”

            “So far, you’ve ceded two separate arguments to me simply by dropping them.”

            I don’t think so… What were those arguments? Why do you avoid specifics? Spell it out. Which arguments did I drop?

            In fact, I keep coming back to them, and you keep dropping. Projection–just another form of bullshit. Blind partisan loyalty IS NOT why we have high incumbent re-election rates. Every time I mention the fact that gerrymandering is the main reason, you drop the subject. So, by your own definition, you’ve ceded that argument to me.

            “watch the needle on your indignation meter snap off”

            No one is showing more anger and annoyance than you are. Combined with your completely wrong “facts,” it makes for quite a show.

          • “Your question is specifically about Texas Republicans, although the sentence was intended to be a general statement about the RNC’s direction. ”

            Fair enough.

            Rick Perry wants to be president so bad that he’s donned glasses, taken off the cowboy boots, and gone on librul TEEVee shows to say he supports decriminalization. Shorter Perry: I still want to be the authoritarian Daddy party, but I’m no longer going to tie you to a stump up at Niggerhead and whip your ass for smoking weed. I’ll just take your weed, fine you, and send you off to some hospital as if your weed smoking was the same as alcoholism.

            “on television, at least”

            Aye, there’s the rub. Rick won’t be in TX government anymore. So, he doesn’t really count, does he? He’s gone national and will have exactly 0 input on the future of TX drug policy, save his vote in TX elections.

            “How, exactly, does Rick Perry not count as a prominent elected official from the Texas GOP? I’m burning with curiosity, Scott.”

            Satisfied? Perry is, I concede, a prominent elected official. Perhaps I should have said prominent candidate for office, since it’s the future direction of the TX GOP we’re discussing here. It’s easy for Rick to say what he thinks will help him run against Rand Paul for the nomination. I doubt he’d be saying those things if he was running for Governor again. And I sincerely doubt that as President, Perry would sign a bill rescheduling, much less tell his AG to just reschedule it.

            “Friday, I read this article about Rand Paul”

            I’ll bet you a hundred bucks right now that Rand Paul will not be the 2016 GOP nominee for President. There has always been a libertarian bunch of Republicans who stick with the authoritarian party for the sake of a coalition that stops environmental protection, regulation, and keeps taxes on rich people low. In short, GOP libertarians, or “right” libertarians, care more about polluting, lax regulatory oversight, low taxes, and guns than they do about liberty.

            But that segment of the party is not big enough to nominate their Presidential contender.

            “Secondly, there is no “mythical” GOP candidate for Texas governor.”

            And yet you are the one suggesting that if there was a pro-pot Republican he/she could steal votes from Wendy Davis. And I’m aware of the Gubernatorial race in TX. That’s why I asked you who it would be that you had in mind to steal votes from Davis by being pro-weed. Who are the pro-pot Republicans in Texas? I’m serious. I don’t know of any that do much more than talk a good game on the subject. When it comes time to vote, or govern, they go right back to their sweet spot.

            “I’ll be pleasantly surprised if I’m wrong.”

            It’s possible that Abbot will, like Perry, say lots of things. It’s what he does that matters. Since he’s not running for President, he doesn’t need to follow authoritarian remarks on weed with whiplash inducing quasi-libertarian statements, like Perry did. He can just keep punching hippies…

            Which reminds me what Perry said recently about legalizing weed:

            http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/11/not-joining-the-pot-parade-texas-gov-rick-perry-links-marijuana-legalization-to-murder/

            > Perry insisted he didn’t want to join the marijuana “parade.”

            And if you look back through Rick Perry’s history on drugs, you can see that he’s a full-on authoritarian, having opposed medicinal marijuana, supported random drug sweeps in public housing, and supported an escalation of the drug war, particularly at the border.

            As for Abbot, yeah, you’d be surprised if he changed his tune. So would I. What he might do is talk big, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for action from the only guy in TX who punches hippies harder than Perry. Part of the statement that you referred to included the ridiculous assertion that legalizing is like saying it’s OK.

            The fact that Abbot chided the Nuge for his disgusting bullshit is NOT a sign that Abbot is going to be more libertarian on weed. It’s only a sign that he sees chiding someone as far right as Nugent will make him seem moderate in comparison. Which I find hilarious.

            “I trust that Rick Perry and their candidate for Attorney General qualify, even if Greg Abbott doesn’t?”

            So, that’s it? A Governor not running for reelection who wants to keep weed illegal, links drugs to a higher murder rate in Portugal, and doesn’t want to join the marijuana “parade” and an attorney general candidate who kinda sorta suggested maybe that’s a good thing but won’t go out on a limb about it yet? That’s your proof that the GOP in TX is becoming more libertarian?

            Baby steps, I guess…

            In short, your hope that the GOP will start to hear the music on the issue of drugs, the truth is that they’re mired in a swamp of their own making, just like they are on immigration. The base is authoritarian and wants harsh drug laws, no medicinal weed (they do love to torture people), and a large portion of them are actually dependent on the drug war for their livelihoods. It’s going to be a long time before they see the light on this.

            So, I will say it again: if you believe in personal liberty, vote for Progressives.

          • wowFAD

            LOL. Thank you for the concession, despite several paragraphs of bitter, sarcastic preamble. To sum up roughly 500 words, you asked for someone who fit some pretty specific criteria, and I gave you what you asked for with full references. It’s an aside to even mention this, but the reason I gave that to you was simple: you stayed on topic. That’s a HUGE step, Scott.

            Back on topic, I absolutely agree that actions speak louder than words, but words get people elected (the first time, at least). Talking a big game is precisely what I want them to do. I’m actually counting on it. 2012 taught the GOP that you cannot pivot back to the center after making candidates race each other to the far-right during the primary. The fact that they’re not just taking the simplistic moral absolutist position and actually feeling out the Texas climate on this issue has a lot to do with the polling trends in Texas over the last several years.

            A late 2013 poll says 23% of registered Texas voters now identify as “Independent/Other” while only 35% self-identified as Democrats, and 42% identify as Republicans (http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/states/PPP-Texas-Poll-2013.pdf). That’s a shift from just two years earlier, in which a 2011 poll had 49% identifying as Republican, 38% as Democrat, and a mere 13% identifying as Independent/Other (http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/documents/uttt-201105-summary-day1.pdf).

            That’s quite a shift in just two years that, again, makes me believe that criminal justice reform (broadly) and cannabis law reform (specifically) are going to be hot-button issues across the country from now until well-after the 2016 election plays out. The former poll says 58% registered Texas voters support cannabis legalization, while the latter poll had support at a mere 41%..

            I trust the Texas GOP is even more starkly aware of these polling trends than I am. So indeed, I certainly hope they do talk a big game. Talk will only get this particular GOP ticket through their first election, but it won’t sustain them through a second one.

            Meanwhile, word will continue to travel, and support will continue to grow. Democratic candidates in Texas have been endorsing decriminalization across the state because they certainly have seen the same polls I mentioned above. Abbott and company will probably need to say *something* about the cannabis issue, before November — something they’ll be held to every minute they’re in office, which is why I couldn’t be more pleased Slick Rick still has delusions about becoming President. His decriminalization tease came less than two months after that most recent Texas poll I cited. He never would have put the GOP candidate for Texas AG into her currently pending RAMP quandary if he didn’t want to be President.

            So, in closing, I too will repeat myself: I vote for candidates. It was always your mistaken presumption that statement necessarily entailed I *don’t* vote for people you would probably describe as “progressive.” And what’s worse, you further presumed I was defending Republican candidates and Republican policy wholesale. I made observations about how a few Republicans are trying some things differently in light of pragmatic realities of our current political climate — that doesn’t mean I’ll vote for them, it only means I give credit where credit is due. Vetting the candidates individually, election by election, is how civilly responsible people participate in the political process. Large swaths of the population voting by labels is the root of everything that’s wrong with our government. Blind partisan loyalty, no matter which label you ascribe to, is wrong.

          • “bitter, sarcastic preamble”

            Self awareness isn’t your strong point, is it?

            I asked for evidence of the GOP moving in a libertarian direction. You provided some pretty thin citations of things Rick Perry said, and some things that the current crop of GOP candidates in TX MIGHT do.

            For this you are breaking your arm to pat yourself on the back.

            “but words get people elected (the first time, at least)”

            And none of the people you listed are running for office for the first time.

            From the previous comment:

            “candidate for Attorney General of Texas, DA Devon Anderson”

            Actually, it’s Ken Paxton.

            ballotpedia.org/Texas_attorney_general_election,_2014

            And from what I can tell, this guy is as big a hippie punching authoritarian as one could possibly find in Texas, where the hippie punchers are, like everything else, bigger. Not to mention his forced birth positions, etc…

            “Since her opponent in the election for Attorney General, Kim Ogg”

            Again, I have no idea where you’re getting these supposed “facts” from, but Ken Paxton’s opponent for AG is Sam Houston.

            I have no idea where Sam stands on pot, but I’d bet dollars to donuts it’s a better position than Paxton’s.

            “That’s quite a shift in just two years that, again, makes me believe that criminal justice reform (broadly) and cannabis law reform (specifically) are going to be hot-button issues across the country from now until well-after the 2016 election plays out. ”

            That’s a shift that makes me think the demographics of Texas are eating the GOP alive, which is true all over the country. How you can take such a move and attribute it to marijuana or criminal justice, when a lot of it has to do with immigration and the general rightward shift of Republicans, is yet another sign that you tend to pull things out of your ass.

            Further, self-identification as Republicans has been dropping all over the country, and yet they still win elections. This is because the idea of a truly independent voter is a myth. Most independents lean one way or the other quite strongly.

            “Democrats across Texas have been endorsing decriminalization across the state because they certainly have seen the same polls I mentioned above.”

            You know, many of them have been endorsing it for sometime now because it’s the right thing to do, not because public opinion is moving towards acceptance. For a great many Democrats, decriminalization has been the right position, even if it meant they spent decades in the political wilderness.

            “I vote for candidates.”

            So do I. In the current political climate, they are as close to progressives as I can get, if I can’t get an outright progressive.

            “It was always your mistaken presumption that statement necessarily entailed I *don’t* vote for people you would probably describe as “progressive.””

            Wrong again. I presumed nothing. What I took issue with was your characterization of my statement. I never said “vote blindly for progressives.”

            You took what I said out of context. Put the context back in, and you get what I was really saying, which is, in the current political climate, barring any HUGE shifts by the two parties in opposite directions of their current directions, you should vote for progressives.

            I also gave lots of other person freedom issues besides pot that back up my contention that one should vote for progressives.

            But I never said close your eyes and vote the D line. I was simply pointing out that since vast majorities (over 90% on the last two big house votes) of Democrats voted the right way on weed, while very SMALL minorities of the GOP voted the right way, that one should play the odds and vote for Dems.

            Now, unless you can provide a case of a pro-pot Republican running for the US House (which is the context in which my statement was made) against an anti-pot Democrat, then my statement holds.

            “you further presumed I was defending Republican candidates and Republican policy wholesale”

            Another lie. I presumed no such thing. In fact, you told me in your first or second comment, I believe, that you agreed with me on the issues. I was never under the assumption that you were a Republican.

            I do know that rather than vote for the Democrat running against Broun, you wrote in Darwin. Cute. But why not just vote for the Dem? Some blind loyalty to non-partisanship?

            And you won’t even tell me if you’re going to vote for Hice.

            “it only means I give credit where credit is due”

            I also like to give credit where credit is due. That’s why I post the precise vote totals that tell people precisely how much credit should be given to the Dems and Republicans on these votes.

            “Vetting the candidates individually, election by election, is how civilly responsible people p articipa te in the political process. ”

            You keep sticking with this. It’s great. And it’s also what I support. And after doing this, I can’t find one single race in the US House where a pro-pot Republican is running against an anti-pot Democrat.

            But, again, please, since I’m not a troll, I actually care about the facts, so if you can find such a case, let me know.

            “Large swaths of the population voting by labels”

            Honestly. Who does this? We wind up consistently voting for one party or another because of our positions on issues and policy. It just so happens that right now in American politics, one side, the progressives, are consistently out in front on the marijuana issue, and has been for years. Congratulations to the few Republicans who are starting to see the light. But anyone who looks at the candidates as I have will see what I have: that voting Progressive is really what you should do right now if you care about personal freedoms.

            Further, you said the blind partisan voting is why incumbent reelection rates are so high. I pointed out to you that you were wrong about that. Gerrymandering combined with the tendency of people to hate congress but love their congressman (something I see today is actually upside down for a change) is the reason for such high reelection rates.

            “Blind partisan loyalty, no matter which label you ascribe to, is wrong.”

            Absolutely. If people stuck with a party no matter where they stood on the issues, it’d be as stupid as you suggest. But take the CRA vote in 1964. All the old racist whites in the south who’d voted for Democrats for years switched to the party of the southern strategy. And all the northern liberals who voted for Republicans because of Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, started voting for progressive democrats.

            But I don’t see a massive shift in policy happening now. I see the GOP going WAY further to the right, and Democrats a little further to the left (see the vote view blog for plenty of evidence on that one). One should always keep an eye on the individual races, but my statement that in the current environment people should vote for Progressives if they care about liberty is correct, and your apoplectic reaction to your own out-of-context interpretation of what I said is just classic trolling.

          • ” candidate for Attorney General of Texas, DA Devon Anderson”

            See the comment below, which you apparently missed, that corrects your mistakes regarding TX political races. Ken Paxton is the GOP nominee for AG of Texas. Not Anderson. His opponent is Sam Houston.

          • “If the GOP wants to successfully co-opt and harness Libertarianism (which appears to be the direction they’re headed)”

            What is your evidence that the GOP in Texas is heading in that direction? They’re the most authoritarian bunch of Americans since the Loyalists. Any one of them that doesn’t get toe the hippie punching line would never have a chance at the nomination.

          • ^ “doesn’t toe”

          • wowFAD

            I take it that *first* argument you tried has been resolved to your satisfaction? Excellent. Thank you for tacitly ceding my logic by not even trying to argue that point any further.

            It’s such a pity you don’t have the strength of character to do so, explicitly — opting instead to try spurring ANOTHER argument. Don’t get me wrong — I’m overjoyed that you’re *finally* starting to listen to what I’m telling you. It’s a true sign of progress for you to actually want to discuss something pertaining to my original comment, instead of trying yet another unprompted tangent. You finally realized that you cannot bait me with whatever you feel like plucking out of the clear blue sky. And it only took, what, a week for that concept to sink in?

            ANYWAY. Your question is specifically about Texas Republicans, although the sentence was intended to be a general statement about the RNC’s direction. Despite that, I feel both have plenty of justifying evidence of Libertarianism and the cannabis issue trending both nationally and in Texas, specifically, with the GOP.

            My evidence that the GOP (nationally) is trying to co-opt the Libertarian vote isn’t exactly scant. Friday, I read this article about Rand Paul addressing 300 members of a college Libertarian group, the Young Americans for Liberty, last Wednesday. He was pitching them his goal to “save” the Republican party with “bedrock libertarian principles”:
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/07/31/rand-paul-libertarian-rally/13395439/

            If the frontrunner for the 2016 GOP nomination preaching Libertarian principles to a Libertarian group is insufficient evidence of a burgeoning national trend, I’d also like to direct you to the RNC strategy guide published last year in which they plead with the GOP to be more inclusive on social issues while maintaining fiscally conservative ideals:
            http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/623664-republican-national-committees-growth-and.html#document

            However, if you would like to dispute whether or not fiscal conservatism and social liberalism are necessarily “bedrock libertarian principles,” I will not argue. Those are vague, catch-all principles that loosely point towards dozens of various issues without actually taking any sort of policy stand on any of them, specifically. The reason I refuse to jump on the Libertarian bandwagon (despite the frequent invitations) is that I’ve yet to meet two Libertarians who could agree with each other on more than two or three *specific* issues. Tossing a specific social issue (abortion, for example) into a room full of self-described Libertarians is like tossing a steak into a pen of starving coyotes — it’s amazing how quickly they turn on each other. Toss in cannabis, however — Libertarians seem to support legalization (or at least decriminalization), universally.

            That’s why I believe the GOP (both nationally and in Texas) may seize upon cannabis in the near future. They’ll never change their official party platform to embrace social issues like gay marriage, the right to choose, the death penalty, stem cell research, or any other issue for which their official policy position is determined by the Christian fundamentalist wing of the party. They’d risk losing far too much of their base by “evolving” on any of those issues. Cannabis, on the other hand — lots of Willie Nelson fans vote Republican and go to church every Sunday. That particular Venn diagram wouldn’t have as many members in the mutually excusive sets as they do in the intersecting sets. That, I will admit, is based on my anecdotal experience living in the South, but I’d be genuinely surprised if you’re going to dispute Willie’s popularity with socially conservative church-folk.

            Because that’s admittedly anecdotal, I’ll give you a couple instances of Republicans in Texas shooting themselves in the foot on the cannabis issue. Ted Cruz was quickly muzzled after he made comments suggesting the cannabis legalization initiatives in WA and CO should be overturned by labeling him a “State’s Rights Hypocrite” (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ted-cruz-states-rights-hypocrite/) and he hasn’t made a peep about it, since. Also, a man named Chris Mapp, who is challenging GOP incumbent John Cornyn in a primary for the other US Senate seat in Texas, was publicly shamed on his own social media page over his inflammatory anti-cannabis rhetoric by a number of his potential constituents(http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/02/us_senate_candidate_chris_mapp.php). It’s totally worth the read. Mapp eventually apologizes for his outbursts after he demands proof of other conservative candidates for US Senate supporting cannabis law reform (and gets it).

            Those are two instances of what they’ve *stopped* doing because of subsequent backlash, but there are also instances of what they have *started* doing in Texas. There are Rick Perry’s comments about decriminalization, last winter:
            http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Gov-Rick-Perry-for-decriminalization-of-pot-5168667.php
            Then there’s the Republican Party of Texas voting in June to add hemp cultivation to their official party platform:
            http://bigjollypolitics.com/2014/06/06/yes-adding-support-medical-marijuana-republican-party-texas-platform/

            Lots of supporting evidence that the Texas GOP (and the RNC, nationally) are trying to co-opt the Libertarian vote, specifically, by being more friendly to the cannabis issue. Which, thankfully, does not bode well for Chris Christie. But sadly, does not bode well for Wendy Davis, either.

            The GOP (nationally, not in Texas), I believe, is hedging their bets on the cannabis issue because they’re still feeling out whether or not they’re going to back Rand Paul, Chris Christie, or anyone else they can *attempt* to dress up as a moderate for the general election in 2016. HR5226 is enough of a token gesture to limp through midterms without committing one way or another to *actual* cannabis law reform. Afterwards, we’ll see if they continue to back Rand Paul or if someone else will step in to become the favorite for the GOP’s 2016 nomination.

            I do apologize if it takes a while for this comment to make it through moderation. I believe comments with so many links to external sites take longer to be approved. I also hope that this response adequately answered your question.

          • David

            Scott, just say Fuck You to this idiot. It’s just so much easier and accomplishes the same thing

          • Jetdoc

            “just say Fuck You to this idiot”

            FUCK YOU IDIOT! How’s that work for ya?

            (Cut & Paste intended!)

          • You’re the one who consistently votes for people who don’t share your views on the issues. How’s that work for you?

          • Jetdoc

            The “Gish-galloper” doesn’t seem to understand that I don’t read a FUCKING thing he has to say. He’s best to leave me alone! I’m NOT addressing him in ANY manner. I’m not ENGAGING with him either. I’m telling him to leave me alone! If he doesn’t like what I have to say… too bad! Go on about his business. Cuz he’s NOT getting a thing out of me. I’ve got A LOT better things to do than deal with a FUCKTARD who just wants to FIGHT. I actually hope he DOES continue to ATTEMPT to get me into a fight. That way I can report him for harassment, and they WILL ban his ass.

          • “He’s best to leave me alone!”

            Or what?

            “I’m NOT addressing him in ANY manner”

            And yet, here you are replying to me.

            “I’m not ENGAGING with him either.”

            Twice!

            “I’m telling him to leave me alone!”

            Or what?

            “If he doesn’t like what I have to say… too bad! Go on about his business.”

            My business is correcting and calling out bullshitters.

            “Cuz he’s NOT getting a thing out of me.”

            I got a whole paragraph of you having a hissy fit.

            “I’ve got A LOT better things to do than deal with a FUCKTARD who just wants to FIGHT.”

            A direct violation of the TOS, and so original…

            I don’t just want to fight. I honestly want to know what on earth could be so important to you that you vote for authoritarians despite the fact you aren’t one on Civil Liberty issues.

            “I actually hope he DOES continue to ATTEMPT to get me into a fight. That way I can report him for harassment, and they WILL ban his ass.”

            Pretty sure calling someone a Fucktard is a worse offense than asking a supposed libertarian why he votes for authoritarians?

          • David

            Rupert hasn’t paid his troll fee this week so he’s getting cranky

        • David

          Dear WowFAD in Texas. Fuck you. Seattle.

          • wowFAD

            Dear David. I’m not from Texas (or Kentucky). Sincerely, Fuck-you-too.

    • David

      Libertarians are merely Far-Right wing Tea-Party Republicans hiding in sheeps clothing

      • wowFAD

        The Libertarians I know personally love guns, love solar power, want cannabis law reform, and support abortion rights. Only one of those things says “far-right wing tea party” to me. I won’t deny that defining Libertarianism is about as easy as herding cats, nor will I deny that several Republicans of national prominence are constantly attempting to masquerade as a Libertarian, but those jokers certainly aren’t Tea Party.

        Steve King, Michelle Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Ted Cruz — they’re certainly Tea Party favorites, but they’ll never endorse any social issue near and dear to Libertarians, which means they’d fail the Libertarian litmus test. Perhaps they caucus (loosely) on fiscal matters in similar ways, but it’s the *social* issues that make the important, recognizable distinctions between the two groups.

        In fact, David — I really can’t think of anyone, anywhere, that both fits your description and is recognized as a Libertarian. The only group of people who fit the description of “far-right wing Tea Party” is the far-right wing Tea Party. I may have a hard time defining Libertarianism concretely, but I will say one thing for them — they’re not stupid. If they were, they’d probably be in the Tea Party.

        • There are right and left libertarians. Right libertarians often support the “rights” of the fertilized egg over the rights of the mother.

          I also know a lot of right Glibertarians who ridicule alternative energy every chance they get while they spew their negative externalities into the commons.

          The real libertarians right now who are in a position to make a difference are the left libertarians in the Congressional Progressive Caucus who want to protect our rights and the commons.

          And I have a second amendment right to regulate the militia well.

          • wowFAD

            Like I said, the reason I refuse to go to the meetings my left-of-center Libertarian friends keep inviting me to is that I cannot abide how scattered (and vague) the planks of their platform are. There are too many deal-breaking issues for which they seemingly try to cover all sides, like abortion, alternative energy, gun laws, social security, and economic policy.

            Which, again, is why I vote for candidates — not the letter next to their name, not their caucus. I look at how an individual candidate has performed, instead of sticking a thermometer into a vat of candidates who all (supposedly) belong to the same school of thought. Not to say checking the temperature is useless — the parties do slosh back and forth, collectively, so it’s worth looking at national trends for the sake of trying to predict future trends. However, that’s not the same thing as deciding who gets your vote, and never should be.

            As far as the “left libertarians” within the CPC are concerned, I’m not sure they exist. The CPC membership can be summed up as “a subset of the DNC, plus Bernie Sanders.” Of course, it’s your assertion that the CPC contains such people, which means the burden of proof is on you. Can you find any members of the CPC who have described themselves (or are described) as “left libertarians” at any point in their careers? Who are these people, exactly? I’m fairly certain Bernie Sanders would object to anyone attempting to call him a Libertarian.

          • Go to politicalcompass.org and look at how they use the y axis for authoritarian/libertarian, and the x axis for left and right. Ghandi is down on the lower left, or libertarian left, and most of the US presidents are authoritarian/right.

            When you look at it this way, you can see that those who protect civil liberties (aka Civil Libertarians like Bernie Sanders) are not authoritarian–quite the opposite. And yes, I’ve heard many of the CPC describe themselves as Civil Libertarians.

            The word libertarian is not owned by that political party. That’s why I refer to them as Glibertarians. Like you said, they’re all over the place. Their political philosophy of a world without government (be they anarchists or minarchists) is glib. They need to read their Hobbes: “…continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

            So, no, the CPC isn’t what Glibertarians think of as libertarians, but they are not authoritarians. They vote to protect civil liberties, to expand social justice, to keep the government from killing them, spying on them, throwing them in jail for using a natural medicine…

            In fact, it’s really a shame that these Glibertarians have left the liberal side of the equation both in authoritarian terms, or socio/economic terms. They agree with liberals on a great many things, but prefer to vote for authoritarians because they want to be part of the lax environmental regulation/low taxes on the rich/unregulated militia crowd.

      • Many of them vote Republican and Tea Party because they care more about joining a coalition that gives them lax regulation (especially environmental regs), low taxes on the rich, and a militia that isn’t regulated well than they do about their social issues.

    • Apparition

      wowFAD,
      I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from, but I’m in Austin, and with the exception of a semester at Oaksterdam, have been here for the past eight years. Unless the GOP frontrunner Greg Abbott completely drops the ball Wendy doesn’t have a prayer.

      There is minimal support for medical cannabis or legalization in the legislature and in all likelihood they’ll both remain (R) as well.

      Sadly I agree with the assessment of Mason Tvert (MPP) that Texas will be on the back side of the tipping point in that the Feds will relegalize or reclassify cannabis before Texas does so.

      • wowFAD

        Believe me, I understand your doubts — I live in Georgia, believe me, I know how insurmountable so-called “red” states feel when the issue of cannabis is concerned. If it makes you feel any better at all, I am optimistic of your chances. For the Republican Party of Texas to add hemp cultivation as a plank to their official party platform, in my opinion, is huge. We haven’t gotten anywhere *near* that far in Georgia, so don’t sell Texas short just yet. Least of all, Austin. Went to a conference at UT, once. You live in a hip town.

        But I’m not trying to anecdotally assure you that Texas will decriminalize because Austin was good to me. Although it is worth noting that two members of the Austin City Council came out publicly in favor of medical cannabis — like I said, it’s a hip town. But really, it’s the polling in Texas that has me optimistic about your chances — 77% of registered Texas voters want medical cannabis, and a whopping 58% of registered Texas voters wants full legalization. Of those polled, 35% identified as Democrats, 42% identified as Republicans, and 23% identified as Independent/Other (the voting block of interest, these days, both nationally and in Texas). Our polling in Georgia only puts support for legalization at 54%, and I’m optimistic about the path we’re on. That Independent/Other category is vital across the country, right now (23% is above average) because polls like this one are of actual registered voters, not the general population, which means the R’s and the D’s cannot win an election without them (not in Georgia and certainly not in Texas, either).

        So cheer up! Your governor (who I don’t like very much, personally) at least went on television and suggested decriminalization. Our governor, Nate Deal (who I personally detest) has done less than nothing when it comes to reforming our cannabis laws.

        We tried and failed to pass a limited medical cannabis program that only would have helped maybe one or two hundred children a year — our governor’s brilliant solution (instead of the cheap, local solution of growing and processing it here in Georgia) is trying to rope a damn British pharmaceutical company into (re)conducting drug trials (that they’re already running, elsewhere — they have no incentive to conduct more) of a synthetic CBD drug at one of the least recognized universities we have. The only reason Nate Deal is baiting people with this empty token gesture (his office has been insisting since March that these trials are only “months away”) is because he’s facing a gubernatorial challenge from Jason Carter, Jimmy Carter’s grandson, and he needs the “Independent/Other” vote just as much as Greg Abbott needs it to defeat Wendy Davis. Given those polling results, would it be so unbelievable for the Republican 2014 ticket to suggest reforming their cannabis laws, ie, no more jail for a joint, like Slick Rick said, to rustle up those Independent/Other voters?

        I’m telling you, you may be surprised. Stay optimistic. Try to see the big picture, and not just the big hats. Just remember they nominated Greg Abbott, not in spite of his denouncement of Ted Nugent’s remarks (Ted said some very disgusting and inflammatory things about the President, Abbott said “not cool”), but *because* of his denouncement of Ted — a tacit defense of Obama, which I think violates the Tea Party’s 11th commandment, if I’m not mistaken. That’s the guy they nominated to fill Rick Perry’s shoes. That’s a step *away* from the right wing fringe, and it all has to do with that 23% Independent/Other voting block.

        • You’re putting way too much into the nudge of the Nuge. If Texans want to change marijuana law in their state, they’re going to have to elect more people like Austin does, ie, Democrats. It’s going to be a long time before the Texas Authoritarian Party agrees to any kind of legalization, even of medicinal.

          • wowFAD

            Thank you for ceding the arguments I made about the polling trends by zeroing in on “The Nuge.” As an aside, I’ve never heard that nick-name, before. But yes, the polling numbers between 2011 and 2013 certainly indicate that Republicans and Democrats, alike, cannot win in Texas without that “independent/other” voting block.

            As far as “The Nuge” is concerned, he was Gohmert’s +1 to the State of the Union, last year. That was not so much a nudge as much as it was a back-handed insult directed at the President. Whether you like it or not, Ted Nugent stopped being a musician and became the crowned princess at the front of the Tea Party parade. For Greg Abbott to rake in 91% of the vote at his primary after chiding “The Nuge” is undeniably a step *away* from right-wing extremism, even if it is a small step.

        • finnstudio

          Us Repubs need to be consistent…small government is power to the people

          • wowFAD

            As a party, Republicans seem bent on not existing in 20 years. Their rampant inconsistency on issues like the drug war is part of that equation. This group of so-called fiscal conservatives preach small government and use phrases like “the God-honest truth,” but they completely ignore the fact that we give the ONDCP $25 billion per year to continually lie to the public.

            I’ll never understand why the so-called “budget hawks” never bring up that huge chunk of taxpayer money being spent to maintain a federal agency that deceives American taxpayers, professionally. The Republican Party is so afraid of losing their socially conservative constituency (the far-right church folk) that they’ll slough off almost every aspect of their so-called “ideology” in a heartbeat.

            The problem with that strategy (abandoning solid ideals to please the social conservative block) is that we’re observing the end of America’s culture war — just like in Iraq, the GOP never considered what “winning” would look like. Social conservatisms’ favorite method in the culture war was to make life unlivable for anyone deemed “other” forcing them to go live somewhere else. It was the tried and true “If you don’t like it, you can leave” method of dealing with hippies, homosexuals, liberals, and minorities since 1960. Well, it worked, and the “undesirables” have mostly left rural America for urban areas, taking their educations and skills with them.

            So no new business come to rural America, there are no new jobs, so even the young people who would rather not leave rural America must do so to find work. Rural counties in Georgia have been trending negative population growth in both the 2000 and 2010 census, and I’m told it’s the same in other “red” states, as well. Social conservatives “won” but the GOP as a party is about to lose their war with Democrats through attrition, simply because they’ve made policy decisions for five decades based on the principle of exclusion, not inclusion.

    • finnstudio

      What the Repubs better wake up to, thousands of voters that have been to stoned to ever go vote will if it means make our precious legal (yea)

    • Max

      Texas is not a conservative state, it’s a non-voting state and the repulicant’s love it. I do get pissed off at the Democrats for not voting. This past year the texas repulicant’s passed the voter’s ID to prevent voters fraud even though there’s been no voter fraud proven. In addition gerrymandering all districts in favor of the repulicant’s is another way they win. However within the next 10 years there will be more minority voters than white (especially the GOP white boys) voters. So that will end to gerrymandering the districts and maybe more schools than prisons will be built. Now back to the issue of legalization marijuana as long as the GOP white boys has control of the state this will not happen not even for medical reasons. It won’t happen even if the state turns purple, Texas has to go blue for any chance to legalize marijuana for medical reasons or otherwise. I am a Texican and my family has been here long before the Alamo was built.

  • YMI

    When we move to Mars. Lol.

  • AnthroGrow

    I was born in Texas, and thankfully we moved away when I was little. I’m seriously embarrassed to ever admit I was born there lol.

    • Ron

      I lived in Texas for about 18 months once. Horrible place–except for Austin. Wendy Davis being elected and marijuana legalization by the legislature this year have about an equal chance.

      • carl showalter

        I suppose you moved to some “better place” like Jew York or Kansass?

        • danno

          Why don’t you go stick your head in a hole carl. You must be from Jew York yourself.

    • finnstudio

      We feel the same

  • Kelly Simmons

    thats one fucked up state.you get as much time as a rapist or killer

    • Jetdoc

      In AZ, simple possession of less than 2 pounds (which means a TRACE) of marijuana is a Felony punishable by up to 2 years. FIRST offense! However our medical marijuana law has exempted patients from that SO FAR! But they ARE presently prosecuting some patients as “Test cases” here as well.

      IF you’re in Texas, CALL & WRITE your legislators every week. Attend political meetings and make your VOICE heard on the issue. Get you like minded friends to join you in you’re quest. But it’s NOT going to change UNTIL you get off your asses and CHANGE them! Don’t allow your legislators to laugh off the question of where they stand on the issue! Make them answer! Then holds them accountable for those same positions. Whatever that may be. Support LOCAL Marijuana groups in your area. DONATE your TIME to make calls or stuff envelopes. You don’t know how much that helps. Hell, GIVE $20 to those said organizations. They can’t get YOUR message out without having MONEY! Help them out, but it won’t change UNTIL Y’ALL CHANGE it!

      • And when you find out that the Republican is against weed, and the Democrat is for it, you have to weigh how important marijuana reform is to you, and then vote accordingly.

        • finnstudio

          Im a Repub, but I think if Richards makes this in issue the Repubs will be caught completely flat footed by what to do

        • danno

          To Hell with the word game’s man. There to damn afraid to make it legal. They might actually do something the people want. Boy wouldn’t that be a miracle.

    • Pinky

      Heck a killer gets out in 5 years on good behavior, a marijuana smoker gets 2 yrs. and his life is ruined forevever,can’t get a decent job , ends up going back to jail as he has to sell drugs to make it.

    • danno

      They don’t know the difference between a killer and a pot smoker in TEXAS. There so backward, well do i have to say more Look who is running the state. {A Bully}.

      • danno

        A killer and rapist have better rights than the Pot smokers do. Damn is that F**ked UP.

  • kingfish63

    SHIT I LIVE IN TEXAS , JOHNNY LAW AND THERE GUSTAFFO TACTICS ARREST TEXANS LEFT AND RIGHT FOR MARIJUANA , OUR STATE WAIST SO MUCH TAX PAYERS MONEY ON ARRESTING TEXANS FOR MARIJUANA ITS REDICULAS A WAIST OF OUR COURT SYSTEM , TEXAS COULD MAKE SO MUCH NEEDED TAX REVENUES BY TAXING AND REGULATING THE PLANT , JOHNNY LAW down hear needs to arrest the real crimemanals out on our streets , meth heads, herion addicts pill poppers , drunk driver , rapist , killers , child molesters and the list go,s on ,

    • Doom

      Hey shit for brains, your caps lock is on. What the fuck is “THERE GUSTAFFO”. I think maybe you meant “their gestapo” Man, you are a fucking moron.

      • danno

        Hey doom quit being part of the problem and just go hide some where. you fucking moron your self.

    • YeahISaidIt

      Damn, Bro…
      You must have been smoking some s#it when you wrote…

      • danno

        Yes and pass that joint this way man.

    • Brenda Gonzales

      Hear hear!!!!!!!!!im with ya you hit it right on!!

      • kingfish63

        MAYBE IN A COUPLE YEARS , THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT WILL LET THE PUBLIC VOTE AND DECIDE ON LEGALIZATION , THE G.O.P and THE REPUBLICANS KNOW THE TEXANS VOTERS WOULD WIN BY A LAND SLIDE IF GIVEN A CHANCE TO VOTE

        • danno

          I agree They will just stick it in with another bill that they know everyone will vote no on. Then they will say the people didn’t want.

      • danno

        I’m with you man. I mean Mam. Sorry

    • jamie

      I so agree.

  • Conservative Christian

    It’s time for all of us to start doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. None of us would want our kids put in jail over a little marijuana. None of us would want the police to confiscate and sell our parents’ home because they grew a couple of plants to help with the aches and pains of growing old. Let’s start treating other people the way we would want to be treated.

    • YeahISaidIt

      Oh, yeah…
      Things are really going to change when Da’ Man reads yours…

      • finnstudio

        ya moms calling

        • YeahISaidIt

          Blah…

    • danno

      Kinda like those Isal overseas people. I like it, lets do to them what they are doing to us. [Cutting Heads Off, Raping woman and children, Forcing there will on the people].

  • kevin

    This is disgusting I live in this state but I love this state, but I wish that this state would stop listing to prisons union, beer company police people pharmaceutical companies list in to the people 65 want change help people with disabilities diseases seizures and fatile ill people. Legal medical marijuana Plz end the war on drugs in texas next year

  • purged ╢Ω╠ out

    I live in Texas and don’t smoke weed or drink but I have been institutionalized and persecuted all my life 1). for not having parents and 2). for not paying child support. while my ex wife and her new husband live off the 876.00 dollars I give them and welfare while selling weed out of there house that I help pay for!.. I make about twelve hundred a month
    I understand the fight of the legalization and agree that taking it out of the hands of the Mexican cartels and the protection of the border
    but will we also be enabling people like my ex wife and her new husband letting them lay around and smoke that shit while I live in a truck camper and eat beans out of a can?
    sincerely loser

    • Snoopy Peanuts

      Some people are just going to be losers regardless of what substances are around…..

      • bobo

        no your right man I `m getting over it and keeping up on that child support and listening to the police scanner so I can here them getting taking down ha ha and I`ll get my kids and some support too!

    • annon6145

      Sounds like an issue with the Attorney General you have, not the legalization and tax revenue medical marijuana can generate.

    • Dabqueen420

      Sounds to me like you should quit your bitching about ypur ex wife and her new husband and just get your shit together man.

      • carl showalter

        Sounds like exwife should have took a one way trip to the desert in west Texas long ago(wink)

    • Pinky

      Turn her exwife in and get your kids back, no more child support!

    • Anthony Perez

      Marijuana doesn’t make you lazy, if you are lazy before you smoke marijuana, you will be lazy after you smoke marijuana. There’s not a single shred of evidence to support the “lazy stoner” stereotype. Furthermore there isn’t a single non-government funded, objective scientific study to suggest that marijuana is harmful in any way. Also, stop making this subjective, the world doesn’t revolve around you or your situation. That said I ‘am sympathetic to what you are going through and I hope things get better for you. To answer your question, no; we are not ENABLING anything by legalizing mj. The people that want to smoke weed will smoke weed regardless of the repercussions. What regulating the substance will do is save billions of tax dollars because of the war on drugs while simultaneously creating jobs and earning us billions from taxing the substance. Not to mention that we could start using the male plant again to make paper, wood planks, clothes, and other products like we used to before william randolph hearst demonized the plant leading to it’s prohibition. Even more profit. From a business standpoint, this is an obvious no brainer. Rant over.

  • jamie

    Look into RAMP (Republicans Against Marijuana Prohibition). They are making movements in the right direction to effect change rather well and with a lot of support. I know the woman who started it personally and this an 80 something Grandmother who has fire and fight to spare in order to make sure Texas gets medicinal marijuana. She knows EVERYONE in the Republican party in Texas and will go toe to toe with all of them to get this passed.

    • danno

      Well I’m on her side then.

  • davis420

    It’s unfair to many ‘conservatives’ to call Texas a Conservative state. It’s an archaic, hypocriyical money rules, alcoholic bastion of want-to-be cowboys. ‘Keep government out of my life, but let it into yours’. ‘Drinking is cool, getting high is against gods law’. Texas is the dubble standard Dark Star State. Hey! It’s what they want so it’s okay with me. Poor Willie Nelson, must brake his heart. Hiding out in San Antonio…..

    • Django 2Chainz

      Have you ever been to TX or are you just talking random shit based off Movies??

  • Texans hang on to their guns and bibles and not a single person in the state has an IQ over 60 .

    • Doubleup

      What a fascinating, well-informed outlook you have. Your comment is a boon to humankind’s well-being.

      • finnstudio

        Sarcasm is the wit of the weak minded

        • What

          And quoting an opinion doesn’t prove your superiority. Are you saying you agree with ignorance?

        • danno

          You must have a weak one then

    • katie

      Bull shit your a fucking ass hole! I am proud to live in Texas. And I am also very proud to say that y my I.Q is 136!!!

    • HigherIQ

      I was born and raised in Texas, my IQ is well above average, I have no guns, and I am a logical person who does not believe in heaven, hell, or organized religion. I think blanket statements such as yours display what an idiot you are. Does that mean you believe the stigma that people from California are all coke head, wife killers? Where do you get your moronic logic? Actually what you stated is not logical at all. Get a clue.

      • hate booze love pot

        boys leave Hollywood alone…..poor guy everyone is beating up on him he is just angry…from 148

    • danno

      Asshole My IQ is 119 what is yours 10 or did it even register And I live in Texas. And we are trying to get it passed but we have fight those drinking Republicans. Who think the own this state. Like trying to get rid of the grass burs in your yard. Almost impossible.

      • hate booze love pot

        relax danno Hollywood has issues….from 148

    • Tyrone Tyson

      Lol it’s kinda true, our population is biggest in urbanilzed areas, but there are soooo many small conservative counties that they cancel out the big counties.

    • hate booze love pot

      hey now….I like gun control…everyone should control one..as far as bible..please give me a break…religion is poison..from 148!

  • Guest

    Bull shit your a fucking ass hole! I am proud to live in texas. And im also very proud to say my IQ is 136!!!

    • HigherIQ

      With that high of an IQ one would think you could, at least, be grammatically correct. Idiot.

      • Need weed now.

        who the fuck needs grammer when your Smart as fuck.

        • Anthony Perez

          Well that’s moronic. Grammar is used to convey your message in a clear and concise manner. So it doesn’t matter how smart you are if no one can understand your message. That’s like saying you like to travel but you never leave your room.

      • danno

        Your IQ is probably in grammar right

    • danno

      Woo Hoo To bad you don’t use it. And if your so smart help us get it legalized. That will prove your smart’s

      • hate booze love pot

        you tell him danno!

    • hate booze love pot

      136….clown…im 148..caveman!

  • finnstudio

    “IF” you ever even been to Texas turd face, the only reason you would not fit in if you are a pussy or a lazy piece of s, so my freind , ever been to Texas?

  • meds store

    Buy High Quality Grade of MARIJUANA STRAINS like OG Kush,Purple Kush,bubba kush, Granddaddy Purple,orange kush ,Master Kush,Hash Plant,Blue Dream,Black Domina, Romulan, Sour Diesel,New Purple Power,Hawaiian Sativa,Banana Kush,Arjan’s Haze #2, white widow, green crack ,wax ,girl scout cookies,COCAINE. fast and discrete delivery and affordable prices. contact us back for more details if interested. We over instant delivery depending on your location and for those abroad,

    Our shipping term can be by sea, by air, your other express company like DHL, FEDEX, EMS, and TNT, WITH TRACKINGS, PLEASE ONLY SERIOUS BUYERS ARE WELCOME E-mail: greengarden48@gmail.com Text/Call: 320-400-1397

  • brian

    weed that we smoke God put it here for us like other things that help us with our struggles in our lives I think it’s a dame shame that our fucking feds like fucking our freedom yes I cuss but how do you let the feds know your mad.with there building. Ok we alow trespassers in our country and worry about us citizens smoke weed when cigarette is worse I think it’s a shame that’s there pushes when they could be honest about it. they want to hire people and be tough but they don’t know when to stop the war on there own people. this is a lesson about trust yes there needs to education and more understanding about issues that never seen to end like gay marrage . life is too short God wants everybody to be treated the same one day his words will be will be done. I promise Brian owens US citizens reform lol feds you need me as much as I need you haha blanks Dada!:-)

    • hate booze love pot

      did you know weed is actually called gods plant…and my name is brian also

  • fatbob amarillo,texas

    We need to help people who are sick. If pot helps them let them have it. We neef smoke shops to go and have a couple of hits to make some oof us relax. I have parkinsons i dont care what anyone says it helps me more than any damn pill i have to take. Thnx. Its our right to be free.

    • hate booze love pot

      fatbob….I like that name and the fact is I was born in state of Washington raised youth in California and now im here in Houston pissed at the cavemanish attitude of the law makers here..oh its ok to have booze legal..fatal car wecks….domestic abuse..and so on but show me where smoking a joint creates problems like that..

  • Houston Texas

    Someone In Austin TX needs to Get some BALLS and be The Voice For us TEXANS

    Our Ancestors didnt travel all the way to TEXAS to be OPPRESSED BY POLICE

  • StonersFromAustin

    “Legalize it” – Tokers from austin

  • Kim

    Former narcotic officer, Barry Cooper, should head up the Texas citizen initiative.

  • TX Girl

    Former narcotic officer and author, Barry Cooper, should head up the Texas Citizens Initiative.

  • rob

    Seriously yall all keep bitching about one state and the stereo type views u have on us but we really are a diverse state. Anyway my point is one state really doesn’t matter we need to focus on legalization as an issue for our entire country and stop thinkin of ourselves as different from one another we are all the same and have the same issues to deal with.

  • Rainman
  • wtf

    I wish tx would have medical marijuana for people who have bad seizures and cancer I grew up having seizures and had tooken many pills that did not work and cps took my kid’s over marijuana and I think it’s unfair and I shouldn’t be judged for smoking pot for my seizures …. I WANT MY BABIES BACK

    • danno

      Good luck because marijuana in Texas is worse than killing someone, pretty sad man pretty sad.

    • There are other avenues to access reliable medical marijuana

  • notfilcnairb

    im in texas and like to grow my own but i may have to leave this rotten state pretty soon and i will tell anybody dont move here go to colorado thats a good thing they got there legal weed real freedom i hate texas and most of the people here and dont vote for greg abbott hes worse than rick perry vote for wendy davis and weed may get legal here

    • The real lebanese

      Rick perry actually supports the legalization of Cannabis. Look it up.

      • danno

        Only if it gets him in office again.

        • The real lebanese

          Probably.

        • steven

          He is not running again.

      • hate booze love pot

        then he should get off his ass and do it!

    • Meg Hildebrandt

      I voted for Wendy for THAT reason…I’ve had 4 back surgeries & my back Dr. said that when it’s medically legal in Texas, he’ll give me a prescription for it!

  • texasgrown

    Then get the fuck outa here and get your info straight. Texas is the mother fucking shit!

    • danno

      Yep it’s the shit alright! And as long as idiots like you continue to vote the wrong politician in office nothing will get done in this state. It seems this state is full off the (good ole boys) way of doing thing’s. That’s why it will take another 50 years for anything here to change.

  • danno

    Yep i live in Texas will probably move to Colorado. Because the people do not control this state its the Politician’s that do what they want not what the people want. But what do you expect when the politician’s are a bunch of THUG’S. You have to take out of the dealer’s hands, make it legal and control it.

  • danno

    Yep the police are beginning to act like the Nazi’s in world war two. BULLY’S Shooting unarmed people, killing people’s dog’s But when you start breaking the wrong doors. It makes me wander if the are trying to start a war with the people. They just seem to be trying to make a name for them self. bad name!!!!! I don’t trust them anymore

    • kingfish63

      I AGREE

  • jamie

    It’s a win win situation if it is legal. People get their weed. Less people(family members) in jail/prison. Less tax dollars spent in courts prosecuting this “crime”. Less tax dollars spent housing these “criminals” . Maybe even less violence due to the hustle of getting this “drug”. It will improve the economy with the opening of new stores which mean new jobs. Hell, how about a weed factory, where employees have benefits. Now, I’m not saying toke it up and time or any where. Have structured laws like with alcohol. Gotta be a certain age. Can’t be under the influence at work or driving. By the way, I don’t even smoke weed. This wound be a good thing. People say, oh it’s harmful, and stupid people will still use on job and driving. Well, prosecute them like with alcohol. I believe this will also save lives in partial from the drug war with these other countries. Plus, this is a natural growing substance. Yall know where I’m going with this one, but this is getting long. :)

  • Why does my state not care if I live or die? Must I move away from everyone I love to be healthy? I have suffered for 27 yrs.. lost my large intestines.. give myself bi-weekly shots. How much more must I suffer and die inside before Texas WAKES up and allows me access to what will save my life?! Stop being greedy .. only thinking the pharmaceutical companies. I want to live… If I can’t do it in Texas.. I will be forced to leave everything that makes life meaningful to me. Thanks Texas!! http://www.medicalmarijuanablog.com/benefits/crohns-disease-026.html

  • O’ Patrick

    Amazingly enough despite how legal some want it. I see more people abuse it, than anything. I think its sad. I have always considered it bad for you. To inhale anything into your system similar to cigarettes. Can only be unhealthy. Perhaps I’m only looking at the bad side. I just never seen any good from it. But to each there own. I drink alcohol regularly and I know it isn’t healthy. The truth of the matter is that the government and the politicians are behind everything wrong in this country. If you all were given authority to make the rules wouldn’t you change it in your favor even a little bit and not so much in favor of ”The People”. These people are appointed/voted on and no one is of any competition. Therefore some of the same people stay in the system and keep it corrupt. Either way as far as this being legal I tend to not care one way or the other. If you want something bad enough you will find a way to get it. Legal or not!

    • Angrytexasvet

      As a veteran that uses it to manage ptsd, extreme social anxiety, major depressive disorder and adjustment disorder. I can tell you. Even after being on several different ” approved” drugs that the only thing that helps is cannabis. And it disgusts me that more than 20 vets every day commit suicide and yet in most states if we use cannabis to combat this so we can lead normal productive lives, then we are criminals. Especially considering that in Israel it is used in cancer wards, and retirement homes. It may be a drug, but it is far safer than even aspirin and caffeine! it is virtually impossible to overdose on. So if you have no direct experience or have done no honest research on your own, then you’re basically spouting your opinion. And we all know opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and they all stink. Get over yourselves and actually do some research with an open mind.

  • joe

    weed is not a drug you CAN NOT MAKE IT you grow it it’s gods plant he put it on this earth just like us

    • James

      A drug is “a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.”

      • Travis Reeves

        Well caffein is a drug do we label it as one, no. We dont even label alcohol as a drug, thats why they use the “drugs or alcohol” bullshit. Cannabis is safer than alcohol caffein and allot of other substances should we label and call cannabis a drug. I think not.

  • manny007

    Im pro cannabis but I’m tired of people saying that weed is not a drug. Technically anything that alters function And/or behavior is considered a drug.

    • manny007

      P.s I live in Texas and I’ll smoke it anyway no matter its legal status

    • Brad Reynolds

      Hi manny007, that’s not entirely true bud. Sugar alters behavior and is the cause of devastating illnesses, but we continue to shove it down the throats of our children. I think the argument is whether the propaganda and lies we have been told for decades will be tolerated any longer. The short answer is NO! To put this plant as a schedule I is asinine. I ask that you support truth and not a personal agenda. I would do the same for you.

  • JR

    I’m almost ashamed to be in cali if they legalize in TX first.

    They advertise or advertise other drugs not only to adults but especially to young boys & men by any means possible. No wonder me and most of my friends in white suburbia were drinking, smoking, &/or chewing in 6th grade.

    Be ashamed for them if you want but people should not be shamed for smoking pot legally and responsibly while more harmful drugs like alcohol & tobacco are fine.

  • Al_Dove

    Bill Ending Marijuana Prohibition in Texas Passes Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 5-2 http://www.rampgop.org/2015/05/hb2165-passes-criminal-jurisprudence-committee/

  • Jeremiah

    F~$¥ texas yI’m goin to Colorado. ..

  • Jeremiah

    No street ? drugs are not cool, I know.
    Neither is ETOH.

  • Blazer

    A few of the benefits of legalization: organized crime and cartels lose revenue. Law enforcement can focus on real crimes. Taxpayers don’t spend money on incarcerated tokers. Texas receives the taxes. Jobs are created in farming, distribution, warehousing, transportation, marketing, sales, retail, advertising, accounting, et al. The negatives are…uh, I can’t think of any.