I can say with quite certainty that this topic will be much more heavily debated amid the 2016 Democratic primary than the Republican one. Then again, maybe not considering the various levels of marijuana decriminalization support within some factions of the GOP. Rand Paul, I’m looking at you.

Either way, Hillary Clinton will be forced to answer on this topic as most of the 2016 contenders will as well. Report from CNN:

When Hillary Clinton graduated from Wellesley College in 1969 — where the future first lady and Secretary of State says she did not try marijuana — only 12% of Americans wanted to legalize the drug.

In 45 years, however, the tide has changed for legalization: 58% of Americans now want to make consumption legal, two states (Colorado and Washington) already have and two more states (Oregon and Alaska) could join them by the end of the year.

Clinton is the prohibitive favorite for the Democrats’ nomination, but to many in the marijuana legalization community, she is not the best messenger for their cause.

“She is so politically pragmatic,” said Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “If she has to find herself running against a conservative Republican in 2016, I am fearful, from my own view here, that she is going to tack more to the middle. And the middle in this issue tends to tack more to the conservative side.”

So the smokers fear that Hillary will not stay true to the cause if she’s pinned down against a conservative Republican who outright opposes any lightening of marijuana laws. I’d say that’s a safe bet because, as noted in this piece, the Clintons are nothing if not political survivalists. See Bill Clinton throughout the late 1990s. Then again, if Hillary wins the nomination and faces off against someone like Rand Paul, there will be a pretty weighty debate ont he issue.


  1. I don’t understand. Why should this be an issue? It’s being dealt with on a state-by-state basis. Why would anyone want to make it a national issue??

  2. The Supreme Court just gave an open door to sodomy which is being accepted by 50%+ of the country and you’re concerned with pot being an issue in the next election? Good God with all the important issues facing Americas future pot is the least of our problems.

    • Well I’m not concerned with it.. but Dems are because they’d like the college kids to come vote for them on the grounds of they like to party or something.

      • Har. “Wow, man, you mean we gotta vote today? Ummm, what is a vote again? Didn’t they already decide American Idol??”

        Doubly confusing for them in the North Carolina election with Clay Aiken. . . .

      • Whatever promoted your thought that only Democrats like to party or something? A large number of states that elected to have medical marijuana are (Red) Republican controlled and most allow growth of 6 plants (that’s a lot of smoke). In the upcoming election, asking for full legalization is Alaska(Red),Oregon(Red), and District of Columbia (Blue)(DC presently has medical). Florida(Red) wants a constitutional amendment to legalize medical marijuana and Las Vegas gambling mogul, Republican contributor Sheldon Adelson has donated $2.5 million to get the party rolling.

        • I don’t think anyone said only Democrats like to party.

          BTW, I was surprised to find that the song WILDWOOD WEED (“Y’all come back, now, y’hear?”) was written in 1962–year of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Elvis’ last gold record.

          Here’s a blast from the past (don’t tell Bob):


    • For the past two days or so I have been engulfed in black thoughts of
      Ebola in Texas so what would be more pleasurable than to mix it up a little with Bob. Since the word sodomy does not appear in the actual Bible, I take it you are referring to the book of Leviticus, a book of laws given to Moses by the Lord. All 27 chapters. Chapter 18 verse 22 does read “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination”. These laws of conduct leave very little out, even Verse 28 forbids tatooes “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you”. Jesus Christ came to make the Old Testament history giving us a new set of rules: love, compassion, and forgiveness”.

        • I don’t believe you for one minute. I really was making an attempt at humor when I suggested “mix it up a little”. To be insulting about an Ebola outbreak in Texas or any other state is a moral breach. You’re just not ready for the olive branch.

          • Tess;
            Your remarks could hardly be construed as an “olive branch” under any circumstances and in addition to insist that I was being insulting could only take the warped mind of someone on the left. LOL You’ll have to point that out to me.

            As to whether you believe me or not I think you have me confused with someone who cares if you do or don’t.

            • Ah Tweedledum ! I was wondering how long it would take before you stuck your nose in this. Not with anything intelligently worth while I might add…simply his once again riding to the rescue of Tess Trueheart. Sounds like the plot of a tired old silent movie doesn’t it?
              Anyone who is foolish enough to get baited into an argument deserves what he gets and that is exactly where these conversations were going. Tess admitted she worked herself into a two day frenzy and was looking for a place to let off steam. There was no “humor” involved. I do however find it funny that we can have a discussion on religious views for numerous post and go around in the same circles. When one of us decides this is going nowhere and says “We should agree that we disagree” you refuse.
              However when you can’t respond or want to cut the conversation off and I refuse it’s because I’m forcing my religion on you. Either way I’m being accused of being a Zionist by Surfisher and a right wing religious fanatic by the left. If you find religion to demanding and can’t deal with the nuances of right and wrong then don’t follow any religion. I’m not attempting to convert you.

            • “There was no humor involved.” Dude, that’s the point. You don’t see humor in anything at all anymore. Back far in my memory, I think I remember your not being so morbid.

    • Actually, Bob, you’re more than a decade behind the times. Sodomy has not been illegal in any state since 2003.

        • I didn’t say anything about equal rights or freedom. I was just ridiculing your gutter mind.

          As for “answering to a higher authority,” that’s what causes beheadings.

            • Please show me where I “defended sodomy.” Dude, you are getting so paranoid.

              And I wasn’t “equating Christianity with radical Islam,” I was ridiculing YOU for saying you “answer to a higher power.” And I just wanted to point out that, let’s put it differently, Son of Sam answered to a dog’s voice in his head. . .

            • Dudette:
              You feel you are being accused of defending sodomy unjustly and I’m the one who’s paranoid? Two people have now found the need to ask you that question so there must be something there to bring it up.

              Yes some of us feel there is a higher authority than government as our God. If you weren’t comparing Christianity to Radical Islam then I don’t see any reason for you to mention beheadings in the same context. Nor the comparison of a mentally deranged killer in the same context. But that’s the loose comparisons that work when the left wants to persuade their mush brained followers to make government their God. As you admitted in your last post you have to deal in ridicule. As I said earlier I’m not attempting to convert anyone. If you don’t believe or wish to follow THEN DON’T!

              I take it being called “Dude” is another of your insults? It seems to be something you only reserve for me. I’ve been called worst by better people.

            • Bobette: You have a real problem with backing up anytning you say. You make claims and charges, and if someone asks you what you mean, or to prove it, you just go off on an irrelevant rant.

              In this case, you claimed that I was defending sodomy, and all I asked was, “WHERE”? I see nothing in this entire thread where I have defended sodomy, or even mentioned it, except to reply. I just pointed out that it’s been LEGAL for more than a decade–everywhere in the country, and you’re ranting about how you want to prevent it. That train left, dude.

              In order to make my point clear on the other point, I said Son of Sam also “answered to a higher authority.” It scares hell otta me when people hear voices–and want to control other people.

              As for using “Dude,” it’s when I think someone is WAY off the rails, to the point where I can’t believe it: “Dude, really?”

              And, of course, you are further proving the point that you have become so obsessive and obsessed (possessed?) that you have lost all ability to have a sense of humor about anything. That’s really sad.

              But, I also find it t be funny!

      • Tess & Goethe — why are you two defending sodomy so fervently…? Normal people don’t do it, and if you are normal you don’t practice it since it is vile, unnatural, aberrant and an evolutionary dead-end! ….So why support this disgusting behavior — because it is politically correct to parrot the idiocy the liberals have managed to brainwash you to do…?!?!

        Tess & Goethe — there is no merit in your posts that defend such sickness, sorry.

        • First of all, I am not “defending” sodomy. I just noted that it’s been illegal for more than a decade.

          And maybe you should look up the meaning of “sodomy.” It includes your girlfriend giving you a bl*wjob–if you could get a girlfriend.

          • Goethe — going off on a tangent…LOL!

            The sodomy discussed to be utterly disgusting and unnatural was about gays! (Not to be vulgar: sticking their peepees into their poopers as lovemaking — how sick is this for you and Tess to defend the right for such sickos to get married)!

            • Dude:
              You’re the only one here who seems to be obsessed with “peepees” and “poopers.” Gay marriage is not about sex, it’s about the respect and benefits given to some human beings, and not others. [In fact, most hetero couples say they get LESS sex after they marry, so you should welcome it, if you’re so offended.]

              As noted elsewhere, people are not usually so obsessed with “peepees” and “poopers” unless they have latent homosexual tendencies that they are trying to deny. It’s ok. I ASSURE you, we will not think any LESS of you if you accept your orientation.

Comments are closed.