Yup….
 
 
 

When it comes to drug policy the president has an important role to play. While we are discussing a state initiative here,we are ,or at least should be, trying to influence the national dialogue. Regardless of who one supports for president we do want to see drug policy reform be in the five or six top issues that the campaign is fought over. Exposing the abject failure of our state and national rug policy is something most of us have done for years and must keep doing.
Peace
Dr. Dave

It's true that Ron Paul won't be elected president, but it also appears possible that come the Republican nominating convention Romney will not have 50% plus one of the delegates. At this writing it looks like Paul, , Santorum and maybe Huntsman will have enough delegates to deny Romney a first ballot nomination. Then the horse trading begins. I know it's a fantasy but it sure would be interesting if adding a plank on drug policy reform were one of the things Paul was willing to trade off to give his delegates to Romney.

Mickey,
 
Your criticism of Steve DeAngelo for his willingness to throw
"recreational" marijuana use under the bus was very well taken. But
regarding this latest issue, I think you should take a look at another
Huffington Post essay, from Robin Koerner:
 
If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html
Posted: 7/7/11 01:00 PM ET
 
The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for
George W. Bush the second time around.
 
I don't endorse the idea that American politics should be dictated by
foreign opinions but a reading of the foreign press over the last six
years reveals that the first election of President Bush Jr. was
largely excused around the world since no one could have known what
this new president was going to do.
Moreover, America arguably didn't vote for him anyway in 2000.
 
However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because
by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He
wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us
(e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with
which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3)
establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of
private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act),
and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such
intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state
(e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc… )
 
The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed
largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they
had made with Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the
egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.
 
When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four
objectives were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be
"changed."
 
After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars
against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2)
oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his
administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal
framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private
individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4)
is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on
innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic
wiretapping, TSA etc.. )
 
Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of
innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and
the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living,
we had the hope, but we haven't had the change.
 
Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had
not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in
2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better
have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing
innocent people who don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the
rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right
to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being
touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind
him as he just follows his orders.
 
Do I labor the point? Good.
 
I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having
difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I
supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so
again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in
his opposition to all of these things — not just in words but in deeds.
 
If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if
not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make
their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals
follow their own social conscience — even when he disagrees with them
(as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he
is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.
 
If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again
"because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some
group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs
than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well.
But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace,
civil rights or a government that treats people equally.
 
That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly
for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is
a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on.
The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his
extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many
think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.
 
As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a
corrupt political party duopoly… and the system is stacked against
anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what
he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and
freedom. It really isn't complicated.
 
Now, I know that the Republican party stinks to many Democrats and
Independents who care about social justice and civil rights, but we
all need to be smart and play the system to get the political outcomes
we seek: you don't have to like a party or even identify with it to
sign up as a Republican for a year to help make sure that the
Republican primaries are won by the one representative who has always
been for peace, has always voted against bailouts, and has always
opposed the reach of government into your bedroom, your relationships
and your person.
 
And if you are a Democrat or socially progressive Independent, you
can't tell me you weren't hoping for all that from Obama.
 
Perhaps you see too much small-mindedness, or mean spirit or religious
craziness in the Republican party. Sure you do. You can find all of
them in spades. But since you can't change the Democrat ticket for
2012, why not act where you can make a positive change — by telling
the Republican party where you really want it to go… in the
direction of peace and civil liberty (both of which, if you go back
just a little way, can be found in the traditions of republicanism).
 
Just in case you need to make it absolutely clear for your friends at
work that you have not gone to the dark side, I offer you a special
moniker to set yourselves apart and give yourself a way back once
you've done what needs to be done — the "Blue Republican" — to
signify, of course, your liberal sensibilities and perhaps even your
history as a Democratic voter. (Or why not just tell your friends that
Bill Maher and Jon Stewart seem to have already gotten the message?)
 
I am aware that the main objection to Ron Paul from the left concerns
his belief that private charities and individuals are more effective
in maintaining social welfare than the government. To this I ask one
question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current
centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making
and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama's
administrations? Moreover, while Ron Paul would look to transition out
of the huge federally run welfare programs in the long-run, that's not
where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring our
forces back to the USA and to re-implement the Bill of Rights.
 
Ron Paul's electoral weakness is not a difficulty in winning a
presidential election. It is in winning a primary in a party with a
Conservative constituency that includes the religious right and neo-
cons. An influx of peace and freedom-loving independents and Democrats
would change the math on the Republican side and potentially the
future of America by setting up a presidential contest with a pro
peace, pro-civil rights candidate (who could outflank Obama on those
issues, at least, from the left).
 
Again, this isn't an endorsement of the Republican party or a claim
that the Republican record is better than the Democrat on any of the
issues discussed in this article. (It isn't.) It is not even a
statement that Dr. Paul is some kind of panacea of American politics.
Rather, it is to recognize simply that the one potential Presidential
candidate who wishes to stop killing innocent people in foreign wars
and stop transferring the wealth of poor and working Americans to the
corporate elites happens to be — this time around — a Republican.
 
It is also to recognize that any other political choice is for a
status quo in which all the issues that really matter (war and peace,
civil rights) are settled for the military industrial complex and the
interests of the State over the individual.
 
So what'll it be — same old team allegiance or new, Blue Republicans?
 
 
If this isn't enough to convince you to give Ron Paul a chance,
consider this piece from another liberal, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com:
 
 
SATURDAY, DEC 31, 2011 8:15 AM PST
Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
 
 
VIDEO
BY GLENN GREENWALD
 
The signature of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is shown on the cover of an
"Obama Countdown Calendar" during a campaign stop in Atlantic, Iowa,
Thursday. (Credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
 
(updated below)
 
As I’ve written about before, America’s election season degrades
mainstream political discourse even beyond its usual lowly state. The
worst attributes of our political culture — obsession with
trivialities, the dominance of horserace “reporting,” and mindless
partisan loyalties — become more pronounced than ever. Meanwhile, the
actually consequential acts of the U.S. Government and the permanent
power factions that control it — covert endless wars, consolidation of
unchecked power, the rapid growth of the Surveillance State and the
secrecy regime, massive inequalities in the legal system, continuous
transfers of wealth from the disappearing middle class to large
corporate conglomerates — drone on with even less attention paid than
usual.
 
Because most of those policies are fully bipartisan in nature, the
election season — in which only issues that bestow partisan advantage
receive attention — places them even further outside the realm of
mainstream debate and scrutiny. For that reason, America’s elections
ironically serve to obsfuscate political reality even more than it
usually is.
 
This would all be bad enough if “election season” were confined to a
few months the way it is in most civilized countries. But in America,
the fixation on presidential elections takes hold at least eighteen
months before the actual election occurs, which means that more than
1/3 of a President’s term is conducted in the midst of (and is
obscured by) the petty circus distractions of The Campaign. Thus, an
unauthorized, potentially devastating covert war — both hot and cold —
against Iran can be waged with virtually no debate, just as government
control over the Internet can be inexorably advanced, because TV
political shows are busy chattering away about Michele Bachmann’s
latest gaffe and minute changes in Rick Perry’s polling numbers.
 
Then there’s the full-scale sacrifice of intellectual honesty and
political independence at the altar of tongue-wagging partisan
loyalty. The very same people who in 2004 wildly cheered John Kerry —
husband of the billionaire heiress-widow Teresa Heinz Kerry — spent
all of 2008 mocking John McCain’s wealthy life courtesy of his
millionaire heiress wife and will spend 2012 depicting Mitt Romney’s
wealth as proof of his insularity; conversely, the same people who
relentlessly mocked Kerry in 2004 as a kept girly-man and gigolo for
living off his wife’s wealth spent 2008 venerating McCain as the
Paragon of Manly Honor.
 
That combat experience is an important presidential trait was insisted
upon in 2004 by the very same people who vehemently denied it in 2008,
and vice-versa. Long-time associations with controversial figures and
inflammatory statements from decades ago either matter or they don’t
depending on whom it hurts, etc. etc. During election season, even the
pretense of consistency is proudly dispensed with; listening to these
empty electioneering screeching matches for any period of time can
generate the desire to jump off the nearest bridge to escape it.
 
Then there’s the inability and/or refusal to recognize that a
political discussion might exist independent of the Red v. Blue Cage
Match. Thus, any critique of the President’s exercise of vast power
(an adversarial check on which our political system depends)
immediately prompts bafflement (I don’t understand the point: would
Rick Perry be any better?) or grievance (you’re helping Mitt Romney by
talking about this!!). The premise takes hold for a full 18 months —
increasing each day in intensity until Election Day — that every
discussion of the President’s actions must be driven solely by one’s
preference for election outcomes (if you support the President’s re-
election, then why criticize him?).
 
Worse still is the embrace of George W. Bush’s with-us-or-against-us
mentality as the prism through which all political discussions are
filtered. It’s literally impossible to discuss any of the candidates’
positions without having the simple-minded — who see all political
issues exclusively as a Manichean struggle between the Big Bad
Democrats and Good Kind Republicans or vice-versa — misapprehend “I
agree with Candidate X’s position on Y” as “I support Candidate X for
President” or “I disagree with Candidate X’s position on Y” as “I
oppose Candidate X for President.” Even worse are the lying partisan
enforcers who, like the Inquisitor Generals searching for any inkling
of heresy, purposely distort any discrete praise for the Enemy as a
general endorsement.
 
So potent is this poison that no inoculation against it exists. No
matter how expressly you repudiate the distortions in advance, they
will freely flow. Hence: I’m about to discuss the candidacies of
Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I
am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the
simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim
the opposite. But since it’s always inadvisable to refrain from
expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the
lowest elements, I’m going to proceed to make a couple of important
points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they
will be distorted.
 
* * * * *
 
The Ron Paul candidacy, for so many reasons, spawns pervasive
political confusion — both unintended and deliberate. Yesterday, The
Nation‘s long-time liberal publisher, Katrina vanden Heuvel, wrote
this on Twitter:
 
 
That’s fairly remarkable: here’s the Publisher of The Nation praising
Ron Paul not on ancillary political topics but central ones (“ending
preemptive wars & challenging bipartisan elite consensus” on foreign
policy), and going even further and expressing general

I am not saying to vote for Obama. Vote for whoever you want. I am saying it is extremely shallow to act as if cannabis is the only issue of importance in making that choice, and that promoting Republicans to punish Obama for inaction on medical cannabis is poor strategy, which makes our movement look like selfish assholes. Does that make more sense?
 
 
 
Mickey Martin
T-Comp Consulting Director
www.cannabiswarrior.com
www.tcompconsulting.com
s..[email protected]
(phone#-removed)
http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
 
 
***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, West Coast Cannabis, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***
 
 
________________________________
From: Starchild <s..[email protected]>
Cc: DPFCA <s..[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2012 11:42 PM

 
Mickey,
 
Your criticism of Steve DeAngelo for his willingness to throw "recreational" marijuana use under the bus was very well taken. But regarding this latest issue, I think you should take a look at another Huffington Post essay, from Robin Koerner:
 
If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html
Posted: 7/7/11 01:00 PM ET
 
The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for George W. Bush the second time around.
I don't endorse the idea that American politics should be dictated by foreign opinions but a reading of the foreign press over the last six years reveals that the first election of President Bush Jr. was largely excused around the world since no one could have known what this new president was going to do. 
Moreover, America arguably didn't vote for him anyway in 2000.
However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us (e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc… )
The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they had made with Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.
When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four objectives were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be "changed."
After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )
Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven't had the change.
Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing innocent people who don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders.
Do I labor the point? Good.
I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things — not just in words but in deeds.
If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience — even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.
If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.
That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.
As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a corrupt political party duopoly… and the system is stacked against anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and freedom. It really isn't complicated.
Now, I know that the Republican party stinks to many Democrats and Independents who care about social justice and civil rights, but we all need to be smart and play the system to get the political outcomes we seek: you don't have to like a party or even identify with it to sign up as a Republican for a year to help make sure that the Republican primaries are won by the one representative who has always been for peace, has always voted against bailouts, and has always opposed the reach of government into your bedroom, your relationships and your person.
And if you are a Democrat or socially progressive Independent, you can't tell me you weren't hoping for all that from Obama.
Perhaps you see too much small-mindedness, or mean spirit or religious craziness in the Republican party. Sure you do. You can find all of them in spades. But since you can't change the Democrat ticket for 2012, why not act where you can make a positive change — by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go… in the direction of peace and civil liberty (both of which, if you go back just a little way, can be found in the traditions of republicanism).
Just in case you need to make it absolutely clear for your friends at work that you have not gone to the dark side, I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart and give yourself a way back once you've done what needs to be done — the "Blue Republican" — to signify, of course, your liberal sensibilities and perhaps even your history as a Democratic voter. (Or why not just tell your friends that Bill Maher and Jon Stewart seem to have already gotten the message?)
I am aware that the main objection to Ron Paul from the left concerns his belief that private charities and individuals are more effective in maintaining social welfare than the government. To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama's administrations? Moreover, while Ron Paul would look to transition out of the huge federally run welfare programs in the long-run, that's not where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring our forces back to the USA and to re-implement the Bill of Rights.
Ron Paul's electoral weakness is not a difficulty in winning a presidential election. It is in winning a primary in a party with a Conservative constituency that includes the religious right and neo-cons. An influx of peace and freedom-loving independents and Democrats would change the math on the Republican side and potentially the future of America by setting up a presidential contest with a pro peace, pro-civil rights candidate (who could outflank Obama on those issues, at least, from the left).
Again, this isn't an endorsement of the Republican party or a claim that the Republican record is better than the Democrat on any of the issues discussed in this article. (It isn't.) It is not even a statement that Dr. Paul is some kind of panacea of American politics. Rather, it is to recognize simply that the one potential Presidential candidate who wishes to stop killing innocent people in foreign wars and stop transferring the wealth of poor and working Americans to the corporate elites happens to be — this time around — a Republican. 
 
It is also to recognize that any other political choice is for a status quo in which all the issues that really matter (war and peace, civil rights) are settled for the military industrial complex and the interests of the State over the individual.
So what'll it be — same old team allegiance or new, Blue Republicans? 
 
 
If this isn't enough to convince you to give Ron Paul a chance, consider this piece from another liberal, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com:
 
 
SATURDAY, DEC 31, 2011 8:15 AM PST
Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
 
 
VIDEO
BY GLENN GREENWALD * *
The signature of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is shown on the cover of an "Obama Countdown Calendar" during a campaign stop in Atlantic, Iowa, Thursday.  (Credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
(updated below)
As I’ve written about before, America’s election season degrades mainstream political discourse even beyond its usual lowly state. The worst attributes of our political culture — obsession with trivialities, the dominance of horserace “reporting,” and mindless partisan loyalties — become more pronounced than ever. Meanwhile, the actually consequential acts of the U.S. Government and the permanent power factions that control it — covert endless wars, consolidation of unchecked power, the rapid growth of the Surveillance State and the secrecy regime, massive inequalities in the legal system, continuous transfers of wealth from the disappearing middle class to large corporate conglomerates — drone on with even less attention paid than usual.
Because most of those policies are fully bipartisan in nature, the election season — in which only issues that bestow partisan advantage receive attention — places them even further outside the realm of mainstream debate and scrutiny. For that reason, America’s elections ironically serve to obsfuscate political reality even more than it usually is.
This would all be bad enough if “election season” were confined to a few months the way it is in most civilized countries. But in America, the fixation on presidential elections takes hold at least eighteen months before the actual election occurs, which means that more than 1/3 of a President’s term is conducted in the midst of (and is obscured by) the petty circus distractions of The Campaign. Thus, an unauthorized, potentially devastating covert war — both hot and cold — against Iran can be waged with virtually no debate, just as government control over the Internet can be inexorably advanced, because TV political shows are busy chattering away about Michele Bachmann’s latest gaffe and minute changes in Rick Perry’s polling numbers.
Then there’s the full-scale sacrifice of intellectual honesty and political independence at the altar of tongue-wagging partisan loyalty. The very same people who in 2004 wildly cheered John Kerry — husband of the billionaire heiress-widow Teresa Heinz Kerry — spent all of 2008 mocking John McCain’s wealthy life courtesy of his millionaire heiress wife and will spend 2012 depicting Mitt Romney’s wealth as proof of his insularity; conversely, the same people who relentlessly mocked Kerry in 2004 as a kept girly-man and gigolo for living off his wife’s wealth spent 2008 venerating McCain as the Paragon of Manly Honor.
That combat experience is an important presidential trait was insisted upon in 2004 by the very same people who vehemently denied it in 2008, and vice-versa. Long-time associations with controversial figures and inflammatory statements from decades ago either matter or they don’t depending on whom it hurts, etc. etc. During election season, even the pretense of consistency is proudly dispensed with; listening to these empty electioneering screeching matches for any period of time can generate the desire to jump off the nearest bridge to escape it.
Then there’s the inability and/or refusal to recognize that a political discussion might exist independent of the Red v. Blue Cage Match. Thus, any critique of the President’s exercise of vast power (an adversarial check on which our political system depends) immediately prompts bafflement (I don’t understand the point: would Rick Perry be any better?) or grievance (you’re helping Mitt Romney by talking about this!!). The premise takes hold for a full 18 months — increasing each day in intensity until Election Day — that every discussion of the President’s actions must be driven solely by one’s preference for election outcomes (if you support the President’s re-election, then why criticize him?).
Worse still is the embrace of George W. Bush’s with-us-or-against-us mentality as the prism through which all political discussions are filtered. It’s literally impossible to discuss any of the candidates’ positions without having the simple-minded — who see all political issues exclusively as a Manichean struggle between the Big Bad Democrats and Good Kind Republicans or vice-versa — misapprehend “I agree with Candidate X’s position on Y” as “I support Candidate X for President” or “I disagree with Candidate X’s position on Y” as “I oppose Candidate X for President.” Even worse are the lying partisan enforcers who, like the Inquisitor Generals searching for any inkling of heresy, purposely distort any discrete praise for the Enemy as a general endorsement.
So potent is this poison that no inoculation against it exists. No matter how expressly you repudiate the distortions in advance, they will freely flow. Hence: I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since it’s always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, I’m going to proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.
* * * * *
The Ron Paul candidacy, for so many reasons, spawns pervasive

Brian….Put your money where your mouth is. $100 says Paul does not make the ticket…..again.
 
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
 
—–Original message—–
Sent: Mon, Jan 9, 2012 19:14:33 GMT+00:00
 
 
 
 
 
I would agree with Dan, Dave and Mickey, but then 4 people would be wrong.
 
 
 
If you don't understand Ron Paul's politics comparred to Goldman Sachs', er, I mean Obama's politics than YOU aren't doing your homework.
 
 
 
Please at least start with someone whom you trust, Glenn Greenwald, though I wouldn't be surprised that the smoke in front of Mickey, Dave and Dan have clouded their eyes to even his writing.
 
 
 
Glenn Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
 
 
 
And don't be short with research, follow the links please.
 
 
 
"Wasted Votes," as if you get a loli-pop for choosing who you think is going to win the presidency.
 
 
 
Oh dear.
 
 
Brian Romanoff
 
— On Sun, 1/8/12, Mickey Martin <s..[email protected]> wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yup….
 
 
 
 
On Jan 8, 2012, at 7:01 PM, El Camino Wellness Center <s..[email protected]> wrote:
 
 
 
 
Mickey, did you ever actually send that letter to Obama?
 

yes, I agree Democratic presidents such, they spend to much time selling
out to everyone. We have not seen this much attacking since Clinton or
early Bush Admin.
 
Jeff
 
lynnette shaw wrote:

Obama denied my pardon request and I am just as pissed as anyone. I guess I am just not getting how voting for Ron Paul as a Republican in a Republican Primary hurts Obama. He will not be the Republican nominee.
 
So then what? Does the "anyone but Obama" strategy hold up when it is Obama vs. Romney? If so, how?
 
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless
 
—–Original message—–
 
 
 
Cc: DPFCA <s..[email protected]>
 
Sent: Mon, Jan 9, 2012 22:04:02 GMT+00:00
 
 
As one who was betrayed and destroyed by Obama personally, I am glad I can, at least, return the favor as a "Blue Republican for Ron Paul " this primary.
 
– Lynnette Shaw
 
— On Mon, 1/9/12, Mickey Martin <s..[email protected]> wrote:
 
 
 
 
Cc: "DPFCA" <s..[email protected]>
 
 
I am not saying to vote for Obama. Vote for whoever you want. I am saying it is extremely shallow to act as if cannabis is the only issue of importance in making that choice, and that promoting Republicans to punish Obama for inaction on medical cannabis is poor strategy, which makes our movement look like selfish assholes. Does that make more sense?
 
Mickey Martin
 
T-Comp Consulting Director
 
www.cannabiswarrior.com
 
www.tcompconsulting.com
 
s..[email protected]
 
(phone#-removed)
 
http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
 
***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, West Coast Cannabis, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***
 
 
 
Cc: DPFCA <s..[email protected]>
 
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2012 11:42 PM
 
 
Mickey,
 
Your criticism of Steve DeAngelo for his willingness to throw "recreational" marijuana use under the bus was very well taken. But regarding this latest issue, I think you should take a look at another Huffington Post essay, from Robin Koerner:
 
If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html
 
Posted: 7/7/11 01:00 PM ET
 
The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for George W. Bush the second time around.
 
I don't endorse the idea that American politics should be dictated by foreign opinions but a reading of the foreign press over the last six years reveals that the first election of President Bush Jr. was largely excused around the world since no one could have known what this new president was going to do.
 
Moreover, America arguably didn't vote for him anyway in 2000.
 
However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us (eg Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (eg Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (eg Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (eg domestic wiretapping, TSA etc… )
 
The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they had made with Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.
 
When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four objectives were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be "changed."
 
After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (eg Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (eg Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (eg Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (eg domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )
 
Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven't had the change.
 
Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing innocent people who don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders.
 
Do I labor the point? Good.
 
I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things — not just in words but in deeds.
 
If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience — even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.
 
If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.
 
That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.
 
As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a corrupt political party duopoly… and the system is stacked against anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and freedom. It really isn't complicated.
 
Now, I know that the Republican party stinks to many Democrats and Independents who care about social justice and civil rights, but we all need to be smart and play the system to get the political outcomes we seek: you don't have to like a party or even identify with it to sign up as a Republican for a year to help make sure that the Republican primaries are won by the one representative who has always been for peace, has always voted against bailouts, and has always opposed the reach of government into your bedroom, your relationships and your person.
 
And if you are a Democrat or socially progressive Independent, you can't tell me you weren't hoping for all that from Obama.
 
Perhaps you see too much small-mindedness, or mean spirit or religious craziness in the Republican party. Sure you do. You can find all of them in spades. But since you can't change the Democrat ticket for 2012, why not act where you can make a positive change — by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go… in the direction of peace and civil liberty (both of which, if you go back just a little way, can be found in the traditions of republicanism).
 
Just in case you need to make it absolutely clear for your friends at work that you have not gone to the dark side, I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart and give yourself a way back once you've done what needs to be done — the "Blue Republican" — to signify, of course, your liberal sensibilities and perhaps even your history as a Democratic voter. (Or why not just tell your friends that Bill Maher and Jon Stewart seem to have already gotten the message?)
 
I am aware that the main objection to Ron Paul from the left concerns his belief that private charities and individuals are more effective in maintaining social welfare than the government. To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama's administrations? Moreover, while Ron Paul would look to transition out of the huge federally run welfare programs in the long-run, that's not where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring our forces back to the USA and to re-implement the Bill of Rights.
 
Ron Paul's electoral weakness is not a difficulty in winning a presidential election. It is in winning a primary in a party with a Conservative constituency that includes the religious right and neo-cons. An influx of peace and freedom-loving independents and Democrats would change the math on the Republican side and potentially the future of America by setting up a presidential contest with a pro peace, pro-civil rights candidate (who could outflank Obama on those issues, at least, from the left).
 
Again, this isn't an endorsement of the Republican party or a claim that the Republican record is better than the Democrat on any of the issues discussed in this article. (It isn't.) It is not even a statement that Dr. Paul is some kind of panacea of American politics. Rather, it is to recognize simply that the one potential Presidential candidate who wishes to stop killing innocent people in foreign wars and stop transferring the wealth of poor and working Americans to the corporate elites happens to be — this time around — a Republican.
 
It is also to recognize that any other political choice is for a status quo in which all the issues that really matter (war and peace, civil rights) are settled for the military industrial complex and the interests of the State over the individual.
 
So what'll it be — same old team allegiance or new, Blue Republicans?
 
If this isn't enough to convince you to give Ron Paul a chance, consider this piece from another liberal, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com:
 
SATURDAY, DEC 31, 2011 8:15 AM PST
 
Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
 
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
 
VIDEO
 
BY GLENN GREENWALD
 
Ron Paul
 
The signature of Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is shown on the cover of an "Obama Countdown Calendar" during a campaign stop in Atlantic, Iowa, Thursday. (Credit: AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
 
(updated below)
 
As I've written about before, America's election season degrades mainstream political discourse even beyond its usual lowly state. The worst attributes of our political culture — obsession with trivialities, the dominance of horserace “reporting,” and mindless partisan loyalties — become more pronounced than ever. Meanwhile, the actually consequential acts of the US Government and the permanent power factions that control it — covert endless wars, consolidation of unchecked power, the rapid growth of the Surveillance State and the secrecy regime, massive inequalities in the legal system, continuous transfers of wealth from the disappearing middle class to large corporate conglomerates — drone on with even less attention paid than usual.
 
Because most of those policies are fully bipartisan in nature, the election season — in which only issues that bestow partisan advantage receive attention — places them even further outside the realm of mainstream debate and scrutiny. For that reason, America's elections ironically serve to obsfuscate political reality even more than it usually is.
 
This would all be bad enough if “election season” were confined to a few months the way it is in most civilized countries. But in America, the fixation on presidential elections takes hold at least eighteen months before the actual election occurs, which means that more than 1/3 of a President's term is conducted in the midst of (and is obscured by) the petty circus distractions of The Campaign. Thus, an unauthorized, potentially devastating covert war — both hot and cold — against Iran can be waged with virtually no debate, just as government control over the Internet can be inexorably advanced, because TV political shows are busy chattering away about Michele Bachmann's latest gaffe and minute changes in Rick Perry's polling numbers.
 
Then there's the full-scale sacrifice of intellectual honesty and political independence at the altar of tongue-wagging partisan loyalty. The very same people who in 2004 wildly cheered John Kerry — husband of the billionaire heiress-widow Teresa Heinz Kerry — spent all of 2008 mocking John McCain's wealthy life courtesy of his millionaire heiress wife and will spend 2012 depicting Mitt Romney's wealth as proof of his insularity; conversely, the same people who relentlessly mocked Kerry in 2004 as a kept girly-man and gigolo for living off his wife's wealth spent 2008 venerating McCain as the Paragon of Manly Honor.
 
That combat experience is an important presidential trait was insisted upon in 2004 by the very same people who vehemently denied it in 2008, and vice-versa. Long-time associations with controversial figures and inflammatory statements from decades ago either matter or they don't depending on whom it hurts, etc. etc. During election season, even the pretense of consistency is proudly dispensed with; listening to these empty electioneering screeching matches for any period of time can generate the desire to jump off the nearest bridge to escape it.
 
Then there's the inability and/or refusal to recognize that a political discussion might exist independent of the Red v. Blue Cage Match. Thus, any critique of the President's exercise of vast power (an adversarial check on which our political system depends) immediately prompts bafflement (I don't understand the point: would Rick Perry be any better?) or grievance (you're helping Mitt Romney by talking about this!!). The premise takes hold for a full 18 months — increasing each day in intensity until Election Day — that every discussion of the President's actions must be driven solely by one's preference for election outcomes (if you support the President's re-election, then why criticize him?).
 
Worse still is the embrace of George W. Bush's with-us-or-against-us mentality as the prism through which all political discussions are filtered. It's literally impossible to discuss any of the candidates' positions without having the simple-minded — who see all political issues exclusively as a Manichean struggle between the Big Bad Democrats and Good Kind Republicans or vice-versa — misapprehend

The problem is that it is not as simple as "it's Obama's fault!". The
fact is Obama's got a lot of bullshit to deal with… and in all
likelihood what happened regarding the latest enforcement efforts was
an attempt by our true enemies to take are support away from Obama. I
don't have the "smoking gun" to prove it but, I'd put my money on Gil
Kerlikowske working with the NNOAC (National Narcotic Officers'
Associations' Coalition) and the CNOA (California Narcotic Officers'
Association) to empower the US attorneys.
 
This has nothing to do with Obama other then Gil "works" for him. What
we should be calling for is for Obama to give us the head of Gil
Kerlikowske. Anyone who makes a public statement like this "I inhaled
frequently" "That was the point"-Barack Obama… IS on our side…
Once you can say you've "inhaled frequently", you know the real truth
of cannabis. We should trust his "stoner on the inside" and know that
the "other side" will use tactics like this, knowing that Obama has
limited options to respond, and can not run on a "legalization of
cannabis" platform. If we want a direct response from Obama, we must
ask for something he can do, like replace Gil Kerlikowske.
 
The biggest benefit to Obama winning would mean he would have the
political power and, as a second term president, the correct
political timing to do something drastic such as de-schedule cannabis.
 
If we divide our votes we face the real risk of opening the door from
someone like Rick Perry or Mitt Romney.
 
Best Regards,
Dave Hodges
 
 

EXaclty. I dont think that will have an effect . We need to focus on
getting mj debate into presidental debate and taken seriously . Not as
a side show . And we gain nothing by supporting republicans nor any
other conservative party that doesnt have a solid comphresive position
that will forward with equality and social justice. Implement policy
change .empty prisons . I am abit curious about the justice party?
Anyone have any insight on them?
 
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

Well Mickey, there IS a distinction between voting in the Primary &
General Election. I could understand a "concentrated strategy" of trying
to deliver Republican Primary votes to Paul ON ONE ISSUE while being
critical of his other anti-progressive positions. And, this would not in
any way tweak the Rep platform, to be sure, but would provide MEDIA, not
a bad thing. I think all it would take would be to switch parties well
enough in advance of the primary.
 
A vote for a Republican in the Primary by thousands of progressive Dems
could fuck up their counting and DOES NOT indicate a vote in the General
Election.
 
I really can not understand ANY progressive who supports Universal
Health Care, Women's Right To Choose, etc etc & blah blah blah, would
turn on that & the rest of us, for a one issue presidential vote. I am
certain I'd NOT trade legal pot for abortion bans, no health care,
shuttering of EPA, etc.
 
Peace,
 
Hal
SF Veteran's For Peace
"Sir, No Sir!"
 
 
 
 
 

GOod solid points and i dont have that smoking pistol either but the
proof is in the pudding. They acheived their goals and dumded down the
debate by its obamas betrayal lets grab that affluent cannabis vote
for republicans . Becuase im not how more clear i can be to everyone
but poor patients? Living on disablity?vets? Moms?lbgt? who vote? Yes
upset by obama but never would even consider a vote for republicans or
subset thereof becuase that would be a suicidal political choice. They
have muddled the waters for the afluent cannabis vote. This hogwash is
aimed at middle class consumer and otherwise privleged. We ? Shall not
be moved
 
 
—
Shona Gochenaur
Executive Director
Axis of Love SF
http://www.facebook.com/axisoflove
http://www.twitter.com/axisoflove

Greetings,
 
Read your note on the Supreme court certiorari denial to the Sheriffs. Good show!
 
I have been losing sleep over the ATF memo late last year regarding our Second Amendment Rights and choice of alternative medicine. Let me give you a short bio and you will see why.
 
I was born into the Firearms industry as my Grandfather had started a retail store in Mountain View, CA in 1950. Working in all aspects of the industry from manufacturing all the way to retail sales, gunsmithing and everything in between! With this knowledge I have achieved many goals in the competitive shooting world. Notably Three time California State Pistol Champion and I won my Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge(#1289) as a Civilian in only 3 matches! I have competed in and plan to attend many National, State, Regional and Local Matches to come.
 
Having worked as a machinist and a short stint as a Tow Truck Operator on the side I developed severe back and knee pain from injuries. Medical Cannabis and I go way back to ~1980 at around age 14 I am 45 now. I decided after some Law enforcement issues with simple possession I could obtain and did in 2009 a Doctors recommendation. At this same time I found there was no safe or affordable access to medical cannabis in the Mountain View, CA area. So being UN-employed at the time I took it upon myself to become an activist in the "movement" and bring safe and affordable access to Mountain View. I am a businessman that has experience in dealing with restricted goods so I figured it was a slam dunk! I fired up the Not-for Profit and wrote a business plan. Since then after spending $5,000.00 on a "pot lobbyist" that helped get us banned in two cities, from my failure to see through his incorrect procedure. Waiting on another neighboring city to vote in November 2012 to allow 3 MCDC's, I may pursue a location then.
 
So when the ATF sent a letter to all Gun dealers, regarding the medical cannabis patients inability to acquire firearms, this worried me.
 
An interesting twist is my Youngest Brother Greg has re-opened the Eddy's gun store and has told me he won't sell me, his own brother, a gun as he knows I have a Dr recommendation.
 
I will commit perjury if I answer NO to the question "are you an unlawful user of…"
 
Being very poor, unemployed at the moment I am selling more guns then I am buying,but I need that option open!
 
Can you refer me to anyone that is working on any cases against the ATF to get them to change the wording on the form to perhaps simply remove the evil word "Marijuana" from the ATF Form #4473
 
Thanks in advance to you or anyone that can help me in my plight to save medical cannabis patients 2nd amendment rights!
 
Brian David
 
Executive Director
 
Shoreline Wellness Collective
 
PO Box 352
 
Mountain View, CA
 
s..[email protected]
 
(phone#-removed)

Hello Everybody,
 
If you have not taken this survey, I would strongly encourage you to do so. It only takes a second:
 
http://cannabiswarrior.com/2011/12/29/which-initiative/ 
 
 
Mickey Martin
T-Comp Consulting Director
www.cannabiswarrior.com
www.tcompconsulting.com
s..[email protected]
(phone#-removed)
http://twitter.com/CANNABISconsult
 
 
***The views expressed in this communication are not necessarily the views of T-Comp Consulting, Tainted Compassion, West Coast Cannabis, Cannabis Warrior any other group I am affiliated with.***

The United States Supreme Court today denied the cert. petitions of two
Oregon sheriffs who sought to overturn the Oregon Supreme Court's
decision requiring Oregon Sheriffs to issue concealed handgun licenses
to Oregon registry identification cardholders (medical cannabis
patients). The order is on the 4th page of this *.pdf:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010912zor.pdf (Winters v.
Willis, Gordon v. Sansone)
 
Many thanks to Jim Ryan, Daniel Ortiz and the University of Virginia's
Supreme Court Clinic, and to John Elwood (Vinson & Elkins, Wash. DC) and
David Goldberg (Donahue & Goldberg, NY,NY) the principal authors of our
brief in opposition.
 
I am especially proud of the courageous patients who stood up for their
rights to be free from discrimination based on their choice of
medicine: Cynthia Willis, Paul Sansone, Steven Schwerdt and Lee Wallick.
 
Lee Berger, Portland
 
Leland R. Berger
Attorney at Law
1631 NE Broadway, #523
Portland, OR 97232-1425
(phone#-removed)
(phone#-removed) – fax
 
s..[email protected]

Actually I was Medical Drector of the Santa Barbara County Methadone Maintenance Program (which at the time I think was in the Mental Health Department) Medical Director of the Ventura County Inpatient Heroin Detoxification Program,, Medical Director and Director of The Health Services Department of The Santa Barbara Regional Health Authority (the oldest county organised Medicaid managed care program in the country), and was Director of the Sutter County Health Department and Health Officer for Sutter County, director of Health Services at Diego State University and an officer in the United States Public Health Service but I was never Director of The Santa Barbara Mental Health Department. But hey, that's pretty close. You may have my resume mixed up with Chris Fitchner who was The Director of the Illinois Department of Mental Health.
. Looking forward to speaking with you tomorrow night.
peace
Dr. Dave
 

I'm not sure that parents with teenagers want to see their kids go to jail. I'm pretty sure they don't. Most middle class voters think the drug laws apply to someone other than their kids and they're probably right,. While Black and Brown children fare far worse in the criminal justice system than white kids, the more money you have the better your chances in court. One of my patients is fond of saying that you are innocent until proven broke.
Dr. Dave