3 votes

GOP Pres. Candidate Gary Johnson calls Pot Smokers an Important "Untapped Voting Bloc."

In a letter to the RNC Chairman Reince Priebus on Friday, Johnson questioned whether the "Republican 'establishment' " had been pushing him out of the Republican debates, including the most recent presidential debate in Las Vegas, because of his outlier positions on social issues.

"It is no secret that not all of my views, particularly on some so-called 'social issues' are shared by certain elements of the Republican Party - elements who frankly exert inordinate influence within the Party," wrote Johnson in his letter. "Many of my supporters who are Independents - and even Democrats - are quick to suggest that the Republican 'establishment' doesn't want my voice heard. I hope that is not the case. To the contrary, as I travel the country, I find a great number of Republicans who not only share my views, but who feel disenfranchised by a vocal minority that has become the face of the Party."

The statement comes just days after Johnson said on a conference call with reporters that he'd consider pardoning all nonviolent marijuana offenders as part of what he called a "rational drug policy." It's a position that he hasn't shied away from politically, calling pot smokers an important "untapped voting bloc."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/23/gary-johnson-mariju...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Obama got a HUGE block here in cali last election

No matter what I told my fellow med patients they believed OBAMA had a better chance of winning (well of course) versus ron paul and so they voted for him. It isn't working in their favor CURRENTLY as we watch collectives get raided MORE AND MORE since obama has been in office.

If people keep electing the candidates the media wants them to and they STILL THINK things will change, they get what they deserve.

Either vote for ron paul this time and allow us the chance to fight at the local/state level which here in cali would be easy IF the damn feds would stay the hell out of our business!

You guys are scared of A PLANT!

This plant has never caused a death since HUMANS have been here. WAKE UP

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

I believe this is true...

This issue is important to many, many people, medical and recreational. I know Dr. Paul doesn't condone drug use at all. I also know this is an issue 'they' denigrate Dr. Paul over. Would pushing this angle hurt his campaign? Perhaps if it was geared only to the Medical Marijuana folks?

Many weed smokers, including Willie Nelson are for Gary Johnson, and I agree with him that it's a huge untapped voting bloc.

We should at least get the word out there that Dr. Paul would decriminalize too. It wouldn't hurt to spread the word that he'd stop the racist drug war and release non-violent offenders.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

All smokers of *any* weed -- cannabis or tobacco -- should unite

Regardless of how you feel about Gary Jonson (I think he's actually a net positive for Ron Paul for now, because his exclusion so-clearly shows the undercurrent of statist media bias among other reasons!) this is an important point.

There seems to be a somewhat artificial divide between the smokers of various substances, despite the mounting government attacks on the freedom to smoke ANYthing. I wish this were not so. It's important for people to stick together for their rights IN GENERAL, even if you don't personally engage in the behavior you're trying to defend.

Ask Australian former-gun-owners what happens when a community that *should be* fighting for each others' rights instead gets balkanized...Or I can tell you: First one segment is attacked and then another; so what started as "no black rifles" ends up becoming, step by step, "almost no guns of any sort in civilians' hands, period."

The unscientific hysteria over "second hand smoke" is taking us in that direction with smoking laws. Second hand smoke was a byproduct of how humanity heated our caves & yurts to survive for thousands of years -- via burning stuff that gave off smoke you could not avoid. We've had it around us as a species, albeit without as much nicotine, for a long time. It's not nearly as dangerous to nonsmokers as it is annoying to them & to control-freaks who want to ban all smoking, if you look at any actual science.

And don't get me wrong -- I'm against smokers of anything being annoying to nonsmokers, but the point of a society with rights is to allow everyone a choice. The antismoking laws, by attacking property rights with a one size fits all prohibition rule, DENY venue owners & their patrons that choice. That's wrong, and everyone should fight it.

jaseed's picture

Place To Unwind

Agree with your comment, sarcasmo
Thanks!
For bars and restaurants in my home State of Wisconsin, well they've always been the place to unwind in our formerly free society. Drink, smoke, have fun. Neighborhood bars were common in the old working class Milwaukee. Especially on a Friday after a long work week and especially during the winter months when maybe the spouse didn't want you 'polluting the house with smoke or getting rowdy.

Discretion is something to be valued. So is proprietorship ...if someone wants to make that case...possibly one smoke per visit...no chain smokers allowed. Point is, discretion by the individual and/or business providing the outlet but NOT by the 'at large government', like what took effect here on July 5, 2010... "law" signed by many so called "Republic"ans in our legislature.

OWNER OF BUSINESS should be allowed to set the tone, decide what is smoked, what is drank. When these business/patron agreements are violated, then and only then should law enforcement from the outside possibly be called. Include cannabis in this scenario. The bar/restaurant owner fills a healthy niche in society. If an individual wants to find a smoke free atmosphere, it's their job to find/create/advertise one.

“The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

– Thomas Jefferson

sarcasmo,

Nice post and it is very unfortunate that the general public, a.k.a "civil" society, (this includes religious sects. Yes Christians, I am referring to you) has allowed itself to be polarized and divided by the state on such an issue, but this is to be expected by the political class as it is an extremely effective means of controlling the means to their evil ends.

Don't believe for one moment it's unintentional and you're not being used for their purposes....you mean absolutely nothing to them.

And btw, I am not a marijuana smoker and do not use drugs for recreational or any other purposes, but that is MY choice.

While I may not respect the choices others may make, I do respect their ability to make those choices for themselves and do not believe in the criminalization of their choices so long as they do not use violence, force or coercion against others or their property in the course of their usage.

If they do, then those who are harmed or have their property damaged in some shape, way or form by them should be the ONLY ones with a claim for damages and/or recompense and NO ONE else. Certainly not the state!

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

Johnson's circumstances

are unfortunate and God bless him for keeping this subject in the public consciousness knowing it's an uphill battle, but he'd have to get his arguments and positions on some issues (including this one) much more consistent before I could take his lib. creds. seriously.

He's still a statist; just a thinly veiled one IMO.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin