[Mogar]

well, would you?
the main difference between him and the other guy, for clarification, is he supports this, almost everything else they're the same on, much like McCain/Obama.

This post has been edited by Mogar: 28 November 2008 - 11:41 PM

[Dennis Von Bremen]

I wouldn't mind him but I wouldn't vote for him if his platform is based solely on marijuana legalization.

[Silent Blood Line]

Well, it would depend on his other views. If I was as politically based as I could be, then I wouldn't vote for him. But I think the majority of people have tried marijuana and wouldn't mind it again.

[Havvy]

Mainly focused on a minor socio-economic issue? No, but if they ran with that as a side-issue, sure.

[Lamuella]

Mogar, on Nov 29 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

almost everything else they're the same on, much like McCain/Obama.

this is a very stupid thing to say. It's simply ignorant to ignore the significant policy differences that existed between these two.

[Judeatia]

Assuming they were exactly the same besides that singular point, yes, I think I would.

[Katsumi]

What? I am so high right now...

[shoe the fifth]

this seems like boiler room material

[theArrowheadian]

I honestly don't think that it would matter because it would never get pasted congress.

[mastab]

If the only difference is marijuana, then I'd vote for the one in favor of de-criminalization of it.

I'd still prefer a candidate who would make use of marijuana mandatory, though.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Lamuella, on Nov 29 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

this is a very stupid thing to say. It's simply ignorant to ignore the significant policy differences that existed between these two.

Like what?

mastab, on Nov 29 2008, 12:45 AM, said:

I'd still prefer a candidate who would make use of marijuana mandatory, though.

:lol: Wow.

This post has been edited by Dennis Von Bremen: 29 November 2008 - 12:46 AM

[mastab]

Dennis Von Bremen, on Nov 28 2008, 10:45 PM, said:

Like what?


:lol: Wow.

We would have world peace. The only downside is that mass munchies epidemics would destroy the world's food supplies.

[Vince Sixx]

Katsumi, on Nov 28 2008, 10:32 PM, said:

What? I am so high right now...

I think he said something about de criminals. Woah. Hah. Haha.
*cracks up for no apparant reason*



Here in oregon, it's decriminalized. Here in Portland, it's smoked, a lot. Paraphernalia is still cracked down upon, but people say that the things are for tobacco. Honestly, I can go down to pioneer square with my pipe and smoke a bowl, and cops just turn their heads. That's basically what decriminalization is, minor possession becomes a misdemeanor. I'd be all for legalization. It's less harmful than cigarettes (if you got a vaporizer), and less harmful than alcohol.

Why? Because on alcohol, you think you can do anything, and you want to go out and party. When I'm high, I just want to sit on a couch and watch Sesame street until 2 AM where I try and play my guitar. Then I'll wander around my house, get lost, end up in my closet, and sleep behind the vacuum cleaner for the night.

This post has been edited by VinceSixx: 29 November 2008 - 01:18 AM

[Dennis Von Bremen]

mastab, on Nov 29 2008, 12:50 AM, said:

We would have world peace. The only downside is that mass munchies epidemics would destroy the world's food supplies.

Yeah, there already isn't enough food out there... food prices would skyrocket and the third world would bleed completely dry.

[Mogar]

theArrowheadian, on Nov 29 2008, 01:42 AM, said:

I honestly don't think that it would matter because it would never get pasted congress.

this could change depending on how much of an issue the US public made it into.

[LJ Scott]

Not particularly.

[Xantenia]

Legalise it! Its so bloody dry up here, only get it once in a while now

[Lamuella]

Dennis Von Bremen, on Nov 29 2008, 01:45 AM, said:

Like what?

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic.

[Foggers]

Whoops, voted wrong one.

[Edward Cullen]

shoe the fifth, on Nov 29 2008, 07:36 AM, said:

this seems like boiler room material

I agree with this person