Like…. Gary Johnson is the man, ya know? I mean he … he gets what really … like matters. Ahhhh- Haaaa-Haaaa. We need to stand up for rights, man… else the man will lock us all up, ya know? All our country’s problems would be… like “Up In Smoke” aaaaaah, aaaaah, get it? If we could just get Gary in … the election, ya know? Man, am I the only one who is like… hungry?
Ah, Libertarians, champions of societal drain and degradation. Gary Johnson is taking his shot at election spoiler and keeping the hopes of pot heads … high.Pot heads want to come “out of the shadows” (perhaps the same shadows as the illegal aliens?) and be able to engage in legal commerce with the dealer of their choice. It is freedom, man. Oh, and we need to legalize it so we can tax and regulate it!
Photo from: http://www.cracked.com/funny-4852-pot-heads/
Freedom is at stake in the November election and although I don’t believe that Johnson or his mellow fellows intend to act as spoilers, that seems to be the most likely result. If Gary Johnson were to campaign on the free access to munchy-satisfying snacks, he might be able to tap into some of Obama’s base. Unfortunately, he is running as a Libertarian so the votes he draws are more likely to be from (other than the coveted pot head block) naive voters who might agree more with Republican ideals than those of the the Demoncrat Party.
Those who have read my rants before may be calling BS or thinking that it is rich that I am calling others hypocrites, especially given my distaste for the Republican Party. I think those criticisms are fair. I can only point out that while I am not a party guy, I do know that there are only two parties in contention for the presidency. Voting third party is understandable and the temptation to do so can be very strong. In this case, the reasons for supporting this particular candidate would be almost funny if the consequences of his success weren’t so dire. (By success, I mean that he would get a few percentage points, pulled primarily from those who might otherwise lean Republican.)
The haze-filled mind of the chill pot head might not process the ramifications in such a manner that he should be considered a hypocrite, but some of his fellow Johnson supporters are not so naive. Are these lovers of liberty expecting that one man, as president, can change law? How will President Johnson end the War on Drugs? Do these limited government advocates expect him to follow in the large ear-shaped shadow of our own King Hussein and simply decide that his “Justice” Department isn’t going to enforce certain laws? I do not support the War on Drugs. This does not mean that I think a president legitimately has the sort of power to act in a fashion that would satisfy the pot head base.
For campaign bullet points see Drug Policy Reform section of www.garyjohnson2012.com.
The hypocrites for Johnson aren’t strictly limited to those who think it would be groovy duuuude to get the federal government in the weed taxing and regulating business. There are those who think that life is precious…. so it should be up to the mother to decide if and when she should have her baby killed or that marriage “equality” is the way to go. From the Civil Liberties page of the campaign site:
WE ARE A NATION OF MANY PEOPLES and beliefs. The only way to respect all citizens is to allow each to make personal decisions themselves.
- Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus.
- Stem cell research should only be completed by private laboratories that operate without federal funding.
- Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage. It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs.
You probably thought I was being a sarcastic jerk when I wrote about those who think life is precious, but support abortion. As you can see, it is a selling point for Johnson 2012.
What is “marriage equality?” I do wish the advocates of forcing perversions of marriage would be more specific with their intentions. Is the definition of marriage to be distorted without limitation, or do these liberty-minded individuals seek to limit marriage to a combination of two consenting, unrelated adults? If they seek to pervert marriage only such that it applies to unions of same-sex partners who are not related, I am calling hypocrite! I repeat, hypocrite!
At least they are going to get the government to stop imposing “its values upon marriage,” but of course, they will have government impose its lack of values as related to marriage on private entities. Can you say hypocrite? I’ve argued this before and the Libertarian response is to basically cry, “Nuh-unh!” How would the Gary Johnson administration ensure that private business owners aren’t fined, harassed, or sued for not recognizing perversions of marriage? If your answer is “they would not, could not, Sam I Am” you are correct. You win a cigar!
I suppose that our best hope is that some of Obama’s “Choom Gang” are disgruntled and they vote (assuming they remember what day the election is) for the man who will stand up for their right to toke.