You’d Have To Be Stoned To Vote Democrat

Paul Bedard writes an article for the Washington Examiner where he indicates that if Democrats want to retain control of the Senate or limit losses the party should push marijuana legalization initiatives in November.

The reasoning is that if these initiatives are on the ballots the young (read pot smoking) Democrat voters will be compelled to vote and while they are voting for marijuana they will also vote for Democrats on the ballot.

This is probably true. The young want marijuana legalized and they would turn out to vote if it were on the ballot (assuming they were not too high to remember to vote) but can Democrats get these initiatives on the ballots by November?

And more importantly wouldn’t they, as Bedard points out, be more likely to hold off until 2016 to help keep a Democrat in the White House and pick up Democrat seats in Congress?

I am not a marijuana user, never have been and do not intend to start now. I think it could be legal and taxed and that it is probably no more dangerous than alcohol (and no, please do not tell me it is safer because it is not) but we need a lot of things in place. How do you determine driving under the influence of marijuana (other than people driving at 4 miles an hour)? THC (the active component in marijuana) is fat soluble and stays in the body long after the intoxicating effects have subsided. This is particularly true for habitual users.

How will law enforcement be able to determine if one is high or not when THC levels are present? This is important. States that have legalized marijuana have undoubtedly had an increase in use of the drug and that means more people are driving under the influence. They are a danger to others.

But I digress. The issue is should Democrats put marijuana on the ballot to increase Democrat voter turnout (especially among the young)?

Enticing voters with pot kind of signals desperation and would only bolster the impression that politicians will do anything to keep power.

Democrats would love to offer pot as an incentive. They like their voters to be zombies who follow along without question.

And they also know one has to be stoned to vote for a Democrat.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

6 Responses to “You’d Have To Be Stoned To Vote Democrat”

  1. Blake says:

    Brain- impaired for sure, whether its from drugs, or the teaching of ass-hat liberal teachers, one is hard-pressed to tell the difference.

  2. Mike Ontiches says:

    If you honestly believe that marijuana is as dangerous as alcohol, then your reasoning skills are sufficiently atrocious to render you unfit for blogging, period, be the topic politics, sports, video games or lighting farts. I would live to see you try to defend that claim with data or even a numbers-free cogent argument.

    • Big Dog says:

      If you think it is not you are part of a problem in the field of education. As a person who is involved in substance abuse education I do not deal with the feeling or emotions of people who want to get high or make something legal, I deal with those actually affected. Marijuana is as dangerous as alcohol in regards to health and in regards to how people do stupid things while under the influence. Your definition of danger might be different than mine and that is your problem. Marijuana is as dangerous from a health standpoint and from a behavior standpoint (given that both are minimally dangerous if not used to the point of overindulgence). While numbers would be difficult since alcohol is legal and been around a long time and MJ is not in most places there is plenty of evidence in areas where it has become legal to show the problems associated with its use. Over indulgence of any mind altering drug is dangerous and the health affects are just as bad though not all on the same parts of the body.

    • Blake says:

      Mike- the pot that is sold and consumed today is MUCH stronger than when you were puffing on it in the ’60s- now, it is genetically altered for its strength and potency, therefore it is reasonable to assume that, as it alters one’s reality, it is dangerous just for that fact alone.
      Just as some people will not just get drunk at home, but feel as if they must drive while impaired, so do some potheads.

  3. Vxnschatzee says:

    There are many cogent arguments and explanations for why marijuana can be as dangerous as other drugs including alcohol. Any mind-altering substance can and should be considered dangerous if it is not used properly (as a beginning). Since marijuana is not regulated it is also more likely to contain impurities (much like tobacco) and things that are not taken into consideration when formulating opinions as to its efficacy and safety. Alcohol is not necessarily dangerous if you don’t abuse it and perhaps marijuana may turn out the same. However, any substance that alters, interferes with, or combines with chemicals in the brain can be dangerous and even fatal. (I know, death by munchies, right? But it’s serious.) Some brain structures that marijuana affects:

    Amygdala Can alter emotional states
    Basal ganglia Reduces motor activity; users may move less
    Cerebellum Can impair coordination
    Cortex May alter complex thinking, making it hard to pay attention or switch quickly between two tasks
    Hippocampus Memory center becomes less efficient, making it harder to learn and remember new information
    Hypothalamus Stimulates appetite, giving marijuana users the well-known “munchies” effect
    Nucleus accumbens Can make users want to use again by targeting this area, which is part of the brain’s reward system.

    Research is ongoing and new things are learned every day particularly in light of the “hippie days” of the 60s where those users are providing information for long-term use and effect studies. To make any judgment about the safety of a drug without complete data is irresponsible. One should always consider something harmful and dangerous until it is proven otherwise.