Since when does religious faith keep anyone from being elected president. So far as I know, Dubya was a "Christian" who attended a non-denominational church. Episcopalians are more like Catholics. They are not "evangislists" like pushed in some churches. None of them have the right to force their religion down your throat, especially through the government. But that is part of the Constituion. And, anyone who knows anything about the present race knows Ron Paul is the champion of the constitution FIRST! I would think that saying that being religious means we should never elect a person will turn off at least half of any voters you might try to influence. Where are they supposed to get their morals from? Atheists?! I trust them, less!

"No one but Obama knows what may happen in the case he is elected."

That's a horrible thing to say about your candidate. I think most of us would like to know what we're getting into at the ballot box, dude.

You probably didn't follow my link, but I've documented Obama's poor record on our issue thus far. When he's not saying the wrong things, he's failing to speak out about problems that appear obvious to the other democratic candidates. Barack Obama sucks on drug policy and you're just going to have to accept that you're campaigning for the drug war.

I shouldn't speculate about what a presidential candidate will do in the future? Are you out of your mind?

Doing so would threaten our non-profit tax status. You decide who to vote for.

We're just making sure everyone knows where the candidates stand, and that the candidates know that their positions on drug policy will be publicized and critiqued.

Actually, Mike Gravel wants to legalize all drugs, not just decriminalize them. See some comments from him to the effect of legalizing cocaine on The Young Turks show last week.

For the record, DRCNet has no position for or against any candidate. If we ever do start taking such positions, it will be done in a way that clearly demarks that work from our other work like this blog or the newsletter (for legal reasons). We have supporters on both sides of the aisle, as well as supporters of third parties. And of course we have supporters including some of the commenters here for whom drug policy is one issue but not the one and only deciding issue.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

Is the topic at hand not politics and what it can do to help or hinder us in our goals? We are discussing voting records, as well. I don't see any of the comments as spam. But inadequate, as you point out, when they have no substance.

Voting should be for the person who is best for the position and not which party he is in. If anyone other than Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, then it will likely be a Democrat, who wins. Luckily we have a lot of people getting their information from the Internet and researching the candidates, much better. If you feel the privilege of abortion is most important, then maybe those who want other, more pressing issues, addressed, will get the nod.

Libertarians do not favor federal laws that restrict individuals. That includes federal abortion laws. The truth is that Ron Paul feels that this is just another of the states rights issues involved in the campaign. He opposes abortion laws at a federal level. And, being an experienced obstetrician, I should expect nothing less from a compassionate physician. Would you expect him to deliver 4,000 kids and want to kill others? That would be an internal conflict, for any human being. Let alone for a doctor who had the joy of delivering that many children.

But, only Libertarians would give him the benefit of having his own position on this issue. As long as he is not forcing it on others! I feel, that the two party system has placed us in a bad position. We should never have to vote for anyone offered by the parties that we do not agree with, because there are only two candidates to choose from. You just have to figure out which issues deserve your highest priorities.
Neither, Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on good decision making. He has stated that he would stop the federal raids that are going on right now, against MJ coops in California. Crying out that Ron Paul is against abortion and claiming he is not a fit candidate because he is not is with the Democrat crooks, is just as bad as me saying that he should be voted in because he is a republican who has the right attitude about the drug war. There are still a lot of independent thinking people out there, willing to research the issues. The candidates have to convince them , too!
But, I do appreciate the information, given here, on the two Democrats that look good, too. Problem is, it looks like the media is already deciding who are the "top runners", in both parties, over a year out from the election!
Moreover, when trying to get political partners, it would probably be better to address the issues. And, not just try to spread gossip and cry for partisan politics, as usual. (like ONLY DEMOCRATS DESERVE A VOTE!) I feel your party has failed you , too!

We don't need to vote for Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul to get a better drug policy platform than Obama's. Every democratic candidate is better than him on this issue, including the other so-called front runners.

We've now heard from two Obama supporters in this very thread claiming that he will be good on drug policy with no evidence. And they're accusing me of talking out my ass? From a previous post on this topic:

Obama's drug war revitalization plan for New Orleans is the latest step in his successful bid to be the worst on drug policy among the democratic presidential contenders. He's lamented the "political capital" required to repair the despicable crack/powder sentencing disparity, a no-brainer racial justice issue that even drug war hall-of-famer Joe Biden wants to fix. At Howard University's Democratic Debate on minority issues, he stood there like an idiot while every other candidate managed to address some type of criminal justice reform. He was also the last democratic candidate to pledge an end to federal medical marijuana raids, and not because they're heartless and evil, but because they're "not a good use of resources."

No, Obama is not a hardline drug warrior to my knowledge. But neither was Bill Clinton, and he destroyed many lives simply by ignoring the issue and allowing Barry McCaffrey to call the shots.

Every other democrat has advocated some type of criminal justice reform. Meanwhile, Obama saunters around talking about ending "politics as usual" in Washington, while ignoring this massive ongoing travesty and getting all cuddly with the incarceration industry.

I have no use for the assurances of Obama's supporters that I will be pleasantly surprised by his (apparently secret) criminal justice reform agenda. Bring me one piece of evidence that Obama sees problems with our criminal justice system, and I'll consider laying off my accusations that he loves the drug war the way it is.

Thank you for your omnipotent response. You are offensive in trying to say that everyone on here is on drugs. Many do not use or encourange the use. They see the lunacy of putting people in jail for a medical problem, taken over by the police/prison complex.

You must have missed the article on this site, last week, about Obama wanting to add another DEA office in New Orleans. I can't trust any of your information, because of that. And to say that there have not been precise blogs in the above list of opinions, is also misleading. And I would love it to see a black president. I just need one who has my trust. He is too much a "politician" and his voting record does not appeal to me, any more than Romney or Giuliani. Many Republicans will be voting Democrat because they are so p--ed off about the war and the lack of response to public opinion by the politicians in this country. It is a sign of the sickness.

If you would look at the support Ron Paul has, you would notice that it is much bigger than the republican party support (does not exist). The people are looking into what the politicians are saying and they see most of them coming off as flip-floppers! If Hitler (Manson, replace with any lunatic you will!) was a party man, would that mean you would vote for him? As long as he was supported by your party! With Hitler it was the Nazi party!!!

Hopefully, we are looking at a much more intelligent vote this time, than party politics, a usual! They have ALL corrupted the republic!