Colorado will be voting on a measure to legalize marijuana for recreational use (Amendment 64). A very close supporter of Mitt Romney is involved in the effort to oppose the measure.
Two-thirds of the entire the budget for the “No on Amendment 64? committee has been provided by a Florida-based nonprofit called “Save Our Society From Drugs.” The organization was founded by Betty Sembler, a veteran Drug Warrior whose husband is on the Mitt Romney for President finance team. According to one biography of Sembler, she has been awarded an “honorary agent status by the DEA” and was pivotal in founding drug rehabilitation clinics and the Drug Free America Foundation. From 1976 to 1993, the Sembler family operated a drug rehabilitation clinic known as STRAIGHT Inc., which closed down after a shocking series of scandals that revealed that clients faced rape, faced beatings, forced hunger, and other abuses at the clinics.
I can’t wait for Democrat operatives to get hold of this and start using it against Mitt. Oh. Wait. The report was published at HufPo. I guess they already have.
And my hope that the Rand Paul endorsement would at least moderate Romney’s views during the election season were in vain. Well fortunately opposition brings more people to the polls. And chances are they will not be voting for Romney.
One other thing: you would think Mitt would have done a background check before embracing these people to avoid this sort of thing. Well maybe he did and approves of beatings and withholding food to force people off drugs. I have no problem with people who oppose ending prohibition. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But couldn’t Romney have chosen someone cleaner?
I’m kind of lucky(?) to live in Illinois. I have a free vote. And I must tell you that Gary Johnson is looking better to me all the time.
Comments
3 responses to “Romney Supporter Opposes Colorado Pot Legalization”
You know what? Weed isn’t the most important reason for choosing who to vote for.
True.
But some one who is OK with people convicted of torture as close associates might be.
As I said. I’m OK with Romney’s position (even though I don’t agree with it). What I am not OK with is who he has chosen to represent him on the matter. May I quote one of my favorite authors on the subject? You might recognize his writing.
“One other thing: you would think Mitt would have done a background check before embracing these people to avoid this sort of thing. Well maybe he did and approves of beatings and withholding food to force people off drugs. I have no problem with people who oppose ending prohibition. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But couldn’t Romney have chosen someone cleaner?”