GOP NOMINATES MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION ACTIVIST FOR MO. LEGISLATURE
October 13, 2012 10:41 am | Author: Jerry Berger
Missouri Republicans have learned their latest replacement nominee in House District 47 set up a political committee last year promoting the legalization of marijuana. Mitch Richards of Columbia was picked to run for the newly drawn legislative seat by a handful of Boone County Republican officials. The GOP was desperate because its first candidate suddenly quit the race. Two replacement nominees also bailed out. Richards, who arrived in Columbia from Montana about four years ago, became the fourth pick, apparently without a background check. Official state paperwork shows that on June 14, 2011, Richards created a political committee called Show-Me Cannabis Regulation. The group’s website calls it “an association of organizations and individuals who believe that cannabis prohibition is a failed policy.” Richards listed himself with the Missouri Ethics Commission as the pro-pot PAC’s founding treasurer, using his Columbia address and phone number. The same phone number appeared this weekend on Richards’ Republican campaign website. When Richards stepped aside as treasurer, his address and phone number remained as the PAC’s official contacts. The Columbia Daily Tribune quoted Richards as saying he has“some libertarian views.” The Libertarian Party’s ”Issues” web page calls for“ending drug prohibition.” Richards kept up his activities as a marijuana legalization activist into this year. Show-Me Cannabis Regulation posted a video of Richards confronting Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum about marijuana laws during a Columbia stop in February. Richards has waded into other local controversies, including a debate about whether Columbia police should carry tasers. The pro-pot activist once signed a local blog article declaring: “Aside from biological or nuclear, there are no weapons that are too dangerous for me to own.” What is Mitch Richards smoking?
The Republicans weren’t crazy enough with Todd Akin, now they want to legalize marijuana. Maybe this candidate is more “mellow” than Todd.
Personally I hope the dude wins, I need a hookup in Jefferson City. Antbody know his prices?
Maybe if those republicans in Missouri politics gave up their alcohol and pill abuse and smoked weed they wouldn’t be so hateful?!
I’m proud to stand with Mitch Richards, who stands against the brutal atrocities of the War on Drugs and represents a chance that in the future we’ll stop wasting our resources and the lives of our citizens enforcing these violent and brutal regimes. If the Republicans have the courage to nominate Mitch, maybe there is hope for their party in the future.
Eapen Thampy
Formerly of Columbia, Missouri
HEY… PASS THAT WEED OVER HERE EPEN.
Dude is from Montana, that is “Big High Country”. He got stoned and wandered into the wrong “MO”.
I too stand with Mitch Richards. A majority of Americans already support the legalization of cannabis. An overwhelming majority admit that the entire War on Drugs is a failure. It costs far too much money and simply inflames the true problems we face in this country today: addiction. Addiction (ask any expert) is a psychological disease. Proper treatment includes weaning off the drug in a safe and healthy environment and attending counseling to change lifestyle habits that lead back to using the drug again. Instead, our current treatment is to arrest the patient, book him/her on a felony criminal violation and either make them pay big money through the courts to get out of trouble or cart them off to prison. Of course, in the case of the poor addict, they don’t even have the first option on the table. When sent to prison, they are exposed to an even more negative and criminal cross-section of the population. When released, a felon is let back into society minus his/her right to vote and I now hard-pressed to find employment because they must legally report their felony to potential employers.
The bottom line is that addiction is a personal, private mental disease. Anyone who has lost a loved one to the cycle of addiction knows how little help addicts ever receive to try and treat their illness. But perhaps the most unfair aspect of the War on Drugs is it operates under the assumption that every person who uses an illegal substance is an addict. This nanny-state philosophy flies in the face if everything America purports to be. As free adults, we should be able to educate ourselves on the benefits and risks of ALL substances, from drugs (illegal, prescription, over-the-counter and herbal alike) to what goes into the food we eat, and make our own informed decisions based on our own values and understanding. Instead, society marginalizes illegal drug users as people who are either too lazy, selfish or childish to quit. The War on Drugs is a mechanism in which the political elites seize money and property from users and use the legal process to ensure they can seize more assets from the addict in the future. This cycle must end now, and the path to recovery can only begin when our politicians stick up for what is right, not just what their paid to stick up for.
I support Mitch Richards and I applaud the Missouri Republican Party for tapping a candidate who supports liberty. In a time when our civil rights are eroding at an accelerating rate under both parties, it’s encouraging to see that there are still people out there who stand for justice instead of selling their opinions to the highest bidder.
Keep up the good work Mitch Richard!!!!!!! This is a very poorly written, one sided article.
It is hard to believe the Missouri Republicans want a candidate whose supporters want him to make legalizing pot the center piece of his campaign. Roy Blunt and Kit Bond wanted Todd Akin to get out and then decided he could stay. I am sure they will love this dope promoter. What is the Republican Party coming to?
Spencer Pearson says above, “I support Mitch Richards and I applaud the Missouri Republican Party for tapping a candidate who supports liberty” …
Do you mean the Republicans knew this guy was promoting legalizing pot and they “anointed” him anyway, to carry the party banner? Since when is legalizing marijuana, part of the Republican platform?
This is a complete embarassment.
Ending the failed war on drugs is but a sliver of the liberty movement’s platform, and pretending it’s front-and-center or the only thing liberty candidates fight for is intellectually dishonest.
This is an obvious retaliation piece written by a Wright supporter.
Legalization is not Richards’ central platform and it is NOT the reason he is running. It is just one of the many liberty issues he supports.
Also, if you people would EDUCATE yourselves, you might actually understand just how badly the drug war has failed our country.
I mean…if YOU want to keep throwing your tax dollars away by locking millions of people up in jail every year, then keep being an ignorant asshole and have fun.
Marijuana and drug prohibition are exorbitantly expensive policies that represent the worst of what big government has to offer. For Missouri to return to fiscal stability we must critically examine the costs and the benefits of the our public policy and Mitch is to be commended for his work to reduce the size and intrusiveness of government in this fashion.
It sounds to me like Mitch Richards supporters want to make pot legalization the main plank.
For the record there were seven votes cast for Mitch Richards by the District 47 Republican Committee in Boone County (BC). There are 13 members of the BC committee but only seven attended the meeting. These loyal Republicans voted unanimously to nominate Mitch Richards. These seven saddled every Missouri Republican with the burden of a pot-loving candidate when our party is supposed to stand for law and order and living drug free. It is on the stupid seven f they did not check his background. A clique of marijuana decriminalization advocates snuck this guy in because the Republicans were desperate and they got played.
McKenzie, As a Mitch Richards supporter I do not want marijuana legalization to be his main plank, and it is not. The reason you may believe that is because his supporters are responding to a story about marijuana legalization issues. I have never even heard Mitch bring it up during the campaign, it is just one of many liberty centered issues that can be solved by advocating for limited, and specific government, something that he does every day.
No. The main plank is Liberty. Personal and economic freedom. A return to the values that founded this nation. Right now most political games are won with money. I’m glad a commentator pointed out that this is an obvious retaliation for Richards calling out John Wright for attempting to buy the election. The Wright campaign has been digging for dirt on Richards ever since that debate last week and this was all they could come up with! So while Richards calls out Wright for buying elections and bribing fellow party members, Wright’s campaign is attempting to call Richards out for standing up for what is right. Then they are distorting it to make Richards out to be a one-issue candidate. This is complete baloney, and I have my doubts that voters in the 47th will fall for it.
Hey Sean, maybe you haven’t heard Mitch Richards bring it up in the campaign because he knows it’s a loser. He is a Trojan horse candidate. Smile, wear a nice tie and pretend to be mainstream when you are extreme. I will be interested in how the rest of the Republican ticket feels about legalizing dope.
Shush McKenzie, let these potheads keep digging a deeper hole.
O.K. Spencer Pearson, you can clear this up.
Did Mitch Richards create this marijuana legalization group, yes or no?
Does Mitch Richards favor legalizing marijuana, yes or no?
The rest of what the Mitch Richards supporters are saying is trying to make legalizing dope sound high minded rather than just being high.
Hey Spencer, a simple check of the Missouri Ethics Commission web site answers the first question a big YES. Read for yourself.
http://www.mec.mo.gov/Scanned/PDF/2011/82453.pdf
A Trojan horse full of potheads infiltrated the Republican meeting and they played the local GOP which was desperate.
Oh, I also note that when Mitch Richards first set up the POT PAC, he called it “Show-Me Cannabis,” not the more respectable and more disengenuous “Show-Me Cannabis REGULATION.”
So clever.
@CaveStatePolitics sent me here from Twitter, this is fun. Don’t Bogart, pass it my friend.
I know i’m wasting my time. I find it hugely telling that Mitch supporters use their full names as they stand by their comments while his detractors hide and throw jabs. Notice that Jerry and the like have no reasons other than they just don’t like it. They have provided the reader with no facts, studies, or insights other than to make stoner jokes. Is this a real paper worth readership? I thought this was the show me state?
Square.
For those calling Cannabis DOPE, riddle me this.
Why does the US Health Dept. ie the US government have a patent on Cannabis as Medicine?
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html
Why does the US throw Cannabis users in jail while trying to make money of Cannabis as Medicine while claiming it is not Medicine, and why does the Republican Party promote this?
If one looks up the true history of Cannabis Prohibition it’s blatant that it is due to Racial reasons, why do most Republicans promote Cannabis Prohibition when it’s blatantly a promotion of Racial beliefs?
Are all Republicans Racists, and if not why do they promote Racism thru Cannabis Prohibition.
I for one believe Mitch Richards honest pronouncing of his beliefs in true freedom for Americans, compared to those who bash others who announce their beliefs in freedom while then going home and having a drink which is a drug, but it has NO medical value compared to Cannabis.
I will be voting for people who are NOT afraid to publicly state their stance on Cannabis Use opposed to those like Claire McCaskill who is afraid to even touch the subject. While the public record shows she was previously married to a Cannabis User. Why would she refuse to make a statement?
If our politicians had to wear their sponsors patch on their clothing like Nascar Drivers it would be a lot easier to decide who to vote for, and as of late the Supreme Court should be the first to start.
Ain’t it fun? Republicans turning into human beings. WOW. Blows the mind sometimes.
BUT then you have to think about Kit Bond, Roy Blunt, Phylis Schafely, and TODD AKIN and you immediately get whacked right back into your senses.
Legalized medicinal POT will NEVER happen in this state of MISERY
McKenzie, It would be nice if you could stop trying to imply that Mitch’s supporters all smoke pot. I am a supporter, and I don’t smoke pot, and neither do any of the other supporters that I know. Perhaps instead of trying to distort his positions, actions, and intentions, you could stop cherry picking and talk about the work he has done for all civil liberties, including with Keep Columbia Free, and the positions he’s taken on fiscal responsibility that most voters support. I have no reason to believe that after years of fighting for the average person that he is going to Jefferson City to solely fight for an issue that is a fraction of what he has fought for over the years. It’s not a negative attribute to have a representative that thinks independently. The Republican committee nominated a candidate that believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and has a history of advocating for them, any Republican and anyone who believes in our founding documents can be proud of that.
To Mark Kois – I hear you. This is a gossipy blog, but the Bergermeister has his facts and his sources and he is a hell of a reporter. Mr. Berger adds his view or doesn’t. It is his blog. You are also getting to post freely. Not a bad deal.
As to the story’s revelations – Mr. Richards may have a sincere belief that pot should be legalized but it’s a political loser. It will turn off the Republican base, which is older, Christian, law-abiding and does not approve of marijuana or other illegal drugs. They may also dislike smoking, drinking and dancing. Those are votes Mitch must have to win.
With this revelation, game over. But stay enthusiastic.
Legalize it. And what could be better than having a Senator named Blunt!
This whole argument is really sad. What happened to being able to stand up for what you believe in? “Potheads” and “dope smokers”? Seriously? Be respectful. I don’t think that standing up for marijuana legalization should be something that can cause you to fail a background check. If belonging to or starting a special interest group is against the law, I must have missed the memo. If you don’t agree with his views, don’t vote for him; plain and simple. There are plenty of intelligent, successful people who endorse marijuana legalization and believe that the war on drugs is a failure, and to be a part of that or not is a personal choice. He is fighting for justice and the opportunity for citizens to exercise their civil rights. I am grateful for the fact that he is an honest candidate, and since honesty in politics is such a rare quality these days, you should be too.
I’ve enjoyed Googling “Mitch Richards” and “marijuana” on this rainy afternoon. The hits include an enthusiastic endorsement for Mitch’s losing 2010 Columbia City Council race by someone with a website identifying him as the “Guru of Ganja.” Lovely. The Missouri Republican Party surely is proud.
And everyone know, if you have one supporter that has an online handle that implys they smoke marijuana, you are not qualified to be in office.
As a progressive democrat, who has never used pot at all, ever, I’m still fully capable of understanding, like so many others around the country, that the war on drugs has been a complete failure. It fills our prisons with people, mostly minority males, that have committed victim-less ‘crimes’; it destroys families and puts more people on welfare; and it is about corporate money both by filling for profit prisons and to help pharmacological profits.
If the republican party were really about smaller government they should all be about deregulating pot, something less harmful than cigarettes or the beer most of us will have this evening.
Like if they were ‘real Christians’ and cared about their fellow man they wouldn’t be trying to stop people from using pot for pain management, or possibly cures for diseases.
Mitch’s work to legalize is one of the things he should be most proud of IMO. The republican party in general may not feel that way, but being from Columbia I say there is no way that those who nominated Richards for the candidacy didn’t know of his involvement in this.
Let me re-iterate, this comes from a non-pot smoking (even if it were legal tomorrow) democrat.
Hey Kate, when you wrote, “being from Columbia I say there is no way that those who nominated Richards for the candidacy didn’t know of his involvement in this,” that makes my point. I agree that it is difficult to believe the seven local Republicans who “anointed” this desperation choice didn’t know he was a strong backer of legalizing dope. If they failed to check or inquire about his beliefs given the ample public record, they are an embarassment to the Republican Party.
Either that or they understand why he takes the positions he takes, and he does because he believes in limited government and liberty, which is in the Republican platform. It is not embarrassing to endorse a person that has the same foundational beliefs, but has some difference about how that translates to specific government policy.
The closing line of this, story? column? opinion-piece? does little to educate or constructively further conversation. Cuteness may create smiles, may get this clipped and magnetized to a refrigerator door, but in this case leaves the reader with the assumption that the candidate is to be dismissed from serious consideration.
And yet you give no evidence to qualify that analysis.
Mr. Barger- What am I to make of the trail of information leading from Mr. Richards to this legalization PAC? Did Mr. Richards ever deny involvement with the PAC? Has he tried to disavow his stance on legalization? Your ‘article’ doesn’t provide those basic facts, yet your detailing of the legwork undertaken creates an appearance of subterfuge that isn’t substantiated elsewhere.
What of this blog comment? That, to me, is the only damning item suggested by you. Yet as accusations go, it is journalistically threadbare. When was it made? What was the title, subject and publisher of the blog? Was there an attempt on your part to get a comment from Mr. Richards?
If this piece is to serve as an introduction to a candidate, it fails. I knew nothing of Mr. Richards before reading, and I feel as though I know even less now.
In the Midwest, you can be sure that any topic considering the creation of a new agricultural commodity, whether non-psychotropic hemp or even only medicinal marijuana, would have significant ramifications on the public. Whatever you personally believe, this is an item for serious debate.
Missouri has historically carried the reputation for common-sense, “Show-Me” politics and policy. We have strayed from that as of late. I personally blame disingenuous politicians, and lackluster journalism, equally.
I appreciate at least four Mitch Richards supporters using their real full names, though they are pretty whiny about it.
Now I can see why.
They cannot even vote for Mitch Richards.
Boone County online voter registration records show all four are registered in District 45, while Richards is standing in District 47.
If Mitch is sincerely a loyal Republican, he will urge his four friends to vote for the GOP nominee in District 47.
But I suspect Mitch and his friends were only using the Boone County Republicans who selected Mitch.
Hey, Eapen Thampy, you say you live out of state, but the record shows you are still registered in Boone County. Where are you voting?
BC:”If Mitch is sincerely a loyal Republican, he will urge his four friends to vote for the GOP nominee in District 47.” I assume you mean 45th here. There is no Republican in the 45th however.
I made a comment then went off to watch the Missouri-Alabama game. Little did I know the better fight would be here. Everyone should have a puff and relax!!!
As a Mitch Richards supporter, I will state I don’t agree with every stance the gentleman takes. But long before Mr. Richards arrived to Columbia, our city’s citizens questioned the wisdom of taking a hard line on marijuana prosecution.
‘In November 2004, Columbia voters approved a measure that made marijuana enforcement “the lowest law enforcement priority.” The item also sets standards for misdemeanor marijuana violations, with a maximum fine of $250 and no arrest … The measure passed with 62 percent voter approval … ‘ Columbia Daily Tribune, May 28, 2010
Mr. Richards advocacy as a decriminalization proponent is perfectly in line with the consensus of our citizens. There are some on this board using his leadership as a way to bemoan the evils of the Republican party. But what you’re doing is insulting the will of our voters, and all of the other like-minded voters across the country who believe the War on Drugs is a tax-payer swindle and social evil. I’ve heard Mr. Wright speak. Maybe, he also has the courage to call the emperor naked. But I haven’t heard him do it yet.
BC: “But I suspect Mitch and his friends were only using the Boone County Republicans who selected Mitch.” This is very telling, it seems both you and McKenzie are basing most of your comments on suspicion, as if you feel that if there can be suspicion, it is somehow automatically legitimate, worth noting, and that the accused should be considered suspicious until they clear their name. I actually started writing a reply about my involvement with Republicans before I knew Mitch even existed, but I realized that buying in to your belief that someone is “guilty until proven innocent” simply because someone claims something to be suspicious would help to incentivise that kind of sillyness. The simple fact is, anyone who knows how to use Google and was curious about Mitch could have easily look up his political activities at any time. People did, the Republican committee did, and he still has wide-spread support in this community and in the Republican committee, not in spite of his stances, but because of his willingness to stand up for what he believes.
Perhaps this news will actually help Mr. Richards. I am a Democrat who is voting for Richards after news of John Wright attempting a payoff of fellow Democrat Nancy Copenhaver hit the papers. This blog post only makes me more sure about voting for Richards. I’m fed up with the the dirty Democrats who are buying my party. Heck, I have no proof but I heard that Wright is floating cash to folks and asking that it be donated back to his campaign so it looks like he has more local support. I even heard that he is paying people under the table to work for bankrupt Mary Still. These dirty people must go. At least Richards has principals — even though I don’t agree with all of them.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/oct/05/richards-slams-wright-over-report-of-payoff/
Sean Reberry, you said “The simple fact is, anyone who knows how to use Google and was curious about Mitch could have easily look up his political activities at any time. People did, the Republican committee did…”
How do you know the seven local Republicans who anointed Mitch knew about or looked up his evidently long time support for legalizing marijuana? Did Mitch Richards volunteer this to them? He is a smart guy, so his supporters say, and he must have known the issue is controversial. If he failed to volunteer it, he is dense or had another agenda. I suspect the latter, and that agenda was to use the local Republicans, who were desperate for a candidate.
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Keep in mind that, this joker was the fourth choice.
This is the best Repubs can come up with.
They had to settle.
McKenzie, Mitch’s phone number is on his website, if you would like those questions answered, and you have the courage, call him and ask.
Show-Me Cannabis (now called Show-Me Cannabis Regulation—same group) is a public group that formed to pass fairer state cannabis laws via voter initiative. Even Arkansas is ahead of us on this issue; they will be voting on a medical cannabis bill this November. The bottom line is that the Republican Party knew of Mitch’s stance against the drug war. They considered this before they voted on his nomination. The fact that the supposed ‘progressives’ are now attacking Mitch on this stance is very telling. The GOP could have full support of most of the American voter base if they promoted Liberty an fought for constitutional freedom like Richards does. Ron Paul is another GOP politician that understands the importance of Liberty, and no one who made a bid for president had a more enthused base than did Dr. Paul. But instead of tapping him for president and having a chance at the White House, the GOP sold out for Romney who had way more corporate backing. Anyone who is in denial that this is just a big money game, from the National level all the way down to the local one, is simply lying to themselves. I am not blinded by partisan money-games, I cast my vote based on principles and issues that matter. If I was in the 47th I would of course vote for Richards. As it stands, my district has a representative running uncontested. I do not have the resources to move simply for an election. But I will continue to endorse him, for what that may be worth, and I still believe most voters will see through the Democrat Harvard-pruned Wall-Street-friendly fat cat trying to buy a seat in the Missouri House.
OMG, I don’t think I have ever seen so many responses to an article…I shall not reply because a) I don’t do pot b) I don’t know anyone who does c) I don’t care if you do or don’t, just don’t take away my LEGAL cigarettes because you don’t like the smell and d) don’t expect me to pay for your psychiatrist.
I would like to point out that this story has no indication that it ever contacted Show-Me Cannabis Regulation, Mitch Richards, or the Republican Committee. “Missouri Republicans have learned,” indicating they did not know when they nominated Mitch, “The GOP was desperate” “apparently without a background check” “What is Mitch Richards smoking?” None of these statements have any foundation in fact, they are all speculation, another way of putting it is the author had suspicion and bias, so he created speculation. It’s sad that speculation and suspicion constitute noteworthiness. The author Jerry Berger and the only two backers of this ridiculous speculation and suspicion, McKenzie and BC, mix a glob of speculation and suspicion with a dash of fact in a attempt to create a new fact, but the alchemy isn’t working out. The simple FACT is, Mitch has a history of advocating for civil liberties, fiscal responsibility, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I am proud of that, I am proud to be a Mitch Richards supporter. He has not faltered or been afraid of his beliefs, he is hiding nothing. Your stories and manufactured accusations are baseless, and any attempt at journalism in this story has failed.
Bull.