Dr. Paul clarifies marijuana bill on Kudlow—doesn’t “endorse” use

The US Report ^ | June 23, 2011 | Kay Day

[Crush]

Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas) clarified details on the marijuana bill he will introduce with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and others. Paul talked to Larry Kudlow on CNBC’s The Kudlow Report on Wednesday. The bill is not a blanket legalization bill as numerous media have suggested.

Paul's position relates to the Tenth Amendment.

Paul said the bill would return marijuana to the status that existed in 1937. The legislation, he said, would remove it “from the jurisdiction of the federal government.” The states that chose to legalize it for personal use or for medical purposes would regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol.

Kudlow noted the approach is a Tenth Amendment issue. The debate over marijuana has led some states where the herb is permitted for medical use to prohibit the use because of conflict with federal law.

The Wall Street Journal pointed out at the Washington Wire blog that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has refused to implement his state’s medical marijuana law “without assurances from federal prosecutors.”

Another example is California where medical use is legal but dispensaries have been raided by federal law enforcement.

Paul, who is a medical doctor, said marijuana is helpful for people who have cancer and who are getting chemotherapy. There is also potential for people who suffer chronic pain but want to avoid a narcotic pain reliever that can lead to physical addiction.

Paul told Kudlow the federal government’s War on Drugs begun by President Richard Nixon (R) is a “catastrophe” that has cost US taxpayers more than $1 trillion.

Paul’s central point, however, is that the states should have jurisdiction over the issue.

CNBC said that 15 US states and the District of Columbia already permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Federal laws, however, technically place those states...

[okie01]

RuPaul just wants attention and he’ll do anything he can to get it.

The Paul campaign in a nutshell.

If it takes a booger in the soup, he'll provide it.

If it takes a turd in a punch bowl, he'll deliver it.

It's the way his supporters respond to this kind of stuff that's even more bothersome.

Paul is not a serious candidate (or even "political leader"). And, as a group, his supporters aren't serious voters.

[OldNewYork]

New York is funny. Sometimes in some places here you can look around and wonder if any of the people you're seeing are here legally. Even legalizing every illegal drug wouldn't help with the illegal aliens here.

[philman_36]

Ron Paul Interview on Co Introducing Bill To Decriminalize Marijuana
2:07 "...the modern day War on Drugs started with Richard Nixon..."

BS! Paul is a dumbass too with this pronouncement!
Lyndon B. Johnson - Remarks at the Signing of the Drug Abuse Control Amendments Bill July 15, 1965
The Drug Abuse Control Act of 1965 is designed to prevent both the misuse and the illicit traffic of potentially dangerous drugs, especially the sedatives and the stimulants, which are so important in the medicines that we use today.
Public Law 89-74

Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Relating to Traffic in or Possession of Drugs Such as LSD October 25, 1968
In addition to these important new steps, I called for a concentrated drive to cope with the growing problem of narcotics and dangerous drugs.

Public Law 90-639

Nixon was 4 years behind Johnson and the War on Drugs sounds so much better than "a concentrated drive".

[TigersEye]

I wouldn’t expect that getting rid of all drugs and all the illegals would help NY much either.

[OldNewYork]

Have you been to New York?

[truthfreedom]

Actually, he’s advocating that the states make the decision, not the federal government.

[TigersEye]

I have been to NY. I also lived in Montpelier VT for three years. The entire NE is lost. A socialist hell hole. It wouldn’t hurt my heart if the entire NE seceded.

[OldNewYork]

It would surely take more, but it would help: at least be a start - so much of socialism is accepted by people who, when sober, would realize that one would have to be high to believe in it. Even if conservatives are a minority here, we're still here, often because this is just where our homes are, where we're from, where our families are from.

[philman_36]

DEA Prior to the creation of the DEA, drug enforcement rested in the hands of two federal offices. The Bureau of Narcotics in the Treasury Department was responsible for the control of marijuana (due to the 1932 Marijuana Tax Act) and narcotics, such as heroin. The Bureau of Drug Abuse Control (BDAC) in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was responsible for the control of “dangerous” drugs, including depressants, stimulants and hallucinogens, such as LSD. By 1968, America’s counterculture movement was in full swing and the use of illegal drugs for recreational purposes was steadily rising. Alarmed by the increasing acceptance of drug use, President Lyndon Johnson introduced legislation that combined the Bureau of Narcotics and the BDAC into one new agency: the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), located in the Department of Justice.

[chris_bdba]

Amen sister.My hubby has had a bad back since he was 22 yo and he could be stupified on addictive painkillers but chooses not to be that way. Weed was decriminaized here in the early ‘70’s so unless you are really screwing up badly they just don’t bother with what you do in your own home.I’d like to see it be like that for everyone.Most poepl who are against this know nothing about what they speak and mostly spout propaganda.

[chris_bdba]

IMHO legalizing low level drugs like pot would take care of amny of the gang problems inner cites have.They are shooting each other over the money their so called territories make tke away the money let the state regulate it and you take away the biggest reason to shoot each other.

[McGruff]

During a “lightning round” where candidates were asked to answer questions about the issues that would give them the most problems during the primaries, both libertarian candidates– Paul and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson– were asked to defend their liberal stances on drugs. First was Rep. Paul, who Fox’s Chris Wallace confronted with his controversial position that drugs and prostitution should be legalized. His unapologetic response elicited cheers from the crowd, as he argues that, just as “you don’t have the First Amendment so you could talk about the weather,” civil liberties do not exist to protect personal rights upon which most agree. He later likened private freedoms like this to religious freedoms, prompting Wallace’s follow-up: “Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?”

After tripping up a little, Rep. Paul replied “yes,” then found himself arguing in favor of legalizing heroin, asking, “if we legalize heroin tomorrow, is everyone is going use heroin? How many people here would use heroin if it were legal?” The question was greeted with cheers, to which Wallace replied with a smile, “I never thought heroin would get an applause in South Carolina.”

[chris_bdba]

THere is no pretending that it has medical uses.They are well documented. I would love for them to study me for instance.I am one of 3 type one diabetics I went to school with I am also the only one who partook of weed.Two of us are dead now one of us has had minimal side effects even after 41 years....tell me it doesn’t do something and I’ll laugh in your face.I also have a friend with MS who is in the same boat as I am still having minimal effects from their diease even after years of having it.

[Allegra]

IMHO legalizing low level drugs like pot would take care of amny of the gang problems inner cites have.They are shooting each other over the money their so called territories make tke away the money let the state regulate it and you take away the biggest reason to shoot each other.

Isn't crack the main economic driver in the 'hoods?

[BlazingArizona]

“Considering how ‘medical’ marijuana has worked out in the places that have adopted it, I think he should reconsider. It’s gone from growing your own for private use, to buying at a shop, to lollipops, pizzas, brownies containing it for sale. It’s a mockery of the people in those states who naively believed it would be the compassionate thing to vote for.
“

For Paul, it’s a Tenth Amendment action: control of marijuana policy passes back to the states. Here in Arizona we just legalized, and are waiting for “clarification” from the feds. Your state is welcome to keep it banned if it wishes.

[RedStateRocker]

A lot of them get tumescent licking jackboots.

[chris_bdba]

ROFLOL maybe ice would help with that?

[OldNewYork]

I understand the 10th Amendment action it is for Paul, and that states can make their own laws; New York might choose the same thing Arizona has.

If it’s legal in Arizona and there’s a porous international border with a major producer and exporter, how will that affect the rest of the country? Will every state also have to have import restrictions of its own on this, if they decide to keep it illegal? Are bags going to need separate state-level inspection and scanning for agricultural products when traveling interstate, like there is in Hawaii? These are also my concerns.

[chris_bdba]

Not sure if that is still the drug of choice? I knwo there is a lot of coke and pot sold but isn’t crack sort of passe’ these days?

[Ken H]

Do you think federal prohibition of marijuana under the Commerce Clause is in keeping with the Clause's original meaning?

If your answer is "YES", then you must also accept that federal control of health care, the environment and education are in keeping with original understanding.

If your answer is "NO", then how do you justify supporting laws that violate the Constitution?

Is your answer "YES" or is it "NO"?