Skip to comments.Paul Ryan's Take on Marijuana: Worthless or Desperate?
Posted on 09/10/2012 11:32:30 PM PDT by nickcarrawayEdited on 09/10/2012 11:58:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Scooping up votes in swing states is how Paul Ryan serves Mitt Romney best. And what better dissatisfied liberal bloc for the Republicans to court than marijuana supporters, stunned by President Obama's total betrayal?
Hence the vice presidential candidate's stance in a college town in swinging Colorado, which will vote on legalizing marijuana at the November ballot, striking a libertarian tone to questions about marijuana enforcement. "It's up to Coloradans to decide," Ryan told Colorado Springs's KRDO. "My personal positions on this issue have been let the states decide what to do with these things.... What I've always believed is the states should decide."
I entirely support the states deciding.
Yep. totally agree.
It’s a states rights issue. Period. The stamp act as introduced
The war on drugs is a complete loser. We’ve incarcerated people that quite honestly have no business being behind bars. We’re strengthened the financial incentives enough to cartels and gangs to where bloodshed is a way of life and all because of a plant.
Listen, I am no fan of drugs. I wish people wouldn’t do them. However wishing it away isn’t the answer decriminalizing it to legalizing it is. The Marijuana Stamp act of 1934 was a farce, it was overturned by Learv vs US 1969 and congress repealed the stamp act in 1970 yet nothing changed.
Listen people, if you want to be consistent with 10th Amendment issues you get this decision out of the hands of the feds. Plainly put it is not an enumerated power for the Feds to regulate this. This is an area of commerce that can be completely fall within state lines and we have no business telling states if they can or cannot legalize it.
Now, here’s the caveat. If it turns out to be a gigantic problem? Guess what, the state that legalized it has to deal with it.
My mother’s a nurse. I got to walk along with her to see the detox unit from accidental overdoses.
Paul Ryan doesn’t have a clue. There is so much money being spent to try to treat these people who have an affliction. Rather than enabling them, we need someone who’s willing to ask the tough questions.
That man is not Paul Ryan. Love the man, but he’s very, very wrong here.
Also, thank you to the crackhead who tossed his pipe in my car when it was parked at work. Thanks so much for that, btw!
They should only legalize it on the strict condition it is not taxed.
I tried to read this entire article, but whoever wrote it must have been as high as a kite.
I am not a fan of drugs, don’t do drugs, and don’t even drink alcohol, but I know two things for certain:
1) Prohibition doesn’t work and the war on drugs is a failure.
2) It is a state’s rights issue and whatever reduces the power of the feds and gives states more sovereignty, I support.
The feds have the power and right to intervene in the international drug trade, but whatever happens within state borders under the purview of the 10th Amendment, that is up to the states and people to decide.
The man sounds like a strict Constitutionalist. We could use a few of those on the SCOTUS bench.
My sentiments exactly. Get the Fed out of it.
a) He said he was against legalized marijuana, but it was the State that had to make the law under the 10th amendment.
b) If doctors believe that marijuana can help their cancer patients make it through chemo then they should be allowed to prescribe it. (My father took one dose of chemo following colon cancer surgery and refused any further treatment because it was so harsh. He has been lucky)
c) The list of prescription drugs that are extremely harmful and addictive when abused is long. So is the list of those who abuse them and doctors that prescribe them. On the other hand it would be immoral to use that as an excuse to deny the medication to those who can benefit from it.
Mickey Martin is a moron. Ryan stated an opinion. How can an opinion be a lie?
I like Paul Ryan and wish the ticket would flip, but the truth is that Ryan will have little or no effect on Romney policy should he get in.
Go ahead and try to grab the cannabis vote in the west - they are so stoned they wont make it past the nearest fast food joint on their way to the polls anyway. But know this - Bishop Willard will never relax the persecution of cannabis users.
Count yourself lucky if he doesn’t add coffee and booze to the list of banned substances!
I’ve had to deal with the afteraffects of drug abuse and addiction and I’m really starting to get tired of the folks who tell me that it’s all ok and they don’t have a problem when I have to clean up after them.
It would be nice to hear Ryan say that. It’s a victimless crime until you have to deal with drug addiction in your children. I don’t hear anyone out there saying this and it would be nice to hear it from Ryan. I’m certainly not going to get that from Obama...
Moron or not the issue today seems to be blind loyalty to a party that no longer exists. Guys like Martin really believe in a Libertarian idea of government and are blind to what the Socialist DNC is. A Disease.
He only believes that Ryans “opinion” is a lie because of blind (D) loyalty. We need to cure the disease and save all the Morons.
If you think not, then which section of the Constitution do you think delegates that power to Congress?
Please explain why someone can use marijuana (or alcohol) and then injure/kill someone and damage property, then use the fact that they chose to ingest to evade punishment?
Fed’s have power to regulate importation.
If you’re shipping drugs across international borders, then yes the feds have the power to regulate it.
Growing it within the US is a different story. The cartels do massive business. I don’t really think it can be argued that the states are dealing with entities that are playing the game on the same level that they are playing.
That’s the problem. The Drug trade is international and effective enforcement - can it really be done at the state level? I’m skeptical.
Ina perfect world, maybe what you say is true. But the FACT is that once a state or the federal government recognizes it as legal, they under our current system, the government will pay for everything for an addict. You still want to steal taxpayer money. (as it stands right now- not in some ideal world)
I realize that. Little Mickey Martin the moron is cutting off his nose to spite his face. If CO were to legalize pot (which it likely won’t but...) then anyone could grow their own I presume which would make the MM issue a moot point here. With 0bama we will continue to have the FedMob jackboots breaking down doors whether it’s legal in the state or not.
How do you figure that? In CO a DUI will cost you $10k and that's without damaging anyone or their property. We still have punitive laws for causing injury and property damage too. Using alcohol, OTCs or legal Rx drugs won't get you any pass on that.
Your argument doesn’t make any sense.
The state governments already spend billions on incarceration for low level drug crimes.
The state government already spend billions on rehabilitation for drug abusers.
And I don’t necessarily agree that if you had decriminalization that it would lead to a great increase in drug addicts.
I think the net gain for society would be on the side of decriminalization, because you are basically eliminating billions from state budgets that go towards criminal justice right now, and you won’t be ruining the lives of so many people who get caught, get criminal records, which, in turn, makes them unemployable.
Lastly, just because drugs are decriminalized doesn’t mean that people who abuse them are not absolved of responsibility if they commit crimes(or cause harm to others) under the influence of drugs.
I think he’s floating a red herring and hoping people will buy into it.
If someone gets drunk and gets in a car and kills someone, they get a fraction of the punishment they would if they were sober.
I never said it would lead to a great increase. I said the state and federal government's obligation to provide for them would be greater. If you live in this universe, you know that is true.
Less than 1% of people in prison are there because of marijuana.
Which goes to the original point that weeders are dissapointed with Obama.
Obama cares about one thing. Federal control of everything from cradle to grave but Martin types think he’s the same free love person he pretended to be in 1980.
They have no idea what the “Liberals” have planned. If he did Mr Martin would be Republican...yesterday.
You don’t think states spend billions on criminal justice from cops to courts to prison on drug crimes?
And instead of calling me a Soros stooge, you might want to make an argument based in facts and logic instead of your personal opinion.
This is true.
However if you take the enforcement and incarceration costs out of the equation it’s cheaper to treat the addict than to combat the crime.
This isn’t an issue of what you feel.
Its an issue of state rights and the overstepping of federal power.
The federal government is out of control and expanding into every area of our lives. Yet because you feel something is bad and should be banned you’ll encourage the federal government to abuse its powers not granted to it by our constitution. You and a few million others all want to control something so in turn you eventually as a whole grant the federal government total rule over our lives. One law at a time...
And then you wonder what happened to your freedom...
And last but not least. How can you truly have freedom, if you aren’t allowed to make what the majority thinks is the “wrong” choice from time to time. If God didn’t believe in freedom we wouldn’t have been given free will. We would instead have been robots fulfilling our sinless programming all in perfect harmony - and all completely meaningless. Free will comes with a heavy price - but its better than the alternative.
Especially when you take the profit out of it for the gangs and organized crime.
I never called you a Soros stooge. Do you think the government should tax drugs?
I say legalize it all - just like my hero William F Buckley
William F Buckley & Charlie Rangel debate war on drugs circa ‘91
(by the way - Some of Rush Limbaugh’s speech pattern has come from William F Buckley. Tell me if you can hear it in this video)
“””If someone gets drunk and gets in a car and kills someone, they get a fraction of the punishment they would if they were sober.”””
What state do you live in??? In my state killing someone in a car accident is Vehicular Homocide. If youre sober and it’s an accident and your at fault such as speeding failure to yield etc, it’s a misdemeanor. If alcohol is involved or you flee the scene, it’s a felony punishable by 10 years in prison for each count.
“...Im really starting to get tired of the folks who tell me that its all ok and they dont have a problem when I have to clean up after them.”
Who cares! So you have to clean up after them. What about the runaway police state, who is going to pay for and clean up after the thousands upon thousands of officers, SWAT types busting down doors, snooping upon persons and property that are not even suspected? Take the worst of two evils, and who cares whether doing drugs is bad, we don’t want this police state, and the biggest supporters of the unwinnable drug war are the public union police officers and prison guards. There is a thing called freedom and personal responsibility. And in the Portugal case, where drugs were essentially legalized, arguably drug addiction was -reduced-. So there’s no real argument for continuing this insane prohibition.
As far as a cursory glance of these posts, you are about the only one here still parroting the old guard Authoritarian establishment Republican line. I hope you will reconsider, so we can really do something that will take the liberals off guard. Remember when Mary Katherine Ham & Bill O’Reilly clashed over mandatory drug sentences in FL. This hotair article shows virtual consensus -among conservatives- that the drug war is lost: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/07/video-mkh-and-oreilly-go-after-each-other-on-mandatory-sentencing. Plus, here’s some comments from a theblaze article covering the MK Ham / O’Reilly clash:
[HistoryGuy48:] One thing Chairman Mao did correctly was end Chinas drug problem. He accomplished this in about a year. How did he do it? He simply shot everyone involved. Users, pushers, suppliers, it didnt matter they were all given a single permanent cure, a bullet in the back of the head. Isnt Communism wonderful? Arent you glad we are almost there?
[RonBo51:] Like many, Bill is removed from the scene on the ground. If his son was caught growing a pot plant(1) in his closet, depending on the state, he would be charged with felony cultivation, intent to distribute, possession of a schedule1 drug. He would very likely face mandatory minimums and do HARD time.
Also, I know of several people who became injured, were prescribed pain opiates, became addicted, spent all their money, got caught trying to score pills on the black market, and did HARD time. One was a respected school teacher. So Bill, go educate yourself, you elitist hack.
[JayLew:] The entire war on drugs has simply turned into just another huge failed federal policy. I get the creeps just looking at SWAT garbed men and women storming into apartments and houses The issue of drug abuse or drug use is for sure serious .but the current approach is not only a flailing one it has actually just created another monster worse than the one it was meant to slay in the first place
Do I think we should have a society that walks around in a stupor or a stoned state? Well it doesnt matter what I think on that subject because we already have such a society. The way a society leads its citizens away from drug use is to amplify and nurture the notion on how nice life can be while straight. For those who choose to remain stoned or addicted to drugs .they will do what they will.
[Resme:] Could we solve this problem with more freedom? The answer is YES.
[JohnJamison:] Did we learn nothing form the prohibition era .You cant regulate morality all you do is create an under world and counterculture. Fact is alcohol is every bit as deadly as cocaine and has caused as much death as all illegal drugs put together. Here an idea Let the states decide.
[Midwh:] incarceration is a multi billion dollar industry now we know which side BO is on big FEDGOV establishment republican
Where is that the case? In Connecticut it would be considered an aggravating circumstance and the charges would multiply.
One problem I have with you totalitarian conservatives is all your conjecture. Please provide a reference to your 1% assertion.
Let states decide - war on drugs is a nightmare and a waste of billions. Then again, this is coming from a person who reads about the great lengths people go to to sneak cocaine into the US and wonders “Who the hell even uses this stuff?” But marijuana is not cocaine.
There - I have argued with myself. Conclusion - let states decide.
You want to outlaw alcohol?
How many of those were from marijuana? My guess is zero.
I agree. It is a states rights decision.
incarceration is a multi billion dollar industry...
...and as such has really outgrown the ability of citizens of many states to support it. Especially when so many are non violent drug offenders. Count me as a long time supporter of states controlling their borders, from unconstitutional federal incursion.
Sunset clauses, or legislative revue can be effectively used for situations such as Marijuana legalization, for those who are fearful of buyers remorse.
States Rights and an unimportant issue at this time in History.
>>They have no idea what the Liberals have planned.
"Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision. "
How far from ZBig Apple tree did Ian Brzezinski - a Romney foreign policy advisor - fall?
""a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations" (page 57):"
Duuuuudes! Where's the Republic?
My mothers a nurse. I got to walk along with her to see the detox unit from accidental overdoses.