Ron Paul: Legalizing Marijuana Is a State's Constitutional Right

www.indecisionforever.com ^ | May 19, 2009 | Dennis DiClaudio

[Yosemitest]

Ron Paul: Legalizing Marijuana Is a State's Constitutional Right

Ron Paul recently told all 23 members of Air America's listening audience that he is strongly in support of state sovereignty concerning the legalization of the sticky icky pot weed…

He said that he believes that the U.S. Constitution gives the fifty states the right to legalize hemp production or marijuana. He said the issue was a matter of personal liberty but added that drug users should not be entitled to government-funded treatment if they abuse legalized drugs.

Not in a free market America, they shouldn't. That would make them a burden on society. Instead, they should seek treatment on reality television, where their struggles can be put to good use entertaining fellow drug users.

"If drugs are legal and people misuse them, then they do it at their own risk," he said. Bottom line, said Paul: "I do trust individuals to make their own decisions."

And that's when everybody listening to him realized that Ron Paul has never met anybody who has ever been on drugs ever.

I'm in favor of legalizing — or at least regulating — a lot of drugs, particularly marijuana. But I won't even trust my pothead friends to make decisions concerning the CD player most of the time.*

.

[MamaTexan]

And THAT was a neat trick pulled off by the Founding Fathers.

Excuse me, but I believe the Founders knew EXACTLY what it meant.

However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

-----

The parties to the compact are the States, and the federal government has NO authority to regulate items of any sort inside the jurisdiction of a State.

The bastardized interpretation we currently live under has NOTHING to do with Original Intent.

[jpsb]

"I think Ken's saying the fed gov has no constitutional authority to pass such a law. And he's right."

Hmmm, thanks, I did not know that. I do recall that it took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Back when we paid attention to what is and is not Constitutional.

[headsonpikes]

In headsonpikes’ world, the regulation of green plants would be beneath the dignity of the state.

Dogs scarcely qualify for such regulation, let alone parsnips and such.

[Ohioan]

Paul's position on this is fully in accord with the understanding not only of the Founding Fathers, but of the Courts for many generations, thereafter. The regulation of Marijuana is clearly a matter involving the "Police Power"--in law the power to protect the health, safety and morals of the community. That power was left to the States in the Constitution.

The problem is that so few actually read the document, clause by clause; but for anyone who will, you will note that there are no delegations of power to the Federal Government, that relate to the Police Power, as it has always been understood, at least not outside the Federal Territories.

Republicans who would have the Federal Government interfere with legislation in some of the Western States, which now allow medical use of Marijuana, are hurting the Party by appearing to not respect the basic principles of Federalism.

I have never personally even tried Marijuana, as its smell is offensive; but that does not entitle me in Ohio to forbid its use in any other State.

William Flax

[MamaTexan]

The only purpose was to give the Federal Government the adequate power to ensure that commerce between the States was not interrupted by tariffs, quotas, or other taxes.

Actually, it was to make sure the States got a share of the taxes from points of entry.

A direct consequence of this power of regulating commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, is that of establishing ports; or such places of entry, lading, and unlading, as may be most convenient for the merchant on the one hand, and for the easy and effectual collection of the revenue from customs, on the other.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries

It was decided by this court in the case of Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, that the term 'imports' as used in that clause of the constitution which declares that 'no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,' does not refer to articles carried from one state into another, but only to articles imported from foreign countries into the United States.
Brown vs Houston

It could also be used as a tool for Constitutional compliance by allowing the federal government the ability to sanction States by routing traffic away from points of entry as well, thus denying them 'income'.

[dragnet2]

If we start publicly executing these drug dealers, and punish the users like Thailand does, then the drug trade will drop.

Yeah, lets line them up by the hundreds and shoot them in the back of their heads, then government should seize all their assets!

Good thinking!

Freedom is great!

Makes me want to put on some war paint, guzzle a quart of Wild Turkey followed by half dozen shots of Flaming Blue Jesus. Lets chase these demons into a mass graves!

Lets be like Thialand...Kill um all....Yipee!

[jmc813]

And if one defends the use of marijuana, and other ILLEGAL drugs, then that person is NOT a conservative, period.

Do you drink?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.

The problem with this analogy is that not marrying either of the options isn't a choice. Someone IS going to be elected president, and either you choose to participate in that decision or you don't. Either way, you're gonna be married.

[jmc813]

“If drugs are legal and people misuse them, then they do it at their own risk,” Sorry but I don’t trust my kid to make that decision.

It takes a village, right?

[jmc813]

They don't want the innocent harmed by the recklessness of these evil people who want these ILLEGAL substances legalized.

But that just pales in comparison to the anti-conservative drug-induced pro-dope crapola I see on this thread.

You guys must be a blast at parties.

[freedomfiter2]

No, the Commerce Clause is why ALL marijuana is illegal, whether it crosses State lines or not.

Under that understanding of the constitution, the federal government has total control of everything that has a physical presence. That can’t be right.

[Wolfie]

Exactly. And yet what can’t be, is.

[aces]

we disagree sir, I am no pot head, electrical engineer..smoked pot over thirty years ago...definitely not the best path, but putting folks in jail for it is not Christian..just sayin..

[tbpiper]

..smoked pot over thirty years ago...putting folks in jail for it is not Christian..

Thank you for giving incontrovertible evidence of the long term damaging effect of pot smoke.

[tacticalogic]

Under that understanding of the constitution, the federal government has total control of everything that has a physical presence. That can’t be right.

They don't limit their "understanding" to just things that have a physical presence. They claim authority to enact legislation like hate crime laws and the VAWA by saying hate crimes and domestic violence have a "substantial effect on interstate commerce".

[aces]

your rightiousness is as rags before the Lord...and you are welcome..

[tacticalogic]

The problem with this analogy is that not marrying either of the options isn't a choice. Someone IS going to be elected president, and either you choose to participate in that decision or you don't. Either way, you're gonna be married.

What will it take to make the Republican Party understand we don't want any more RINOs, short of losing an election? We seem to have tried everything else and it doesn't seem to be working.

As long as we'll keep holding our noses and voting for whoever they give us, they don't have any incentive to change. As long as it keeps working, they're going to keep doing it.

[Durus]

It depends on the State. Each state has it’s own constitution of enumerated powers.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

What will it take to make the Republican Party understand we don't want any more RINOs, short of losing an election?

It will take real conservative candidates actually winning primaries.

[tacticalogic]

It will take real conservative candidates actually winning primaries.

Like Joe Miller did in Alaska?