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.*

.

[refermech]

I can agree with that but the end result is the same. Pot is illegal at this time. And it probably shouldn’t be. The fact that conservatives can’t agree on this simple principle is why the law(or the ability to make the law) will not change anytime soon.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

God knows the evidence of those unintended consequences is laid out before us for all to see, so why would anyone want to keep doing it?

A question for the ages, my friend.

[tacticalogic]

I can agree with that but the end result is the same. Pot is illegal at this time. And it probably shouldn’t be. The fact that conservatives can’t agree on this simple principle is why the law(or the ability to make the law) will not change anytime soon.

Maybe it would if we'd stop trying to make it about the pot, and start making it about the Constitution.

Is just doing that too much to ask for an agreement on?

[Yosemitest]

You've fried your brain smoking all that dope.
Prove the incompetent Paul competent. You can't.

[Yosemitest]

So ... you use marijuana?

[Yosemitest]

The majority of LEGAL voters don't trust people to make that decision.
They don't want to have to clean up and pay for the damages these users and sellers of ILLEGAL drugs cause.
They don't want the innocent harmed by the recklessness of these evil people who want these ILLEGAL substances legalized.
Almost every user of marijuana and illegal drug I knew 35 years ago in high school has passed away due to cancer, brain tumors, or driving while under the influence of drug and crashed. Some killed other innocent people with that vehicle crash.

Only an idiot would support legalization of these deadly substances.

[Responsibility2nd]

Thank you for posting this article. And for all the many replies you’ve posted on this thread rebutting the libs who support Ron Paul and support pro-marijuana laws.

See my tagline. I’ve had it up for a couple of months now. I have as much respect for a libertarian pot-smoking Paul-tard as I do for the clueless leaders in the White Hut.

Yet, FR is infested with liberals who want to surrender in the WOD. I understand why Jim Rob is adamant about keeping Romney out. And if you’re caught trolling for Mitt - you get the zot. But that just pales in comparison to the anti-conservative drug-induced pro-dope crapola I see on this thread.

[Yosemitest]

Read post #15. You'll understand where I'm coming from.

[Durus]

I don't smoke dope or take illegal drugs of any type. Throwing out one logical fallacy after another is typical behavior of individuals in your position. There is no constitutional basis for your desire to control the substances others choose to imbibe so you resort to libel, emotional rants, and lack of reason. You are not helping your position in the least and you are not supporting the basis of conservatism.

[Wolfie]

I'll stick up for Wolfie: Wolfie's a solid citizen. If I may be so bold, I get the impression on the thread that he's saying "what is is what is, and you know what? It is because many conservatives have this exact blind spot when it comes to the War on Drugs that it is." You're saying the whole thing is illogical, unconstitutional, and should never have come about in the first place. You're both right.

We should fight the good fight all we can, but you know what? It's like screamin' at a wall. It's like kicking at the pricks. And like Wolfie, sometimes I get a sick satisfaction seeing conservatives squirm on this very issue. For me, it's where the rubber meets the road of conservatism: the federal government is either restricted to certain enumerated powers or it's not. If it is, you have to live with the notion that your personal bugaboo, whether it be drug use, porn, or what have you, is perfectly legal. If it's not, then you have to live with the notion that you're not a conservative, but a statist, i.e., a commie in conservative clothing.

This, every word.

Tactialogic, I'm not attacking you, and apologize if it comes off that way. Just saying that you're pissing in the wind. We The People apparently agree on one thing: we want to be able to tell others how to live their lives and want the government to hold a gun to their heads to get that done. Everybody just has a different idea of what it is they don't want others to do, and can't understand that giving that power to government in one instance gives that power to government in all instances. It's like the old joke: We've already established what we are, now we're just haggling over the details.

[mikhailovich]

You should study the city of Oakland, California and their legalization of medical marijuana, if you haven’t already. Whether you support the war on drugs, legalization of marijuana, or oppose both, its an interesting study.

[tacticalogic]

Everybody just has a different idea of what it is they don't want others to do, and can't understand that giving that power to government in one instance gives that power to government in all instances.

Ben Franklin said "A republic, if you can keep it".

You say we can't understand that difference. I say we did at one time and can again, but we have to want to. I want to, and I want other people to. I want to keep that repulic.

Why is that wrong?

[Wolfie]

So, do you find Obamacare constitutional?

Personally? No. Which means nothing. If the SC applies precedent, then the health insurance mandate will be upheld for the same reason Federal marijuana laws were upheld in Gonzales v. Raich. And no doubt a great number of assholes who cheered the Raich decision will be upset and completely unable to grasp why they've been hoisted on their own petard.

[Wolfie]

I never said it was wrong. I just look at our history and say it’s is unlikely, and quite frankly, probably impossible. People can’t even accept others smoking a plant for cryin’ out loud.

[tacticalogic]

I never said it was wrong. I just look at our history and say it’s is unlikely, and quite frankly, probably impossible.

Well then, I'd suggest you might want to petition to change the site name, on the premise that it's a lie, because there is no longer a republic and never will be again.

[Moleman]

WO (Some) D is a complete failure.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

FR is infested with liberals who want to surrender in the WOD.

Was it liberals who "surrendered" in the War On Alcohol aka Prohibition?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The majority of LEGAL voters don't trust people to make that decision.

Majority votes don't trump the Constitution, which leaves the decision up to states.

They don't want to have to clean up and pay for the damages these users and sellers of ILLEGAL drugs cause.

But they do want to have to clean up and pay for the damages that result from drug criminalization - such as the channeling of inflated profits into criminal hands?

And they do want to have to clean up and pay for the damages users of the legal drug alcohol cause?

Almost every user of marijuana and illegal drug I knew 35 years ago in high school has passed away due to cancer, brain tumors, or driving while under the influence of drug and crashed. Some killed other innocent people with that vehicle crash.

Sounds unrepresentative to me. How many drug users did you know? And how many of them died of cancer or brain tumors?

Only an idiot would support legalization of these deadly substances.

How about the legality of the deadly, addictive substance alcohol - does only an idiot support that?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

“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.

Nobody's talking about legalizing for kids, any more than the drug alcohol is legal for kids.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The problem I have with the libertarians pertaining to marijuana and other hard drugs is the fact that they don’t address all of the other factors that arise from use of these drugs upon the tax paying society

Don't want to pay for drug users' health care? Don't! Don't want to pay for people who make themselves unemployable through drug abuse? Don't! Using big-government healthcare and welfare programs as an excuse for a big-government drug-criminalization program is not a conservative argument.

along with crimes to pay for them in many cases.

If drugs were legal, their prices would plummet and so would the crime done to buy them.