Posted on 04/02/2015 10:26:36 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Republican presidential hopefuls are united in blasting President Obama for his chaotic enforcement of marijuana laws, but the unity quickly breaks down when they are asked how they would handle things if they were in the White House.
Some have sent mixed signals, saying state decisions should be respected while questioning how Mr. Obama has respected those decisions. Others have refused to say how they would wield the federal bureaucracy against marijuana.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is one of the few potential candidates to take a firm stance, saying he would insist on following federal statutes that outlaw the drug.
“I don’t think you can ignore federal law,” Mr. Jindal told radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who asked whether the governor would “bring the hammer” down on pot stores in states with legalization laws. “Federal law is still the law of the land. It still needs to be enforced.”
The confusion stems from the conflict between federal law, which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug on par with heroin and LSD, and states where pot has been legalized for medicinal use or, in a growing number of states, where it has been approved for recreational use.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana. Alaska, Oregon and the District also have followed in the footsteps of Colorado and Washington by allowing recreational use of the drug. Several other states, such as California, Maine, Arizona and Nevada, which hosts an early presidential nomination contest, are heading in a similar direction.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Don’t bogart that Nanny State PING!
Ever heard of the 10th Amendment, Governor?
He may be a lot of things, including a republican, but he's no conservative.
The federal government needs to be put back in a very small constitutional box that it came in.
/johnny
So Governor Jindal, do you support enforcement of federal laws against prescriptions from Canada?
_________________________________________________________________
Under the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987, it is illegal for anyone other than the original manufacturer to bring prescription drugs into the country.
However, federal officials have decided to exercise "enforcement discretion" in dealing with prescription drugs brought across the border, provided the drugs are not narcotics or other controlled substances.
http://www.elderlawanswers.com/buying-prescription-drugs-from-canada-legal-or-illegal-1204
Don't you dare attempt to skirt the leau! Nanny state needs the revenue!
Louisiana's just the kind of place that gleefully would deny the sick, suffering, and dying, their medical choices. The pigs and boozers put the cannabis users in the 30's German Jew citizenship status once again in the past 6 months.
Obama has created a new paradigm where the POTUS decides which federal laws are to enforced and which are not.
So this makes winning the WH even more important
Do you think fedgov should start enforcing the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987?
Tell ya what,
Lets look ahead ~ 25 years from then to today,
Recall how GWB passed his tax cuts using budget reconciliation causing it to expire at the end of 2012, because he couldn't get 60 in Senate ??
(McCain naturally voted against it)
Obama has shown the way.
A GOP POTUS can announce that the IRS will only will enforce taxes that he approves of, and order the IRS to post whatever tax policy he wants, ignoring the law and congress.
Before Obama no POTUS ever considered such a power grab but the genie is out of the box.
So do you think fedgov should start enforcing the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987, yes or no?
What part of the US Constitution authorized the federal government to meddle in State police functions.
I really want the feds put back in that tiny little constitutional box.
/johnny
What do you think?
I think you folded.
OK, but I still seem to be here posting.
And my posts still seem to turn up.
I must be missing something.
Like many federal activities or authority, this flows from two SCOTUS interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause.
Yes, you are: the opportunity to display principles and backbone.
I wasn't aware that the SCOTUS had addressed the general welfare clause. And their misinterpretations of the interstate commerce clause are the judicial foundation for big liberal government.
Thanks for the ping!
So how does he propose we get to that ultimately best place?
This issue is really mundane and those for legalization are single-issue voters. No need to abandon them. I like Ted Cruz’s position that while he is against it, it is a state issue. It would be one heck pf a chess move if he campaigned on legalizing marijuana at the federal level, which is his actual position, though he hasn’t actually said that federal marijuana laws should be repealed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.