Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry defends states' right to legalize marijuana
http://www.click2houston.com/news/texas-gov-rick-perry-defends-states-right-to-legalize-marijuana/-/ ^ | Jan 23 2014 | The Associated Press

Posted on 01/24/2014 12:29:15 AM PST by eastforker

AUSTIN, Texas - Gov. Rick Perry defended Colorado and Washington's legalization of marijuana on Thursday, saying it was an issue of state rights, while touting initiatives in Texas as national models for keeping minor drug offenders out of jail.

Perry's comments during the World Economic Forum in Switzerland echoed his past comments on drug policy, but they caused a bit of a stir because of how publicly the Republican endorsed lesser punishments for non-violent drug offenders.

(Excerpt) Read more at click2houston.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Local News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 10thammendment; pot; statesrights; texas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last
To: sakic

“Marijuana is immoral?”

Of course it is. That’s what the federal GOVERNMENT film “Reefer Madness” taught us long ago.

You know, a big government credibility builder, that film was.

Stands in history, alongside American Prohibition.

The alternative to turning over control of one’s self to the government, would be personal freedom.

That way I can advocate for freedom for us both, and at the same time decide to NOT use a substance, while you choose to.

Or vice versa.


41 posted on 01/24/2014 2:39:07 PM PST by truth_seeker (Nissan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

Um, the government did not produce the movie Reefer Madness. You can read its history online.

A church group made the movie, and then it was picked up by a producer who added the more salacious stuff.

But nice rant!


42 posted on 01/24/2014 5:21:43 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RC one

I love it when a liberal finally let’s the mask slip here on FR. Thanks for revealing yourself.


43 posted on 01/24/2014 5:29:33 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

LMAO. The promotion of drug addiction has always been the liberal position. Opposition to the pro-drug addiction position has ALWAYS been the conservative position except for a handful of libertarians that really just liberals that can’t admit it. Wrapping your pro- addiction position up in a states rights wrapper doesn’t change that. Dumb .


44 posted on 01/24/2014 7:12:06 PM PST by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

and btw, I’m not saying that you or anyone else that happens to be pro-legalization/addiction isn’t a conservative. You/they may be staunchly conservative on every other meaningful issue. I’m just saying that on this one particular issue, you/they are leaning left and I honestly don’t have a huge problem with you/them for it. That doesn’t mean that I’m going to gleefully agree with you/them about it though.


45 posted on 01/24/2014 8:04:17 PM PST by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RC one

The promotion of un-Constitutional Federal power has been a Liberal position for even longer. Now go Google up a copy of the Constitution and show mere where EXACTLY Congress is granted the specific, enumerated power to tell me what I can or can not put into my own body.

Take your time. No SCOTUS decisions allowed, only the text of the Constitution.


46 posted on 01/24/2014 8:07:00 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
The promotion of un-Constitutional Federal power has been a Liberal position for even longer....show mere where EXACTLY Congress is granted the specific, enumerated power to tell me what I can or can not put into my own body.

I'm not even going there.

47 posted on 01/24/2014 8:34:57 PM PST by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RC one

“I’m not even going there.”

I thank you for gracefully acknowledging your defeat.

L


48 posted on 01/24/2014 9:41:55 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

yes, because there are no laws anywhere in the US code that are specifically authorized to exist by the constitution. For example, there are no laws limiting how fast we can drive on our roads because the constitution doesn’t say anything about that.


49 posted on 01/24/2014 9:52:06 PM PST by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; wardaddy; Lazamataz

It’s not just the GOP Governor of Texas supporting legalization.

The uber conservative American Farm Federation just endorsed legalizing industrial hemp as a cash crop this week.


50 posted on 01/24/2014 10:07:23 PM PST by Southack (The one thing preppers need from the 1st World? http://tinyurl.com/ktfwljc .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Southack

did Perry endorse legalizing it? or did he just say it was a state issue?

I am so through with the Republican Party as it is anyway, it wouldn’t matter. The AFF might as well be the CofC as far as I am concerned.

No more ag subsidies!!


51 posted on 01/24/2014 10:10:47 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RC one

Wow. We need some kind of test around here apparently.

It’s called “Federalism” ad you might what to look into it.

If I may be so bold I would like to gently suggest that you actually read the US Constitution at some point. You’ll find that whole Article 1, Section 8 thingy a bit of a shock I’m sure. But it will be worth your time.

Feel free to move your lips if you need to. I hear it helps those of diminished capacity.

Good luck.

L


52 posted on 01/24/2014 10:26:26 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Nothing shocking about the necessary and proper clause to me. You’’re the one who seems to have a problem with it.


53 posted on 01/24/2014 10:28:39 PM PST by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Southack; Ken H; wardaddy
We got infiltrated.

Just like it said in the Communist Goal list.

54 posted on 01/25/2014 3:26:10 AM PST by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson