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.*

.

[GSWarrior]

All you really need to know about the subject of legalizing dope is who is FOR it.

All you really need to know about the subject of legalizing dope is who is AGAINST it--the federal government and mexican drug cartels, for starters.

It is clear which side you have chosen.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

A candidate who can’t beat a write-in campaign has problems. Say what you want about how those write-ins were counted, the fact is that only 35 percent of the voters actually selected Miller on the ballot, and 41 percent chose to write-in their candidate.

[tacticalogic]

He won the primary, and the Republican party sent an army of lawyers to help defeat him. Murkowski's write-in campaign had the RNC's fingerprints all over it. They didn't do one damned thing to help Joe.

I wouldn't trust the Republican Party as far as I can throw a D9.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

..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.

How so? Can you cite Scriptural support for jailing people for acts that harm nobody but (perhaps) themselves?

[Responsibility2nd]

All you really need to know about the subject of legalizing dope is who is AGAINST it—the federal government and mexican drug cartels, for starters.

It is clear which side you have chosen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you for making my point. Yes, I’ll side with the federal government. YOU in the meantime can side with Ron Paul and Barney Frank.

~snort~

And as far as the mexican drug cartels go. I suppose you believe that if dope is legalized, these cartels will suddenly and quietly go away?

Look. If you pro-dopers get your way and dope is legalized; then consider this:

These cartels will become legitimate business operating in the US. If the US refuses to acknowledge these billion dollar businesses they will wage a drug war on the US so intense, so severe that it will make our current WOD look like a Sunday School picnic. Or do you beleive they will just quietly go away? You know they won’t. So... you are OK with mexican drug cartels carying on their supply of drugs to the US?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

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

Which means that some states may not have the authority to criminalize marijuana - but certainly EVERY state has the authority to REFRAIN FROM (or cease) criminalizing marijuana.

[tbpiper]

Can you cite Scriptural support for jailing people for acts that harm nobody but (perhaps) themselves?

Firstly, there's no "(perhaps)" to the harm. Secondly, I don't have to supply any scriptural references. Aces is the one who contends its unChristian to lock up people breaking the law. I suggest you poke him for the reference. (Try Jude 3:21).

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I’ll side with the federal government.

Barack Obama thanks you for your support.

And as far as the mexican drug cartels go. I suppose you believe that if dope is legalized, these cartels will suddenly and quietly go away?

Look. If you pro-dopers get your way and dope is legalized; then consider this:

These cartels will become legitimate business operating in the US.

No, because their members are not legally in the US. And even a cartel that could cobble together a legal presence would quickly and decisively lose the economic competition to the better educated and more experienced businessmen that would move into this now-legal market - just as legal sellers crowded rumrunners out of the alcohol market when that drug was relegalized.

[tacticalogic]

Thank you for making my point. Yes, I’ll side with the federal government. YOU in the meantime can side with Ron Paul and Barney Frank.

If you're counting on getting support using an argument that relies on people being to stupid to understand the difference between saying that marijuana should be legalized, and saying the States have the Consitutional authority to say wheter it should be or not, then good luck with that.

Personally, I like to think a little better of the general membership of the forum.

[Responsibility2nd]

No, because their members are not legally in the US. And even a cartel that could cobble together a legal presence would quickly and decisively lose the economic competition to the better educated and more experienced businessmen that would move into this now-legal market - just as legal sellers crowded rumrunners out of the alcohol market when that drug was relegalized.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ahh, but the cartels have been and are currently successful at defeating our MILITARY efforts to curtail their business.

So.. HOW are the cartels going to stop at “better educated and more experienced businessmen ... as they ... move into this now-legal market”?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“....just as legal sellers crowded rumrunners out of the alcohol market when that drug was relegalized....”

As you know, The Mafia had other ideas, and they enforced those ideas with violence. Which still continues to this day. Same thing will happen if legalized MJ operations start up.

And you will still have cheaper black-market drugs (tax-free) that will flood the market. And don’t forget the IRS. You do know why the IRS was established, don’t you? To enforce taxation on all that legal booze. So. You want legal pot and a new IRS to regulate, control and tax marijuana?

That - my friend - is more big government liberalsim.

An increase in the WOD, an increase in big government - all to support a pro-drug idea that most Americans don’t want?

Bad idea.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Can you cite Scriptural support for jailing people for acts that harm nobody but (perhaps) themselves?

Firstly, there's no "(perhaps)" to the harm.

Occasional moderate marijuana use is no more "harmful" than occasional moderate alcohol use - or occasional eating of a bacon cheeseburger.

Secondly, I don't have to supply any scriptural references. Aces is the one who contends its unChristian to lock up people breaking the law.

No, aces contends that it's unChristian to have a law (which implies locking up violators) against marijuana use.

(Try Jude 3:21).

I can't find a version of the Bible in which Jude has more than one chapter.

[tbpiper]

I can't find a version of the Bible in which Jude has more than one chapter.

Just checkin', thought you might be a Methodist.

aces contends that it's unChristian to have a law..

Stll, Aces needs some scriptural support on this otherwise he's just blowing smoke, so to speak (maybe he's the Methodist).

[JustSayNoToNannies]

No, because their members are not legally in the US. And even a cartel that could cobble together a legal presence would quickly and decisively lose the economic competition to the better educated and more experienced businessmen that would move into this now-legal market - just as legal sellers crowded rumrunners out of the alcohol market when that drug was relegalized.

Ahh, but the cartels have been and are currently successful at defeating our MILITARY efforts to curtail their business.

So.. HOW are the cartels going to stop at “better educated and more experienced businessmen ... as they ... move into this now-legal market”?

Cartels can't force customers to trade with them; when legal alternatives are available to customers, that's where they'll go - just as alcohol users did when that drug was relegalized.

....just as legal sellers crowded rumrunners out of the alcohol market when that drug was relegalized....

As you know, The Mafia had other ideas, and they enforced those ideas with violence. Which still continues to this day.

You claim the Mafia is still a significant player in the alcohol market? Have any evidence?

And you will still have cheaper black-market drugs (tax-free) that will flood the market.

Just like all the cheaper black-market alcohol that has flooded the market? *snort*

And don’t forget the IRS. You do know why the IRS was established, don’t you? To enforce taxation on all that legal booze. So. You want legal pot and a new IRS to regulate, control and tax marijuana?

That - my friend - is more big government liberalsim.

As I responded to this argument in post #106 - to which you never replied: "By that argument, the conservative position is to criminalize everything the government taxes. Pretty dumb - even for a Drug Warrior." Very dishonest of you to re-post your argument while evading the rebuttal.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Maybe so. But the fact remains that only 35 percent of the people of Alaska voted for Miller.

[Durus]

Yes exactly.

[Antoninus]

I'm not sure who's position here is more cockeyed--Ron Paul's or the person that wrote this article.

Ron Paul's position is that drugs should be legal but that government shouldn't pay for rehab. You'd have to actually *be on drugs* to think that scenario will ever happen.

The article's author says that he favors legalizing drugs, but he recognizes that drug-use causes serious impairments in executive functions.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I'm not sure who's position here is more cockeyed--Ron Paul's or the person that wrote this article. [...] The article's author says that he favors legalizing drugs, but he recognizes that drug-use causes serious impairments in executive functions.

Alcohol use causes serious impairments in executive functions; is it cockeyed to support the legality of that drug?

[tacticalogic]

Maybe so. But the fact remains that only 35 percent of the people of Alaska voted for Miller.

That's irrelevant to what they did to him, other than maybe being a measure of how effective they were at doing it.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I don't have to supply any scriptural references. Aces is the one who contends its unChristian to lock up people breaking the law.I don't have to supply any scriptural references. Aces is the one who contends its unChristian to lock up people [for smoking pot].

And you're the one who contends that his contention is "incontrovertible evidence of the long term damaging effect of pot smoke." So where's your evidence for your contention?

[logician2u]

Yosemitest said:

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

Thailand, that tropical paradise where prostitution thrives but . . other vices can bring you a death sentence.

So isn't it interesting that the anti-Paul candidate would want to impose capital punishment on drug smugglers?

(Of course, that was "the old Newt" before he was ousted from the speakership.)