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.*

.

[Scotsman will be Free]

Interstate commerce. Yup, that old saw that has been used to enslave us. I’m glad you approve.

[Scotsman will be Free]

How does marihuana “destroy everything in commerce”?
Alcohol and tobacco also “destroy health”. Should those be outlawed? If you are true to your nannystatism beliefs you will believe with the prohibitionists of the 20s.

[Eye of Unk]

I see Ron Paul surging above the other candidates, the lesser of ALL weevils.

[Wolfie]

I don’t approve, just pointing out the reality. The Federal healthcare mandate will be ruled Constitutional, using the same reasoning that held that Federal marijuana laws are Constitutional under the Commerce Clause. People who support the latter have no business bitching about the former. I will admit, though, that I do enjoy the squirming. I mean seriously, it’s as if some people think a hot stove will burn one hand, but not the other.

[circlecity]

This is why Ron Paul is the only consistent conservative in the race.

[Scotsman will be Free]

I’m a retired 30 year cop. The drug war has caused a considerable decrease in our rights, our liberty and our privacy. It has cost the lives of innocent people, perverted the govt and the criminal justice system and turned police depts into militarized seize the money pimps. Your way is more tyranny.

[Yosemitest]

Constitution 101: The Reason For The Commerce Clause
Andrew Madsen
December 21, 2010



Turn with me in your pocket Constitution to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Here you will find a sentence which many big government advocates have perverted to serve the slow creep of centralized power. This was never meant to be.

The Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the limited power, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”

Now, the Progressives have contorted the meaning of this power to support everything from National Healthcare (Obamacare), to regulation of monopolies, price-fixing, wage regulation, and many other unconstitutional federal activities. Why are these things unconstitutional? Well, because the Commerce Clause was written for one defined reason.

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.  Therefore, this means that New York can’t place a tax on goods that comes from Massachusetts or New Jersey. To regulate means that the Federal Government has the power to prevent State Government’s from engaging in trade wars and preventing free trade.  The root meaning of regulate, is to keep regular, not to control, mandate, or even become involved in the process.

The Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the job to protect free trade by preventing State Government’s from pandering to special interests who would benefit from interstate protectionism. How interesting that unions, businesses, and others now use the Commerce Clause for the purpose of mandating that resources be diverted to their businesses.

No place in the Constitution is there power given to the Federal Government that would support the idea that the Founder’s intended for such massive expansion and ambiguity. And that’s the truth about the Commerce Clause.

The Constitution is defined and simple. Anyone can understand it, and that’s what the Founder’s wanted.

Remember, only 20 powers are given to the Federal Government (Article 1 Section 8). Take a minute and think about all the things that government now does, make a list, then read the Constitution and see if there is explicit power given for those programs and actions. Mark the ones where there is no Constitutional support. ...

[Wolfie]

No, the Commerce Clause is why ALL marijuana is illegal, whether it crosses State lines or not. That’s the point. Under Gonzales v. Raich, even non-interstate commerce can be regulated under the Commerce Clause. And that make the Commerce Clause the bad mofo that it is. It’s a virtual catch-all for anything the Feds want to do.

[tacticalogic]

This is why Ron Paul is the only consistent conservative in the race.

Ever wonder why that is? The Republicans like to mouth words about "original intent" when they talk about nominating SC justices, but can only come up with one candidate that comes anywhere near actually applying it when it comes time to legislate?

[tacticalogic]

No, the Commerce Clause is why ALL marijuana is illegal, whether it crosses State lines or not. That’s the point. Under Gonzales v. Raich, even non-interstate commerce can be regulated under the Commerce Clause. And that make the Commerce Clause the bad mofo that it is. It’s a virtual catch-all for anything the Feds want to do.

The "substantial effect doctrine" is not the Commerce Clause.

Once you understand that, you understand the Big Lie.

[Wolfie]

I entered my 20’s, and became politically aware, as it were, about the time the Drug War was gearing up in earnest under Reagan. I knew then that the laws being passed, and the reasoning behind them, would come back to bite conservatives in the ass. I also knew that I’d get quite a chuckle out of it when it happened. I can think of any number of things that have spread beyond the Drug War, from asset forfieture to SWAT raids, that FReepers bitch about, moaning “How did this happen?”. The Drug War. That’s how it happened. And they supported every step of the way. Enjoy.

[Ken H]

So who got it right on the Commerce Clause in your opinion... Scalia or Thomas?

[dirtboy]

The marijuana trade affects interstate commerce, just like the health insurance trade. That’s why Congress has the power to regulate both.

If someone grows pot in their home for their own use, how does the Commerce Clause come into play, other than by the insanity followed in Wickard?

[Wolfie]

You seem to think there is something you need to enlighten me about, so for the last time: I understand the Big Lie.
I also understand that it’s the Law of the Land. Done, period, finito. The whole thing is a house of bullshit put together so the rulers can rule. Two dweebs on a message board (or 2 million) won’t change that. The vast majoriy of Americans are ok with it. That doesn’t make it right, that just makes it real. So it goes.

[dirtboy]

Because it destroys health, and destroys everything in commerce, it's ILLEGAL!

Well, then, let's mandate health insurance, since not having such destroys health!

Rather slippery slope you are walking. Oh, and BTW, I don't smoke pot. But alcohol has a long destructive history in my family, and I don't call for it to be illegal, just when it is abused in a manner that can hurt others, such as DUI and domestic violence.

In my experience pot is overall a less destructive drug than alcohol.

[Wolfie]

Scalia: ...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce. --J. Scalia, concurring in Gonzales v Raich

That's how. Again, I don't agree with that, it's simply what they had to do to keep their laws in place. And what they will do time and time again when they want to keep their laws in place.

[Yosemitest]

Neither.
The Commerce Clause as used today is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I refer you to post #47.

[IamConservative]

I knew then that the laws being passed, and the reasoning behind them, would come back to bite conservatives in the ass.

I many respects, I feel the same about the Patriot Act. There wasn't hardly a thing those 9/11 hijackers did that wasn't already illegal. Why a new law?

I can understand things like Heroin being illegal or Meth. Those are manufactured chemicals. Marijuana? It's a plant as natural as a fresh picked tomato. As conservatives, many find it OK to go to the Doctor and get a prescription for Xanax but it's not OK for me to grow a plant on my own land and use it for substantially the same purpose? I don't get it.

What's next? A war on poison ivy?

[Yosemitest]

If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick Justice Thomas.
But I don't have to pick either.

[Vermont Lt]

They execute each other. Fear of execution already exists.