Posted on 04/20/2015 3:54:05 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ted Cruz is personally against the legalization of marijuana but the Republican presidential candidate said this weekend that he believes states have the right to put decriminalization laws on the books if they want - even though they directly conflict with federal law.
Cruz implied during a conversation with Daily Mail Online on Saturday that if he ascended to the highest elected office he wouldn't make his attorney general enforce federal laws pertaining to marijuana in states that have approved sales and consumption of the drug.
The position stands in contrast to the views of at least three of his GOP competitors, who last week said that while they believe in states' rights to self-determination, they'd lay the hammer down on Colorado and Washington for flouting federal law.
Asked Saturday during a New Hampshire campaign stop if he would direct his attorney general to enforce federal pot laws, Cruz said ‘yes’ before providing a lengthy answer that indicated he would not.
He first said that ‘if the attorney general and the president disagree with federal drug law they should come to Congress’ because Republicans and Democrats can come together on the issue of drug reforms....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That you believe this, proves that the political principles guiding Cruz, sail way over your head.
DL, government is a force. That's all it is. Nothing more, nothing less. How on earth you see a role for the Federal government for regulating punishment doled out for moral weakness, for using the Federal government to punish sin the same as crime -- the Feds, for crying out loud! Why on earth even have States?
I despair.
The "complete legalization of MJ" is in truth "using the Federal government to prevent states from outlawing MJ."
Smoking pot has been determined to cause brain damage in teenagers. I’m referring to legitimate, long-term studies, not those studies and anecdotal evidence espoused on sites that lobby in favor of pot.
I despair.
I do too. People seek to debate me, and can't even get my position correct.
Good, it should be the state’s decision.
That may be true, but with Obama on the loose and the world going to hell in a hurry, why do these Republican candidates feel compelled to explore the most useless minutiae in public and give out their pronouncements.
So what? Lots of harmful things are legal,adult choices. Get over it.
I know.
I specifically mentioned teenagers. If adults want to become potheads in light of full knowledge, then I wouldn’t waste an electron of thought about it.
Yes. It should be up to the States and local communities to deal with substances that tend to alter behavior. Ultimately, we should all be judged by our behavior. We are a far cry from that these days.
Boy, you can sure see who the dopers are on FR when this discussion gets going.
I, as a business owner in Texas, would not tolerate a dope smoker no sooner than I would a boozer. Too many lives at stake.
I certainly do not want a oilfield heavy trucker driving on our highways nor do I want my airline pilot flying me to Las Vegas after a wild night with the stews. The FAA found out that the 8 hrs. bottle to throttle rule is really not sufficient with heavy use. How long will that be for airline pilots?
Nothing going to stop me from not hiring a pot smoker?
Here comes the druggies, right in line after the homos.
Hyppi agendas have all been hijacked by Alinksy, from global warming to pot smoking.
I have nothing against exporting pot to “pot lands”. But if I choose to discriminate or imprison a pot smoker in my State, that is to my State’s discretion.
Pot worshipers can go f themselves.
Dawg, if you want to make sure that drug laws target teens, fine, push for them in your town, your county, your state. WHAT does the Federal government have to do with it? What you call "useless minutiae" is a fundamental principle and yes, Cruz is "exploring it" in this discussion. It applies to drugs the same way it applies to health insurance the way it applies to marriage the way it applies to "gay" marriage the way it applies to education, and on and on.
Cruz is RIGHT.
You're right. Ultimately, it's the only thing we are "judged" by -- in any case, our behavior, making each our individual ways through life's temptations, determines our destiny for the most part and what government thinks/judges of that moral behavior is an afterthought.
One FReeper (not me) stated it pretty well sometime back in a post somewhere -- that the worst is when "social conservative" means confusing sin with crime, using government to punish (as opposed to liberals using government to nourish) sin. The truth is that government, at least Federal government has zero role in it at all. Conservative Christians should know that and respect it!
States rights prevail, but the Feds can take that away when they get involved.
The Feds over-reach is devastating which is the more important point here. imo.
Simple yes or no question -- YES or NO?
As a convention, it’s generally considered good form to have your responses make some sort of sense. I don’t use any drug stronger than black coffee nor any alcohol or nicotine but I do take an 81 mg aspirin every day. Also, I am happily heterosexual.
The best interpretation I can make of your response is that, since homosexuality is legal marijuana should be too but it’s not all that clear what you mean.
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.