Posted on 12/14/2011 3:36:46 AM PST by Yosemitest
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.*
.
I can agree with that but the end result is the same. Pot is illegal at this time. And it probably shouldn’t be. The fact that conservatives can’t agree on this simple principle is why the law(or the ability to make the law) will not change anytime soon.
A question for the ages, my friend.
Maybe it would if we'd stop trying to make it about the pot, and start making it about the Constitution.
Is just doing that too much to ask for an agreement on?
So ... you use marijuana?
Thank you for posting this article. And for all the many replies you’ve posted on this thread rebutting the libs who support Ron Paul and support pro-marijuana laws.
See my tagline. I’ve had it up for a couple of months now. I have as much respect for a libertarian pot-smoking Paul-tard as I do for the clueless leaders in the White Hut.
Yet, FR is infested with liberals who want to surrender in the WOD. I understand why Jim Rob is adamant about keeping Romney out. And if you’re caught trolling for Mitt - you get the zot. But that just pales in comparison to the anti-conservative drug-induced pro-dope crapola I see on this thread.
We should fight the good fight all we can, but you know what? It's like screamin' at a wall. It's like kicking at the pricks. And like Wolfie, sometimes I get a sick satisfaction seeing conservatives squirm on this very issue. For me, it's where the rubber meets the road of conservatism: the federal government is either restricted to certain enumerated powers or it's not. If it is, you have to live with the notion that your personal bugaboo, whether it be drug use, porn, or what have you, is perfectly legal. If it's not, then you have to live with the notion that you're not a conservative, but a statist, i.e., a commie in conservative clothing.
This, every word.
Tactialogic, I'm not attacking you, and apologize if it comes off that way. Just saying that you're pissing in the wind. We The People apparently agree on one thing: we want to be able to tell others how to live their lives and want the government to hold a gun to their heads to get that done. Everybody just has a different idea of what it is they don't want others to do, and can't understand that giving that power to government in one instance gives that power to government in all instances. It's like the old joke: We've already established what we are, now we're just haggling over the details.
You should study the city of Oakland, California and their legalization of medical marijuana, if you haven’t already. Whether you support the war on drugs, legalization of marijuana, or oppose both, its an interesting study.
Ben Franklin said "A republic, if you can keep it".
You say we can't understand that difference. I say we did at one time and can again, but we have to want to. I want to, and I want other people to. I want to keep that repulic.
Why is that wrong?
Personally? No. Which means nothing. If the SC applies precedent, then the health insurance mandate will be upheld for the same reason Federal marijuana laws were upheld in Gonzales v. Raich. And no doubt a great number of assholes who cheered the Raich decision will be upset and completely unable to grasp why they've been hoisted on their own petard.
I never said it was wrong. I just look at our history and say it’s is unlikely, and quite frankly, probably impossible. People can’t even accept others smoking a plant for cryin’ out loud.
Well then, I'd suggest you might want to petition to change the site name, on the premise that it's a lie, because there is no longer a republic and never will be again.
WO (Some) D is a complete failure.
Was it liberals who "surrendered" in the War On Alcohol aka Prohibition?
Majority votes don't trump the Constitution, which leaves the decision up to states.
They don't want to have to clean up and pay for the damages these users and sellers of ILLEGAL drugs cause.
But they do want to have to clean up and pay for the damages that result from drug criminalization - such as the channeling of inflated profits into criminal hands?
And they do want to have to clean up and pay for the damages users of the legal drug alcohol cause?
Almost every user of marijuana and illegal drug I knew 35 years ago in high school has passed away due to cancer, brain tumors, or driving while under the influence of drug and crashed. Some killed other innocent people with that vehicle crash.
Sounds unrepresentative to me. How many drug users did you know? And how many of them died of cancer or brain tumors?
Only an idiot would support legalization of these deadly substances.
How about the legality of the deadly, addictive substance alcohol - does only an idiot support that?
Sorry but I dont trust my kid to make that decision.
Nobody's talking about legalizing for kids, any more than the drug alcohol is legal for kids.
Don't want to pay for drug users' health care? Don't! Don't want to pay for people who make themselves unemployable through drug abuse? Don't! Using big-government healthcare and welfare programs as an excuse for a big-government drug-criminalization program is not a conservative argument.
along with crimes to pay for them in many cases.
If drugs were legal, their prices would plummet and so would the crime done to buy them.
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.