Paul Campaign Clarifies Medical Marijuana Stance

When I first read about this issue it didn't seem possible for a libertarian like Rand Paul to oppose personal liberty. I wish Rand would completely clear this up.

It looks like he opposes federal prohibition laws but NOT all legal marijuana use:

“Doctor Paul’s stance has not changed, and that is a case of sloppy reporting,” said Nena Bartlett, Paul’s assistant campaign manager.

“His position is that it’s a states’ rights issue"

"It’s a decision for doctors and patients at the local level.”

All of the facts we have suggest Rand believes in liberty, states authority over the issue and allowing the legal decision by doctors and patients.

I saw nothing that suggests he opposes :"legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes.”

As I have finally come to the conclusion there there indeed are NO righteous politicians, and Rand's "flip-flop" on the issue of "medical marijuana" in the State of Kentucky proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is true.

I, personally, though I would not turn away a Medical Marijuana Regulation, would prefer to see Cannabis/HEMP returned to pre-illegalization or RE-Legalization via the MERP Model explained at newagecitizen.org.

That being said, I do not ever remember Gatewood Galbraith "flip-flopping" on this issue. In fact he "makes no apology" for the fact that he, himself uses it for asthma. And to take it a little further, I have never heard him change his mind on any given subject that has been addressed in the campaign thus far.

At least I know who I'm voting for in the Governor's race .....
GATEWOOD GALBRAITH

I was thinking of making a call to Rand Paul myself on this issue, but since it has already been addressed I shall not.
However, I do not readily believe that he would have taken my call anyway, since I am the VP of the US Marijuana Party!

ShereeKrider

Pragmatic libertarians (minimal-statists) and "true" Conservatives agree that many, if not most, of society's problems are caused by government usurping choices that could better be made by individuals and that government is just about the worst way of doing almost anything. Where libertarianism normally parts company with "fake" conservatism is over moral issues. But a true conservative would have no problem with agreeing, that what people do with their own bodies, and especially in the privacy of their own home, should be supremely their business, and that anything else would entail ignoring the basic tenet of limited government.

Fake-Conservatism on the other hand has much in common with socialism; Both Leftists and Fake-Conservatives appear to harbor the belief that nature does not exist and that any human can be anything he wants to be, or can for the "greater good", be "re-educated" into being. Leftists therefore think little boys can be conditioned into preferring dolls over toy soldiers, and similarly Fake-conservatives believe that adults can be coerced into choosing alcohol over marijuana. A true conservative, just like a pragmatic libertarian, would immediately reject both ideas as nonsense.

Because Drug cartels will always have an endless supply of ready cash for wages, bribery and equipment, no amount of tax money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo- science will make our streets safe again. Only an end to prohibition can do that! How much longer are we willing to foolishly risk our own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution?

For those of you who are still living in some strange parallel universe, one where prohibition actually works, may I suggest that you return to high school economics class, and learn about supply and DEMAND. Learn that you cannot up DEMAND simply by upping supply. Contrary to popular held superstition, drugs are not PUSHED, the drug dealers are filling a DEMAND not creating one. The DEMAND is here in the US and is impossible to control, but what is possible to control, is the income from that DEMAND. All we have to do is allow legal businesses to meet that DEMAND. Under proper regulation drug use will not rise, as it couldn't get any worse than it is at present.

Debating whether a particular drug is harmless or not is missing the whole point. Is marijuana dangerous? I simply don't care if it is or isn't. If someone wants to destroy their lives with drugs, thats their business, not anybody else's. Their lives aren't ours to direct. We can certainly voice an opposition to drug use… but who are we to imprison people over it? which ultimately we do if we support banning drugs.

Why on earth does anyone think it's acceptable to want to control certain behaviors, such as the bedroom habits or choice of poison of fully grown adults? Isn't it high time we evolved enough to get past this crap? Surely we need to accept, that the only way to truly be free, is that you agree, in return, to allow other people to be free, even if it offends your personal sensibilities. What's more; if it's not directly hurting you and you forbid it, then you can be sure that it will create unforeseen circumstances, which WILL have an adverse affect on YOUR wellbeing! -- Actually, a large proportion of those arising circumstances may not come as such a surprise to those of us who are capable of paying due attention to historical precedent.

If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in history.

If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.

If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.

If you support prohibition you've helped raise gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.

If you support prohibition you've helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.

If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.

If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.

If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.

If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.

If you support prohibition you've helped overcrowd the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others.

If you support prohibition you've helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.

No, Rand Fool, it's not a state issue. Drugs are sold in interstate commerce, giving Congress sole authority to regulate drugs. By the power vested in Congress, Congress created the FDA. If the FDA doesn't approve a drug to treat a medical condition, the drug is illegal for that purpose. Not only does the FDA have the power to regulate drugs, by direct authority of the Constitution, by laws enacted by Congress, that power has been tested in Supreme Court cases that unconditionally establish Federal law preempts state law as far as the FDA is concerned.

So, for all the dopers out there, not only is Rand Fool not on your side - waffle city, guys - he doesn't have a clue about the Constitution or how it works.

Now, if you love his daddy, Ron Fool, there might be a reason for it. Ron Fool has come down with both feet in favor of pot, cocaine and heroin for everyone. Deregulate everything. No more checks and balances on the too big to fail. No more Constitution regarding inhibiting monopoly power of corporate America. It's ally, ally outs in free. Anarchy will reign, but everyone will be too stoned to realize it when they are being robbed blind.

Insanity and incompetence seems to run in the family.