Ron Paul, The only one We can trust.

NoDrama said:
IS the State of Oregon Legislature full of Pro Lifers? Do you suppose that if it were up to the state they would restricts women's right to choose? I suppose you do not feel this way when it comes to letting the state letting you grow and consume cannabis? Because after all, its still illegal according to the Big Government gods in the sky.

Your statements fit right in with Carne's little cartoon...the Bizarrely hypocritical.
Click to expand...

2010 brought oregon its most conservative legislature ever, a 30/30 split. by the skin of our teeth did we elect a democratic governor over a celebrity douche republican (it was fun watching him get slaughtered in the debates).

so no, not likely. but possible. and if that possibility ever came to fruition, paul would be ok with that. same thing if OMMP were to vanish and full prohibition made a return, ron paul would say that is the right of my state.

i fail to see the hypocrisy in thinking these things should be allowed throughout the nation and that no state should have the right to tell my wife she can not decide how to take care of her own health decisions or that i can not grow a plant and sell it in a consenting transaction between two adults.
 
UncleBuck said:
2010 brought oregon its most conservative legislature ever, a 30/30 split. by the skin of our teeth did we elect a democratic governor over a celebrity douche republican (it was fun watching him get slaughtered in the debates).

so no, not likely. but possible. and if that possibility ever came to fruition, paul would be ok with that. same thing if OMMP were to vanish and full prohibition made a return, ron paul would say that is the right of my state.

i fail to see the hypocrisy in thinking these things should be allowed throughout the nation and that no state should have the right to tell my wife she can not decide how to take care of her own health decisions or that i can not grow a plant and sell it in a consenting transaction between two adults.
Click to expand...

AND don't forget that most likely your state COULD make a law forcing all Jews to wear yellow stars on the outside of their clothing. They COULD also force sterilization on all males between the age of 20 and 35, so you better prepare.
 
NoDrama said:
AND don't forget that most likely your state COULD make a law forcing all Jews to wear yellow stars on the outside of their clothing. They COULD also force sterilization on all males between the age of 20 and 35, so you better prepare.
Click to expand...

:shock: :shock:
 
Dudley was a clown, IDK what we would do if it wasn't for multnomah and Lane counties... whew!
 
NoDrama said:
AND don't forget that most likely your state COULD make a law forcing all Jews to wear yellow stars on the outside of their clothing. They COULD also force sterilization on all males between the age of 20 and 35, so you better prepare.
Click to expand...

That is Probably something Ron Paul would support at the federal level given his history
 
@unclebuck If ron paul were elected president and you live in an MMJ state then MMJ could be legal 100%, the problem is your not legal 100% thus the hypocrisy, furthermore the federal government did not prevent your state from getting rid of your MMJ program? What kind of of twisted stroy is that? Where do you make these connections. Please connect the dots for us.

Ron Paul has spoken out repeatedly in favor of medical marijuana and also outright marijuana legalization, to say that somehow electing Ron Paul to president will thus result in some sort of crazy domino effect to make marijuana more illegal is not only a stretch but it is deceitful and you should be ashamed. Ron Paul has fought for hemp legalization AND marijuana legalization for years.
 
1988 Congressman and Doctor Ron Paul talks about drug legalization.

[video=youtube;FEhQepWZ3LA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhQepWZ3LA[/video]
 
deprave said:
@unclebuck If ron paul were elected president and you live in an MMJ state then MMJ could be legal 100%, the problem is your not legal 100% thus the hypocrisy, furthermore the federal government did not prevent your state from getting rid of your MMJ program? What kind of of twisted stroy is that? Where do you make these connections. Please connect the dots for us.

Ron Paul has spoken out repeatedly in favor of medical marijuana and also outright marijuana legalization, to say that somehow electing Ron Paul to president will thus result in some sort of crazy domino effect to make marijuana more illegal is not only a stretch but it is deceitful and you should be ashamed. Ron Paul has fought for hemp legalization AND marijuana legalization for years.
Click to expand...

very good post and explanation, thank you.

i have nothing to say, but i do have a question: suppose ron paul is elected president AND congress suddenly makes cannabis legalization a states' rights issue instead of a federal one. now suppose a state like new mexico decides to strike down medical cannabis laws in favor of strict prohibition. wouldn't ron paul be in favor of that scenario, as it is based on a right given to the state of new mexico by the constitution (10th amendment)?
 
I would say that Ron Paul is not in favor of ANY new laws related to the drug war... so no Ron Paul would not support that idea...he is 100% against drug laws, any drugs laws, hes voted that way for over 30 years and introduced legislation repeatedly for legalization of hemp and marijuana. If Ron Paul could end the drug war he would do it immediately.
 
deprave said:
I would say that Ron Paul is not in favor of ANY new laws related to the drug war... so no Ron Paul would not support that idea...he is 100% against drug laws, any drugs laws, hes voted that way for over 30 years and introduced legislation repeatedly for legalization of hemp and marijuana. If Ron Paul could end the drug war he would do it immediately.
Click to expand...

correct me if i am wrong: ron paul is currently saying in debates that these things such as drug laws do not belong to the federal government, but rather to the states and people, as the constitution says. i have watched the debates, this is what he has been saying: the constitution!

the constitution says nothing about drug laws, so it is, in a constitutional view, thus relegated to the states or the people. what if the people and the state swayed on drug laws towards prohibition? wouldn't ron paul have to support that as their right?

eventually, via voter initiatives, we will re-legalize cannabis state by state. the west coast and colorado are leading the way. but that in no way stops the federal prohibition. as long as the federal government exists, we will have to fight for it to be re-legalized on a federal level as well.and the federal government will always exist, at least in our lifetimes.

my point is that right now is not the time to elect some ideologue who will somehow try to legalize on a federal level. that is unrealistic, it will not happen, we are too easy a political target.

now is the time where we should be pushing voter initiatives for MMJ, decriminalization, re-legalization, tax and regulation, and so on. whatever gets us closer to the goal. once enough states re-legalize, decriminalize, allow MMJ, tax it, profit from it, and regulate it away from the poor children, we will no longer be able to be ignored.

that is a long way away, but we have to get started in the proper way.
 
UncleBuck said:
correct me if i am wrong: ron paul is currently saying in debates that these things such as drug laws do not belong to the federal government, but rather to the states and people, as the constitution says. i have watched the debates, this is what he has been saying: the constitution!

the constitution says nothing about drug laws, so it is, in a constitutional view, thus relegated to the states or the people. what if the people and the state swayed on drug laws towards prohibition? wouldn't ron paul have to support that as their right?

eventually, via voter initiatives, we will re-legalize cannabis state by state. the west coast and colorado are leading the way. but that in no way stops the federal prohibition. as long as the federal government exists, we will have to fight for it to be re-legalized on a federal level as well.and the federal government will always exist, at least in our lifetimes.

my point is that right now is not the time to elect some ideologue who will somehow try to legalize on a federal level. that is unrealistic, it will not happen, we are too easy a political target.

now is the time where we should be pushing voter initiatives for MMJ, decriminalization, re-legalization, tax and regulation, and so on. whatever gets us closer to the goal. once enough states re-legalize, decriminalize, allow MMJ, tax it, profit from it, and regulate it away from the poor children, we will no longer be able to be ignored.

that is a long way away, but we have to get started in the proper way.
Click to expand...

If we legalize it in every state it doesn't matter, the federal won't budge as it stands, additionally, ballot initiatives for legalizing marijuana is not an option that you can choose on your vote for president of the united states. On that ballot you can pick Ron Paul for YES END THE DRUG WAR - OR - Pick another candidate which will keep the drug war going, so your point is irrelevant and evasive.

Drug laws are unconstitutional without a doubt, one thing, your taking the constitution literally, no it doesn't say specifically that yes drugs are legal, that would be cute though, impossible, they would of never imagined a thing before the 1930s, but drugs being illegal is more than implied with property rights, separation of church and state, and additionally from the the declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Beside the Fact Ron Paul is being very careful with his words at the debates, because of their very nature.


The Preamble to the constitution: "promote the general welfare" there has been court ruling for medical rights based on this.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Additionally - Before the Ratification of the 10th Amendment in the 70s, Medical Marijuana would clearly be legal in any state that choose to have it legal...100% legal.

More on separation of church and state: because of this there has been court rulings in favor of medical marijuana patients.

Im not even going to argue with you on why drugs should be legal...common sense...thats about all your going to get out of me for now, I could go on for pages and pages...but its irrelevant...your entire premise is irrelevant....

voting for Ron Paul is the only pro-drug legalization option on the ballot for president of the united states.

 
UncleBuck said:
very good post and explanation, thank you.

i have nothing to say, but i do have a question: suppose ron paul is elected president AND congress suddenly makes cannabis legalization a states' rights issue instead of a federal one. now suppose a state like new mexico decides to strike down medical cannabis laws in favor of strict prohibition. wouldn't ron paul be in favor of that scenario, as it is based on a right given to the state of new mexico by the constitution (10th amendment)?
Click to expand...

To answer your question.

Yes Ron Paul woulds till support Arizona's rights to prohibit marijuana is their state government so deemed it necessary. He would openly speak against this but wouldn't try to interfere with Executive power.
 
I guess if Georgia Reinstituted slavery or discrimination against minorities

Ron Paul would still defend "States Rights"
 
Whats Ron Paul's voting record or stance on medical marijuana, will he support ending the schedule 1 label that our meds fall under? I did a quick search but didn't find anything. I would vote for him regardless, there is no other choice. The rest of the candidates scare the weed out of me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top