Video: Ron Paul on medical marijuana
posted at 8:23 pm on November 26, 2007 by Allahpundit
Via STACLU. Recognize the questioner here? He’s the one who sent Mitt running for cover last month. The “moderate” and “conservative” in the race fare scarcely better, with Rudy hiding behind the claim that we should ban marijuana because other treatments are superior and Fred promising to take a look at the issue but nothing beyond that. It falls to Paul to make the simple federalist point familiar to Raich critics. What a shame.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Medical marijuana is strong stuff. Way too easy to get, too. Have tables set up in the friggin’ mall in Fremont, CA. Know 8-10 people smoking that stuff, none of them legitimately.
RW Wacko on November 26, 2007 at 8:30 PM
That did it for me! I’m voting for Ron Paul. Sorry guys.
ThackerAgency on November 26, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Simple question…simple answer
sweeper on November 26, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Than do your duty and turn them into the DEA! If not than the terrorists win.
sweeper on November 26, 2007 at 8:32 PM
The Liberals must of had a bumper crop of
audience plants this year!
canopfor on November 26, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Absolutely a shame that it takes a kook to support a common-sense policy on drugs. He’s got cojones, I’ll give him that.
infidel4life on November 26, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Funny thing is, it is exactly the Federal laws that supercede the local and state laws regarding cultivation and possession of marijuana, which accounts for the “Marijuana Cooperatives” raid stories that we see and hear about when the DEA raids the so-called “compassionate” marijuana drug dealers.
I suppose that if Ron Paul becomes POTUS (when monkeys fly outta my… well, you know the rest), he can try to overturn every single federal law that exists on the books that he disagrees with, or simply ignore them, or selectively enforce them. What other Federal laws that affect each and every one of us will he choose to not enforce and effectively outright ignore?
Ron Paul’s a loon, and I’d be willing to bet he’s smoked a pound or two over the years himself. At least that’s the impression I get of the POTUS candidate who cavorts with and supports truthers and readily accepts campaign donation money and support from avowed white power neo-nazi’s.
SilverStar830 on November 26, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Only ’cause: You gotta be stoned to actually support Ron Paul.
JetBoy on November 26, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Ron Paul’s answers are always more direct and substantive than others’. They also make a lot of sense, until you get a few minutes into them and realize he’s got a severely warped world view. Given the short length of his answer, no wonder it was better than the rest.
As for the California law, the federal government dithered on the question of marijuana, so California voters enacted a severely flawed proposition. If the feds had acted earlier, such a law wouldn’t have been needed.
calbear on November 26, 2007 at 8:42 PM
as stated in other thread, someone ask him his policy on hard drugs. though I’m sure he’s got some well crafted ‘federalist’ response to dodge it.
jp on November 26, 2007 at 8:42 PM
I wonder what would happen if we dropped all drug enforcement at the federal level?
I for one support medical marijuana. The industrial uses for hemp are enormous.
Theworldisnotenough on November 26, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Slightly off topic, but I saw my very first Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker today. I was walking into the grocery store and saw a car try and fail to get into a parking space 3 times before it pulled away. Nothing wrong with the space, just the driver had, uh, issues.
trubble on November 26, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Does anyone have any chips?
Limerick on November 26, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Don’t know if you are serious or not. But they have prescriptions. For their “migraines” or whatever. Is legal according to CA. DEA won’t givea sh*t. No one wants a federalist showdown on medical marijuana at the moment. Given that I was fomerly seriously into the hard drug scene it is kind of hard for me to judge a marijuana smoker with a legal prescription, too.
RW Wacko on November 26, 2007 at 8:49 PM
With libertarians, it always comes down to pot. heh
brak on November 26, 2007 at 8:49 PM
In 2005 the US Supreme Court allowed the federal government to use the ICC to say that homegrown marijuana used for medicinal purposes violates federal law. I have no medical conditions, nor do I smoke pot, but this ruling, along with eminent domain rulings, is what showed me the way. There is no more Federalism! We gave that up willingly. And if a candidate doesn’t have the balls to stand up to Puritans than he does not get my vote.
This goes for the online poker ban too.
sweeper on November 26, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Absolutely not serious. If your compatriots want to use marijuana for their migraines, we should all let them live their lives as they see fit. Even if their migraines are not that serious.
sweeper on November 26, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Every one of his ronbots can give a testimonial but are also “living reasons” for illegalizing it. I say roll your own but there should be a death penalty for dealers of hard drugs.
TheSitRep on November 26, 2007 at 8:57 PM
TheSitRep on November 26, 2007 at 8:57 PM
sweeper on November 26, 2007 at 8:59 PM
oops that beer not pot that cause the quote mishap
sweeper on November 26, 2007 at 9:00 PM
As crazy as Ron Paul is on some issues, when he makes such a reasonable point on an issue that none of the other candidates would ever dare touch (save Gravel, Kucinich, etc.), it feels like a gust of fresh air. Why can’t a mainstream candidate have the conviction to make this case so we can start to have a legitimate debate about it?
Yoosaion on November 26, 2007 at 9:01 PM
He’ll only need turn to Bush for the answer to that one.
Drum on November 26, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Because every other “mainstream candidate” has a stake in the Nanny State and thinks you’re a child. That is, except when it comes to killing your unborn child or some dark skinned person in a country most adult-children Americans can’t find on the map.
I’ve crossed over completely. Ron Paul has me. Doesn’t feel like demon-possession, but I could be wrong. Have been before.
Drum on November 26, 2007 at 9:05 PM
How many of these people started smoking pot just because is was decriminalized for medicinal use? My guess is that they were potheads before California’s currently libertine regulation of pot dispensaries.
Love the honesty! Bravo.
The Race Card on November 26, 2007 at 9:05 PM
You willing to include the public school nannies pushing Ritalin to keep Johnny sill?
Drum on November 26, 2007 at 9:07 PM
duuude…
hehehe…
you libertarians crack me up.
Just drop the “medical” stuff and be honest. You just want to get high without the hassle.
edgehead on November 26, 2007 at 9:10 PM
I’ve never smoked weed. Scout’s honor.
Allahpundit on November 26, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Nobody in history has ever died from an overdose of marijuana. Marijuana is a source of revenue that the federal government just doesn’t want (they’d rather tax hard earned income).
People die from alcohol every day. Why would alcohol be legal and marijuana not be? Prohibition of drugs is the second worst law that the United States of America has ever passed. The first worst is abortion.
We are supposed to be a free country. The government is supposed to protect us from others, not ourselves.
ThackerAgency on November 26, 2007 at 9:16 PM
I read an article in Forbes once, saying that we are probably better off economically with it illegal. B/c the govt. would tax it and waste that money, whereas drug dealers do a good job investing and saving the profits.
also, I think if legalized it would be overtaxed like Cigs in Northern States, which would create a new black market for it. Secondly, the govt. would regulate and the more potent forms would likely remain illegal….thus a black market for those as well.
jp on November 26, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Coke, crack, meth, et al.
This would also include:
Black cats, roman candles , screamin mimies, lady finger , buzz bubbles, church burners,gut busters , zippity do dahs, crap flappers, whislingbungholes, sleen slitters, whisker biscuits, honky ladders, hooskers do’s, hoosker don’ts, cherry bombs, nipsy daisers ( w/ or w/out the scooter stick, and absollutly no whisltling kitty chasers.
TheSitRep on November 26, 2007 at 9:25 PM
Against all enemies, foreign and domestic. :)
Spirit of 1776 on November 26, 2007 at 9:25 PM
even
stonedsmoking my medical MJ i’m still not voting for Ron Paul.Mojack420 on November 26, 2007 at 9:25 PM
If it helps people with their symptoms go for it! A no-brainer!
Gatordoug on November 26, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Ah, that bit would have to do with enemies of the Constitution.
Drum on November 26, 2007 at 9:31 PM
They can’t tax pot it is too easy to cultivate.
If pot was as hard as tobacco to grow they’d pimp it out too.
It is pretty easy to make moonshine but it is such a pain in the ass and tastes like crap.
TheSitRep on November 26, 2007 at 9:34 PM
Yep i’ve said it before, he’s good on things like this. I can really see his appeal sometimes. Then you get him going on foreign policy, Iraq or 9/11 and he sh**s the bed.
Dash on November 26, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Perhaps because the anti-pot laws are so obviously stupid, unnecessary and draconian. And also because few other issues so clearly expose the hypocrisy of career politicians of both parties.
No offense, but that’s gotta be one of the weakest arguments against legalization ever.
infidel4life on November 26, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Absolutely agreed. Running with the assumption that the government does it’s sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
Spirit of 1776 on November 26, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Why do you keep posting stuff on this nutjob.
KBird on November 26, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Marinol
Connie on November 26, 2007 at 10:20 PM
I gotta agree with Dash – it’s a damn shame that RP can sound pretty eloquent on some subjects, and I happen to agree with his assessment of the marijuana subject, to a lesser extent the ‘war on drugs’, and somewhat on his filled the jails with stoners cause they’re stoners schpiel.
Full disclosure – don’t use it personally, for professional reason (i.e. I like the job I have, and use is a no-no, before that I was military, and it was a bigtime no-no) – however, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with those that wish to indulge – particularly after some of the evenings I’ve spent sitting in bars drinking my coffee or sprite, watching people get absolutely loco s**tfaced with legal intoxicants, and comparing the bozo crap they do with some of the things I’ve seen stoners do. Let’s just say, one group was a lot less, um, kinetic than the other.
I’m not saying there aren’t side effects – but, I’ve never seen or heard of someone aspirating their own puke while simply stoned (as in – no combo action), going into a coma and dying from excess THC levels, like you can from excess BAC, or think that their 5’5″ super bad ass could take out a 6’5″ completely sober bouncer.
Just sayin.
Come to think of it, it does make a lot more sense that the illegalization of pot had a lot more to do with the inability to effectively derive taxation from it (before the 1930′s, the stuff grew just about everywhere), versus the actual, unspun by puritanicals (ya know the Carrie Nations types) dangers it posed.
Easy to see the politicians reasoning – ‘hmmm, no revenue? screw it, let’s just shut up the moralizing demagogues that might incite people to vote against us…NEXT!’
Wind Rider on November 26, 2007 at 10:47 PM
I most definitely not a libertarian. It’s way too easy to lapse into the fantasy you are libertarian, that you only want that minimal level of government. That minimal level may include HilaryCare from what I gather from Kos. And that’s really not ok by me.
Further, I certainly don’t like Ron Paul. Still, on this limited issue of marijuana, I agree with him. We can have a federalism about marijuana. If some states think it’s ok, then let it be ok in those states. Is it really that hard to let some people in other places disagree with you? To let them have different customs? I mean we aren’t talking female genital mutilation here.
thuja on November 26, 2007 at 11:06 PM
“I would absolutely never use the Federal government to enforce the law against anybody using marijuana”. In fact, he’s using it right now. After all, isn’t it the only explanation for his political platform? Either that, or he really is insane.
thedecider on November 26, 2007 at 11:12 PM
LOL!
In the end, all marijuana is the same strength because the more potent it is the less one needs to smoke to achieve the desired effect. If a person ingests too much THC they get tired and fall asleep, so there is no point in smoking too much of it. The more potent strains of MJ result in less smoke inhaled by users overall, thus it causes less damage to their lungs.
FloatingRock on November 26, 2007 at 11:43 PM
thank you for the positive post!
libertytexan on November 26, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Most pot-smokers smoke too much. If they have really good weed…they just smoke too much of that too.
The Race Card on November 27, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Awesome. Call me a kook but I am beginning to like this guy somewhat. If only his position on the war was different.
Ian on November 27, 2007 at 12:18 AM
You can argue that people smoke too much MJ regardless of potency, but they ingest a lower volume of smoke from the more potent varieties compared to less potent varieties. They are simply filtering less particulate matter through their lungs. In spite of the anti-MJ propaganda, potency is a good thing.
FloatingRock on November 27, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Paul only makes the question more questionable with his support.
I prefer Robert Mitchum’s endorsement over Ron P.’s.
“Illegal” drugs should be a medical, not a criminal matter, and controlled by the government just the way every other serious phamaceutical chemical is handled.
Otherwise you cede a massive funding instrument to criminals.
What is not controlled is de facto out of control.
profitsbeard on November 27, 2007 at 12:21 AM
100% of them were potheads before decriminalization, you are correct.
RW Wacko on November 27, 2007 at 12:29 AM
I do not smoke to much
Why would I have to spend money on Marinol when I can grow my own medicine and unlike Marinol which is usually way to harsh. if you need to smoke to control nausea to help in aiding keep medicines down? It would be counter productive, and ingesting THC is a whole different type of high far more narcotic and stronger .
In full disclosure I am waiting for it to be decriminalized so I can work as a grower for one of the big companies that will eventually get into growing this crop. People think it’s so easy to cultivate but its not as easy as most think you have the same problems you have with most crops.
Mojack420 on November 27, 2007 at 12:38 AM
I’m for less laws as well.. but come on. Its not pot its alchohol and pot. Both can’t be legal. Some of you know what I mean by that.
amend2 on November 27, 2007 at 1:05 AM
Not me, I have no idea.
FloatingRock on November 27, 2007 at 1:08 AM
Pot should be legal. Not because I agree with it being used but because it’s a war we will never win and a horrible waste of resources.
Let all the people locked up because they had some pot out of prison and we’ll have more room to keep the people who are actually threats to society in prison. We may have to worry more about our pantries being raided by roving groups of hippies with the munchies but I’ll take that over getting killed.
Not a Ron Paul fan or supporter btw.
Benaiah on November 27, 2007 at 4:32 AM
We’ll never stop murders, pedophiles or speeders either. Guess we should stop the horrible waste of resources on that too.
Sorry. I volunteered at a drug rehab program back in the 80′s. You think the WoD is expensive now. Wait to see what happens if we quit.
.
GT on November 27, 2007 at 7:07 AM
Tried marijuana in college. Didn’t care for it (physically), and all it did was make me a little bit tired. I wouldn’t care if I never touched the stuff again, so I have no personal stake in ending the war on drugs — except that I’d be happy for all the money and lives it would save.
You’re making the mistaken assumption that illegality makes fewer people use drugs. You’d be wrong.
Mark Jaquith on November 27, 2007 at 10:06 AM
I think we should get rid of the federal laws on marijuana and leave it to the states to decide for themselves.
For those interested, this is a fairly good source for an examination of the likely outcomes of legalization on the young. There does seem to be a correlation between legalization and an increase in the young taking up the habit, but seemingly on at certain times and in certain places.
Defense Guy on November 27, 2007 at 11:09 AM
…but seemingly only at certain times…
Defense Guy on November 27, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Got the munchies?
thirteen28 on November 27, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Umm, it grows naturally on the planet. I think it’s unnatural to outlaw a plant, but I guess the cotten and pharmaceutical industries know better. Lol!
Maybe Bill Hicks was right. God created pot, then created Republicans to cover up the mistake.
budorob on November 27, 2007 at 12:35 PM
No kidding? I grew up there but fled around the time “little Afghanistan” took root.
THe industrial uses for hemp ARE amazing, and I think that’s part of why it was outlawed in the ’30s when the big wigs had their money invested in timber, oil and cotton, all of which would be given a run for the money by hemp. BUT, the difference between pot and hemp is similar to the difference between poison oak and an oak tree. Equating the two doesn’t make sense.
NTWR on November 27, 2007 at 1:02 PM
I don’t disagree with anything Paul said in this clip. I shock myself.
jaime on November 27, 2007 at 3:54 PM
You’re at a sporting event. There’s a guy in your section who’s rude, obnoxious and screaming obscenities…is he a)stoned or b)drunk??
It’s pretty obvious which drug is more harmful to both your person and society, but I’m not calling for prohibition, just common sense. No one has ever died from overdosing on marijuana.
budorob on November 27, 2007 at 4:20 PM