Reply With Quote
He isn't for legalizing it. He is for decriminalizing it on the federal level (along with all other drugs) and allowing the states to decide if they want to legalize it or not.
I read at one time he was for Legalizing pot, if that's true I may finally vote for the first time. Can Ron Paul get the Pot Head vote?
He isn't for legalizing it. He is for decriminalizing it on the federal level (along with all other drugs) and allowing the states to decide if they want to legalize it or not.
Thank you for your Vote?
RP will get the longhaired rednecks. He might even pick off a few hippies.
It's probably fair to say talk about putting an end to the drug war is soothing to the ears of potheads...but one needn't be a pothead to find it so.
RP's foreign policy is a sop to disaffected progressives as well, but that's pretty much where the agreement ends. Drug war and foreign policy.
haven't the rednecks moved up to crystal meth and oxycodone, the hillbilly heroin?
depends on what you mean by redneck redneck. I specified long hair, and should have limited the speculation to Texans. oh well...
what are the rednecks like in Europe?
do they do meth too?
what brand name prescription drugs do rednecks favor in the old country...
vote far right?
don't hoard the knowledge, bro
I think you're a bit late to the game, or have no experience with pot. Yes, he advocated legalizing it. He already has the vote of a significant number of people wanting "libertarian" ideals.
OK, I may stand corrected here, but I don;'t think so. Even of you are right, making it a state issue, most states would follow suit since they won't want the cost burdens.
"won't want the cost burdens."
subsidizing the PIC is a sacred cow (the PIC pays politician very well). Even hurting CA can't cut down its exorbitant prision population.
otoh, Cutting $5B from public schools was a TX Repug no-brainer. (Repugs love voters with no brains)
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-23-2011 at 09:08 AM.
Jurors Need to Know That They Can Say No
IF you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty” — even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.
The information I have just provided — about a cons utional doctrine called “jury nullification” — is absolutely true. But if federal prosecutors in New York get their way, telling the truth to potential jurors could result in a six-month prison sentence.
Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor, with jury tampering because he stood outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan providing information about jury nullification to passers-by. Given that I have been recommending nullification for nonviolent drug cases since 1995 — in such forums as The Yale Law Journal, “60 Minutes” and YouTube — I guess I, too, have committed a crime.
The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without cons utional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know.
Laws against jury tampering are intended to deter people from threatening or intimidating jurors. To contort these laws to justify punishing Mr. Heicklen, whose court-appointed counsel describe him as “a shabby old man distributing his silly leaflets from the sidewalk outside a courthouse,” is not only uncons utional but unpatriotic. Jury nullification is not new; its proponents have included John Han and John Adams.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/op...y-no.html?_r=1
=====
Jury nullification, sounds like a wonderful way for Human-Americans to vote directly, personally against marijuana laws. NY Prosecutors are pissed about Human-Americans screwing up their prosecution body count of fried n!gg@s and be@ners rounded up by corrupt police also adding to their own body count.
Ron Paul seems like a cool candidate but I always forget why.
Bingo. this goes for pros ution, heroin and anything you want to do with your body. He is not FOR it, he is for getting FEDERAL goverment out of your life.
Liberty, what a strange way of thinking in this Police State of ours
Well, the voters will keep his ass out of the Federal government position of POTUS.
"he is for getting FEDERAL goverment out of your life."
what about abortion? contraception (TX Repugs killed condom handouts in their admitted War on Contraception)? morning after pill?
He wants the Feds out of citizens' lives, but it sounds like he's OK with state govt getting into lives, bedrooms, vaginas.
Is this the Prison Industrial Complex? Serious question. Still trying to grasp some of the buttons nomenclature.
yup.
states can make laws and keep them unless they are declared uncons utional
Then that is a state issue, boutons.
Its the way it should be. If Louisiana doesnt want abortion, thats the state's decision. Little 15 year old Susie is going to have to drive to whatever nearby state to get an abortion.
Tough . This country ought to stop pretending that we are all genous and like-minded. Some states are more conservative than others, some are more liberal than others. People will gravitate to the states they agree with and move there, which will breed compe ion amongst the states.
Laws that are very popular will be quickly adopted across the nation.
But most importantly, it will allow test beds for legislation. Like decriminalizing marijuana, all drugs, pros ution, etc. If it works, it will spread. If it doesnt, it will not and be repealed. But at least the test will be localized and easily repealed unlike every major law change happening at the cripplingly slow pace of the Fed.
Federal government should be concerned with 3 things.
1) Foreign Policy (diplomacy, trade agreements, etc)
2) Domestic Economic Policy (interstate trade, money, taxes and policy)
3) Defense
Everything else should be up to the States. The Supreme Court will still be the Supreme Court with all its power and influence, but that will be it.
I'd fire one up with Ron Paul.
Sounds good to me. We grow some of the best, here in the NW.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
