PDA

View Full Version : WE NEED TO REPEAL THE WHOLE WAR ON DRUGS, Ron Paul 2016




speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 10:17 AM
forward to 58 secs,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8S8N2OG7sU&t=58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8S8N2OG7sU&t=58

please post rand paul saying this for all those that keep repeating state rights over individual rights. Rand is wrong on this, he has it ass backwards, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS over STATE/FEDERAL!!

Petar
08-19-2013, 10:20 AM
You can just take acid and support Ron Paul 2016, while everyone else supports Rand Paul 2016. Deal?

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 10:30 AM
You can just take acid and support Ron Paul 2016, while everyone else supports Rand Paul 2016, deal?

If ron paul was on the ballot i would vote for him i will not write in someone who will not be counted at the state level. I wil vote for someone outside of the failed gop and rand has failed me and liberty/freedom as well as individual rights.
NO, i will not support someone who supports federal/state over individual rights which is what rand clearly supports. you have your head in the sand, since you mentioned acid i assume you are an acid head, i don't.

I gave you a challenge and you failed. Post a video of rand saying my title? you cannot because rand position on the failed drug IS BULLSHIT like you.

please show me a video where rand paul 100% opposes the failed drug war and repealing it. you cannot because rand is a bs fence sitter.

instead of attacking me show evidence that rand opooses the failed drug war 100%. that is all i have asked and in 2 months not one of rand dingleberrys have given me anyhting close to ron paul.

not one of you randers can dispute what iam saying so you attack me. proves my point clearly. all rand can do now is flip flop like a romney. He has already lost my vote and activism by supporting federal/state over individual rights.

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 10:38 AM
This is not high on my priority list. We are facing bigger issues like NSA spying and the Federal Reserve destroying the economy.

tod evans
08-19-2013, 10:43 AM
This is not high on my priority list. We are facing bigger issues like NSA spying and the Federal Reserve destroying the economy.

All the issues we as people face are compounded by too much government.

NSA, drugs, wars Fed.Res, are all due to too much government and from here picking and choosing one issue over another just distracts from the big picture.

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 10:43 AM
This is not high on my priority list. We are facing bigger issues like NSA spying and the Federal Reserve destroying the economy.

the drug war has 1000's of issues including the ones you just posted, so you do not want to defend liberty freedom and individual rights and you are ok with federal and states overriding freedom,liberty and individual rights ,got it.

The drug war issue is not even about drugs anymore it is about the basic level of freedom,liberty and individual.

FSP-Rebel
08-19-2013, 10:47 AM
This is not high on my priority list. We are facing bigger issues like NSA spying and the Federal Reserve destroying the economy.
SB clearly hasn't attended a Leadership training seminar as he would've learned how to run elections and how to phrase one's positions to not give the media demagoguery opportunities. Rand's positions to end mandatory minimums and allowing states to do what they want in terms of legalization is his republican codespeak for trending the war on drugs downward. Going on record stating to get rid of the war on drugs instantly just ruins all the work you've done on all your other policy issues in a republican primary for starters. Then you have no chance. I'm sure SB has his hear in the right setting but the me-me-me tactics are a complete bust.

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 10:53 AM
SB clearly hasn't attended a Leadership training seminar as he would've learned how to run elections and how to phrase one's positions to not give the media demagoguery opportunities. Rand's positions to end mandatory minimums and allowing states to do what they want in terms of legalization is his republican codespeak for trending the war on drugs downward. Going on record stating to get rid of the war on drugs instantly just ruins all the work you've done on all your other policy issues in a republican primary for starters. Then you have no chance. I'm sure SB has his hear in the right setting but the me-me-me tactics are a complete bust.

you are clueless to what i know And who i am and what i do for activism clearly. I have helped get majority voter blocks in colorado and in my surrounding counties. The same voter block that will hold rand paul ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUPPORTING THE FAILED DRUG WAR! all i ask is for you to post a video of rand wanting to repeal the failed drug war or opposing it outright. you can do neither. thhat says alot. I don't buy rands doublespeak. rand supports federal/state over individual rights clearly and that is why i will not support him. the mandatory crap he is trying to sell does nothing to stop the failed drug war or arresting and fining and taking peoples kids away. IT IS A BULLSHIT fence riding position. clearly ron paul wanted to end the failed drug war and rand does not. sounds like rands problem not mine. He wil not win colorado with that BS.

bottom line rand lost this delegate and activism, i am sure you can find a pro-drug war right wing nut to fill my spot.

ZENemy
08-19-2013, 10:57 AM
Ron Paul himself said that the answer is NOT in government, the fix is NOT in government.

Lets follow his advice from his floor speech.

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 11:01 AM
Ron Paul himself said that the answer is NOT in government, the fix is NOT in government.

Lets follow his advice from his floor speech.


which we are having to do and on that note no need to vote at the prez level. That is why we are working on anotherr amendment to remove all fines and prison for marijuana in colorado since the state and federal gov is ignoring the colorado constitution and we the people . WE THE PEOPLE ARE DOING IT not fence sitters and bs politicians pandering to right wing nutjobs.

I-3,https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=503769419691213&set=a.108116519256507.8875.100001744778811&type=1&theater

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 11:03 AM
which we are having to do and on that note no need to vote at the prez level. That is why we are working on anotherr amendment to remove all fines and prison for marijuana in colorado since the state and federal gov is ignoring the colorado constitution and we the people . WE THE PEOPLE ARE DOING IT not fence sitters and bs politicians pandering to right wing nutjobs.

Are you upset that you missed Seattle Hempfest?

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 11:04 AM
Are you upset that you missed Seattle Hempfest?

nope just upset with morons like you who seem ok with federal/state overriding individual rights.

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 11:07 AM
this is the real deal for colorado I-3,https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...type=1&theater (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=6375bb7255d0a8966f3450241859c97d&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulforums.com%2Fshowthrea d.php%3F424791-WE-NEED-TO-REPEAL-THE-WHOLE-WAR-ON-DRUGS-Ron-Paul-2016%26p%3D5183032%23post5183032&v=1&libId=81813eb8-5842-4d2d-b5da-3fdc6a6c2a7f&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F%23!%2Fphoto. php%3Ffbid%3D503769419691213%26set%3Da.10811651925 6507.8875.100001744778811%26type%3D1%26theater&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulforums.com%2Fusercp.ph p%3F&title=WE%20NEED%20TO%20REPEAL%20THE%20WHOLE%20WAR% 20ON%20DRUGS%2C%20Ron%20Paul%202016&txt=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2F%23!%2Fphoto. ph...type%3D1%26amp%3Btheater&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13769319750636) since under rands policy he is ok with states ignoring their own constitution and individual rights even when we the people pass it, we do not need rand or his federal/state over individual rights bs.

Petar
08-19-2013, 11:11 AM
I think that if speciallyblend does some acid then he will have an epiphany and totally come to understand Rand Paul's gnarly chess game with the establishment. Expand your mind you friggin square!!!!

dannno
08-19-2013, 11:17 AM
you are clueless to what i know And who i am and what i do for activism clearly. I have helped get majority voter blocks in colorado and in my surrounding counties. The same voter block that will hold rand paul ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUPPORTING THE FAILED DRUG WAR! all i ask is for you to post a video of rand wanting to repeal the failed drug war or opposing it outright. you can do neither. thhat says alot. I don't buy rands doublespeak. rand supports federal/state over individual rights clearly and that is why i will not support him. the mandatory crap he is trying to sell does nothing to stop the failed drug war or arresting and fining and taking peoples kids away. IT IS A BULLSHIT fence riding position. clearly ron paul wanted to end the failed drug war and rand does not. sounds like rands problem not mine. He wil not win colorado with that BS.

bottom line rand lost this delegate and activism, i am sure you can find a pro-drug war right wing nut to fill my spot.


If I was a neocon I wouldn't buy Rand's doublespeak about wanting to continue the war on drugs.

Trip on that.

jllundqu
08-19-2013, 11:18 AM
If this country lasts til 2016... I'll be amazed.

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 11:43 AM
nope just upset with morons like you who seem ok with federal/state overriding individual rights.

Your Political ignorance is showing. Just smoke a joint and chill out bro.

FSP-Rebel
08-19-2013, 11:51 AM
Your Political ignorance is showing. Just smoke a joint and chill out bro.
Interesting isn't it? Never seen a chilled person so unchilled and off in lalaland.

Brett85
08-19-2013, 11:53 AM
Ron Paul doesn't agree with you that the federal government should try to prohibit the states from banning drugs.

presence
08-19-2013, 11:54 AM
Rand's positions to end mandatory minimums and allowing states to do what they want in terms of legalization is his

republican codespeak for trending the war on drugs downward.

Going on record stating to get rid of the war on drugs instantly just ruins all the work you've done on all your other policy issues in a republican primary for starters. Then you have no chance.


which is why:


Rothbard’s claim that political action
is superior and preferable
to civil disobedience in the lightening of the levy
is an incredible distortion of history

-Samuel Edward Konkin III




The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, ca. 1777

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;


That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,


That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;


That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;


That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;


That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,
That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,


That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;


That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;
That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;


That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;


And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself,

that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:


Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom#cite_note-4)

FSP-Rebel
08-19-2013, 11:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDoIM1dRzGo

FSP-Rebel
08-19-2013, 12:01 PM
which is why:
Civil dis is fine and dandy if that's your cup of tea, mine isn't. Typically, conservative thinkers and voters are the usual barriers to any sort of regression in the drug war. That Rand is owning this issue for the better and tipping the scales back in the liberty direction and seeing this irrational rant against him speaks volumes. Me-me-me, all or nothing, burn him at the stake.

presence
08-19-2013, 12:04 PM
Civil dis is fine and dandy if that's your cup of tea, mine isn't. Typically, conservative thinkers and voters are the usual barriers to any sort of regression in the drug war. That Rand is owning this issue for the better and tipping the scales back in the liberty direction and seeing this irrational rant against him speaks volumes. Me-me-me, all or nothing, burn him at the stake.

Which is why I love Rand with a lip bitten.

LibertyEagle
08-19-2013, 12:06 PM
SB, the "War on Drugs" is a federal government program. I agree with you that it needs to be ended. Ron and Rand use different language to get it done. Ron screams out end the War on Drugs and Rand says move the decision down to the states.

If you keep looking, you will find Ron talking about the states being able to make their own decisions.

Ron and Rand aren't very far apart on this, SB. You just like Ron's language better, but they are after the same thing, from where I'm sitting at least.

AuH20
08-19-2013, 12:10 PM
I think that if speciallyblend does some acid then he will have an epiphany and totally come to understand Rand Paul's gnarly chess game with the establishment. Expand your mind you friggin square!!!!

I don't think he indulges in acid. He has a loved one affected by the law I believe.

Petar
08-19-2013, 12:31 PM
I don't think he indulges in acid. He has a loved one affected by the law I believe.

Oh, well that is rather sad then. Fortunately I don't have that cross to bear. Maybe I'd go a little crazy as well in that case.

Kotin
08-19-2013, 12:34 PM
hey kenny, I definitely understand why you feel this way.. I guess I look at it like this:

Rand definitely is a libertarian and even though he is not arguing fully for legalization, he would be the BEST person possible to have in the white house.. he could direct the federal departments to do many things like stop the raids on dispensaries and also completely let the states do what they want..

if a bill came to his desk to legalize he would do it but even if no such bill came up he will be a cannabis smoker's best friend in the government, in a position to help a lot of cannabis users. to tell the DEA to stop what its doing.. executive orders are pretty much for that: to tell fedreal agencies how to carry out the law..

not only that, but he could appoint a huge number of pro-cannabis judges and appointees as well..

sucks that everything cant be perfect I know.. but really, this would be a HUGE step for people who smoke cannabis..

presence
08-19-2013, 12:42 PM
“I would get the government out of regulating all those substances
and I will allow the states to deal with the problems of whether


children


should have them, whether


children


can buy cigarettes and alcohol, or hard drugs, marijuana.

And different states would probably do differing things.

Dec. 10, 2007, Ron Paul in an interview with John Stossel, ABC 20/20

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 01:34 PM
Ron Paul doesn't agree with you that the federal government should try to prohibit the states from banning drugs.


really because i posted a video of ron paul wanting to repeal the drug war.

DamianTV
08-19-2013, 01:36 PM
http://i42.tinypic.com/292be6f.jpg

"When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law. - The Law"

---

"When the Legal Consequences of any substance are more severe than the Medical Consequences of that substance, you have Injustice"

---

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

-Thomas Jefferson"

---

Dont forget that Senators and Congressmen are NOT drug tested and can do as many drugs as they want and usually get away with it. Why? Not because they just arent drug tested, but because they are Senators and Congressmen. Alternatively, if you are on Food Stamps or Welfare in Florida, mandatory Drug Testing.


There's NO Rule of Law... when the crime that is charged, not based upon what law was broken, but by who committed it.

Just-Us for the Mundanes in 'murika.

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 01:39 PM
Your Political ignorance is showing. Just smoke a joint and chill out bro.

i find that funny since i have helped local people get elected. You just choose to follow the bs pandering. well rand paul has pandered me from being a delegate for him. I have a better thumb on what colorado voters think then you and actually put my money where my mouth is and WE WON.

now we move forward in I-3 since we can no longer just the politicians in colorado or nationally to follow the colorado constution let alone the us constitution, Individual rights over state and fed,since in colorado thestate is ignoring voters already on the colorado constitution and still punishing folks for marijuana on all levels.

Individual rights over state/federal since bs politicians do not even listen to the voters. Which passed personal and medical and they still ignore it. Individuals rights 0VER state/federal, rand wants state over individual, NOT FUCKING ACCEPTABLE if you go by rands policy then rand endorses the state to ignore the voters. Which they are doing.

mosquitobite
08-19-2013, 01:47 PM
The war on drugs is a constantly flushing toilet.

One cannot claim to be fiscally conservative and NOT be against the WOD. Not only that but the WOD has a litany of tyranny that follows it, including CPS abuse, asset forfeiture, and property raids.

You want other issues to be more important? There is no other reason that our government gives such broad powers to the police higher than drugs. It's legalized mafia.

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 01:51 PM
awesome news folks . We are on the ballot to be the 51st in colorado:) how f'in sweet is this? http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=351058 boom goes the dynamite, we are just tired of the tories at federal/state level.

asurfaholic
08-19-2013, 01:51 PM
the drug war has 1000's of issues including the ones you just posted, so you do not want to defend liberty freedom and individual rights and you are ok with federal and states overriding freedom,liberty .....

So is the NSA spying. Basic 4th amendment rights here. Plus its a winning issue.


The drug war issue is not even about drugs anymore it is about the basic level of freedom,liberty and individual.

Would you support a candidate who does support ending the war on drugs, but yet thinks Snowden is a traitor, NSA protects us from them?

I don't think that Rand's position is that states rights are > individual rights. My understanding is that he feels that states rights > federal laws, so he as president would not interfere with states who enact controversial laws. Take that how you want, but feel its a respectable position. Plus I'm honestly more concerned with the decreasing free market, and the out of control Feds who feel the need to spy on my every action. I'm less concerned with whether or not there's a law that says i can or cannot smoke a plant. There's lots of those type of laws, weed is your crusade, I respect that, but you should consider that you may be overblowing here, your enthusiasm could be a huge help to those of us in the Liberty movement that feel that RAND 2016 is the fastest path to Liberty.

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 01:55 PM
The war on drugs is a constantly flushing toilet.

One cannot claim to be fiscally conservative and NOT be against the WOD. Not only that but the WOD has a litany of tyranny that follows it, including CPS abuse, asset forfeiture, and property raids.

You want other issues to be more important? There is no other reason that our government gives such broad powers to the police higher than drugs. It's legalized mafia.

You're preaching to the choir. Join your local GOP central committee and preach it there.

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 01:55 PM
we do notneed rand paul in colorado at all, thank you, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424811-NORTH-COLORADO-on-the-BALLOT-LET-LIBERTY-RING&p=5183339#post5183339

RonPaulFanInGA
08-19-2013, 01:56 PM
speciallyblend posts = why it's called 'dope'.

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 01:57 PM
speciallyblend posts = why it's called 'dope'.


as you try to make fun of me, we are actually doing something other then rand bs double speak, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424811-NORTH-COLORADO-on-the-BALLOT-LET-LIBERTY-RING&p=5183339#post5183339

we do not need rand pauls bs on the drug war or his fence sitting pandering.

rand can stay in kentucky. He already lost me as a delegate so make fun or try to marginalize us in colorado or me. We will hold these bs politicians accountable on election day. As rand stands he will not win colorado. ignore the majoriity marijuana voter block in colorado and you lose and will lose and as rand stands right now. He will not win colorado the very swing state he needs to win. your loss not mine.

you can say what you want but bottom line is i was a delegate for ron paul for 8-9 years and now i will not waste my time on rands bs policy on the failed drug war, we didn't need rand before and we won't need him now on i-3. or voting on the 51st state.

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 02:03 PM
as you try to make fun of me, we are actually doing something other then rand bs double speak, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?424811-NORTH-COLORADO-on-the-BALLOT-LET-LIBERTY-RING&p=5183339#post5183339

we do not need rand pauls bs on the drug war or his fence sitting pandering.

rand can stay in kentucky. He already lost me as a delegate so make fun or try to marginalize us in colorado or me. We will hold these bs polticians accoutnable on election day. As rand stands he will not win colorado. ignore the majoirity marijuana voter block in colorado and you lose and will lose and as rand stands right now. He will not win colorado the very swing state he needs to win. your loss not mine.

you can say what you want but bottom line is i was a delegate for ron paul for 8-9 years and now i will not waste my time on rands bs policy on the failed drug war, we didn't need rand before and we won't need him now on i-3. or voting on the 51st state.

51st state of the United States. Okay.

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 02:04 PM
speciallyblend posts = why it's called 'dope'.
just typos and since rpf has my page reload 2 times and then freezes, you can deal with the typos etc since you are the dope.

speciallyblend
08-19-2013, 02:06 PM
51st state of the United States. Okay.

I-3 actually deals with bs politicians like rand and establishment, who ignore voters and pander and ignore the colorado constitution and continue to arrest,fine people for their individual rights. at the basic level rand paul is ass backwards it is INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OVER THE STATE/FED not the other way around unless you are a statist.

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 02:11 PM
I-3 actually deals with bs politicians like rand and establishment, who ignore voters and pander and ignore the colorado constitution and continue to arrest,fine people for their individual rights. at the basic level rand paul is ass backwards it is INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OVER THE STATE/FED not the other way around unless you are a statist.

Will North Colorado go Republican or Democrat?

dannno
08-19-2013, 02:11 PM
sb, have you heard Rand Paul say anything about using Federal law enforcement in states that have legalized cannabis?

I would bet both of my testicles Rand Paul wouldn't advocate using the Federal Govt. to stop Colorado from legalizing cannabis. You have to look past the 'rhetoric' Rand Paul is speaking to draw in the Fox News crowd and turn them more pro-liberty unbeknownst to even themselves and look at what his actual positions are.

In the mean time, medicinal outlets in California, Washington and probably Colorado are being unlawfully shut down by the Federal Govt.

jbauer
08-19-2013, 02:17 PM
nope just upset with morons like you who seem ok with federal/state overriding individual rights.

You can't get to individual rights without getting it out of the Federal Governments hands first. Trying to get it to states rights, then local rights and then individual rights is the course of action that will need to be taken. Unless of course you're talking about a full blown violent revolution.

mosquitobite
08-19-2013, 02:19 PM
You're preaching to the choir. Join your local GOP central committee and preach it there.

Elected there already. Thanks for the ASSumption though!

CaptLouAlbano
08-19-2013, 02:20 PM
You can't get to individual rights without getting it out of the Federal Governments hands first. Trying to get it to states rights, then local rights and then individual rights is the course of action that will need to be taken. Unless of course you're talking about a full blown violent revolution.


Agreed. While I understand the passion that some people have for their pet issues, sometimes understanding that there is a process in going from point A to point B is helpful.

LibertyEagle
08-19-2013, 02:49 PM
really because i posted a video of ron paul wanting to repeal the drug war.

That is at the federal level, Kenny. He still was all for letting the states make their own decisions.

tod evans
08-19-2013, 02:51 PM
Try to imagine any state funding their own "war on anything" if the feds don't fund it.....

LibertyEagle
08-19-2013, 02:53 PM
I-3 actually deals with bs politicians like rand and establishment, who ignore voters and pander and ignore the colorado constitution and continue to arrest,fine people for their individual rights. at the basic level rand paul is ass backwards it is INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OVER THE STATE/FED not the other way around unless you are a statist.

Do you even see what you said there? You want your STATE constitution to be followed. That is what would happen if the decision was pushed DOWN TO THE STATES.

So, which way do you want it, Kenny? You can't have it both ways.

presence
08-19-2013, 06:01 PM
Do you even see what you said there? You want your STATE constitution to be followed. That is what would happen if the decision was pushed DOWN TO THE STATES.

So, which way do you want it, Kenny? You can't have it both ways.


I want religious freedom PROTECTED at the federal level and the state left without regulatory options with regard to how people pray.





Thanks and praises to the most high! Jah Rastafari!





Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you."

Matthew 26:27

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 06:07 PM
I want religious freedom PROTECTED at the federal level and the state left without regulatory options with regard to how people pray.

Big Government supporter?

presence
08-19-2013, 06:23 PM
Big Government supporter?

Congress shall make no law []prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].

END OF STORY

The drug war is nothing more than witch trials; destroying families, livelihoods, and lives.

Big Government criminalizes possession of readily available remedies so Big Pharma can cash in on prescription drug coverage and Big Prison can cash in on $30k / head.

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 06:26 PM
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].

Read that again. It says Congress.

presence
08-19-2013, 06:32 PM
Read that again. It says Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_bill_of_rights#Amendment_I

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 06:39 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_bill_of_rights#Amendment_I

The Constitution still says:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Archives.gov proves it:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

DamianTV
08-19-2013, 07:09 PM
Unfortunately, it does mean that Schoolboards are exempt. Not getting into the argument, just pointing out what all political types will use as a Loophole by which the Rights of the People are subverted.

presence
08-19-2013, 07:38 PM
The Constitution still says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,



Justice Hugo Black,


"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen

An entheogen ("generating the divine within")[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen#cite_note-4) is a psychoactive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive) substance used in a religious (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), shamanic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism), or spiritual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality) context

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 09:04 PM
Justice Hugo Black,

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.


Justice Hugo Black will need to repeal the first amendment and replace it. That has not happened.

presence
08-19-2013, 09:07 PM
Justice Hugo Black will need to repeal the first amendment and replace it. That has not happened.

Do you believe the State of Texas has the authority to insist upon all residents being Catholic?

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 09:21 PM
Do you believe the State of Texas has the authority to insist upon all residents being Catholic?

State free market competition would prevent states from becoming tyrannical. Businesses and people would threaten to move out and Texas would go bankrupt.

No, not going to happen.

presence
08-19-2013, 09:28 PM
State free market competition would prevent states from becoming tyrannical. Businesses and people would threaten to move out and Texas would go bankrupt.

No, not going to happen.


I didn't inquire as to its probability in Texas but its legality in Texas.

Does the legislature of Texas have the authority to insist its citizens convert to and practice Catholicism?

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 09:36 PM
I didn't inquire as to its probability in Texas but its legality in Texas.

Does the legislature of Texas have the authority to insist its citizens convert to and practice Catholicism?

That would violate the Texas Constitution.


THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm

Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

Christian Liberty
08-19-2013, 09:47 PM
Ron Paul doesn't agree with you that the federal government should try to prohibit the states from banning drugs.

Most libertarians don't, although of course, there's always dissent.

But for the Feds to do that right now, in addition to being unconstitutional, would be a classic case of "Take the beam out of your own freaking eye."

mad cow
08-19-2013, 10:00 PM
^ The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts retained an establishment of religion in general until 1833.[45] As of 2010, Article III of the Massachusetts constitution still provided, "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."[46] The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, makes no mention of religious establishment, but forbids the states to "abridge the privileges or immunities" of U.S. citizens, or to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States, and thereby prohibits state and local religious establishments. The exact boundaries of this prohibition are still disputed, and are a frequent source of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court — especially as the Court must now balance, on a state level, the First Amendment prohibitions on government establishment of official religions with the First Amendment prohibitions on government interference with the free exercise of religion. See school prayer for such a controversy in contemporary American politics. All current State constitutions do mention a Creator, but include guarantees of religious liberty parallel to the First Amendment. The constitutions of eight states (Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) also contain clauses that prohibit atheists from holding public office.[47][48] However, these clauses were held by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unenforceable in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, where the court ruled unanimously that such clauses constituted a religious test incompatible with the religious test prohibition in Article 6 Section 3 of the United States Constitution. The Church of Hawaii was the state church of Hawaii from 1862-1893.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

I know that Massachusetts taxed their citizens to support just one church as late as the 1830s many founding fathers and several Presidents hailed from there during this time period.

kcchiefs6465
08-19-2013, 10:01 PM
That would violate the Texas Constitution.


THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm

Sec. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.
So then is Texas authorized to ban marijuana or other substances people routinely use to be "closer to God"?

presence
08-19-2013, 10:03 PM
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.



Thanks and Praises Jah Rastafari!

randpaul2016
08-19-2013, 10:27 PM
war on drugs is top 3 on my list

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 10:31 PM
war on drugs is top 3 on my list

Congress will need to repeal the drug laws, not really the president.

presence
08-19-2013, 10:34 PM
Congress will need to repeal the drug laws, not really the president.

Frankly all 3 branches of government have the authority. Congress can repeal, President can nullify, and SCOTUS can get off their ass and do their job.

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 10:36 PM
Frankly all 3 branches of government have the authority. Congress can repeal, President can nullify, and SCOTUS can get off their ass and do their job.

Not according to the Constitution.

presence
08-19-2013, 10:42 PM
Not according to the Constitution.

Huh?

Congress can repeal the laws that should never have been passed.
The president can order federal law enforcement not to enforce drug crime until then.
SCOTUS can declare the whole damn drug war unconstitutional.


How is any of that unconstitutional?

FrankRep
08-19-2013, 10:49 PM
Huh?

Congress can repeal the laws that should never have been passed.
The president can order federal law enforcement not to enforce drug crime until then.
SCOTUS can declare the whole damn drug war unconstitutional.

How is any of that unconstitutional?

Congress does have the authority.
The president can veto legislation or encourage legislation, but the president doesn't have the authority to write/repeal legislation.
SCOTUS declared ObamaCare Constitutional, yet they had no authority to do so. SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to write/repeal legislation.

It's called separation of powers.

presence
08-20-2013, 07:26 AM
Congress does have the authority.

To write and repeal laws. We agree here.









The president can veto legislation or encourage legislation, but the president doesn't have the authority to write/repeal legislation.


President cannot "write or repeal" agreed.


Executive orders direct federal agencies and officials in their implementation of Congressional laws and policies.
http://www.historyofthings.com/history-of-presidential-executive-orders

But POTUS does have the authority of a Sheriff to selectively enforce (preferably disband), as all of federal law enforcement is under his command. So the President could stop the federal drug war tomorrow if he got up on the right side of the bed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Execu tive_Branch







SCOTUS declared ObamaCare Constitutional, yet they had no authority to do so. SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to write/repeal legislation.

It's called separation of powers.

They certainly had the authority to make that decision. It was placed before them in National Association of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Did they make the right decision... I would argue no. But they certainly had the authority to decide; as they have the authority to decide whether state and federal regulation of Entheogens violates religious freedom protected by the 1st Amendment. All it takes is for a local petty drug case to fail in local trial courts, fail in State Appeals Court, fail in the individual states highest Court of Appeals, and then motion the Supreme Court... at which point they need only get off their ass and do their job.
http://lubbockonline.com/editorials/2013-08-11/its-debatable-obamacare-constitutional#.UhNrP9fHh6g

Sola_Fide
08-20-2013, 07:28 AM
This is not high on my priority list. We are facing bigger issues like NSA spying and the Federal Reserve destroying the economy.

The drug war is interrelated with the NSA and all the federalized police forces.

kcchiefs6465
08-20-2013, 12:28 PM
The drug war is interrelated with the NSA and all the federalized police forces.
And those are interrelated with the Federal Reserve. No way in hell taxes alone could subsidize all of the pork we are seeing.

Brett85
08-20-2013, 12:34 PM
So then is Texas authorized to ban marijuana or other substances people routinely use to be "closer to God"?

Texas and all other states have the power to ban marijuana under the 10th amendment. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to prohibit any state from banning marijuana. Of course, I'm not saying that it's a good idea for a state to ban marijuana, just that they have the power under the 10th amendment to do it.

presence
08-20-2013, 12:37 PM
Texas and all other states have the power to ban marijuana under the 10th amendment. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to prohibit any state from banning marijuana. Of course, I'm not saying that it's a good idea for a state to ban marijuana, just that they have the power under the 10th amendment to do it.

Texas has no right to regulate religious freedom. Religious freedom is a natural right which is not positively granted by the state but protected by the state.



If we can agree there are no grounds for a free state to denying the Catholic Church from serving sacramental wine, then we must agree there is no grounds for a free state to regulate the Rastafarian smoking sacramental marijuana... and further, no grounds for the denying ANY individual spiritual psychonaut any mind altering entheogen of his choosing. FREEDOM of religion; not pick from the approved choices above.