PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul 'ducks' on D.C. pot measure




Mr.NoSmile
11-04-2014, 02:20 PM
Not a good headline on Politico's part in my opinion since he states he wouldn't stand in the way if DC legalized marijuana.


The Kentucky Republican, who is the ranking member on a key subcommittee that deals with D.C. oversight, said outside a polling location in Bowling Green, Ky., that the district should have “discretion” on legalization.

But Paul, the ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations and the District of Columbia, said the federal government shouldn’t thwart the will of D.C. voters. “I haven’t really taken a stand on [the measure], but I’m against the federal government telling them they can’t,” he said.

Recent polls have suggested that D.C. voters are likely to approve the ballot measure. But implementation may prove trickier, with at least one congressman — Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland — vowing to block appropriations for cannabis legalization.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2014-legalize-marijuana-results-dc-rand-paul-112496.html?hp=r1

Again, not really ducking, though, is it?

Christian Liberty
11-04-2014, 02:28 PM
I think its obvious (albeit annoying) what Rand is trying to do. He doesn't want to commit to supporting legalization of marijauna because he knows that may not play well in the GOP. But he is making very clear that its not a Federal issue. He's being a good constitutionalist, but without an explicit libertarian bent. I can live with it, though I don't love it.

thoughtomator
11-04-2014, 03:17 PM
I think its obvious (albeit annoying) what Rand is trying to do. He doesn't want to commit to supporting legalization of marijauna because he knows that may not play well in the GOP. But he is making very clear that its not a Federal issue. He's being a good constitutionalist, but without an explicit libertarian bent. I can live with it, though I don't love it.

As he is a federal Senator, rather than a private citizen, taking a stance on the issue other than the one he did would be interference in local affairs. Believing in small government means that a federal legislator needs to butt the hell out of local decisions, which is what he is doing here. That's what we ask other federal legislators to do, isn't it?

Valli6
11-04-2014, 03:19 PM
I see it's passage as a plus, but Initiative 71 includes some less than optimal parts too.

It says you can still be be arrested if you;


have more than 2 ounces
have more than 3 mature cannabis plants, or 6 young ones
sell ANY amount, even a joint
give away more than 1 ounce
are 20 years old, or 19 years old, or 18 years old
other stuff...

Initiative 71 https://www.dcboee.org/pdf_files/pn_1368.pdf

William Tell
11-04-2014, 03:21 PM
As he is a federal Senator, rather than a private citizen, taking a stance on the issue other than the one he did would be interference in local affairs. Believing in small government means that a federal legislator needs to butt the hell out of local decisions, which is what he is doing here. That's what we ask other federal legislators to do, isn't it?

Sure, but Thomas Massie passed a pro gun measure in DC. I have no problem with what Rand is doing here, but Congress does have a say over DC.

Christian Liberty
11-04-2014, 03:22 PM
As he is a federal Senator, rather than a private citizen, taking a stance on the issue other than the one he did would be interference in local affairs. Believing in small government means that a federal legislator needs to butt the hell out of local decisions, which is what he is doing here. That's what we ask other federal legislators to do, isn't it?

Let me put it this way. I don't think that he should actually interfere, either way. But I think he could (Mind you, it would hurt him politically, but that's a different matter) still take a position on it without actually suggesting Federal interference. Ron Paul doesn't want the federal government to interfere with states that ban drugs, but he is clearly and certainly not in favor of such bans. Rand Paul, on the other hand, has implied that he DOES favor such bans, although he would like the penalties to be smaller. I understand politically why Rand is going at it the way he is, but I still wish he'd be more consistent. Mind you, I understand he wouldn't likely get elected if he did.

presence
11-04-2014, 03:24 PM
I see it's passage as a plus, but Initiative 71 includes some less than optimal parts too.

It says you can still be be arrested if you;
have more than 2 ounces
have more than 3 mature cannabis plants, or 6 young ones
sell ANY amount, even a joint
give away more than 1 ounce
are 20 years old, or 19 years old, or 18 years old
other stuff...

Initiative 71 https://www.dcboee.org/pdf_files/pn_1368.pdf


What's really stupid about these arbitrary thresholds is they simply don't work in reality.
3 plants? That might be 2 ounces dry. But on the day of harvest its going to be 20 ounces fresh because its 90% water weight.

...but that's not even the beginning of the issue.


Rand is wrong: What I put in my body is a Federal freedom of religion issue not a State's rights issue.

My way of worship;
how I care for the body given to me by the Almighty,
is a natural unalienable right.
It is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution
and the States are bound to not interfere by the 14th.

The government;
federal, state, local or otherwise,
has no more authority to ban
marijuana, raw milk, or 20oz sodas;
than they have to ban
beef, potatoes, or apple pie.

r3volution 3.0
11-04-2014, 03:43 PM
Federalism is a totally alien concept to the left. They think "if our ideas are good, then they're good everywhere, and should be implemented everywhere, regardless of imaginary state (or national) borders." They fail to appreciate the possibility that, once a centralized state is established, there's no guarantee that it will adhere to their ideas - which is the purpose of federalism. A federal system is less likely to be as good (from whatever point of view) as a centralized system could conceivably be, but it is also less likely to be as bad as a centralized system could conceivably be. For example, it's unlikely that all 50 states will adhere to libertarianism, but it's also unlikely that all 50 states will adhere to national socialism. Federalism is the political equivalent of financial hedging - you give up some potential profit in order to reduce the risk of loss. It's not just the left that fails to appreciate federalism. As I implied, there are lots of universalist libertarians as well. The left's universalism can be explained by their inherent faith in government, I suppose. It's hard ti explain why any libertarians would fall into this fallacious line of thought.

Anyway, re the OP, the argument that certain contentious issues like drugs or marriage should be left to the states (while elegant in principle) is not likely to work in practice. It may be the least bad option for someone like Rand, trying to walk a very fine line, but don't expect the left (or many on the right) to ever really embrace the idea.

Christian Liberty
11-04-2014, 03:54 PM
Federalism is a totally alien concept to the left. They think "if our ideas are good, then they're good everywhere, and should be implemented everywhere, regardless of imaginary state (or national) borders." They fail to appreciate the possibility that, once a centralized state is established, there's no guarantee that it will adhere to their ideas - which is the purpose of federalism. A federal system is less likely to be as good (from whatever point of view) as a centralized system could conceivably be, but it is also less likely to be as bad as a centralized system could conceivably be. For example, it's unlikely that all 50 states will adhere to libertarianism, but it's also unlikely that all 50 states will adhere to national socialism. Federalism is the political equivalent of financial hedging - you give up some potential profit in order to reduce the risk of loss. It's not just the left that fails to appreciate federalism. As I implied, there are lots of universalist libertarians as well. The left's universalism can be explained by their inherent faith in government, I suppose. It's hard ti explain why any libertarians would fall into this fallacious line of thought.

Anyway, re the OP, the argument that certain contentious issues like drugs or marriage should be left to the states (while elegant in principle) is not likely to work in practice. It may be the least bad option for someone like Rand, trying to walk a very fine line, but don't expect the left (or many on the right) to ever really embrace the idea.

I think they should be left with the states as long as we have the constitution. Decentralization is better.

loveshiscountry
11-04-2014, 05:37 PM
What's really stupid about these arbitrary thresholds is they simply don't work in reality.
3 plants? That might be 2 ounces dry. But on the day of harvest its going to be 20 ounces fresh because its 90% water weight.
If the plant is left in the vegetative state longer, has a larger container for the medium, a stronger light, proper training of the plant, and depending on the strain the yield can easily be as much as 6 ounces per plant and that's indoors. Outdoors one get over a couple of pounds per plant.

CPUd
11-04-2014, 05:54 PM
I know in TN they will snatch up the plants and even count the root ball in the weight. Then they say they seized some millions of dollars worth of weed.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wS09hOrDPQ

brushfire
11-04-2014, 06:17 PM
While running for a federal office, need he say more about the issue? If he states that its not a federal issue, seems pretty clear to me... Anything beyond that is irrelevant, and necessary. I dont blame him for his political precision.

Christian Liberty
11-04-2014, 06:57 PM
While running for a federal office, need he say more about the issue? If he states that its not a federal issue, seems pretty clear to me... Anything beyond that is irrelevant, and necessary. I dont blame him for his political precision.

Its not necessary, no. Which is why I'm not really complaining about it.

But I still think its disappointing that he supports some drug prohibition, even if its for purely political reasons.

brushfire
11-04-2014, 07:13 PM
Its not necessary, no. Which is why I'm not really complaining about it.

But I still think its disappointing that he supports some drug prohibition, even if its for purely political reasons.

Yea, this may have to be one of those delayed gratification things. I'd definitely like to ask the question again after he's POTUS... I'd be more disappointed if he won and gave the same answer.

green73
11-04-2014, 07:16 PM
Rand can't take a stand unless the political winds are right. Get it?

mad cow
11-04-2014, 07:36 PM
Rand can't take a stand unless the political winds are right. Get it?

Yeah,I get it.Do you?
I look forward to maxing out for Rand in 2016 and I have firmly believed for over 45 years that I should be able to send my neighbors 7 year old daughter down to the 7/11 to pick me up a pound of pure heroin,meth,cocaine or whatever and let her keep the change for her efforts.

However,if Rand Paul made a speech tomorrow saying exactly that,something that I have firmly believed and fought for my entire adult life,he wouldn't get a penny from me for he would never be elected dogcatcher after such a speech.

Get it?

NIU Students for Liberty
11-04-2014, 07:57 PM
Yeah,I get it.Do you?
I look forward to maxing out for Rand in 2016 and I have firmly believed for over 45 years that I should be able to send my neighbors 7 year old daughter down to the 7/11 to pick me up a pound of pure heroin,meth,cocaine or whatever and let her keep the change for her efforts.

However,if Rand Paul made a speech tomorrow saying exactly that,something that I have firmly believed and fought for my entire adult life,he wouldn't get a penny from me for he would never be elected dogcatcher after such a speech.

Get it?

Where did Green say anything about the particular drugs you mentioned?

r3volution 3.0
11-04-2014, 07:57 PM
Get it?

No, he doesn't.

Or, more likely, he does but he doesn't care.

cajuncocoa
11-04-2014, 08:02 PM
Rand Paul: I’m Not A Libertarian – I’m Not Advocating Everyone Run Around With No Clothes On And Smoke Pot (http://libertycrier.com/rand-paul-im-not-a-libertarian-im-not-advocating-everyone-run-around-with-no-clothes-on-and-smoke-pot/)

Feeding the Abscess
11-04-2014, 08:09 PM
As he is a federal Senator, rather than a private citizen, taking a stance on the issue other than the one he did would be interference in local affairs. Believing in small government means that a federal legislator needs to butt the hell out of local decisions, which is what he is doing here. That's what we ask other federal legislators to do, isn't it?

That'd be a fine explanation, but Rand supported Prop 47 in California.

Christian Liberty
11-04-2014, 08:20 PM
Yeah,I get it.Do you?
I look forward to maxing out for Rand in 2016 and I have firmly believed for over 45 years that I should be able to send my neighbors 7 year old daughter down to the 7/11 to pick me up a pound of pure heroin,meth,cocaine or whatever and let her keep the change for her efforts.

However,if Rand Paul made a speech tomorrow saying exactly that,something that I have firmly believed and fought for my entire adult life,he wouldn't get a penny from me for he would never be elected dogcatcher after such a speech.

Get it?

Ron Paul may not have said that about a seven year old (heck, he may not even believe that about a seven year old, I don't know*) but he was very clearly against drug prohibition of any kind for adults. He was clear about that. He still got elected to the house.

*I'm not even thrilled about that idea, to be honest. I would hope communities would be able to use social pressure to prevent that type of thing from happening.

jmdrake
11-04-2014, 08:48 PM
I think its obvious (albeit annoying) what Rand is trying to do. He doesn't want to commit to supporting legalization of marijauna because he knows that may not play well in the GOP. But he is making very clear that its not a Federal issue. He's being a good constitutionalist, but without an explicit libertarian bent. I can live with it, though I don't love it.

How is his position on this any different from Ron's? Ron has always been in favor of the states choosing their own drug laws.

mad cow
11-04-2014, 08:54 PM
*I'm not even thrilled about that idea, to be honest. I would hope communities would be able to use social pressure to prevent that type of thing from happening.

I would never be in favor of it unless my adult neighbor,the hypothetical parent of the 7 year old,was in favor of it.
I would have said my seven year old daughter,but that never happened.

Christian Liberty
11-04-2014, 09:00 PM
How is his position on this any different from Ron's? Ron has always been in favor of the states choosing their own drug laws.

Ron was very clear that the states shouldn't make drug laws, even though they can. Rand has been implying that the states should have drug laws, even though he won't force them to. The practical effect is the same. But I do view it as unfortunate that Rand seems to think governments should restrict those types of things.

I would never be in favor of it unless my adult neighbor,the parent of the 7 year old,was in favor of it.
I would have said my seven year old daughter,but that never happened.

Let me put it this way:

I am so against the idea of government force at this point that I wouldn't even support a law to prevent 7 year olds from buying hard drugs in the manner that you describe.

But, those types of laws aren't the aspects of government that keep me up at night. When arguing against drug prohibition, I usually say "for adults" and leave it at that. I cannot imagine any minarchist society allowing 7 year olds to buy drugs. Even in an ancap society, I can't really imagine any reputable businesses allowing 7 year olds to do so, nor can I imagine any decent parents allowing their 7 year olds to do so. Heck, I could even imagine PDAs getting involved in that type of situation (though I would hope if they did it would be to protect the child and not in a heavy-handed manner.)

I still have some issues with consent related things, and I don't have all the answers there. But, I definitely think 7 is too young to consent, and thus that any society that would allow 7 year olds to destroy their lives with drugs has some issues with it.

Mind you, I know you didn't have the 7 year old using drugs themselves in mind. But how would anyone know the difference?

mad cow
11-04-2014, 09:15 PM
I lived for a couple of years in Saint Croix,in the USVI.I worked in a dive shop and on several occasions sent a girl of that age to buy me a fifth of Cruzan rum and a pack of Camel cigarettes because I couldn't leave the shop.

This cost $0.85 at the time and I would let her keep the change from the dollar I gave her.
I imagine that she spent it on candy.She never hit on my rum or my cigs.

Vanguard101
11-05-2014, 04:29 PM
I don't see why he takes heat on his drug stance. He says he wouldn't support legalizing a certain drug, but doesn't want to get involved with it on a federal level. That's practically his father's stance except he would legalize it if the bill came about. Let's be real: Who honestly thinks drug legalization on a federal level is possible?

His stance and his father's are basically the same.

Virgil
11-05-2014, 05:56 PM
http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-says-congress-shouldnt-interfere-if-d-c-wants-to-legalize-marijuana/

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that Congress shouldn’t interfere in D.C.’s marijuana legalization efforts, but also said discretion on the matter was necessary.
“I think there should be a certain amount of discretion for both states and territories and the District,” Paul told Buzzfeed. (http://www.buzzfeed.com/katherinemiller/voters-take-to-the-polls-in-midterm-elections?sub=3500382_4176838)
“I think really when we set up our country, we intended that most crime or not crime, things we determine to be crime or not crimes is really to be determined by localities.”
That this should be handled locally rather than top-down is the only conclusion the senator has come to on the legislation, however.
“I’m not for having the federal government get involved,” Paul added. “I haven’t really taken a stand on the actual legislation or the legalization, I haven’t taken a stand on that.”


-virgil

Brett85
11-05-2014, 08:36 PM
How is his position on this any different from Ron's? Ron has always been in favor of the states choosing their own drug laws.

Because Ron went a step further and endorsed state efforts to legalize drugs.

Christian Liberty
11-05-2014, 08:39 PM
I don't see why he takes heat on his drug stance. He says he wouldn't support legalizing a certain drug, but doesn't want to get involved with it on a federal level. That's practically his father's stance except he would legalize it if the bill came about. Let's be real: Who honestly thinks drug legalization on a federal level is possible?

His stance and his father's are basically the same.

Politically, yes. Educationally, no. I don't blame him for it. But that doesn't mean I particularly like it.

Brett85
11-05-2014, 08:44 PM
Rand is far better on these issues than any other Republican, but I think you can argue that a President who uses his bully pulpit to promote state marijuana legalization efforts makes it more likely that these state level initiatives will actually pass. So I don't necessarily agree that his public stance regarding whether marijuana should be legal or not is insignificant.

NIU Students for Liberty
11-05-2014, 09:12 PM
Rand is far better on these issues than any other Republican, but I think you can argue that a President who uses his bully pulpit to promote state marijuana legalization efforts makes it more likely that these state level initiatives will actually pass. So I don't necessarily agree that his public stance regarding whether marijuana should be legal or not is insignificant.

Exactly. If Rand was willing to go against the grain of his party by vocally attacking drone warfare, domestic spying, & the racial disparities within the justice system, I don't see why he's pussyfooting around when it comes to marijuana.

It's 2014, not 1914.

Christian Liberty
11-05-2014, 09:49 PM
Rand is far better on these issues than any other Republican, but I think you can argue that a President who uses his bully pulpit to promote state marijuana legalization efforts makes it more likely that these state level initiatives will actually pass. So I don't necessarily agree that his public stance regarding whether marijuana should be legal or not is insignificant.

Hence why it still does matter. Mind you, its not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it does matter.

Reece
11-05-2014, 11:58 PM
Rand can't take a stand unless the political winds are right. Get it?

I think the standard libertarian position holds that one does not need to call for complete abolition of the state. Nobody has an obligation to take positive action in this way. Gradualism is fine as long as it never actually contradicts the end goal. As far as I am aware, Rand Paul has never called for an anti-libertarian action regarding marijuana. Instead he has made great statements on his position, such as: "I don't want to promote [marijuana] but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake." His work in the Senate has been exemplary on this issue. He single-handily (http://www.kentucky.com/2012/02/17/2073303/rand-paul-puts-hold-on-legislation.html) blocked legislation banning synthetic drugs for months. He has been attempting to protect (https://www.congress.gov/amendment/113th-congress/senate-amendment/3630/text) state marijuana laws. He was central in getting industrial hemp allowed for research. If he had called for full legalization, would these people still have worked with him? I can't see McConnell working with Rand if he took a radical view on the drug war (compared to the usual Republican). So, for the hundreds of thousands of people actually harmed by federal drug policy, I actually think Rand took the best position he could.

And yes, Rand is likely much more radical than his statements would suggest, although it's impossible to know exactly how libertarian he is on this issue. I would say the best way to guess at this would be to look at his actions in congress and his statements before he took office. His actions in congress have been, as I said, pretty amazing. And his position before he got elected or was running for office? Perhaps legalize all drugs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NleFtUvHRwg).

Bastiat's The Law
11-06-2014, 01:22 AM
Ron was very clear that the states shouldn't make drug laws, even though they can. Rand has been implying that the states should have drug laws, even though he won't force them to. The practical effect is the same. But I do view it as unfortunate that Rand seems to think governments should restrict those types of things.

err...what?

Bastiat's The Law
11-06-2014, 01:23 AM
Exactly. If Rand was willing to go against the grain of his party by vocally attacking drone warfare, domestic spying, & the racial disparities within the justice system, I don't see why he's pussyfooting around when it comes to marijuana.

It's 2014, not 1914.

What till the general election against Hillary.

H. E. Panqui
11-06-2014, 06:28 AM
Again and again, Rand fails to make the best arguments..i.e. That honest 'freedom' includes the natural, self-evident right to grow plants on 'your property' and use them as you see fit..(without a 'permission slip'/prescription from some Republicrat government-licensed 'doctor'.)

Rand fails to clearly acknowledge that the word 'legalization' is a fraud....that 'legalization' implies that we get our rights from Republicrat puppets in some stinking government Legislature.