Does Rand Paul oppose Medical Marijuana? [Resolved: Rand supports states' rights]

[brenden.b]

I am still curious about Rand's stance on Medical Marijuana, as my questions weren't really answered in a previous post. Does this article have any truth to it? Has Rand legitimately changed his position on Medical Marijuana?

Honestly, it doesn't change my opinion of him drastically, maybe a little because of the fact that he think he needs to change his position to appear tougher on crime, but I would like know if the attacks have any basis.

Here's the Article

Mike Meno at MPP points out that Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul no longer supports medical marijuana. That's right, folks. Rand Paul, son of the famously libertarian-leaning and pro-marijuana-reform Congressman Ron Paul, is now in favor of arresting sick people for medical marijuana.

How did this happen? Well, Paul seems to be suffering from a fit of desperation in the aftermath of a weird college bong controversy, followed by a series of super-lame "soft on crime" attacks from his Democratic opponent, Jack Conway. The whole situation is an ugly throwback to the polarizing crime politics of the 1980's, and it's just pathetic that Rand Paul fell for it.

Sure, marijuana reform may not sell as well in Kentucky as it does in California, but posing as a typical drug warrior politician serves only to undermine Paul's credibility with libertarians while failing to deflect his opponent's inevitable attacks. By backing down, Paul lost the ability to defend his position and connect with a huge number of voters who share his views. Meanwhile, his past statements in support of medical marijuana will still be held against him by the few people who actually have a problem with it.

The worst part is that if Paul loses the election, it may appear to vindicate the "soft on crime" attack strategy that his opponent deployed. Who knows what would have happened if Paul had actually stood up for himself and turned the tables by pointing out that Jack Conway wants to continue arresting cancer patients at an enormous cost to tax-payers. It may or may not have worked, but it's better than backing down and letting your opponent redefine your political identity.

Whether Rand Paul will be the next Kentucky Senator remains be seen. But it's clear he won't be the next Ron Paul.

 

[Justinjj1]

Doesn't surprise me one bit. All he has done since the campaign has started is to distance himself from the libertarian positions of his father.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Actually, he said it should be left to the states. Just like his father, he has read the Constitution.

See, this is how they smear someone who doesn't believe everything under the sun should be handled by the federal government. We of all people need to be careful not to fall for it.

 

[specsaregood]

Actually, he said it should be left to the states.

Yup, same as his father.
One doesn't have to be "for" something in order to recognize the proper constitutional position.

 

[Justinjj1]

"Now, in a telling political move, the son of Ron Paul has reversed his stance on the issue, telling the Associated Press last week that “he is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes.”

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/rand-paul-now-opposed-to-medical-marijuana

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, he doesn't say anything about leaving it to the states. He's also opposed to industrial hemp.


"Now, in a telling political move, the son of Ron Paul has reversed his stance on the issue, telling the Associated Press last week that “he is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes.”

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/rand-paul-now-opposed-to-medical-marijuana

Again, you are talking about a federal law.

 

[erowe1]

Again, you are talking about a federal law.

So that means he doesn't support leaving it up to the states.

If he's against legalizing it, and he's talking about federal law, then he wants the states to have no say, since he wants it to stay illegal according to federal law anyway.

But I'm still not clear on his actual position. Where are quotes of what he said in his own words. So far all I've seen here is other people asserting what his position is without showing how they know it.

 

[itshappening]

I dont think he wants it to be legal in Kentucky and that's it.

 

[Cowlesy]

Great job StopTheDrugWar. Instead of attacking a candidate (Conway) who'd probably even be for alcohol prohibition if he could get away with it, you attack the guy that would probably have a much, much moderated stance on your pet issue, especially considering he's all but confirmed to be a bong-toker back in his college days.

No really, you're attacking the right person here.

 

[brenden.b]

I'd also like a few direct quotes from Rand on this issue. I have seen a few of our fellow members render the quote in Justin's post to mean that he is against federal legislation, but is okay with it on the state level. I have no idea how people are making that connection, unless there is another quote of which I am not aware.

No where have I seen Rand saying that he supports it on the state level, but is against it on the federal. I fear some are fabricating this detail in an attempt to excuse a blatant flip-flop by Rand.

Like I said, it's not that big of a deal to me, but if Rand is making such a blatant flip-flop, just like any politician, we need to keep an eye on him and make sure he doesn't do it once he is elected.

 

[specsaregood]

Again, you are talking about a federal law.

Rand has been walking the tightrope since the beginning and the people that should be able to recognize the nuances of his speech and see what he is saying and look the other way and/or support him.....they prefer to try to push him off the rope. effing morons.

 

[erowe1]

Rand has been walking the tightrope since the beginning and the people that should be able to recognize the nuances of his speech and see what he is saying and look the other way and/or support him.....they prefer to try to push him off the rope. effing morons.

Why does supporting him have to mean looking the other way?

 

[brenden.b]

Rand has been walking the tightrope since the beginning and the people that should be able to recognize the nuances of his speech and see what he is saying and look the other way and/or support him.....they prefer to try to push him off the rope. effing morons.

I'm trying to push him off of anything, I'm honestly trying to understand his stance on the issue. He went from saying he was in support of medical marijuan to now saying that he is against medical marijuana. No where in his various quotes does he make the reference to state or federal legislation. I'd like to know where people are getting that idea. Is there a quote?

And I know all about nuances of his speech, and that's great, because it is all about framing the debate, but I am just not seeing how the one quote where he says he is against medical marijuana is somehow a nuance to saying that he is for it on the state level, but not on the federal level.

I can see his nuance in his discussions on foreign policy, but I am just not seeing it on this issue. I see a candidate who once said he was for it, and now has said he is against it. Where is the nuance in that?

 

[specsaregood]

Why does supporting him have to mean looking the other way?

That isn't what I meant: nuances, reading between the lines.
ie: if somebody you support is purposefully obfuscating the position to be more palatable to the masses. "Looking the other way", could mean not going out of your way to try to discern the root of what they are saying when that might be disagreeable to the majority of voters.

 

[specsaregood]

I see a candidate who once said he was for it, and now has said he is against it. Where is the nuance in that?

Can you actually cite sources where his position has changed? And I mean where he said it, not where others claimed they knew his position?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Rand has been walking the tightrope since the beginning and the people that should be able to recognize the nuances of his speech and see what he is saying and look the other way and/or support him.....they prefer to try to push him off the rope. effing morons.

I have noticed that too. It's quite sad.

 

[Justinjj1]

There is nothing nuanced about this statement. He's against legalization period. The reason why stopthedrugwar.com is attacking Rand more so than Conway, is because Rand is trying to pass himself off as a "liberty candidate" and also most people mistakenly assume that Rand holds the same positions as Ron. Also Rand comes across as a massive hypocrite on the issue given his bong toking past.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There is nothing nuanced about this statement. He's against legalization period. The reason why stopthedrugwar.com is attacking Rand more so than Conway, is because Rand is trying to pass himself off as a "liberty candidate" and also most people mistakenly assume that Rand holds the same positions as Ron. Also Rand comes across as a massive hypocrite on the issue given his bong toking past.

Where did he say that? Quote please. I'm asking, because frequently the media selectively quotes him and misconstrues what he's saying. Remember how they did that with Dr. Paul?

 

[erowe1]

There is nothing nuanced about this statement.

Nothing nuanced about what statement?

So far in this thread, and in the articles linked in this thread, no one has presented any actual quotation from Rand, so that we can see from his own words whether he nuanced it in any way or actually clearly came out in favor of keeping federal prohibition of medical marijuana in place.

 

[brenden.b]

Can you actually cite sources where his position has changed? And I mean where he said it, not where others claimed they knew his position?

Well...Don't I feel like an ass. I searched and searched, and I didn't find a single quote. Every story that I found referenced another article, and that article would reference another article, which eventually took me to Talking Points Memo, which mentions an AP Reporter stating that Rand told him/her that he is opposed to marijuana, even for medical use.

My apologies, everyone. It appears I fell victim to the internet.