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

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The #1 Paul...

These are not exact quotes because I don't feel like looking them up but they are going to be close...

End the Drug War

What bothers me is when you have a state like California who says it's ok for people to use medicinal marijuana and the fed comes in and arrests people in California for using medical marijuana.

Government has no business telling free people what they can or can not put in their body

Should government regulate what you eat because your fat?

Prohibition was the worst disaster of all time and the alcohol came from the Canadian border.

Alcohol and nicotine are drugs that kill millions of people should we lock up all alcoholics?

 

[MRoCkEd]

Next time, ask for clarification.
Jesse Benton:

"That was a false assumption by the AP. As you can see, the article does not include a quote. Rand Paul supports a state's right to have medical marijuana"

Every other article was based on this fabrication by the AP.

 

[specsaregood]

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

It's all good.

Let's look at what he has said:

"I think issues like drug use and abuse are best dealt with at the local level,"

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/13/rand-paul-drug-war-states-righ

And how the left is attacking him:

Republican Rand Paul's opposition to federal funding for state and local drug enforcement initiatives could cost him votes in a region likely to be a key battleground in the U.S. Senate race.

In both places he pushes a state-level position and end of federal war on drugs.
So if that is his position and he is running for federal office, we should take what he says in its proper context. ie: he is against legalizing medical marijuana at the federal level.

 

[brenden.b]

Next time, ask for clarification.
Jesse Benton:

"That was a false assumption by the AP. As you can see, the article does not include a quote. Rand Paul supports a state's right to have medical marijuana"

Every other article was based on this fabrication by the AP.

I was asking for clarification and you have provided it, as well as a few others. Thanks!

 

[erowe1]

Are we only permitted to have discussions like this in Hot Topics?

Why is that?

 

[erowe1]

he is against legalizing medical marijuana at the federal level.

You mean he's for legalizing it at the federal level. He's against legalizing it at the state level.

 

[specsaregood]

You mean he's for legalizing it at the federal level. He's against legalizing it at the state level.

I'd phrase it that he doesn't think the federal government should have a role in medical marijuana and it is up to the states.

How you said it reads that he thinks a federal law should force it to be legalized everywhere and that is not his position.

 

[specsaregood]

Are we only permitted to have discussions like this in Hot Topics?

Why is that?

I'd wager that it is because of the inflammatory and arguably inaccurate thread title. if had just been titled: "What Is Rand Paul's position on Medical Marijuana" it probably wouldnt' be in hot topics.

 

[brenden.b]

I'd wager that it is because of the inflammatory and arguably inaccurate thread title. if had just been titled: "What Is Rand Paul's position on Medical Marijuana" it probably wouldnt' be in hot topics.

For the record, I got the title from the article itself, it was not something of my creation.

 

[specsaregood]

For the record, I got the title from the article itself, it was not something of my creation.

Yeah, I got that. My comment was not meant to be a reflection upon you.
But: there is no rule that a thread has to share the title of a linked article.

Esp. when the title is overwhelmingly negative it is a good idea to change or generalize it since the thread titles show up as the web page title and as the main text in search engine results. You could then still keep the negative title in the OP; and mitigate negative search engine results by choosing a different title. just ffr.

 

[brenden.b]

I'll keep that in mind. I apologize for causing a stir, but at least I received the clarification I was looking for and hopefully it clarified Rand's position for a couple other people.

 

[jmdrake]

Are we only permitted to have discussions like this in Hot Topics?

Why is that?

Same reason 9/11 is sent to "Hot Topics". Discussion that may hurt liberty candidates tend to get sent here. Not all, but many. That was one of the initial reasons HT was set up. HT is not indexed by search engines.

 

[erowe1]

Same reason 9/11 is sent to "Hot Topics". Discussion that may hurt liberty candidates tend to get sent here. Not all, but many. That was one of the initial reasons HT was set up. HT is not indexed by search engines.

I don't think this is the same.

No matter how this drug war issue got resolved it would hurt Rand's support with whomever disagreed. But that's just the cost of having a position on something. We shouldn't just reduce the main boards to empty cheer leading of our candidates where we can't talk about whether or not they changed their position on something or whether or not their position is right just to shelter the public from seeing discussions like this one. If the problem was the thread title, that could be fixed.

 

[Zatch]

Does Rand Paul Oppose Medical Marijuana Now?

If the AP article is wrong then he needs to reaffirm his support for medical marijuana. He is going to lose voters over this if it's true:

http://www.google.com/search?q=rand...=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB8QsQQwAA

 

[brandon]

Yea he said he is opposed to it. There are people here who will try to play games with his semantics, as if he was talking in some secret libertarian code, and claim he is not really against it. But he said he is against it. He has said all types of anti-liberty things.

I don't think he will lose voters for it....it will probably be a net gain in voters. But all of his anti-liberty rhetoric has certainly cost him grassroots donors and activists. Just look at the money bomb results....

 

[Sola_Fide]

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.

Good point.


The very idea of federalism is lost today on most people. Statists and collectivists have brainwashed us into thinking that a central authority must take a position on these hot button moral issues like drugs, gay marriage, and abortion.

 

[low preference guy]

Yea he said he is opposed to it. There are people here who will try to play games with his semantics, as if he was talking in some secret libertarian code, and claim he is not really against it.

source?

 

[LibertyEagle]

If the AP article is wrong then he needs to reaffirm his support for medical marijuana. He is going to lose voters over this if it's true:

http://www.google.com/search?q=rand...=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CB8QsQQwAA

He is running for a FEDERAL position. Per the Constitution, he believes it should be left up to the states to decide. So, his personal opinion really isn't germane. Unless you are wanting to know how he personally would vote as a citizen of Kentucky.

 

[Fight-n-Mad]

Rand opposes medical marijuana?

A rumor has started that Rand is against "legalizing marijuana, even for medical purposes". I'm fairly certain that this is false, but it would be nice if Rand would definitively state his position on the issue.

This came from an AP article, it is spreading through the drug reform communities as we speak, and more than a few people are upset about it, to say the least. This is no longer the political hot potato that it used to be. 80% of people nationwide support MMJ, and opposing it has become a very unpopular position.

This is the article that started it: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjUvfyvStB73Umu5vb1sRO8fu0iQD9HI5G6G0
"He said he is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes." (about halfway down)

He really needs to nip this in the bud, and clarify is position. It's already on the MPP and DRCNet blogs:
http://blog.mpp.org/medical-marijuana/rand-paul-now-opposed-to-medical-marijuana/08172010/
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/aug/19/rand_pauls_stupid_decision_oppos

 

[dannno]

The AP printed the statement with no quote backing it. There are no quotes anywhere that indicate anything like this.

However.. it could be that his position is against legalizing for medical purposes at the Federal Level so that states can decide. He absolutely believes that states should be able to legalize cannabis for medicinal purposes.