What's new
  • As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.

Rand Paul's Quiet Weed Overture

RetroGrow

Active member
Veteran
Rand Paul is changing his tune, for the better, or at least for the sake of pragmatism:

July 25, 2014

"If he runs for president, Sen. Rand Paul will not be your typical Republican candidate. On Thursday the Kentucky senator filed yet another amendment protecting the states that have implemented medical-marijuana laws—as well as the patients and doctors acting in accordance with them—from federal prosecution.

The amendment, attached to the "Bring Jobs Home Act," would allow states to "enact and implement laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana for medical use" without threat of federal interference. The measure would also protect patients in places where medical marijuana is legal (23 states and the District of Columbia) from prosecution for violating federal marijuana laws.

Paul, who is widely believed to be eyeing the presidency, introduced a separate measure in June to stop the Drug Enforcement Administration from using federal funds to go after medical-marijuana operations that are legal under state law. A similar version of the amendment introduced by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Sam Farr easily passed the lower chamber in May, underscoring marijuana's growing national acceptance.

Paul's press person has said that the new amendment, if enacted, would go beyond the Farr-Rohrabacher legislation by providing a more formal framework for protecting states that have enacted medical-marijuana laws.
Share This Story

While passage of the amendment is unlikely—it's not even expected to come up for a vote—the news of its introduction was excitedly written up by a host of advocacy sites, including Hemp News, Stop the Drug War and Ladybud, where advocates encouraged readers to contact their senator in support of Amendment 3630. "When calling or writing, remember that you catch more flies with sugar than honey," advises one post, presumably meaning you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. "Reframing the medical cannabis issue as a human-rights issue, not a partisan one, will also help."

Paul also has been outspoken in his support for industrial hemp, working with his fellow senator from Kentucky, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, to pass a measure earlier this year allowing states to grow industrial hemp for research. The legislation is a boon to farmers in Eastern Kentucky, and while it may seem like little more than a pet project for Kentuckians, marijuana activists have been quietly cheering ever since they first got wind of Paul's plan.

Republicans' views on medical marijuana have been shifting over the past few years and the Farr-Rohrabacher vote in the House is only the most recent proof. Recent polling by the Pew Research Center found most Americans think pot should be legal, in contrast to a decade ago when voters opposed it by a 2-to-1 ratio, and that there's broad agreement that government enforcement of marijuana laws is not worth the cost. One poll from 2013 found that 78 percent of independents and 67 percent of Republicans think government enforcement efforts cost more than they're worth. Younger Americans are even more likely to think so.

A recent story in the Los Angeles Times details why Republicans are slowly embracing marijuana, arguing that the rise of the tea party has given an unforeseen boost to legalization. The story notes tea partiers see the federal government's position on marijuana as an example of government overreach, and quotes Dan Riffle, then a lobbyist with the Marijunana Policy Project, saying Igor Birman, a tea-party candidate looking to knock out Democrat Ami Berra in a congressional swing district in California, is among a growing number of pro-reform Republicans.

"To many political observers, it looks like Rand Paul is already eyeing a run for the GOP nomination for president in 2016," marijuana activist Joe Klare wrote in The 420 Times at the time. "Someone in the White House that supports industrial hemp—and drug-policy reform in general—would be a huge boost to the prospects of actual reform on a federal level."

Marijuana has been called "the sleeper issue of 2016" and something that's only going to get bigger. As a libertarian senator, Paul has long been in favor of decriminalization and is quite clearly the most pro-reform Republican 2016 contender on the issue of marijuana. (While other likely contenders, such as Florida's Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, haven't weighed in on medical marijuana, others, like New Jersey's Chris Christie have come out against it.) Paul has been considered a leader on the issue in Congress, and even sided with President Obama in noting that minorities are unfairly burdened by drug laws. And as Slate's Dave Weigel noted earlier this year, conservatives have stayed with him on the issue, especially as Paul assured them his interest was not in legalizing hard drugs but in reducing minimum sentences. (In 2013 he alienated some activists by claiming the drug was "not healthy").

For now, Paul is not backing away from those marijuana-reform bona fides, and the fact that he's been so outspoken on the issue this summer should encourage activists. Indeed on other issues, such as his position on relations with Israel, he's been massaging his approach ahead of an expected run.

"It's pretty clear that Rand Paul is working hard to appeal to diverse constituencies as he weighs throwing his hat into the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination," Tom Angell, a spokesman for the pro-legalization group Marijuana Majority, said in an email. "With polls showing supermajority support for medical marijuana across virtually every demographic group, it makes sense Sen. Paul would want to be at the forefront of efforts to modernize these outdated federal laws. And with five U.S. House floor votes in a row coming out favorably for cannabis-policy reformers over the past few months, we expect to see more senators realizing that getting onto the winning side of this issue is a smart move."

It certainly might expand the pool of people who'd consider voting for a Republican.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/rand-paul-s-quiet-weed-overture-20140725
 

m314

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I voted for his dad in the primary last time. I don't know if Rand has my vote yet, but this helps. I'd much rather have him as president than the kind of person who usually wins the Democrat and Republican nominations.

Is it possible we could see another Bush / Clinton election in 2016? Is the country that stupid?
 

bentom187

Active member
Veteran
The MSM will push both Jebb and Hillary this upcoming election, weather we want them too or not in an "anyone but Paul" campaign. I still see a randslide coming after all the myths and slanted reporting is debunked.

His RESET act also addresses the weighing of edible MJ , in which they will have to determine the amount of the drug in the food rather than weighing the entire food product, which a Texas kid is facing 99years in jail for.

I'm out of rep, for retro. Sorry brotha.
 

paper thorn

Active member
Veteran
I think the key thing from this article is that 67% of Republicans are pro-mmj/legalize. The establishment knows it but is still afraid to support pot ie 'drugs'.

Still, since the house already passed a similar bill, why on earth hasn't the senate passed it and sent to the pres?

What do we need a Republican Senate and pres to pass pro mmj legislation?
 

dank.frank

ef.yu.se.ka.e.em
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Rand attaches cannabis based legislation to bills he knows are being ignored by the hill in the first place....in my honest opinion.

To me it is nothing more than a gesture - a political motion to garner the attention of a voting base he feels is under represented...

If he was SERIOUS about cannabis legislation - he'd be drafting specific bills rather than trying to back door amendmums on already dead legistlative pieces...

The simple reality is the only PRO-cannabis legislation for years has been coming from the democratic side of the equation. Republicans traditionally fight it tooth and nail.



dank.Frank
 

RetroGrow

Active member
Veteran
Well, a couple of months back, Rand had a different viewpoint. I'm glad he is seeing the light, regardless of his motive. At least there is one candidate I can get behind (not that I can vote). Bush III vs Clinton II would be my worst nightmare.
Posted this before I saw Frank's post. Hopefully, traditions are changing, as the politicians now are forced to pander to the stoner vote.
If Cali goes "rec", I think the entire government will be right behind them. After all, they are the most populous state, and when other states see the tax dollars pouring into Cali and Colorado, they will be lined up to join the party. Also, Jerry Brown is reportedly considering a run for President. His position on cannabis is waffling. He is not for it, but after the rec vote, he may be forced to change his tune.
"As pointed out by Don Fitch at Your Brain On Bliss, Brown, along with most other California politicians, "never fails to vote, legislate and decide in ways favorable to the California lobby heavyweight, the California Correctional Peace Officer's Association. The prison guard's association continues to benefit enormously from the doomed Drug War, growing explosively in membership, pay, benefits, pensions and political power. "The tens of thousands of California prison guards suckle at the public teat of some of the most generous benefits of any public employees," Fitch said.
"The guards and their union lobby relentlessly to maintain the draconian drug laws that turn so many Californians into prisoners, the raw material of the prison industry," Fitch said.
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/06/jerry_brown_just_says_no_to_legal_marijuana.php

More recently:
Jerry Brown Opposes Legalization, Says 'We Need To Stay Alert'
Associated Press Mar 3 2014
California Governor Jerry Brown said he is not sure legalizing pot is a good idea in his state because the country could lose its competitive edge if too many people are getting stoned.
Can't post link, as it's a possibly competing site. Google it if you like.
Bottom line: Brown is a Democrat.
 

dank.frank

ef.yu.se.ka.e.em
ICMag Donor
Veteran
An expressed viewpoint is only words...especially during an upcoming election season.

The PROOF lies in voting history...

Rand is not Ron...



dank.Frank
 

dank.frank

ef.yu.se.ka.e.em
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Don't get me wrong, I hate the oligarchy type "democracy", but how well has the lesser of the evils worked out for us so far????



dank.Frank
 

bentom187

Active member
Veteran
Here is Rand's RESET act , it is legislation. I can remember a lot of the amendments and legislation Ron tried to get passed but failed. I still voted for him on principal. Rand and his votes are libertarian. He is playing politics even if we don't like the sound of it the end's are good for us. You can all decide that on your own with your own research. His father didn't mess around, and I respect the hell out of that, but it's the reason he is not in office.


Here's Rand Paul's Plan To Reform Drug Laws
 

Sforza

Member
Veteran
Hell, even Rick Perry is supporting the decriminalization of marijuana. As a libertarian, I prefer decriminalization to legalization, with all its attendant petty government rules and regulations.

When a Texan Aggie Redneck like Rick Perry is saying he is for decriminalization in order to stay viable in the presidential race, we are on the right track. Who in the hell is going to try to run to the right of Rick Perry?

http://www.ktxs.com/news/rick-perry-supports-decriminalization-of-marijuana/24984908

Rick Perry supports decriminalization of marijuana

In a recent interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Texas governor Rick Perry has again expressed his support to decriminalize marijuana. The last time he spoke of the idea was in January.

Decriminalizing the drug would mean that if someone was caught with a small amount of marijuana, they would not get into trouble.

Unlike Colorado or Washington however, the move would not allow sales and would not be able to bring in tax revenue. However, it could save the state a large amount of money by arresting fewer people for drug offenses.
 
Last edited:

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
in some ways, properly done decriminalization could be better than what we will get as "legalization". if ALL cannabis offenses (growing, selling, etc) were decrimmed & had no more than a $100 fine, I would bite on that bait contrasted to absolutely legal BUT no growing for self consumption and irrational blood/THC % restrictions for driving. if legal, i want to see drug testing for cannabis dropped for employment but with intoxication tests instead. no more getting fired for last weekend...
 

Grass Lands

Member
Veteran
Once again...it doesn't matter who gets in office...lets be Frank about this. His dear old pops Ron Paul was nothing more then a career politician and Rand Paul is nothing more then the same...all we heard out of Ron Paul was we need to do this and we need to do that...but nothing was ever done in regards to the shit he was spewing...while we sit and have to worry about what tomorrow will bring, these rich career politicians sit back and laugh their asses off at us....do you all really think these fucks give on rats ass about us...hell no they don't.

politiciansdeesvote1.jpg
 

RetroGrow

Active member
Veteran
Hell, even Rick Perry is supporting the decriminalization of marijuana. As a libertarian, I prefer decriminalization to legalization, with all its attendant petty government rules and regulations.

When a Texan Aggie Redneck like Rick Perry is saying he is for decriminalization in order to stay viable in the presidential race, we are on the right track. Who in the hell is going to try to run to the right of Rick Perry?

http://www.ktxs.com/news/rick-perry-supports-decriminalization-of-marijuana/24984908

Rick Perry supports decriminalization of marijuana

In a recent interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Texas governor Rick Perry has again expressed his support to decriminalize marijuana. The last time he spoke of the idea was in January.

Decriminalizing the drug would mean that if someone was caught with a small amount of marijuana, they would not get into trouble.

Unlike Colorado or Washington however, the move would not allow sales and would not be able to bring in tax revenue. However, it could save the state a large amount of money by arresting fewer people for drug offenses.

Wait a minute. In my mind, decriminalization has always been the "proper" term, since it never should have been criminalized to begin with. To say it's "legal", is like saying carrots are legal. It's a plant, and a bible thumper like Perry knows what the bible says about "all" plants. This parsing of the language has become absurd. As far as their rules & regulations, they can cut their noses to spite their faces, but the model that brings in tax revenue in a sensible manner, such as Colorado's, will win out in the end. After all, we have already demonstrated that we will disobey unjust laws, as they should be, so we will just continue to do that until they get it right, or until they stop treading on us altogether. They have been wrong all along, and Rick Perry has been one of them. Now that they see that stoners have become a political force, they are changing their tunes, and the pandering has begun. We should not accept any compromise as a victory. Nothing short of total decriminalization and the right to grow any food or plant we want in any numbers we want. The free market will take care of the rest.
 

bentom187

Active member
Veteran
Not to get to far off topic, but the judge just did a write up about this. I thought I would share. We are sort of stuck until someone who is smart and honest is in office then we can have wiggle room to delegitimize the system.The question at the end is one to ponder thoroughly. There is no easy solution.

What If Democracy Is a Fraud?
By Andrew P. Napolitano

July 24, 2014

What if you were allowed to vote only because it didn’t make a difference? What if no matter how you voted the elites always got their way? What if the concept of one person/one vote was just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance?

What if democracy as it has come to exist in America today is dangerous to personal freedom? What if our so-called democracy erodes the people’s understanding of natural rights and the reasons for government and instead turns political campaigns into beauty contests? What if American democracy allows the government to do anything it wants, as long as more people bother to show up at the voting booth to support the government than show up to say no?

What if the purpose of contemporary democracy has been to convince people that they could prosper not through the voluntary creation of wealth but through theft from others? What if the only moral way to acquire wealth is through voluntary economic activity? What if the government persuaded the people that they could acquire wealth through political activity? What if economic activity includes all the productive and peaceful things we voluntarily do? What if political activity includes all the parasitical and destructive things the government does? What if the government has never created wealth? What if everything the government owns it has stolen?

What if governments were originally established to protect people’s freedoms but always turn into political and imperialist enterprises that seek to expand their power, increase their territory and heighten their control of the population? What if the idea that we need a government to take care of us is a fiction perpetrated to increase the size of government? What if our strength as individuals and durability as a culture are contingent not on the strength of the government but on the amount of freedom we have from the government?

What if the fatal cocktail of big government and democracy ultimately produces dependency? What if so-called democratic government, once it grows to a certain size, begins to soften and weaken the people? What if big government destroys people’s motivations and democracy convinces them that the only motivation they need is to vote and go along with the results?

What if Congress isn’t actually as democratic as it appears? What if congressional elections don’t square with congressional legislation because the polls aren’t what counts, but what counts are the secret meetings that come after the voting? What if the monster Joe Stalin was right when he said the most powerful person in the world is the guy who counts the votes? What if the vote counting that really counts takes place in secret? What if that’s how we lost our republic?

What if the problem with democracy is that the majority thinks it can right any wrong, write any law, tax any event, regulate any behavior and acquire any thing it wants? What if the greatest tyrant in history lives among us? What if that tyrant always gets its way, no matter what the laws are or what the Constitution says? What if that tyrant is the majority of voters? What if the majority in a democracy recognizes no limits on its power?

What if the government misinforms voters so they will justify anything the government wants to do? What if the government bribes people with the money it prints? What if it gives entitlements to the poor and tax breaks to the middle class and bailouts to the rich just to keep everyone dependent on it? What if a vibrant republic requires not just the democratic process of voting, but also informed and engaged voters who understand first principles of human existence, including the divine origin and inalienable individual possession of natural rights?

What if we could free ourselves from the yoke of big government through a return to first principles? What if the establishment doesn’t want this? What if the government remains the same no matter who wins elections? What if we have only one political party — the Big Government Party — and it has a Democratic wing and a Republican wing? What if both wings want war and taxes and welfare and perpetual government growth, but offer only slightly different menus on how to achieve them? What if the Big Government Party enacted laws to make it impossible for meaningful political competition to thrive?

What if the late progressive Edmund S. Morgan was right when he said that government depends on make believe? What if our ancestors made believe that the king was divine? What if they made believe that he could do no wrong? What if they made believe that the voice of the king was the voice of God?

What if the government believes in make believe? What if it made believe that the people have a voice? What if it made believe that the representatives of the people are the people? What if it made believe that the governors are the servants of the people? What if it made believe that all men are created equal, or that they are not?

What if the government made believe that it is always right? What if it made believe that the majority can do no wrong? What if the tyranny of the majority is as destructive to human freedom as the tyranny of a madman? What if the government knows this?

What do we do about it?
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
Don't get me wrong, I hate the oligarchy type "democracy", but how well has the lesser of the evils worked out for us so far????
dank.Frank

well, I know for a fact that voting for the greater of two evils is worse than voting for the lesser. aint much of a choice, but it is what we got, as was mentioned earlier..."better the devil you know than the one you don't..." i'll take a minor demon over ol' Beelzebub hisself anytime.
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
I think the key thing from this article is that 67% of Republicans are pro-mmj/legalize. The establishment knows it but is still afraid to support pot ie 'drugs'.

Still, since the house already passed a similar bill, why on earth hasn't the senate passed it and sent to the pres?

What do we need a Republican Senate and pres to pass pro mmj legislation?
I don't think the Senate will take it up until after the midterms coming up. it is too close to call as to who controls the Senate after this fall, & the Democrats in charge there do not want to give the GOP any ammo between now & then. "VOTE FOR US! we DID NOT vote to give your children marijuana!" if the Dems still control the Senate after midterms, I'd say it is a done deal then...
 
Top