Why on earth is Ron OK with drug criminalization at the state level?

Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. Amendments 9 & 10 basically give you your answer. The federal government does not have constitutional authority to regulate upon this issue. As per the Constitution, these issues are either State issues or issues for people to decide upon themselves.

Regarding whether or not the States or the Individuals decide, that all depends on the constitution and laws of each State. Also depends on what the people of that State decide as well.

Basically, the federal government should have nothing to do with it. That's Ron Paul's stance.

And think of it from another point of view, if we ever get the federal government out of State business - then the States will be in competition with each other. The best States will earn the support of the people. Taking your dollars elsewhere will truly make a difference when the States decide on most everything, or decide not to decide.

Ron Paul works in Federal Gov't -- so, he wants that power out of the Fed. 300M competing voices to try to overthrow 550 federal gov't officials (who all agree to disagree) plus 100's of lobbyist -OR- 35M compete to overthrow 1 (governor) -- referring to state of California.

Get the power out of central gov't and the people will overthrow the states.

If Ron was a govenor he'd fight to keep the Fed Gov out and probably argue to allow "cities or counties" to make the decision -- pushing the argument more and more onto the individual or community -- where it belongs.

If you get it down to the city then people will vote with there feet.

Imagine you live in Marin County where its legal yet it is illegal in all other bay area counties -- how much money would that county make in sales tax (even if marijuana went un-taxed) -- people would eat there, they'd shop there, they'd move there. The competition would force all other counties to legalize it.

Octobox

It is to do AWAY w/ BIG GOV'T. & the steps to Globalization! Ron Paul is all about SMALL GOV'T. (i.e. state level).

(Keep in mind, people are lumping pot in w/ heroin, X, meth, etc.)
Dr. Paul is obviously not about governing your life & what you do with it. He just wants the Federal Gov't to stay the hell out of it.

The useless Drug War is a Fed run operation. FEDERAL-NOT-STATE. Every state should have it's own law & allocate their part of their state budget on enforcing it. Big Fed Gov't. should stay the f*ck out.

That means that millions-upon-millions of Federal (Not State) tax monies should NOT be used to fight the idiotic War On Drugs.

In addition; people are going to use whether or not you want them to. It is a useless fight to try to govern or stop them. Using the FBI & Fed to fight drugs in every single state is ridiculous & expensive. Punishing people at state level is a lot less expensive & keeps the Fed out.

Is this not an agreeable step?

I'm confused - was Ron Paul not clear about his platform??

Ron Paul is always right-the man is a genius! Letting the states decide would be allowing the people to decide better for themselves, and sometimes with some of these issues, the better way would be gradual instead of drastic changes, too quick a turnabout on some of this would make many panic. and cause chaos.

Ron Paul speaks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M

.
i think states should have the right to regulate drugs for kids and also for driving under the influence and basic public safety issues.
---------------
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement” - Thomas Jefferson

I think Dr. Pauls point was if the states wanted to legislate it, that would be up to the people of the states, the Fed govt. has (or is suppose to have) NO power to regulate drug use. They are there for Post Offices, Military bases, and ports only. They are suppose to deal with treason, counterfitting, and piracy not drugs!

please try not to be offended or to take it personally when Ron Paul tries to appeal to a larger crowd - this is a good thing

He is a constitutionalist.

Libertarians do so much harm to their cause when they insist on a top-down imposition of their beliefs. Another example is Ron Paul not attacking welfare for the neediest. He says that is the LAST area where he would cut government. On the contrary, the agents who control the Libertarian Party spend so much time attacking these relatively small government programs.

Ron Paul promotes decentralization - a very popular idea. Libertarian bozos promote universal capitalist extremism.

regulating the rights of Minors-- a venerated tradition in this country. ;)

I'm not going to get drawn into a long philosophical debate about whether or not it makes sense to allow states to arbitrarily restrict rights based on age. I'm just going to point out that it is a far more reasonable solution than outright prohibition for all.

Ron Paul may not like drugs, but he absolutely hates corruption, violence, and hypocrisy. That is why he want's to repeal prohibition, and allow states to handle regulation.

Could states attempt to pass their own 'prohibitions'? Of course.

Would they be successful? I don't know, but I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't be successful everywhere. In the end there would be some regions of the country where drugs were legalized. These regions provide people living in more conservative states (and the court system) with concrete evidence that life will go on after the end of prohibition.

In short: Paul's in this for the long haul. His position is a compromise. He allows that the states should be left to their own devices when regulating the use of narcotics in order to pacify those living in 'Real America,' and give people living in 'Fake America' a little breathing room.

Paul knows that social costs and economic burden associated with the War on Drugs still operate at the state level, and they too will eventually come to their senses.

Ladies and gentlemen, time is on our side.

You have more control as a citizen. Get involved in state gov. Change your world.

Watch freedomtofascism.com

was saying this so that you and I would have a greater chance in getting laws changed at a state and local level rather that at a federal level.
we just have to get more libertarian minded people elected in our state and local governments.

"Ask not what your country can do
for you, Ask what you can do for
your country."
John F. Kennedy 1961

values. Its normal and natural to have laws that reflect the differences.

Why do some countries have Sharia law, while others don't?

The countries of the old Christendom developed the Doctrine of Just War, trial by jury, and lex rex. Common law and case law came from the precepts of the Mosaic Law, which is in the Holy Bible. That was the way they the people wanted to live. Laws grow out of the fundamental religious beliefs of a group of people, as well they should. When a people change religions, like America is doing (moving from Christianity to secular humanism) the laws will eventually change to accommodate that, but some states change faster than others, or don't change at all. So be it.

Since there are 50 states, you have a choice of 50 different set of laws to abide by. Take your pick, and move to where it suits you. Let Mississippi forbid abortions if the people there want it that way, and let the abortion states die out if they've a mind to. California ought to permit medical marijuana if the Californians want it that way.

There are many reasons why I would never move to Nevada, or California, or New York. New Hampshire is the freest state, but Idaho is the 8th freest, and there are overriding reasons why I remain there instead of moving to New Hampshire.

Ron Paul is right about state's rights.