Marco Rubio: We need to enforce federal marijuana laws in states where it’s been legalized

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by ogderp, Apr 23, 2015.

  1. Just read this today. First Chris Christie (which was no surprise), now this dumbass. What's even worse is that he's currently the highest polling GOP candidate, but one source said that might only be because he just announced his candidacy a week ago and the poll was taken shortly after he announced. I also heard that he's Sheldon Adelson's favorite candidate so far and the one that he's most likely to financially support, which also doesn't surprise me since Rubio said he'd send the Feds after legal states. I really hope Jeb Bush ends up getting the nomination, at least he said that he'd leave it up to the states and he came in 2nd behind Rubio by only 2 points.

    http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/20/marco-rubio-says-we-need-to-enforce-our

    Marijuana Majority's Tom Angell notes that Chris Christie was not the only Republican candidate who recently indicated that he would try to shut down state-licensed cannabusinesses if elected president. On the same day that talk radio host Hugh Hewitt asked Christie whether he would enforce the federal ban on marijuana against people growing and selling the drug in compliance with state law, he put the same question to Marco Rubio. The Florida senator's response was more ambiguous (or maybe just more confused) than the New Jersey governor's, but it suggested that Rubio would enforce pot prohibition more aggressively than Barack Obama has:

    Hewitt: A lot of people are criticizing the President for not enforcing the immigration laws. He's also not enforcing the drug laws in Colorado and Washington State. If you're the president, will you enforce the federal drug laws and shut down the marijuana trade?

    Rubio: Yes. Yes, I think, well, I think we need to enforce our federal laws. Now do states have a right to do what they want? They don't agree with it, but they have their rights. But they don't have a right to write federal policy as well....I don't believe we should be in the business of legalizing additional intoxicants in this country for the primary reason that when you legalize something, what you're sending a message to young people is it can't be that bad, because if it was that bad, it wouldn't be legal.

    In comparison with Christie, who said he would "crack down and not permit" state legalization of marijuana, Rubio seems to be a bit more concerned about the limits of federal authority, perhaps recognizing that most Republicans, including a substantial share of those who support prohibition, do not think the feds should impose that policy on states that reject it. He is correct that the states do not have the authority to rewrite federal policy, but that does not mean the Justice Department has to step in when states decide to treat marijuana merchants as legitimate businessmen instead of criminals.

    For the most part, the DOJ in recent years has been using its broad enforcement discretion in a way that respects such policy choices. Contrary to Hewitt's gloss, that does not mean it is "not enforcing the drug laws in Colorado and Washington State." In addition to enforcing the rest of the Controlled Substances Act, U.S. attorneys are still pursuing marijuana cases in Colorado and Washington, just not in a way that shuts down the state-legal industry. Rubio apparently opposes that policy of prosecutorial forbearance. By contrast, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, and Rick Perry all have said that states should be free to legalize marijuana without interference by the federal government.

    Issues of state autonomy aside, Rubio's resort to the same "wrong message" argument that Christie favors suggests he has not given the subject much thought. First of all, it is simply not true that people assume legal substances must be safer than illegal ones. In fact, more than two-thirds of Americans agree with Obama that alcohol, a legal drug, is more dangerous than marijuana, an illegal one. And given the big shifts in attitudes toward tobacco and in smoking prevalence during the last few decades, it is absurd to claim that people do not understand that legal substances can be deadly.

    Even if it were true that legal availability implies a drug "can't be that bad," Rubio assumes that using violence against peaceful adults is justified to avoid sending "the wrong message" to teenagers about something they are not supposed to be doing in any case. That proposition is highly debatable, to say the least.
     
  2. They can try, but it wont happen.  Too much momentum, the cannabis revolution is now!
     
  3. What happened to Republicans defending states' rights? They are now pandering to hispanics and defending big government, they must have received a heavy lobby and some vacations from the pharmaceutical companies. How are you just going to go into a state and tell them hey I know you guys voted on this in a completely legal fashion, and this sort of consensus of the governed is the entire basis of all government...
     
    It would speak volumes to delegitimize the federal government, if that did ever occur. 
     
  4. Hope he doesn't get elected.
     
  5. Neo-con republicans for ya. Am I surprised?
     
  6. red meat for the morans
     
  7. Nothing says big government like prohibition.
     
  8. I think this is the last one of these articles I am gonna click on. There is nothing I can do about and they make me see red. It's why I stopped watching the Daily Show.
     
  9. Christie can be easily understood because he is an old dog prosecutor and that's all he knows. And he won't change until the law is changed.
     
    If Rubio knew anything about criminal law, he would know that the purpose of criminal law is 1) the law is supposed to act as a deterrent and 2) the law is meant to punish those who choose not to be deterred! We know from experience that certain behavioral choices are not deterred by criminal laws which is why there are more people in prison for violating marijuana laws than any other crime. We also know from polls conducted over time that the American public has been warming to legalization and that now more than 50% favor even allowing recreational use of marijuana.
     
    But Rubio's problem is quite simple, his response to questions about his position on legalization clearly shows that he lacks knowledge about marijuana issues and made the mistake of opening his mouth and proving it...not Presidential enough for me.
     
  10. The hypocrite probably drinks scotch and wine with a bunch of cops, judges and prosecutors.
     
    Gotta get buzzed and drunk the night before going after harmless stoners for using a medicinal plant.
     
  11. What a fucker. Complete selfishness. We can't let Marco Rubio win, Chris Christie, hell, even Hilary Clinton is against legalization.
     
  12. Yeah, but Obama is against legalization too. I wonder if she would follow Obama's status quo on this issue if she was elected and just not enforce federal law on the legal states. I think that regardless of what states legalize next year or how many end up legalizing, it's all gonna hinge on who our next president will be and wether or not they'll crack down on the industry.
     
  13. Obama and Hilary stance is to let the states experiment with legalization until hard evidence against it surfaces.
     
    Which is night and day compared to the outright attack on legalization you see from Rubio and Christie.
     
    If they were elected a federal crackdown on Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and Alaska would happen the next day.
     
  14. No matter what your political views, now would be a good time to tell Rubio that he will loose a lot of votes that count because of this myopic view. I mean if you care. Remember, Obama never made an executive order about legalizing medical marijuana. He is just giving billions to the Iranians.
     
  15. Rubio was never a contender...  This GOP voter (since 1980) is not going to cast a vote for ANY Congressman or Senator.  Why?
    Because they are complicit in Obama... a walking hoax. 
     
    I ask you... since when does a fraudulent document justify someone?  Barry Obama waived a forgery Long form birth certificate LIVE on tv in 2011; ABC News... it was a document created as a PDF file on the White House Server itself... by the only maintainer of that Server...  the NSA. 
     
    Edward Snowden outed them...  it is all out in the open now... no Ministry of Enlightenment media will ever touch it.  THAT BOUGHT OFF AND PURCHASED MEDIA WHICH OPERATES DIRECTLY OUT OF THE WEST WING ITSELF. 
     
    Every GOP candidate thus far is complicit...  and you cannot wash off that smell of treason off from them.  It is a permanent smell...
     
  16. Now on the subject of State's rights...  remember what so many have already stated?  THAT THIS IS AN EXPERIMENT.  (Legal marijuana is an experiment)
     
    In other words...  those who came out from the underground are legitimately facing Federal Law that will have no date of expiration, and it will never be rescinded.  A crime remains a crime in their view. 
     
    You seen what happened to providers and growers in Montana?  THEY DREAM OF DOING THIS TO COLORADO GROWERS AND PROVIDERS....  always face a jury!!!!   One of us will get on that jury and Nullify what they intend to do to you!!!
     

Share This Page