March 2, 2012 – The average person knows that Ron Paul has an interesting take on almost every issue — including modern drug policy. The specifics of his beliefs, however, are less well-known, which is where I come in. Below, I detail the different drugs-related legislation that Paul has sponsored or supported and examine various statements he has made about drugs during his 24 years in politics.

Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian, interested in limiting government and promoting individual liberties. His ideological bent translates into some of the most radical platforms of all the Republican candidates. His “Plan to Restore America” pledges to cut $1 trillion in spending during his first year as president, as well as to eliminate all the inefficient government programs that infringe upon our civil liberties.

Unlike every other Republican candidate (and unlike the current president), Representative Paul believes that the war on drugs has been a monumental failure and should be eliminated. Essentially, Paul loves liberty as much as he hates the war on drugs. In 2000, he was one of the 15 members of the Republican Liberty Caucus to endorse a position statement condemning the war on drugs. As demonstrated in this 2001 House floor speech, he believes not only that the drug war inherently abuses the Bill of Rights, but also that, as a federal response to drug use and abuse, it creates more problems than it solves, including “encourage[ing] violence” both at home and abroad. Paul has also made the claim that a “compassionate conservative” like himself could not support an ineffective program that fails to recognize that “drug addiction is a medical problem … not a problem of the law.” Demonstrating that “compassion,” in 2008, Paul was the only Republican to support an amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965 that would have repealed the Act’s original provisions prohibiting the awarding of federal financial aid to students previously convicted of a drug offense.

In a 2011 Republican primary debate, Paul argued that the drug war drives our immigration policy, which is enabling our government to “kill thousands and thousands of people.” And in both the 2008 and 2012 primaries, he has consistently called the drug war a racist program that discriminates against inner-city minorities. In fact, Paul has been reiterating this statement since his Presidential campaign in 1988.

Doctor Ron Paul has stood strong against the international drug war not only in rhetoric, but in voting record. In 2001, Paul voted no on an amendment within H.R. 2586 that would have established a task force on counter-terrorism and drug prohibition and allowed military personnel to patrol our borders. He also voted against the Merida Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized Crime Authorization Act (H.R. 6028, 2008), which promised financial assistance to Mexico to combat drug trafficking. The presidential hopeful has also commented that our drug policy negatively influences how the federal and state governments handle other international issues.

So you want to end the war on drugs … what now? Well, Paul would suggest that the first (and only!) thing for the federal government to do is to relieve itself of any legislative authority. Then the states can assume authority over drug legislation. And as discerning Points readers no doubt are aware, Paul has argued that it is not particularly necessary for states to prohibit drug use. In the 2011 South Carolina debate, Paul commented that American citizens do not need the government to tell them not to do drugs like heroin, because most of them would not engage in such activity even if it was legal.

Again, Paul’s record accords with his campaign positions. Concerning the legalization of marijuana at the federal level, in 2005 Paul sponsored and introduced legislation (H.R. 3037) that would amend the Controlled Substances Act by disaggregating industrial hemp from “marijuana” and thus allowing the states to regulate hemp farming. To the dismay of Woody Harrelson and other hemp advocates, the resolution was cleared from the books after sitting stagnant for some time in the House Subcommittee on Health. In addition to supporting hemp, Paul also believes in legalizing medical and recreational marijuana. In 2001, he co-sponsored the States’ Rights to Medical Marijuana Act (H.R. 2592) with Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.). The Paul-Frank partnership continued into 2008 when they co-sponsored the Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults (H.R. 5843), which also failed to move out of Congressional committees. Furthermore, Paul has criticized the current treatment of medical marijuana facilities by the federal government, specifically speaking out against federal raids of medical marijuana dispensaries. These he has called unconstitutional, and has pledges that he will refuse to authorize them when he is president. And all of this is a matter of political principle: While Paul is an ardent supporter of the legalization of marijuana, he has never engaged in the illicit activity.

Paul’s libertarian beliefs extend to the issues of harm reduction, drug testing, and rehabilitation of drug offenders. While in 1999 Paul co-sponsored legislation that would ban federal funding for needle-exchange, 10 years later he updated his position and voted for the Community AIDS and Hepatitis Prevention Act, which specifically funded the same programs. There is little information that explains his change of heart, but noting that his initial opposition to harm reduction occurred during the time in which he was publishing incredibly offensive material about African Americans, gays, and urban populations generally in his newsletter may help us better understand his ’90s mindset.

Concerning drug testing, Paul voted no on a 1998 amendment to H.R. 4550 that would have subjected federal employees to random drug tests. And while he has neither officially opposed nor supported drug testing welfare recipients, it is reasonable to assume that he would oppose the tests — along with the welfare itself. Paul’s distaste for our “welfare state” is aptly demonstrated not only in his 1990 suggestion that New York City be named “Welfaria,” but also in this statement from a 2011 Republican primary debate: “It is not authorized in the Constitution for us to run a welfare state. And it doesn’t work out.”

Source

February 15th, 2012 – Four former B.C. attorneys-general — Colin Gabelmann, Ujjal Dosanjh, Graeme Bowbrick and Geoff Plant — are calling for the legalization of cannabis.

“No, I’m not smoking anything,” Dosanjh cracked when contacted.

“It’s just time – 77 per cent of Canadians are telling us it’s time to change the law.”

The former provincial justice ministers, who cross party lines, on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of academics, four Vancouver mayors, the Health Officers Council of B.C., the Liberal Party of Canada and others who say the 89-year-old marijuana prohibition has failed.

The ex-AGs say regulating and taxing pot will reduce gang crime and violence, raise government revenue, ease the burden on the overcrowded court system, better protect communities and improve health outcomes.

In a letter to Premier Christy Clark and NDP leader Adrian Dix, they cited mounting evidence reinforcing the harms of the current policy.

They said ending the pot prohibition was a “major opportunity for leadership from the provincial government.”

Clark, however, won’t go near the idea with a barge pole.

“I am going to leave the marijuana debate to the federal government,” she told reporters in Victoria.

“It’s in their sole sphere of responsibility so as a premier I respect that former attorneys-general have taken this stand, people who are outside of politics. But as a premier I’m going to leave this to the federal government.”

And in case people didn’t get the message of stiffer drug sentences in the controversial omnibus crime bill, the federal Tories say unequivocally this government won’t discuss legalization.

The four erstwhile AGs said they released their letter in the aftermath of escalating gang violence in the Lower Mainland and recent public shootings.

They wanted to add their weight to the campaign initiated by Stop the Violence B.C., a coalition of law-enforcement officers, legal experts, public health officials and academics from the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, University of Victoria and the University of Northern BC.

“The case demonstrating the failure and harms of marijuana prohibition is airtight,” write the attorneys general in their letter.

“Massive profits for organized crime, widespread gang violence, easy access to illegal cannabis for our youth, reduced community safety and significant-and escalating-costs to taxpayers.”

More than 50,000 or so Canadians are busted every year for possession; throw in 20,000 traffickers and producers, and the so-called war on drugs is costing us as much as $400 million annually in law enforcement, court and corrections.

The AGs’ letter urges provincial politicians to lead the change in marijuana policy and encourage Ottawa to abandon its plans for mandatory minimum sentences for minor and non-violent pot-related offences.

They argue a regulation and taxation strategy will better protect our communities while eroding the profits of organized crime.

“It’s time for our political leaders to accept and act on the overwhelming evidence linking marijuana prohibition to organized crime and gang violence,” said Geoff Plant, who served as Liberal attorney general from 2001 to 2005 in the first administration of Premier Gordon Campbell.

“Punitive laws such as mandatory minimum sentences are clearly not the solution. Instead, taxation and regulation under a public health framework is the best way forward.”

A recent Angus Reid poll commissioned by the coalition found that 77 per cent of BCers surveyed disagreed with the criminal prohibition and that 78 per cent were dissatisfied with the provincial political response to the massive illegal marijuana grow-op industry.

“British Columbians have lost faith in the ability of their elected representatives to enact cannabis laws that are in the public’s best interest,” said Dosanjh, B.C.’s NDP attorney general from 1995 to 2000 and premier from 2000 to 2001.

“Our politicians must take a leadership role in the development of new policies that will end gang violence and create safer communities.”

Last month the federal Liberal Party voted to legalize marijuana, echoing the Senate special committee on illegal drugs (chaired by a Conservative), which 10 years ago urged Ottawa to free the weed, a move first recommended four decades ago by the LeDain Commission.

“Alcohol prohibition did not work in the 1920s and 1930s and marijuana prohibition does not work today,” said Colin Gabelmann, NDP attorney general from 1991 to 1995.

“It’s past time we overturned prohibition and addressed the related problems of gang violence, clogged court systems and the constant drain on the public purse.” By Ian Mulgrew. Source.