http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb_YgzZnbhA

Ron Paul is especially educated as a doctor and a congressman on the both the medical uses of marijuana and the weasely ways of our federal government.. I'm certain he has watched the majority of his fellow congressmen and women wallow in the cesspool of debasement of  their own ideas for a little friendly cash from the private sector. Years of his life spent contemplating what needs to be done to fix this country versus most of his associates contemplating how to exploit their position, their contacts and their insider knowledge to trade stocks, take kickbacks, and get fat jobs in the private sectors in the revolving doors of wall street is what separates Dr. Paul from his brethren.

It rapidly becomes apparent when watching Newt Gingrich discuss legalizing marijuana just how low the man will stoop and how much of his own knowledge of historical facts he will lie about just to appease and pander to the drug warriors.  see this youtube clip for the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXyQy71CRD4

The heart of his argument was 'our founding fathers, like Washington and Jefferson would have come down hard on anyone growing marijuna!" a particular stupid statement from a history professor with a doctorate from Tulane.

Ron Paul on the other hand is able to look at the scientific evidence and the social harms the prohibition has caused and state the real solution to this problem is to remove the laws that are causing the problem, namely the federal drug laws. If one man can see the solution and become president, I am certain he will find a way to change the laws. He  will not be a corrupt crony politician who smoked marijuana in private life, but becomes a drug warrior  in public life, like Clinton, Bush and Obama among probably a horde of others.

Ron Paul has integrity, knowledge and is honest, all things we don't normally get in a President. Isn't it time?

The decision to place cannabis on the Controlled Substances Act Schedules at all, let alone as a Schedule 1 "narcotic" was Administrative, not Legislative. If one President's (Nixon's) henchmen can put cannabis "temporarily" into a Schedule 1 classification (awaiting the results of the Shafer Commission Report), what is to stop another President from directing his subordinates at ONDCP, DEA, and HHS to shift cannabis to Schedule 3 or even off-schedule entirely. -------- Any fair-minded President need only issue a Presidential Order to his administration to codify such an action. Granted, some follow-up legislation would need to follow at both the Federal and State level to equalization, as well as modifying various treaty obligations. A prime example, from Bolivia, is President Evo Morales' decision to withdraw from the UN 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics in order to amend Bolivia's laws that would allow coca plant production for use by their indigenous people, a custom thousands of years old. -------- Thus far, 2 separate DEA Administrative Law Judges have made official recommendations to remove cannabis from the CSA Schedules altogether, effectively completely decriminalizing this plant, but the DEA has refused to comply. The USA government itself has been issued a patent on the medical use of cannabis, #6630507, which belies the official government position that cannabis "has no proven medical value". And at one point, there were over 20 USA medical patients that received Federally grown cannabis directly from ONDPC (from the late 1970's), now down to only a small handful of patients because of involuntary withdrawal from that program due to death. Presidents have had tremendous power since the Civil War, now even more so with the PATRIOT Act and subsequent police state enabling legislation.

 

As the end of prohibition draws closer the actions of the prohibitionists become more desperate to the point where their ramblings become so incoherent and crazy that they actually serve to advance the end of the drug war.

Ron Paul might have some chance at office but the media really targeted him. They ignored him; Fox even said "we won't even talk about Ron Paul', till he took a lead in the polls, then they set on him. And they continually talk of other candidates more seriously who pole less consistently than him. It's an all out media campaign against him.

Ending prohibition is the most important issue under the sun and with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson running for president loudly supporting drug reform and ballot initiatives to legalize cannabis that actually have a chance of passing and elections in Mexico where the drug war is a huge issue, 2012 promises to be a big year for drug law reform.

Although I enjoyed your article it also irritates me. You are just like the rest of the media. You are speaking as if this is a two-party system. Libertarian presidential hopeful Gary Johnson is also running on that same platform. There are other good candidates out there if the media would just recognize that and give them a shot.

from newsletter:

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

If he hates government, what would be wrong with the "blacks" privatizing the "welfare state?" Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction in terms of getting the fed jack boot off the job creators' necks and possible mitigate some of the caucasian losses in the war on Christmas?

"The president can pressure congress to implement sensible reforms..."

really? with this congress?

All this "set the prisoners free!" stuff is just bait. Paul's a pork-addicted (earmarks he rages so self-righteously against) religious fundamentalist/corporatist.

 

Thank god the whole thing is just a side show. My god, imagine your disappointment after the RP
inauguration and it's back to business as usual. You might feel as bad as all those saps that thought o'bummer was gonna close gitmo and ride herd on those animals on Wall St.

Barrack said he would direct federal LE to shitcan the medical marijuana raids designed to intimidate american voters in states that have passed compassionate use laws.

So was he just lying or does POTUS even have the authority (legal or moral) to stand up to the drug warriors, private prison investment boards, big alcohol/tobacco etc etc. Does Paul's commitment to drug reform trump his unshakable faith in big business and the free market solution??

My favorite is the pardoning of 1,000,000 non-violent drug offenders idea. It's the kind of thing that gives Frank Luntz an erection.

The ad will feature a wave of young brown men swamping into white god-fearing and right-thinking communities like a pot-head/gang banger tsunami.

paul's great (on 6 percent of everything) in a perfect world but if you want to change the game forget this Texan hustler, get out your checkbook and donate $200 to LEAP.

Just pray they've yet to be designated a terrorist org that you are providing material support to.

I hope not,but to me Ron Paul is posing as the good Cop.

He is in the race to OVERSHADOW the real ones.

He is a political being,belongs to the system.They are all the same.

Just in case anyone hasn't realized it, we have become a force with political clout developing rather quickly. I personally want to know where every candidate stands on marijuana legalization - as it should be. Similarly, I hope to have a candidate to vote for that supports this issue of marijuana reform and legalization. If we knew where all the politicians stood on this clearly it would be all the better. These damn politicians have people brainwashed into believing that voting is some under the covers guessing game at manipulation. I WANT to vote for a candidate that has a stand on this issue in this election because it is important - very important. I believe that the marijuana legalization issue is the pivotal issue that can give Americans back some measure of control within their own Government.

Divide and conquer is the name of the game, and we should speak loud on the issue, not become divided over the details and candidates. Demanding reform from whomever gets into office is an imperative right now, and making lots of racket so whomever gets in there will know he will be held accountable on this issue. No American should ever be arrested or convicted for possessing or using marijuana ever again. We can make it so now. Vote your conscience make noise, and stand up for what you believe in. Don't let the smoke get in your eyes.

Have any of you actually read the Controlled Substances Act?  The power to add to, remove from, or change the schedules of controlled substances is granted to the Attorney General (in consultation with HHS).  The AG is part of the executive branch, appointed by and working for the president.  So, in theory, all the president has to do is instruct the AG to reschedule marijuana or remove it entirely, and that's it.  That of course assumes the president can control his AG, which doesn't appear to be the case these days.

The other complicating factor is that the AG has delegated this authority to the DEA.  So that old saying about just enforcing the laws doesn't apply to the DEA.  They both make and enforce the drug laws.  A bit of a conflict of interest if you ask me, but such is life.  Still, the president could instruct the DEA to accept one of the MANY petitions to reschedule cannabis.  

So the five things you mentioned are relevant, but more indirect approaches.  Involving Congress really isn't necessary when it comes to legalizing cannabis.  On the other hand, anything done by one president can easily be undone by another.

you did good till the end.. he is not a protest option he is the only option if we want change on more then just the cannabis!  he is for ending the fed, smaller gov, letting states decide how to handle "drugs", noninterevention, ... best we can get with this horse and pony show of a 1 party system.

Couldn't Ron Paul tell his secretary of the HHS to reschedule cannabis? Also, couldn't Ron Paul tell the Justice Department to stop enforcing federal drug laws?

It's the states that amend the constitution; congress can only propose amendments to the states. That process can begin at the state level but traditionally has begun in congress.

The states must ratify any proposed amendment to the constitution; and the states can also propose or initiate amendments; but that has hardly ever happened except at the beginning.

FDR told those who wished to end alcohol prohibition to "make it impossible for me NOT to support you".  FDR knew he couldn't publicly lead the way.  Times have changed and two current presidential candidates are openly calling for an end to marijuana prohibition.  Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.  Will Obama come around by election time?  Not publicly, I think.  Can he control his District Attorneys?  We shall see.  Either way, I don't vote for any man who will lock me up for using cannabis.  Viva Sativa!

Newt is about the scariest thing that could EVER happen to drug reform.

If that psycho gets in, prepare for a nazi police state that you could never dream of!!

I, myself, plan to shake it up in 2012 by voting RON PAUL!

#1: "The president appoints the nation's top drug policy officials"-- that being the case, can Ron Paul get around appointing Republicans to those posts?  What about surveys claiming that the Republican base (and this guy runs as a Republican, right?) is 20 points more hostile to cannabis legalization than Democrats?  Where will Paul find Republicans to appoint who are willing to turn against the Party and all those "constituents" out there?

#5: "The mere act of electing a president who openly supports marijuana legalization or other drug policy reform positions makes a devastatingly powerful statement"-- true, but first how does he get the Republican nomination?

Now I'm not dismissing the idea that it's worth supporting Dr. Paul until the Republican Primary race is decided and then supporting a third party thing if indicated.  Arab Spring (2011) taught us that in these times surprising things can happen fast (remember Art Bell's "The Quickening"?), and there's good evidence (JAMA, January 11, 2012) that an Herb Spring (or Swing) is at hand!   What if August 2012 brought news of a 77% Majority for Legalization?  So I'll keep watching and decide at the last minute whether to "hold nose, vote Barry".

In 1970, Congress placed cannabis into Schedule I on the advice of Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg. His letter to Harley O. Staggers, Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, indicates that the classification was intended to be provisional:

Dear Mr. Chairman: In a prior communication, comments requested by your committee on the scientific aspects of the drug classification scheme incorporated in H.R. 18583 were provided. This communication is concerned with the proposed classification of marihuana.

It is presently classed in schedule I(C) along with its active constituents, the tetrahydrocannibinols and other psychotropic drugs.

Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marihuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue. If those studies make it appropriate for the Attorney General to change the placement of marihuana to a different schedule, he may do so in accordance with the authority provided under section 201 of the bill...

Sincerely yours, (signed) Roger O. Egeberg, M.D.[3]

The reference to "certain studies" is to the then-forthcoming National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. In 1972, the Commission released a report favoring decriminalization of cannabis. The Nixon administration took no action to implement the recommendation, however. 

All Ron Paul would have to do is instruct his AG to place it on Schedule III along with the other pharma cannabanoids.

I would vote for any one that wanted to change marijuana laws

Well when obama had been asked about marijuana he said that he smoked once when he was younger meaning that smoking marijuana is non-addictive

All drugs cant be legalize it is very dangerous...

Well yeah good information what ron paul says ! Can only agree !