Quote:The presidential contender says "we need to enforce our federal laws" in states with legal pot

-snip-

Quote: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.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/20/marco-...nforce-our

This would be a flip-flop if Reuters is correct =>

Bush, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Texas Governor Rick Perry have said that states should have the right to determine their own marijuana laws.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/0...A820150309

Rubio's Pres. campaign.

He sometimes seems that he just start rambling and gets himself into trouble.

If the GOP is smart? They will ignore Rubio. I don't see that position gaining any traction with voters.

Republicans like States Rights....but only for their stuff. Democrats hate States Rights....unless its for their stuff.

(04-21-2015 05:12 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  If the GOP is smart? They will ignore Rubio. I don't see that position gaining any traction with voters.

How is it a flip-flop?

Enforcing our borders with other countries is a Federal Issue. Enforcing what happens inside the boundaries of any individual state is not. It sounds to me as if he is personally against legalizing Marijuana, but 'states have their rights'. How is that any different from saying states have the right to determine their own mj laws? It should be obvious that states can't write Federal law.

When there is a conflict between the state laws and the Federal laws, you CAN still enforce Federal laws without violating the state laws. Inter vs Intra-state commerce as an example.

What am I missing?

(04-22-2015 12:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How is it a flip-flop?

Enforcing our borders with other countries is a Federal Issue. Enforcing what happens inside the boundaries of any individual state is not. It sounds to me as if he is personally against legalizing Marijuana, but he repeatedly says things akin to 'states have their rights'.

When there is a conflict between the state laws and the Federal laws, you CAN still enforce Federal laws without violating the state laws. Inter vs Intra-state commerce as an example.

What am I missing?

If that was what he meant, he needs to clarify it. I read it as he is going to shut down the trade within the states.

(04-22-2015 12:57 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  If that was what he meant, he needs to clarify it. I read it as he is going to shut down the trade within the states.

That would be inconsistent with his comment that States have their rights... AND with his similar comment regarding gay marriage... AND with 'Republican' philosophy in general... AND with the Supreme Court.

The feds generally can't write laws regarding intra-state commerce.... only inter-state. I THINK I got those right. They CAN shut down the trade between, but not within the states. What they CAN do is offer 'incentives' (from Federal funds) for states that align their laws with the feds, like they do with alcohol and speed limits and the ACA.... but obviously, states have the right to say no. Smoking pot is not a Federal crime, unless you do it on Federal land. It is a state crime.

I think some people are mislead into thinking that when the feds fail to come into Colorado and arrest people for smoking pot, they aren't enforcing Federal law... but the Feds don't generally have any jurisdiction within the states. They can ban it on Federal land, or Federal buildings, or they can deny people federal, but not state aid or employment if they don't pass a drug test... AND they can regulate any transportation of it across state lines... either in OR out... but generally speaking, not within any state.

There are all sorts of differences between federal and state laws... like capital punishment or guns.

He said states have their rights, then added the caveat:

...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.

(04-22-2015 01:19 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  He said states have their rights, then added the caveat:

...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.

Right. State laws CAN differ from Federal laws and states don't have a right to write Federal policy.

He seems to disagree personally with legalizing pot and tells you why, but he doesn't insist that every state agree with him

That's right out of 'old-school, small central government, Republicanism 101'

I think an important point of libertarianism or any rejuvenation of the Republican party is to stress points just like this.

To me, the reason libertarianism is coming from the center-right and not the left or far right is because the only significant difference between the left and the far right is 'what' is on their lists of individual rights they seek to eliminate. I think MANY on the right would be perfectly happy to let others do as they choose, even if they disagree, so long as they allow 'us' to also do as we choose. I am frankly quite surprised that more liberals don't agree with this... especially in that most of their party is made up of people with 'unpopular' opinions.... and that their coalition is primarily made up of 'you support me so I'll support you' agreements... Yes, that's a bit harshly worded to be brief, but it's true. Most of the right, and even of the religious right don't feel any need to convert atheists or people of other faiths to theirs. Heck, some of them essentially preach that space in heaven is limited, so you don't WANT to convert others... they merely want to be left alone to practice their faith and feel that many on the left are trying to keep that from happening. I can't believe there aren't a fair number of 'minority' belief systems that this wouldn't appeal to.

I'm not going to argue with anything you say, just point out that I didn't interpret his statements the same way as you did.