“No, I would think that would be an activity that is not consistent with American values.”
Do you support federal bans on state law, Al?
I’ll vote for the candidate that supports state’s rights, not federal authority to impose “American values.”
This stance by Santorum is contradictory to the US Supreme Court Decision in the 2006 case Gonzalez v. Oregon.
As far as your use of a court decision to justify and legitimize your position, need I remind you that a court gave us “legalized” murder in the form of Roe v. Wade, “legalized” sodomy in the form of Varnum v. Brien, “legalized” slavery in the form of “Dred Scott v. Sandford”. No thank you very much!
Just because you don’t like the justice system, doesn’t mean you get to ignore it. I voted “no” on the judges, and will continue to vote “no” as long as our justice system continues to follow Obama and Santorum’s line of thinking of top-down usurpation of state sovereignty from the federal government.
Nice try, Andy. Let’s even go with your spin of this only being about full legalization. If California, Washington, Colorado, or Oregon, vote to fully legalize marijuana, Santorum’s administration will waste federal resources arresting people for doing something legal in their state, rather than let We The People decide.
If Iowa legalizes medical marijuana, Santorum’s administration will take a similar approach.
Okay. So State’s Rights trump every time? So…say Iowa decides that they have the Right to take your property. I guess they can do that because the 10th amendment says so. Good luck with that.
The fact is, Inalienable Rights (and thus Natural Law) trump State’s Rights when something is in opposition to “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God”.
If you really want to smoke weed, just do it. They don’t enforce that law anyway.
Should states have the abilty to decide whether or not patients get medical marijuana?