The Republican Candidates on Marijuana

As we approach the middle of January, Election 2012 is in full swing. Fresh off of the Iowa Caucuses, the six remaining Republican candidates move on to New Hampshire for their January 10th primary. As a non-profit organization, we are not permitted to endorse candidates for public office, but we hope this guide helps inform you of the marijuana policy positions of the various candidates.

(Note: NORML is not endorsing any of the candidates listed below and this is intended only as an educational overview of the candidates positions on marijuana policy.)

Republican Presidential Candidates 2012

Ron Paul

House of Representatives for Texas’ 22nd (1976-1977, 1979-1985, 1997-Present)

Public Statements:

“This war on drugs has been a detriment to personal liberty and it’s been a real abuse of liberty, Our prisons are full with people who have used drugs who should be treated as patients — and they’re non-violent. Someday we’re gonna awake and find out that the prohibition we are following right now with drugs is no more successful, maybe a lot less successful, than the prohibition of alcohol was in the ’20s.”

(Comments Post-Iowa Caucus, 01/04/12 – source)

“Well, removing [marijuana] from the jurisdiction of the federal government and allowing the states to regulate it, like they would alcohol. And this seems to be strange for a lot of people, but I’m only going back to 1937 when that’s the way it was handled. The states always did this, and I’m motivated strongly also because the states legalize it for the use of medicinal purposes and it is helpful to people who have cancer or are getting chemotherapy. So this is not a huge radical idea, it’s something that was legal for a long, long time. And the war against marijuana causes so much hardship and accomplishes nothing. So I would say that marijuana, as far as causing highway problems, is miniscule compared to alcohol, and yet we knew prohibition of alcohol was very bad. So this is just getting back to a sensible position on how we handle difficult problems. And, for me, it should be the states.”

(Kudlow Report, June 23, 2011 - source)

“The role of the federal government is to protect our liberties. That means they should protect our religious liberties to do what we want; our intellectual liberty, but it also should protect our right to do to our body what we want, you know, what we take into our bodies.”

(Jay Leno Show, Dec. 2011 – source)

UPDATED 01/12/12

“Q: Why don’t the other candidates talk about drug policy?

Ron Paul: I think they are easily intimidated and they think people are going to hold it against them if they talk sensibly about drug policy.  Yet I think they are about 20 years behind the time. I think prohibition of anything doesn’t work, the only thing we should prohibit is violence.”

(Manchester, NH January 10, 2012 – source)

Prior Activity:

Co-sponsored HR 2306: Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011

Sponsored HR 1831: Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011

Rick Santorum

House of Representatives for Pennsylvania’s 18th District (1991-1995)

US Senator from Pennsylvania (1995-2007)

 

Public Statements:

“There is a difference between legitimate issues of character — someone’s behavior — and the issue of whether someone who has done something wrong in their life, now because of those mistakes, can’t talk about what is the right thing to do. Politicians who have stumbled personally, are capable of making values-based arguments. I don’t think that’s hypocritical. That’s a dangerous line that many folks tend to cross over — that because you made a mistake, you can’t talk about this or that issue. We all make mistakes.

For example, I smoked pot when I was in college. Does that mean that I can’t talk about drug use? Does that mean that I can’t talk about how that’s a bad thing? Of course not. You learn from those experiences.

Even during that time, I knew that what I was doing was wrong. But just because I failed, that does not mean that I shouldn’t be able to talk about it. That’s a different issue. It’s not hypocrisy, as long as you don’t say, ‘I thought it was right, and now think it was wrong.’ If you knew what was going on, and mostpeople do, you have moments of weakness. It happens to all of us. But that should not deter people from talking about what they believe is right.”

(National Review, March 2011 – source)

 

“Well, yeah, I admitted you know, back when I was running for the Senate, that when I was in college that I smoked pot and that was something that I did when I was in college. It was something that I’m not proud of, but I did. And said it was something that I wish I hadn’t done. But I did and I admitted it. I would encourage people not to do so. It was not all it’s made up to be.”
(Piers Morgan Tonight, August 31^st, 2011 – source)

 

“I would think that [legalizing marijuana] would be an activity that is not consistent with American values.”
(Ames Straw Poll, September 2011 – source)

 

“I am adamantly opposed to the legalization of marijuana and other illegal narcotics I believe that this would lead to increased drug usage, especially among young people. While it is true that many Americans blatantly defy federal laws against the trafficking, sale, and use of illegal drugs, I believe a greater number of people are deterred from illegal drug use by the threat of arrest and prosecution.”

(1998 Constituent Letter Supplied to NORML – source)

 

“I believe that the drugs which are currently illegal should remain illegal. I am committed to maintaining the federal government’s role in the “war on drugs”, which is fought on many fronts by federal agents, local law enforcement, substance abuse counselors, teachers, parents, and concerned citizens.”

(1998 Constituent Letter Supplied to NORML – source)

 

UPDATED 01/09/12:

“Q: As a champion of family values and keeping America strong, would you continue to destroy families by sending non-violent drug offenders to prison?

Santorum: Uh, wow. The federal government doesn’t do that.”

(College Convention 2012 in Concord, NH – source)

 

“Santorum: I guess I would take the opinion that federal laws are laws that are in place right now that say these are narcotics, right?  I don’t know, I assume they are…

 Audience Member: I’m sorry, they’re not.

 Santorum: Ok, alright, I don’t know my medical marijuana laws very well. I know should know everything, but I don’t, I apologize, I’m trying my best. But I think they are a hazardous thing to society. So I would..

 Audience Member: How did you form that opinion?

 Santorum: I formed that opinion from my own life experiences, and having experience that…I went to college too. So, I would make the argument that states have the rights, but they don’t have the right to do anything they want to, states don’t have the right to sterilize people. They did at one time, but we said, “No, we aren’t going to do that anymore.” States under the constitution probably have the right to do it, just like they have the right to do marijuana laws…legally, but I don’t think they morally have the right to do things that are harmful to the people in their community and therefore I think the federal government should step in.”

(College Convention 2012 in Concord, NH – source)

 

“Q: I’m a marijuana user should I be arrested?

Santorum: Well, depends on what the laws in your state are, I guess.”

(Hollis, NH on January 7, 2012 – source)

 

“Well you know, obviously state drug laws are the principle drug laws. I have concerns about obviously drug use and its impact on our society. So, I would say that the federal government does have a role, that states don’t go out and legalize drugs, there are drugs that are hazardous to people, that do cause great harm to both the individual as well as to society as a whole. The federal government has a role to make sure that those drugs are not in this country and not available and that people who use them illegally are held accountable. Ideally, states should enforce these laws, but the federal government has a role because it is a public health issue for the country.”

(Nashua, NH on January 9, 2012 – source)

Prior Activity:

Voted ‘Yes’ on HR 3540 in 1996 to add an additional $53 million (raising the total to $213 million) to international narcotics control funding, and pay for it by taking $25 million from international operations funding and $28 million from development assistance.

Newt Gingrich

House of Representatives for Georgia’s 5th District (1979-1999)

House Minority Whip (1989-1995)

Speaker of the House (1995-1999)

Public Statements:

“I think Jefferson or George Washington would have rather strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana and their techniques with dealing with it would have been rather more violent than our current government.”

(New Hampshire Voter Event, January 2012 – source)

“I would continue current federal policy, largely because of the confusing signal that steps towards legalization sends to harder drugs…I think the California experience is that medical marijuana becomes a joke. It becomes marijuana for any use. You find local doctors who will prescribe it for anybody that walks in.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011 – source)

“I don’t have a comprehensive view. My general belief is that we ought to be much more aggressive about drug policy. And that we should recognize that the Mexican cartels are funded by Americans. In my mind it means having steeper economic penalties and it means having a willingness to do more drug testing.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011 - source)

“I think that we need to consider taking more explicit steps to make it expensive to be a drug user. It could be through testing before you get any kind of federal aid. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, you name it.

It has always struck me that if you’re serious about trying to stop drug use, then you need to find a way to have a fairly easy approach to it and you need to find a way to be pretty aggressive about insisting–I don’t think actually locking up users is a very good thing. I think finding ways to sanction them and to give them medical help and to get them to detox is a more logical long-term policy.”

(Yahoo! News Interview, November 28th, 2011 - source)

UPDATED 01/09/12

“Q: I’m a recreational drug user, should I arrested?

Gingrich: No you shouldn’t be arrested, but you also shouldn’t do it.”

(January 4, 2012 at Concord, NH Town Hall Meeting – source)

“Gingrich: There is a general belief over the last couple hundred years that people who are drug addicted citizens are not capable of participating as independent citizens. They are not capable of exercising independent judgment. So if you look at cocaine and heroin addicts, they loose the ability to be fully participating citizens.

Q: That doesn’t seem to match with the consistency of how many people seem to use drugs in this country. So, I’m saying well over the majority of individuals in this country use or have used drugs, what you are saying is the majority of individuals are incapable of participating…

Gingrich: No, what I’m saying is even among the majority of those who have would agree they shouldn’t be legalized.

Q: What polls are you referring to?

Gingrich: The polls in terms of legalizing heroin and cocaine, there’s never been any support for that.

Q: Oh, well I’m talking about marijuana.

Gingrich: Well…I’m just talking about cocaine and heroin.”

(Gingrich Town Hall in Concord, NH, January 4, 2012 – source)

UPDATED 01/12/12

“Every place where drugs become legalized, matter of fact is more people on welfare, more people who are dependent, more people with bad health outcomes, fewer people who are able workers who can pay attention on the job, and a drain of money into illegality.  Because immediately behind legalized marijuana, comes cocaine and heroin. And the very people who were busy selling marijuana branch into even more aggressive sale of the harder illegal drugs.  So, I think it is a big net economic loss and a job killing idea.”

(Florida, 2009 – source)

Jon Huntsman

Governor of Utah (2005-2009)

US Ambassador to China (2009-2011)

Public Statements:

“Question: would you prosecute growers and sellers of marijuana in states where it has been made legal?

Jon Huntsman: I would let states decide that.”

(Townhall in Exeter, NH, June 2011 – source)

“I never saw him inhale.”

(Huntsman’s Childhood Friend in Politico – source)

Prior Activity: None

Ask the Republican Candidates Where They Stand on Cannabis Reform

Google and Fox News will host a debate between Republican primary candidates in Orlando on September 22nd. Similar to the “social media townhalls” President Obama has previously hosted, this debate will consist exclusively of questions submitted by the public. This forum provides advocates with a unique opportunity to put these presidential hopefuls on record regarding their position on marijuana law reform.

NORML has submitted a question for consideration:

“As president, would you stand up for states’ rights by ending federal marijuana prohibition and allow them to experiment with models of decriminalization and legalization without federal interference?”

Here is how you can voice your support and promote this question:

Step 1: Go to Fox News’ Youtube page here.

Step 2: Click the “Vote” tab at the top of the page.

Step 3: In the topics box, select “Social Issues”

Step 4: Click “Video Questions.”

Step 5: You should see our video question towards the top of the list, look for the NORML logo in the thumbnail. Click the thumbs up icon next to the question.

The current line up of candidates have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from the current policies of President Obama, yet most have remained silent on the topic of marijuana law reform (that is, of course, excluding Ron Paul). Take a moment of your time to vote up our question, if these candidates want your vote, don’t you deserve to know where they stand on cannabis?

The Heritage Foundation: A Last Refuge For Reefer Madness?

Last week the Heritage Foundation embarrassed itself again with an online essay from Cully Stimson, where Mr. Stimson abandons his and the Foundation’s supposed conservatism and free market principles in favor of maintaining the untenable bureaucratic ‘sacred cow’ of the federal government’s expensive, Constitution-twisting and self-evidently failed eight-decade-old Cannabis Prohibition.

Stimson’s “proof” that medical cannabis is a scam…an Andrew Breitbart-like edited videotape taken by rabid prohibitionists in the early 1990s which sought to ‘expose’ the supposed great medical cannabis hoax.

Stimson’s and the Heritage Foundation’s pathetic attempt to propagandize against the ending of Cannabis Prohibition (gee, do you think the pending passage of Prop. 19 has the Reefer Madness-types nervous?) will likely be as successful as the ‘medical marijuana is a hoax’ videotape was at stopping over a dozen states from adopting medical cannabis laws, imprisoning medical cannabis patients (the Drug-Free America Foundation actually sent a copy of the videotape to federal judge Charles Breyer just before he was going to sentence cannabis cultivation expert and activist Ed Rosenthal…to one day served) and deterring a future President from supporting medical access to cannabis, which is to say, not at all.

Take a moment to read Stimson’s rant and watch the video here, then, read the strongly-worded rebuttal below of Stimson’s ironic target for his pro-federal government and anti-free market propaganda: co-founder of Young Americans For Freedom, Yale graduate, Texas oilman, capitalist, William F. Buckley confidant and former NORML director Richard Cowan.

To the Heritage Foundation:

Richard Cowan responds to “The High Priest of Medical Marijuana” by Charles “Cully” D. Stimson.

October 12, 2010

I am the Richard Cowan cited in this absurd posting. And yes, I am very proud to say that I was once the National Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

However, there are two more facts about me that I would like Heritage readers to know before addressing the substance of the issue.

First, I am also a founding member of Young Americans for Freedom, and like most of the founders, I was – and still am – a libertarian. I do not now nor have I ever thought that freedom is a “scam”, nor do I believe that lying is either necessary or acceptable in the struggle against the omnipotent state.

Second, I am also the author of an article, “THE TIME HAS COME: ABOLISH THE POT LAWS”, published in the December 6, 1972 issue of National Review. Bill Buckley said, “”I flatly agree with him.” In fact, Bill wrote very frequently in support of legalization over the years.

Something else he said makes a point that Heritage completely misses:
“One of the problems that the marijuana-reform movement consistently faces is that everyone wants to talk about what marijuana does, but no one ever wants to look at what marijuana prohibition does. Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.”

Was Buckley a part of this “scam”? And what about George Shultz? Or Milton Friedman? Or most of the current editors of National Review, and many other prominent conservatives? Or Ron Paul?

Or do you prefer the company of Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama?

Now for the substance of the charge that in 1993 I said that medical marijuana or legalization or whatever is a “scam”:

What would it prove, if I really had said that? It would seem to me that it would prove nothing more than that I was – perhaps still am – both evil enough to tell a dumb lie and stupid enough to announce it as such in public.

In short, the video proves nothing whatsoever about either medical marijuana or legalization, but I think it does prove something about the profound intellectual dishonesty of anyone who would try to use it for that purpose.

History:
At a conference on medical marijuana and LSD (about which I had no comment) I was asked whether NORML, which was founded with the stated goal of ending marijuana prohibition, had abandoned that objective and was only working for medical marijuana.

My answer was intended to reassure everyone that our goal had not changed, and to explain how I thought that proving the value of medical marijuana would help us. As I said, having marijuana used by a large number of people under clinical supervision would refute the “reefer madness” prohibitionist propaganda that supported the massive state violence inherent in the “Drug War.” Of course, I had clearly under estimated the intellectual dishonesty of people like Mr. Stimson.

These conferences are always open to the public, so apparently someone from a prohibitionist group, probably Mel Sembler’s Drug Free America Foundation was there with a camera. (I assume that is where you got the video. Google: ‘Mel Sembler’ + ‘Straight Incorporated’, and then re-reread what Buckley said.)

Shortly after the conference the statist propaganda mills began to claim that I had said that medical marijuana is a “scam.” Oddly, even the heavily edited version of the video does not support that interpretation. If one listens closely, I said that the “whole scam will be blown.”

?

Would I really dumb enough to say that our position is a “scam” and then say it will be “blown”? And then we are supposed to clever enough to pull off the scam???

Of course, thanks to the editing you cannot hear me saying in the next sentence, “I mean what we know is that marijuana prohibition is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people…”

If that seems hyperbolic, consider that 17 years later a prominent think tank that claims to be “based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense” is still pushing third rate collectivist propaganda based on dishonest editing and absurd arguments in support of a disastrous scam that undermines individual freedom, blocks scientific research, destroys the political stability of a vital neighbor, circumvents property rights and due process, funds terrorists, and subverts the rule of law.

And you call yourselves “Conservatives”?

-Richard Cowan

Pew: Broad Public Support For Legalizing Medical Marijuana

No fooling. On Friday, April 1st the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released a report looking at both public support for medicinal access to cannabis as well as the larger issue of legalization.

The results of the Pew survey confirm previous NORML reports about the overall popularity of cannabis law reform despite 73-years of cannabis prohibition:

-Strong and undeniable public support now exists nationwide for medical patients having access to cannabis;

-A fast growing plurality of Americans now support outright legalization of cannabis

With a growing number of states moving to legalize medical marijuana, nearly three-quarters of Americans (73%) say they favor their state allowing the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes if it is prescribed by a doctor, while 23% are opposed. Support for legalizing medical marijuana spans all major political and demographic groups, and is equally high in states that have and have not already passed laws on this issue.

There are public concerns about legalizing medical marijuana. For example, 45% say they would be very or somewhat concerned if a store that sold medical marijuana opened near other stores in their area. And roughly the same percentage (46%) says allowing medical marijuana makes it easier for people to get marijuana even if they don’t have a real medical need – though just 26% of Americans say this is something that concerns them. These concerns are highest among opponents of legalizing medical marijuana, but are no higher or lower in states that already allow marijuana for medical purposes.

Far more Americans favor allowing marijuana for prescribed medical purposes than support a general legalization of marijuana. But the proportion who thinks the use of marijuana should be legal has continued to rise over the past two decades.

The most recent national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 10-14 among 1,500 adults on landlines and cell phones, finds that 41% of the public thinks the use of marijuana should be made legal while 52% do not. In 2008, 35% said it should be legal and 57% said the use of marijuana should not be legal, according to data from the General Social Survey. Twenty years ago, only 16% of the public said the use of marijuana should be legal and 81% said it should not be legal.Far more Americans favor allowing marijuana for prescribed medical purposes than support a general legalization of marijuana. But the proportion who thinks the use of marijuana should be legal has continued to rise over the past two decades.

Read entire report and view the numerous survey charts with cross tabulations here.

Ending The Bipartisan War On Pot!

For far too long the federal government’s war on cannabis consumers has been a bipartisan effort.

At worst, politicians of both political persuasions have proactively lobbied for tougher pot penalties (or actively opposed efforts to amend such laws); at best, leaders of both major parties have done nothing at all.

When will this situation change? When the core constituency of both major political parties — Republican and Democrat — compel their leaders to make drug law reform a primary part of their legislative platforms.

In practice, this means that Republican leaders need to know that their base cares just as much about marijuana law reform as they do about shrinking the size and scope of government. Conversely, Democrat leaders need to be made aware that their supporters are just as passionate about ending the war on cannabis consumers as they are about addressing issues like climate change and health care.

Is this day coming?

NORML Advisory Board Member Norm Stamper believes so. Writing today on the Huffington Post blog he proclaims, correctly, that a record number of influential progressive publications and pundits are now calling for fundamental changes in drug law reform. A quick review of conservative-leaning websites and periodicals identifies a similar trend.

For decades conventional political wisdom has dictated that drug law reform is the so-called ‘third rail’ of mainstream politics, when in fact just the opposite is true. American voters of all political persuasions are ready to embrace common-sense marijuana policies.

The question is now: Are they ready and willing to demand them from their political leaders?