Everyone's a Federalist on Medical Pot, Until He's Elected

Herman Cain joins fellow Republican presidential candidates Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and Rick Perry in saying medical marijuana is an issue that states should be free to address as they see fit:

"If states want to legalize medical marijuana, I think that's a state's right," Cain said while campaigning in Iowa. "Because one of my overriding approaches to looking at all  of these issues—most of them belong at the state, because when you do something federally...you try to force one-size-fits-all."

In my dreams, the Republican nominee criticizes Barack Obama, who made similar noises when he was running for president, for flouting the 10th Amendment in this area.

Perry's predecessor as governor of Texas likewise took a federalist position on medical marijuana when he was running for president. His follow-through was about as good as Obama's.

[Thanks to Tom Angell for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I would be startled to see any president actually support federalism, because it diminishes the president's power and let's face it, power is why they run for office.

  • Kristen||

    I just so pleased to see the word "flouting" in this article. Most people incorrectly use "flaunting" when they really mean "flouting". Kudos!

  • ||

    Yes, but presidents flaunt and flout the law.

  • RoboCain||

    You can't be against marijuana in that hat.

  • Ska||

    Very Dolemite.

  • Silky Johnson||

    I hate you, I hate you, I don't even know you and I hate you.

  • Snowbee||

    It would be pretty cool to have a president that can rock a hat like that, I'll be honest. Too bad what's on his head is much better than what's in it.

  • ||

    Love the hat also.

  • Hank||

    Whoa. Cain is striking a serious Judge Doom image there.

  • ||

  • ||

    Maybe these guys are just typical lying politicians. I hope that is the case because there is another possibility. What if the security bureacracy has taken on a life of its own and the President cant' stop this even if he tried? Seriously, what benefit does Obama get by cracking down on these things? Why is he doing it? I am starting to wonder if maybe DOJ just tells him or whoever is the President to just fuck off.

  • Kristen||

    Like the Janissaries. Took the Ottomans a couple hundred years to bring them down.

  • ||

    And sadly it took their country down with them. I look at DOJ as more of a Pretorian Guard.

  • o3||

    they say travel broadens one's perspectives john.

  • Kristen||

    Actually, the Ottoman Empire didn't end until about 90 years after the Janissaries were destroyed. But for all intents and purposes, the Empire was weak sauce after Suleyman died. The only thing that kept them from an all-out invasion by European powers were the favorable trade conditions granted to Venice and others and the fact that at the time Europe couldn't unite even if the Turks threatened to turn St Peter's into a mosque.

  • Randy||

    Think of the WOD as the DOJ, DOC, FOP & Politician Moral Preening/Full Employment Act. Which is really what it is.

  • OWS Dude||

    Yeah but ask him about Libya.

  • ola||

    Why can't reporters, or whoever aksed him the question, aks the obvious followup question? Well Herm, how about a state who wants to legalize just plain old marijuana without the medical adjective?

  • KPres||

    What about medical cocaine?

  • An eye surgeon||

    What a great idea, they should look into that...

  • Snowbee||

    It already sees some use as a local anaesthetic.

  • Monsieur Bobo||

    "most of them belong at the state, because when you do something federally...you try to force one-size-fits-all"

    I'm always enraged when political hacks say ridiculous things like this, as if any decision that affects multiple people wasn't trying to "force one-size-fits-all."

    Was the 13th amendment not forcing "one-size-fits-all?"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He said "most" issues belong to the states. Thus, he implicitly acknowledged that exceptions existed.

    I suspect the 13th Amendment is one of those exceptions in his mind, but why not ask him?

    And what reason do we have to believe that he will violate his word when it comes to medical MJ? Because the other guys did so?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement