Republican Jr Senator (PA); 2012 presidential frontrunner
Marijuana is a controlled substance for a reason
Colorado voters in 2012 resoundingly approved a proposal legalizing recreational use of marijuana by adults as did voters in Washington state. Two years later, voters in Oregon, Alaska and Washington, D.C. embraced similar changes.
Some candidates say the federal government should crack down in states that have legalized adult possession.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum said in April that "Colorado is violating the federal law. And if we have controlled substances, they're controlled substances for a reason.
The federal law is there for a reason, and the states shouldn't have the option to violate federal law. As Abraham Lincoln said, you know, states don't have the right to wrong."
Colorado has no right to violate federal drug laws
Colorado is violating the federal law. And if we have controlled substances, they're controlled substances for a reason.
The federal law is there for a reason, and the states shouldn't have the option to violate federal law. As Abraham Lincoln said, you know, states don't have the right to wrong.
There is a difference between legitimate issues of character--someone's behavior--and the issue of whether someone who has done something wrong, 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--because you made a mistake, you can't talk about an 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. It's not hypocrisy, as long as you don't say, 'I thought it was right, and now think it was wrong.' Moments of weakness should not deter people from talking about what they believe is right.
Kids living with married parents less likely to use drugs
Families set standards and demand that their children live up to them. Strong families are grounded in a code of conduct, morality, values, plus judicious use of the age-old sanctions of shame and stigma. And that last part, by the way--parental
ENFORCEMENT of standards. After all, they say, children did not CONSENT to their parents' values.
Beyond the "enforcement," however, healthy families are bound by a unique mixture of unconditional love, commitment, and support. A stable marriage is the
greatest protection for children and the most powerful energizer for their success.
Children living with their married mother and father, as compared to other children, are less likely to get into trouble or use alcohol and drugs. They do better in
school; they get better jobs. No surprise, they also have happier marriages. Teenagers on single-parent households or households with a stepparent are at 1.5 to 2.5 times the risk of using illegal drugs as are teens living with their mother and father.
How many people believe that, in the last 30 years, as a result of the welfare state, the neighborhoods in which people on welfare reside are safer, that crime is less, that the values of the people who are on welfare in second and third generations are
better than they were before? Drugs. Are there less drugs? Are drugs less of a problem in these communities than they were 30 years ago? Is education better in these communities than it was 30 years ago?
Is the family structure better than it was 30 years ago? Oh, what progress we have made, what a system we should defend.
And oh, we dare not try anything that is untested. The problem is, we are stuck with that system right now. We must--we must--face that and change that.
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses.
Vote to increase penalties on certain drug-related crimes. The amendment would specifically target the manufacturing or trafficking of amphetamines & methamphetamines and possession of powder cocaine, and set stronger penalties for dealing drugs
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control.
Vote 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.