Paul is also meeting with a prosecutor to better understand the drug problem.
According to the Paul campaign, the facility is 50 years old, has an 86 percent success rate, and was endorsed by Ronald Reagan and the Rev. Billy Graham.
Private-sector initiatives of this sort are wonderful, particularly when they address the spiritual component of addiction and recovery.
But it is critical that Paul recognize the supply-side of the drug equation: drug abuse occurs not just because addicts want a fix, but because dealers are there to provide it at huge profits.
Yes, Kentucky has fields of marijuana and an ever-increasing supply of meth labs (and these are no longer a rural problem). Paul needs to recognize, however, that much of the illegal drug supply comes from out of state. This is a law enforcement problem that cannot be addressed solely on the state level because the distribution is inter-state and often international.
The federal government therefore plays an essential role in combating drug use.
Paul is correct in calling for a more limited role of the federal government, particularly with respect to bailouts and the economy.
When, however, an issue truly affects interstate commerce -- as does the distribution of illegal drugs -- it would be an abdication of federal duty to not step in. Conservatives want limited government, but they also want competent government on those issues that are appropriately within the purview of the federal government.
3 comments:
The issue of whether drugs should be legalized or not is entirely a state issue and not a federal issue. What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to ban drug use? The answer: It doesn't. The state of Kentucky should have every right under the Constitution to legalize any drug, which is Rand's position.
Congress has the right to regulate (including prohibit) "commerce with foreign nations," art I, sec. 8 cl. 3. That includes heroin from Afghanistan, cocaine from Colombia, etc. Likewise, Congress can regulate, including prohibit, the commerce of drugs among the states. Art. I, sec. 8, clause 3.
I agree with you that Congress probably does not have the authority to criminalize or regulate a substance that does not cross state lines or our nation's borders.
Do you honestly believe that touring a facility excuses his remarks. The man appears to have very little interest on discussing issues that relate to our state, but throws out Tea Party talking points garnering him national attention that he hopes to translate into larger political goals.
Post a Comment