While the media of late tends to focus on the new crop of states resisting DC with legislation on firearms and health care, they almost always miss, or ignore, what I consider to be some of the greatest and most effective state resistance to federal power – marijuana activism.

According to our friends at NORML, there are now 13 states who are openly resisting federal laws on medical marijuana. And now my home state of California is on the verge of taking it to the next level – full legalization.

According to a report in the SF Chronicle yesterday:

Two prominent East Bay marijuana advocates got clearance from the state today to try to put a pot-legalization initiative on the November 2010 California ballot.

This isn’t your run-of-the-mill “medical marijuana” bill – that’s already legal in CA. If approved by voters, the bill would:

allow anyone over 21 to possess or grow marijuana for personal use. It would allow each local government to decide whether to tax and regulate marijuana sales.

Any honest person reading the Constitution through the intent and understanding of the founders would recognize that the federal government has no delegated power to be involved in the marijuana issue, in any way.

Keep in mind, though, that the federal courts (and the DEA), don’t really care what the Constitution has to say about it. They’ve interpreted it in their own way, and have made it quite clear that they don’t recognize state marijuana laws as “valid.”

But, as we say here in California, thanks for your opinion, DC, we’ve got our own.

My home state of California usually interacts with the federal government by genuflecting.  But, on a few issues – very few, that is – they’ve got plenty of backbone.

Most notably, marijuana.

Last week, the California State Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 14 (SJR14), calling on the federal government to end their “interference in state medical marijuana laws.”  If passed by the Assembly, it will be sent on to Congress and the White House as an official position of the California legislature.

THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE

Under the Constitution of the United States, the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which have been delegated to it by the People.   This is affirmed by the ratification of the 10th Amendment, which states, ”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The federal government has often taken the position that it can still wage its “war on marijuana” under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  But, some experts see this kind of explanation as quite a stretch.

Most importantly, the Interstate Commerce Clause, as understood by the founders, was meant to empower the federal government to regulate trade among the states.  One of the chief concerns this addressed was preventing States from imposing restrictive taxes on goods coming from other states.

The Founders, however, made it quite clear that this would not authorize the government to take over fields like agriculture.  Clearly, this hasn’t stopped today’s politicians and judges from turning that original meaning nearly upside down.

FIREARMS TOO

While the stand off on state marijuana laws has been going on for over a decade, firearms is a new front in the Commerce Clause debate.

This year, both Montana and Tennesse passed a “Firearms Freedom Act” taking the position that guns manufactured in state, sold in state, and kept in state – would not be subject to federal laws and regulations under the Commerce Clause.

So far, the only response has been a sternly-written letter from the assistant director of the ATF stating his position that federal law supercedes state law – and the federal government intends to continue its current regulations.

A coalition of the Montana Sports Shooting Association and the 2nd Amendment Foundation is planning a court challenge “to the federal government’s insistence it will regulate those items.”

LEAVE IT TO THE STATES

According to Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), this is an issue that should be left up to the states.  He said, “The federal raids on medicinal marijuana providers have dissipated since Eric Holder was sworn in.  That said, the DEA has continued to be involved in a handful of raids in California — each time in cases that appeared to have been solely state matters (e.g., providers were alleged to be involved in state tax disputes or in violation of local ordinances), particularly based on the fact that federal charges were never filed.  If the Obama administration is really serious about leaving this issue solely up to state governments — as it should be — then the federal DEA ought to be leaving the voters of the thirteen states that have enacted medical marijuana policies alone.”

PROMISES MADE, PROMISES BROKEN?

As more states have passed medical marijuana laws, it’s become increasingly difficult and costly for the federal government to enforce its laws.  The Obama Administration has promised to end interference in state medical marijuana programs, but numerous federal raids since January have California lawmakers concerned.

SJR14 Sponsor Senator Mark Leno said that, “Patients and providers in California remain at risk of arrest and prosecution by federal law enforcement and legally established medical marijuana cooperatives continue to be the subjects of federal raids.”

In August, for example, federal agents conducted multiple raids on medical marijuana providers. On August 12, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Internal Revenue Service, and local police carried out a paramilitary-style raid on a medical marijuana provider in Los Angeles.

The reason given?  The government claimed that the raided facility had “failed to submit state sales tax revenues.”

Where the Constitution permits federal agencies to enforce state tax code violations, I’ll never know.

A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?

Supporters say that the reduction of raids under the Obama administration is a good thing.  But, according to noted Constitutional historian Kevin Gutzman, leaving the fate of such issues to the decision of one sitting president or another is a dangerous precedent.

“Attorney General Holder’s decision to halt the long-standing federal policy of prosecuting medical marijuana distributors is a welcome development,” said Gutzman. “However, so long as the Federal Government does not recognize the states’ Tenth Amendment right to decide the issue of medical marijuana, a return of the bad old days when patients suffering crippling pain were denied this medical treatment is always one election away.”

In other words, any society that rests the fate of its liberty on the “goodness” or “badness” of its leaders is in serious trouble.

“That,” said Gutzman, “is the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic.”

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML – the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws discusses the unconstitutional nature of the war on marijuana, the history of marijuana prohibition in the U.S., the commerce clause as a federal excuse to regulate and prohibit various activities, 13 states that are directly resisting unconstitutional federal laws, a rare 10th amendment victory in the Supreme Court, the growth of taxes on marijuana into outright federal control and prohibition, a state-level strategy to rein in the federal government, and his new book, Marijuana is Safer – So Why are We Driving People to Drink?

Mentioned in this Show:

NORML

LewRockwell.com

AlterNet.org

The Hill

Marijuana is Safer

Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank, along with over a dozen cosponsors, reintroduced legislation in Congress to strengthen legal protections for state-authorized medical marijuana patients.

The bill, entitled the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act of 2009, seeks to amend the discrepancy between federal law and the laws of over a dozen states that have enacted regulations governing the therapeutic use of cannabis.

Thirteen states – Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington – have enacted laws prohibiting medical marijuana patients from state prosecution. 

Passage of the the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act would ensure that medical cannabis patients or providers who are compliant with state law, such as Charles Lynch (who was sentenced in federal court), would no longer have to fear arrest or prosecution from federal law enforcement agencies.

Previous versions of the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act were introduced in both the 108th and 109th Congress, but failed to receive a public hearing or a committee vote.

While campaigning for the presidency, Barack Obama promised not to use Justice Department resources “to try and circumvent state (medical marijuana) laws” — a pledge that has been repeated in recent months by US Attorney General Eric Holder.

Nevertheless, agents from the US Drug Enforcement Administration have continued to target medical marijuana providers in states that allow for the drug’s use, and federal prosecutors have continued to bring federal anti-drug charges against defendants who were acting in accordance with their state’s cannabis laws.

It is time that we allowed our unique federalist system to work the way it was intended. Patients and their state representatives should have the authority to enact laws permitting the medical use of cannabis — free from federal interference.

Please write your members of Congress today and tell them to stop targeting and prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers.

CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION TODAY

Last week, another bill was passed and signed into law that takes more of our freedoms and violates the Constitution of the United States.

It was, of course, done for the sake of the children, and in the name of the health of the citizenry.  It’s always the case that when your liberty is seized, it is seized for your own good.  Such is the condescension of Washington.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA.  It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment.  It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar.

The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products.  It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes.

My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco.  As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit.  And that is exactly how smoking should be treated – as a bad habit and a personal choice.  The way to combat poor choices is through education and information.

Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people.  Regulations for children should be at the state level.

Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well.  We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country.

Actions in Congress such as this tobacco bill are especially disconcerting after we thought we were beginning to see some progress in drawing down the wrong-headed and failed war on drugs.  A majority of Americans now think marijuana should be legal, taxed and regulated, according to a recent Zogby poll and over 70 percent are in favor of allowing medicinal use of marijuana.

Bills like this take us down exactly the wrong path.  Instead of gaining more freedom with marijuana, we are moving closer to prohibiting tobacco.  Our prisons are already bursting with non-violent drug offenders.  How long will it be before a black market in tobacco fills the prisons with non-violent cigarette smokers?

Hemp and tobacco were staple crops for our founding fathers when our country was new.  It is baffling to see how far removed from real freedom this country has become since then.  Hemp, even for industrial uses, of which there are many, is illegal to grow at all.

Now tobacco will have more layers of bureaucracy and interference piled on top of it.  In this economy it is extremely upsetting to see this additional squeeze put on an entire industry.   One has to wonder how many smaller farmers will be forced out of business because of this bill.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

The Worldwide Marijuana March drew more than 300 demonstrators to downtown Boise on Saturday, May 2. Offering peace signs and garnering many supportive car honks, the marchers moved slowly under scattered showers along Capitol Boulevard to the front lawn of the Idaho Legislature.

Speakers addressed the mass on the grass under the watch of a Capitol Annex camera and a few security guards. Boise police did not engage the pungent assembly.

Rev. Levon Lion opened with a plea for support of religious cannabis use. He mentioned his organization, The Church of Cognitive Therapy, and touted the Omega-3 in edible hemp seeds, which he offered for tasting. Positioned in front of a “CREATE NEW JOBS” sign, he also spoke about hemp’s industrial value for paper, plastic, fiber and fuel.

Then Ryan Davidson, a “Ron Paul Republican” and marijuana activist from Garden City, announced through the bullhorn that Moscow Rep. Tom Trail plans to introduce a medical marijuana bill next year.

With public perceptions of marijuana prohibition shifting nationwide, in particular among traditionally anti-drug Republicans and security officials, Idaho could join the number of states loosening drug regulations. In 2006, then-gubernatorial candidate Butch Otter told Reason Magazine, “I still support medical marijuana,” though he told BW last week that he did not think Idaho would ever legalize and that he was not “desperate” enough for new revenue to pursue it. The Idaho Republican Party debated legalization last year, the citizens of Hailey voted twice in favor of three different cannabis initiatives, and budget woes have lawmakers scrambling for new sources of revenue.

Trail says there is currently no way to track the amount of marijuana grown in Idaho. California’s annual marijuana yield is often valued at $14 billion, nearly double the value of the state’s vegetable and grape crops combined. And the Web site marijuanalobby.org estimates that Idaho could net $12.4 million in new revenue from an 8 percent tax on medicinal marijuana and license fees.

Since 1996, voters have favored ballot initiatives removing criminal penalties for growing or possessing medical marijuana in Alaska, California, Colorado, Washington, D.C., Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. State legislators in Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont have passed medical marijuana laws. On Nov. 4, Michigan became the 13th medical marijuana state and Massachusetts’ voters decriminalized personal possession.

Though he often votes with Democrats, Trail’s party affiliation and tenure in the Legislature have afforded him chairmanship of the Agricultural Affairs Committee. After three previous tries to allow growing industrial hemp in Idaho, Trail has shifted his focus to medical marijuana, which, as his bill posits, “humanitarian compassion necessitates” for sick constituents.

Trail’s draft bill seeks protection for qualified patients to smoke marijuana, and for designated providers and licensed physicians to grow and possess medical marijuana. Nonmedical acquisition, possession, manufacture, sale or use would remain illegal. The state would not be liable for ill effects of medical use and patients would be limited to 60-day supplies.

Sitting at his corner cubicle in the temporary Chairmen’s Suite before the close of the 2009 legislative session, the soft-spoken Trail described the plight of Moscow residents forced by Idaho law to travel to doctors in Washington, and then risk traveling back across state lines in possession of illegal medicine. Less than 3 ounces is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine up to $1,000. More than 3 ounces is a felony, five years and a fine up to $10,000.

It is a touchy subject for young voters, sick patients and several doctors who support Trail’s work because most feel they must remain anonymous. One Moscow-area doctor wrote a personal letter to Trail, arguing that any legislation is better than none.

The question now is whether Trail and the movement can convince state legislators to define and protect medical use of marijuana.

The Marijuana Policy Project, a fast-growing drug reform group, does not expect medical marijuana dispensaries to be politically viable in Idaho, and the Moscow doctor is concerned the current draft of Trail’s bill would limit the ability for “procuring medical marijuana for the patient who is not botanically gifted. Many appropriate patients are too sick to grow their own.”

In November 2008, Trail requested an opinion from the Idaho Attorney General’s Office on an early draft of his medical marijuana legislation. Deputy Attorney General William A. von Tagen responded in December 2008 with a preliminary opinion concluding that Trail’s bill would be pre-empted by federal law. The bill “would most likely be found to be in conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act,” von Tagen wrote.

American marijuana prohibition began in 1937. Since its heyday in 1970, the federal government has defined marijuana as having a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in treatment.

Yet, the American Academy of Family Physicians and half a dozen other national health organizations support access to cannabis for treatment of chemotherapy, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Crohn’s Disease, glaucoma, anorexia, migraines, menstrual pain and other conditions. According to the Centers for Disease Control, annual deaths from cigarettes total 438,000. Alcohol deaths total 21,000. Marijuana deaths are zero.

In June 2008, the Idaho Republican platform committee considered making marijuana legal. Then a resolution surfaced to keep it illegal and use the full weight of the law to enforce prohibition.

“I was part of a group who said we should not treat them as criminals,” Rep. Steven Thayn said. “I got ribbed for opposing the anti-marijuana resolution, but not too much. I’m LDS, so I don’t drink alcohol or use any illegal drugs. It is certainly not something I’m trying to be out front on. I don’t think Idaho is ready.”

The final Idaho Republican platform adopted June 14, 2008, states, “We call upon our national, state and local leaders to refocus efforts in the war on drugs. We support creative alternative sentencing, such as drug courts, and treatment for non-violent offenders.”

Still, the GOP-dominated Idaho Legislature voted this year to cut $2.1 million for statewide substance abuse treatment.

Despite the opinion of the AG’s office, other states are not waiting for a change in federal law before expanding access to marijuana. Roughly 21,000 Oregonians now have cards authorizing medicinal use, according to the Oregon Department of Human Services. About 200,000 Californians have medical access.

According to a recent National Public Radio report, medical marijuana produced more than $100 million in tax revenue for the state of California in 2007.

On a much smaller scale, Nevada charges patients $50 for state ID application materials and then another $150 for processing. Colorado charges patients $90 to apply to their program. New Mexico has finalized regulations for state-licensed, nonprofit medical marijuana providers, making it the first state to do so.

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron published a study reporting decriminalization would lead to a $29 million net improvement in the budget of Massachusetts by reducing expenditures on arrests.

“Decrim really has no effect on the number of prosecutions or number of prisoners,” Miron said. “The charges for which decrim might have been relevant do not lead to trials or jail time.”

In 2007, a record 872,000 Americans were arrested on suspicion of charges related to the plant, 89 percent for possession alone, according to the FBI. A new report from the University of Washington Law School* points out marijuana arrests accounted for nearly all of the increase in drug arrests from 1991 to 2005.

From 2005 to 2007, Idaho State Police arrests involving seizure of marijuana increased from 3,202 to 4,030.

Though Trail is not angling for an economic boon to the state, he may be successful in Idaho because of the Republican compassion platform, the states’ rights argument and the potential savings to the state. Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul and Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank do not agree on much else, but they agree the drug war is a failure.

The sour economy has even opened doors in the broadcast media that have been historically closed to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. NORML has discovered for the first time that it can purchase commercial packages on television networks including Animal Planet, CNN, ESPN, MSNBC, MTV and the Weather Channel for about 8 cents per 30-second ad.

One key objective for reform advocates is to help voters distinguish between lowest police priority (passed in Missoula County, Mont.), decriminalization (passed statewide in Massachusetts), and legalization and taxation (proposed in California for the first time this year).

In Idaho, it looks like the fight has begun with medical use. Davidson calls religious conservatives like Thayn brave.

“There’s a lot of pressure in that community not to be soft on drugs, and that’s why it won’t get legalized anytime soon. It’s also part of the position on hemp. You’ve got a large contingent that it may give the wrong impression to kids,” he said.

Steve D’Avanzo, owner of Treasure Valley Smoke Shop, doesn’t think he will be selling marijuana any time in the foreseeable future. “I’m sure that if Idaho ever legalized marijuana, they would have some sort of state store to dispense it,” he said. “I don’t think it would be something they would introduce to the retail market.”

Davidson also expressed skepticism about the political process in Idaho. “Butch was taking principled stands on stuff, like the Patriot Act. When he voted against it, he was like a hero, but now everyone feels like he’s kind of a sellout … I assume if the Legislature passed it, he would sign it, but nothing is about what you believe in. Are you strong enough to risk donors to do what you believe in?”

The federal government’s Constitutional authority to regulate drugs extends only so far as to prevent the movement of drugs across any state or federal border.

The war on drugs is not about drugs, it is about state sovereignty. Once the federal government gets us to concede the principle that the states cannot be trusted with their own sovereignty– to do what is right –then, on principle, the federal government will gain the ability to legislate other things against our sovereignty as well.

If we agree with the premise that Oklahoma cannot determine which drugs to allow its citizens to use and which ones not to let them use, then we have just conceded to allow the federal government to tell Oklahomans who they can and cannot marry, what they can and cannot eat, who they can and cannot associate with and so on.

I challenge you to re-read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution wherein you will find that Oklahoma retained all sovereignty not delegated to the Congress through the Constitution.

While the federal government can control what goods enter the stream of interstate commerce, I do not agree that we Oklahoman’s should allow ourselves to be tricked into ceding one ounce of our liberty and sovereignty under the false premise that we cannot be trusted to regulate ourselves.

I would rather retain the right of our state to handle the drug issue, as well as other social issues, than accept on principle that we cannot regulate ourselves and that we therefore must accept other forms of social legislation from the federal government.

RJ Harris [send him email] is an entrepreneur, a law student, and a candidate for Congress in Oklahoma’s 4th Congressional District. Visit his website at www.rjharris2010.com.

Delawareans afflicted with a variety of chronic and painful conditions would be able to legally use medical marijuana to ease their suffering under a bill now under consideration in the Delaware State Senate.

Sen. Margaret Rose Henry (D-Wilmington East), said her bill isn’t an outright decriminalization of marijuana and is aimed at balancing compassion for the sick with maintaining tight controls on access and the amount of marijuana a person can have.

“Modern science shows us that marijuana can have beneficial effects for people suffering from a number of conditions including cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and HIV-AIDS,” Henry said. “While we don’t want to encourage the use of marijuana as a recreational drug, it makes no sense at all to deny the comfort it can give to people suffering from truly debilitating and painful diseases.”

If passed, Henry’s bill would:

• Limit patients to six ounces of marijuana a month.
• Require patients, people designated as caregivers and personnel at the “Compassion Care Centers” where pot could be distributed to have state issued ID cards authorizing their ability to access marijuana. The non-profit centers could not be operated within 500 feet of an existing public or private school.
• Require that marijuana be cultivated in enclosed, locked facilities with security systems to prevent theft.
• Ban employers from firing an employee receiving medical marijuana if they fail a drug screening. However, employees could be fired for working under the influence of marijuana.
• Prohibit the use of marijuana in public places, on public transportation, in schools and in prison.

Dr. John Goodill, chief of pain and palliative medicine at Christiana Care, said he supports Henry’s bill because it’s based on a proven model that’s produced good results for patients.

“This bill follows a model that has worked well in other states to date,” Goodill said.  “I think the medical evidence is compelling enough to add it to the list of options for relieving suffering in people living with serious illness and chronic pain.”

Joe Scarborough of Wilmington has used marijuana to ease the side effects of the drugs he takes to combat the effects of AIDS and to ease the pain in his leg and foot from nerve damage caused when a cancerous tumor was removed from his back. He praised Henry for taking on the issue and focusing it on using marijuana for medicinal purposes, instead of pushing for options, such as blanket decriminalization.

“Maybe, in a perfect world, you’d discuss total decriminalization, but I think Sen. Henry’s approach – just focusing on the people who can be helped by medical marijuana – is the right one,” Scarborough said. “I can tell you that, in my case, smoking marijuana has helped with the pain and nausea associated with the drugs I take for AIDS as well as chemotherapy and it has helped with pain caused by my nerve damage.”

The House today voted 63 to 5 to approve legislation to allow the creation of compassion centers to dispense marijuana to patients in the state’s medical marijuana program.

If the legislation (2009-H 5359A), which is sponsored by Rep. Thomas C. Slater (D-Dist. 10, Providence), is enacted, Rhode Island would join California and New Mexico as the only states that allow medical marijuana dispensaries.

The passage comes on the heels of the Senate passage on April 29 of similar legislation (2009-S 0185aa) sponsored by Sen. Rhoda E. Perry (D-Dist. 3, Providence). Both she and Representative Slater were also the sponsors of the legislation that created Rhode Island’s medical marijuana law in 2006. Thirteen states in total allow the medicinal use of marijuana.

Representative Slater said compassion centers would safely and sensibly address a major problem in the state’s medical marijuana law: Patients have no safe, legal way to obtain marijuana, and must turn to the streets for it. Patients who testified at committee hearings told of being robbed and terrified while attempting to find marijuana on the streets.

“We recognized when we created the medical marijuana program that marijuana has a legitimate medical application, and that patients should have access to it if they need it. But we forced them to deal with criminals in order to get it. We’re talking about very sick people, and they shouldn’t have to put themselves at risk to get their medicine,” said Representative Slater.

The bill amends the original medical marijuana act to create nonprofit compassion centers that would be registered by the Department of Health to distribute marijuana or related items to people registered with the state’s medical marijuana program. The bill sets a limit of three compassion centers statewide.

Representative Slater and Senator Perry sponsored similar legislation, which passed the Senate but died in committee in the House amid concerns that the federal government might raid the centers because federal law prohibits the distribution of marijuana. Instead, both chambers passed a bill, which was later vetoed by the governor, to study the issue.

However, with the change in the federal administration, the sponsors believe the climate has changed for the bill. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has stated that the federal government will no longer prosecute dispensaries for patients in states that allow them.

“Without the threat of federal raids, there’s no practical reason not to develop a safe way for patients to access this drug. When we recognize that patients need marijuana to ease their pain and the federal government isn’t standing in the way, it’s cruel to refuse to allow them a safe means to get it,” said Representative Slater, who added that he hopes there would  be enough support for the legislation to override a veto if necessary. The Senate passed Senator Perry’s version of the bill with a 35-to-2 vote.

The General Assembly overrode a gubernatorial veto to create the state’s medical marijuana program in January 2006. The bill was the result of years of effort by Representative Slater and Senator Perry, and it was a very personal campaign for both. Representative Slater has been diagnosed with two types of cancer and is currently undergoing treatment. He is one of four of the six siblings in his family with the disease and lost his father, brother and uncle to cancer.

Senator Perry’s nephew, Edward O. Hawkins, died four years ago after a long battle with AIDS. As Hawkins suffered and wasted away in his final months, his family offered to get him marijuana to ease his pain and nausea, but he refused for fear of arrest.

In honor of their personal crusades to make marijuana treatment available to the suffering, the General Assembly named the law the Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act.

“If California wants to legalize it, let ‘em legalize it,” Paul told host Richard Greene on Air America’s “Hollywood CLOUT!” program.

He said that he believes that the U.S. Constitution gives the fifty states the right to legalize hemp production or marijuana. He said the issue was a matter of personal liberty but added that drug users should not be entitled to government-funded treatment if they abuse legalized drugs.

“If drugs are legal and people misuse them, then they do it at their own risk,” he said.

Bottom line, said Paul: “I do trust individuals to make their own decisions.”

Listen to the full interview below: