Ron Paul Makes Intelligent Statement About Our Bodies And Marijuana

Republican party presidential candidate, Ron Paul, appeared on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno on Friday and, we have to say: Finally, a politician said something that we can get behind.

Paul has not made any secrets throughout his campaign about his views on legalizing marijuana. He has openly discussed his support for medical marijuana, while insisting that regulations should be set by the states–not the federal government. He re-emphasized all of this with Jay Leno the other night, but the way  he phrased it this time made us stand up and cheer:

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.

Leno asked if that meant the right to do things “even it it’s harmful”, to which Paul agreed, saying that the government can’t protect us from ourselves and doing so would mean the government would be totally out of control.

Not that we’re advocates for getting high or putting drugs into our bodies for no reason, but it’s nice to hear a politician who respects our choices and the right to decide for ourselves what we want to do to our bodies. And he’s right, the government really has no place in that decision.

Take a look at what he said and see if you agree:


Share This Post:
    • devinesar

      If you’re looking for real change, look no further than Ron Paul. We can handle our own lives, cant we, America?

    • superjack

      “it also should protect our right to do to our body what we want”

      this is incredibly ironic, given his stance on reproductive rights.

      fuck ron paul.

      • Dave


      • Jerry

        It is because he considers the fetus to be a living being and this would be killing another. If someone were to kill a pregnant woman it would be considered a double homicide. Now not everyone agrees with Ron Paul on abortion and he believes it should be left up to the states to decide.

    • JoeD

      “Reproductive rights” What the hell are you talking about? Abortion? While he’s against it personally, he insists its a states issue. Other than that I can’t possibly see what you’re talking about.

    • Ella Jane

      No kidding. states’ rights my ass – he says abortion is the number one issue America is facing. EEEESH, really? He also claims that while in medical school and learning how to give an abortion, doctors were pulling babies crying out of their mothers and throwing them into buckets full of blood and placenta.

      this is not a reasonable human being. that kind of insanity kind of invalidates any reasonable points he might have.

      • AnimumRege

        He was stressing how terrible a practice it is to allow late term abortion. He also states that the federal government should not be regulating abortion. Leave it to the states. Many states would outlaw abortion…that is a good thing in his eyes but according to the Constitution abortion should not be handled at the federal level. Sounds pretty sane to me.

      • Dave

        “he says abortion is the number one issue America is facing. EEEESH, really?”

        You CLEARLY have never witnessed Ron Paul speak. To him the number one issue facing America is the failing ECONOMY, caused largely by a misguided FOREIGN POLICY. Abortions would be down on the importance meter and you rarely ever hear him talk about it. When he does, it is to say that he would not support a federal ban on abortions (as many candidates would), and he would allow individual states to make their own decisions on the subject. You must at least acknowledge that the man has developed a well rounded perspective on the matter. He has delivered thousands of babies and thus greatly respects life. He also greatly respects the rights of individuals including pregnant women. Lets face it, partial birth abortions are disgusting. If you are going to have an abortion at least do it before it is fully developed. Either way, everything you believe about Ron Paul is wrong, do some research.

      • Sam Geoghegan

        I’ve addressed this problem above.

        Further, when did grovelling to pregnant women’s rights become such a poster child for the left?
        It’s a little more complicated than no-brainer catchphrases like ‘pro-choice’

        Now settle down and be reasonable.

      • James

        “..he says abortion is the number one issue America is facing.”

        Paul is a champion of states’ rights. That is his entire platform. He was citing his disgust for having witnessed a late-term abortion. Needless to say, he is personally against abortion but would leave it to the states to decide. He is personally against drug use, but would leave it to the states to decide.

    • Don

      I agree 100% with Ron Paul that people should be allowed to put anything they want into their bodies and it goes against human nature and human rights to try to dictate that.

      However, I disagree with his views on abortion and believe women should be able to choose whether to be allowed to give birth or not. This world is terribly crowded already; almost to the breaking point as far as the earth’s resources are concerned. I don’t think it makes any sense to bring many thousands more people into the world especially if the mother doesn’t want the child.

      • Carl

        If a woman doesn’t want a baby, how about NOT getting pregnant? It isn’t rocket science….keep the sperm out of your body.

        I believe drugs should be a state issue. However, even if the states get the right to choose whether or not to legalize marijuana, the federal government will just find a way to bribe the states to do what the federal government wants. All they have to do is threaten to withhold funding for highways or something else expensive.

      • kodey campbell

        he is against abortions but he says basically the federal government has no right to tell the states what to do so he wants to leave it up to the states to decide

      • Sam Geoghegan

        Ron Paul doesn’t believe in deciding for the foetus or the woman.

        No offence but you should read his policies before posting factual inaccuracies.

        Ron Paul is consitent with all his policies. -Liberty and limited government.

      • another jamie

        “kep the sperm out of your body”

        fine idea, but it usually isn’t a choice for rape or incest victims. also, this statement is reductionist and places the responsibility for pregnancy solely on the woman. so what you’re saying is women shouldn’t be allowed to have sex unless they WANT to get pregnant? that’s a nice position for a man to have, one that i doubt you’d have if you could get pregnant.

        and if you mean “use a condom”, what if the condom breaks?

    • no,really.

      he has delivered 4000 babies as a ob/ is possible he has seen such gruesome actions.or do you think the 8 month unborn fetus is actually your property? slave be killed or discarded as per whim?

      anyway,ron recognizes that it is a controversial issue in the country-so why not let the decisison be made locally.why not let states where people think it is ok to kill fetuses go ahead and allow it.let the bible thumpers ban it.whats wrong with having choices?if you dont like it,atleast you can move to a place where your views are accepted.why force your views on those who dont want it

    • Deborah Dunham

      Good point. It would be nice if he were at least consistent with his opinions about our bodies and what the government should and shouldn’t control.

      • AnimumRege

        Consistent is Dr. Paul’s middle name.

    • Buzz Fisher

      We should also have the freedom to decide what kind of music we want to listen to….let’s exercise that freedom and join the Ron Paul iTunes Bomb from now until Dec. 25. Get a liberty anthem to the top of the charts for Christmas!

    • Vhan Wolfe

      Dr. Paul is against abortion, but at the same time he believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.

      Nothing ironic about that. He is for states making this choice, which shows he isn’t authoritarian like the others who wish to impose their views on others. Get a clue. Go visit his sight. It says this clearly.

      • Niki

        Interesting then, given that he voted to federally define life as beginning as conception (the ‘sanctity of life act’), as well as voting for federal bans on partial birth abortions (which for the record, is a non-elective procedure used only in the case of high risk pregnancies where the mother’s life is in grave danger).

        Go check out his voting record. Its pretty clear what he says, and what he does are two very different things.

    • AnimumRege

      Some people here seem confused a bit. A growing fetus is an individual in Ron Paul’s eyes and deserves liberty especially the right to life. He was an OB for god sakes. Those who are comparing putting what you want in your body to having or killing a child are a little on the wacky side. Simply put “if you believe that a growing fetus is a human life then that growing fetus has rights” In turn you have a right to avoid getting pregnant and you have a right to get pregnant but you don’t have an inalienable right to kill others.

    • carlos guzman

      how stupid are some people. You can do to your body whatever you want, as long as it doesn’t harm others. Abortion harms others. He’s consistent.

      End of story. Next.

      • jamie

        calling others stupid is a surefire way to have an intelligent, respectful debate.

        way to go.

    • Jamie

      Ron Paul is a Christian and so of course he has personal pro life values and he shows integrity in standing by them, even it is somewhat contradictory to his wider socially liberal views. He also respects that others may have differing opinions on this issue.

      Personally, I believe the question of pro life vs pro choice comes down to the underlying philosophical question of whether life has inherent meaning. The unavoidable conclusion for a strictly rational person is that no, there is no underlying purpose or meaning in human existence, or if there is, we cannot know it (any of you care to tell me what the meaning of life is?). This is not to say that we cannot strive to find personal meaning and greater happiness in our lives. True freedom can be found in the acceptance of the absurd.

      All this is to say, if life is inherently meaningless, then a woman is justified in her choice to control whether or not she wants to bring it into the world. A fetus is not self aware and suffers no consequence from termination. If abortions are made illegal, people will just go to underground abortion clinics (this is the same problem that arises in any form of prohibition). Government has no business defining morality.

      Anyway that’s my personal justification of my pro choice stance. It is a very sensitive issue of course because peoples beliefs about their very existence are brought into question. I hope someone found something of value in my perspective on this topic.

    • Alan Clifton

      Paul is pro life, not because he believes it is an infringement on someone’s choice but because he sees a fetus as an individual that is due the protections against violence as any other individuals. Instead of debating women’s choices vs. fetal rights I think you have to decide at what point the fetus is an individual. If I punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses her baby, I would be charged with murder. Even if she was walking into the doors of an abortion clinic. That’s a confusing law to me. I believe everyone has a right to choices over the bodies, their mind, and their spirit but to get past the abortion debate you have to decide when a fetus is a living being deserving the rights and protections against violence. I do not claim to have the answer but I believe settling that debate would go a long way to reconciling the differences between the pro life and the pro choice camps.

    • Ronny Sexton

      I wish someone would crap or get off the “pot” so to speak, and represent Americans who choose to use marijuana in the privacy of their home. Random drug testing should have went out with Reganomics and his Star Wars shtick. Just talking about marijuana, decriminilization would deflate the hostilities brought about by this savage prohibition that does not work. Prohibition only gets people killed for a plant. That’s it, same old rhetoric I know, but eventually won’t someone start swinging for Americans that are big people and make big people choices for themselves.