Ken Dickson Discusses Medical Pot, Liberty Quarry

The candidate for the State Assembly answered readers' questions during a live streaming interview with Patch.

Ken Dickson, a Murrieta Valley Unified School District trustee running for the 67th State Assembly District seat, answered readers' questions during a live streaming interview on May 9. These are some of the highlights.

SPB asks: As a conservative I would assume that you are a proponent for States rights. If that is a correct assertion, what do you intend to do on behalf of medical marijuana patients and the illegal use of state resources to close medical marijuana dispensaries? The crackdown on dispensaries has negatively affected thousands of sick Californians in your district who are suffering needlessly and is an affront to any notion of state sovereignty. Would you as an Assemblymen stand up for the State of California's right to enact the laws passed by its citizens and curb the efforts of County DA's who are abusing the power of their office by coordinating with DEA officials to shutter completely legal and law abiding businesses?

Ken Dickson answers: That's a long question and has a lot of premises that I don't agree with… I do believe marijuana is a gateway drug, some people don't, but it's regulated and, properly so, at the federal level. When you start talking about drug use, drug abuse, that's a national issue… California has a law that's in contradiction, in some ways, with the federal law, which does take precedence.

LBV Collins asks: Who would you vote for as President this election cycle, and why: Obama, Romney, or Ron Paul?

Ken Dickson answers: I'm clearly in favor in Romney as president. Ron Paul is great on fiscal responsibility, but he's not as strong by a long shot on international issues… his libertarian tendencies get out of my comfort zone. As for Obama, I have some real issues with the direction he would take the country away from personal accountability, our free enterprise system, the regulatory regimes he has put in place, his short-sighted fiscal policies.

Chris Yelley asks: What do you see is the role of the State Assembly in terms of improving the economic situation in California and specifically Western Riverside county?

Ken Dickson answers: Throughout the county, the issue is jobs, jobs, jobs, I believe private sector jobs. If you think about it, it's the private sector that provides the resources for the government to do everything it needs to do… (California) is a marvelous place for economic potential, but we're strangling it, we are discouraging it, we're running good businesses out of here.

Sue K asks: If elected what do you believe would be the most important accomplishment of your office?

Ken Dickson answers: We've got to get rid of some of these regulations that are just getting in the way.

Temecula Patch asks: What would you have done about the Liberty Quarry plan?

Ken Dickson answers: This gets me taken off some Christmas card lists. The right thing to do was to approve that quarry, because all of the regulators approved it. In legal terms, if the facts support you, you argue the facts, if the law supports you, you argue the law, if neither do, you need to get an emotional argument, maybe attack your opponents. There was a lot of that in the Liberty Quarry, and as a result, we're all going to pay more for the infrastructure that's going to be done.

teachintemec May 20, 2012 at 03:16 AM
Even though I am a conservative, I wou,ld not vote for anyone who is a proponent of Liberty Quarry.
Popeye May 20, 2012 at 03:20 AM
It is more than off the Christmas list, you just lost the election. You do not know our area...
Kat May 20, 2012 at 03:57 AM
well i'd have NO prob not voting for him, and even more so now! I'd love these quarry groupies to be told it will now be built in their back yard, lets see how ok they feel about it then. silly silly man
Scott May 20, 2012 at 04:01 AM
"There was a lot of that in the Liberty Quarry, and as a result, we're all going to pay more for the infrastructure that's going to be done." What the hell does that mean?? And his "emotional argument" statement (referring to anti Quarry individuals) demonstrates his shallow and poor cognitive evaluation skills. Did this guy even read the reports (other than Granits)????. Obviously not. Besides the fact that there were logical arguments presented to the destructive nature of this project ( more so than that of Granits reports) ,what in Gods name is so wrong with including emotional arguments to present your case???? What is soooo wrong with the Indians having an "emotional" attachment to their sacred site or that the majority of people who moved here did so out of an "emotional" desire to have a better quality of life ?? This "emotional" argument is so old and confirms that most of those (especially politicians) who use this as their focal argument had or have poor emotional attachment issues in their personal lives. Their unresolved childhood mommy/daddy issues now manifested as adult politicians that need and have to control are frightning, These guys cannot climb up any further in their ability to control others lives. Ken Dickson = no vote
KB May 20, 2012 at 05:40 AM
Very little in life is as black and white as he would have you believe; and an environmental impact report funded by Granite and blessed by their politicians certainly doesn't qualify as a clear cut issue. The emotions arose from the very disturbing facts surrounding this filthy gravel pit (aka liberty quarry). Tell this fool to get a real job; Vote No Ken "The Dick" Dickson.
S May 20, 2012 at 02:24 PM
Unless this clown moves here to Temecula, downwind of the proposed quarry, I will not vote for him. Another politician who doesn't give a hoot about his constituents.
SPB May 20, 2012 at 02:57 PM
Ken, a little advice: The only people who are for the quarry are union members shipped in from out of your district and the people who will make money off of it. Supporting the quarry is bad enough, but your rational that somehow A) it is solely an emotional argument, and B) emotional arguments aren't valid, paints you as someone clearly at odds over the biggest issue of the area with your intended constituents. You don't have to support every business venture to be pro business. Not every regulation is a bad one and not every regulator has the wrong opinion. Also, Medical Marijuana Patient is not synonymous with drug addict. You may want to re-evaluate your pre-existing notions of the plant and do a little research.
Susan Marsh May 20, 2012 at 06:57 PM
I am very glad to see this interview. I was considering voting for Mr. Dickson but I have now changed my mind. We do not need more people in Sacramento or in D.C. that do not understand the U.S. Constitution and the rights of the states (that would be the people of the state). No where in the U.S. Constitution is the federal government given the authority over drugs. Please read the IX and X amendment to the constitution. "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." Whether you agree with medical marijuana or not the people of this state voted in favor; it is not the place of legislature to determine what is in the best interest of the people, it is their job to represent the people in their district. Take Liberty Quarry for example; if you were to represent the people, a huge majority did not want the quarry here. Regulators do not live here, they do not have a stake in our air quality or quality of life. Let's send someone to Sacramento to represent the people who live here, our interests and our concerns. And someone that is familiar with foundation this country was built on. Federal law and federal policies do not take precedence over state.
David Shisler May 20, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Are we not glad that the Liberty Quarry question was asked, and yes no Christmas card or vote from me, this guy is clueless. From an Independent.
Scott May 21, 2012 at 12:15 AM
LakeElsinore Resident, While I feel your anger, it is simply wrong for you to tranfer and try to facilitate blame on Temecula residents. Your energies should be channelled toward your city counsel members, Riverside counsel members, the quarry and its supporters as well as your own your own residents for allowing this to happen....not residents of another community who had nothing to do with this injustice. By the way, "poor people" can stand up and fight for their rights as well.
SAM May 21, 2012 at 07:11 PM
It's time for new energy and convictions. Anyone that supports the Quarry has got to go. My vote is for Melissa Melendez. Retired Military, Business Owner, held City Council office, month of 5, husband Retired Military. Will fight for our Constitutional rights and freedoms. The incumbents are just building their retirement packages on our backs. GET THEM ALL OUT!
SPB May 22, 2012 at 06:45 PM
Isn't Melendez pro quarry?
JD May 23, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Before even getting to the comments I would have put $100 on most of them complaining about the quarry. He's right on that part. All the opposition had was emotional arguments. I attended a couple of these big town hall meetings and not one person from the opposition had facts. They basically told us all of our kids would get cancer and our tourism would be destroyed by a quarry that no one outside of this area would even know about. CA has strict laws on dust and debris in the air so I don't even buy the rainbow pass argument.
Scott May 23, 2012 at 01:52 AM
JD wrote: "not one person from the opposition had facts" So the hundred or so Doctors that support their opposition against the quarry based their arguments out of emotion, with no facts included?? ( I could give many other examples but I would like to see if you ( and the Yahoo Dickson) could clear this hurdle first) As well, I may have read your statement wrong but I see that you wrote that you attended a 'couple" of meetings. Facinating that a 6-7 year battle with more info than one human being could absord being presented but JD, after having attended a measly "2" meetings, came up with this profound and insightful assessment that ALL anti quarry arguments are based out of emotion. Your evaluation of the issue at hand, like Dickson, is shallow and lacks critical thinking skills.
Scott May 23, 2012 at 02:57 AM
Lake Elsinore Resident, No, I got your point and understand perfectly clear your perception. You are misguided
Kat May 23, 2012 at 06:08 AM
JD is a green shirt ,and he has not a clue what he is talking about , just yet another comment thrown out without having the facts... he'll move on to something else tomorrow that he knows nothing about.
KB May 27, 2012 at 07:40 AM
Any candidate who is pro jobs, must be anti-quarry (please consider the statement before flaming me).
Sohn Man July 12, 2012 at 05:25 PM
Amen Susan.
Sohn Man July 12, 2012 at 05:34 PM
I am from San Diego and now live in Hemet and am unfamiliar with the quarry story; however, I find his position on states rights the most troubling. The federal governments powers have been overly expanded and this is largely due to the ill conceived 17th Amendment to the Constitution. States rights have been violated again and again due to the senatorial representation not answering to the states. I have respect for Ken Dickson's service; however, his ignorance on this issue make me think he may be unfit for office. The only problem is that his opponent is worse, what to do?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »