A proponent of states' rights, Dunlap believes that "all drugs should be decriminalized on the federal level and left to the states to regulate. Drug laws are for the most part paternal laws. If a person does not infringe on the rights of another, the Federal Government has no right to be involved in in the matter other than for taxation and regulation of commerce...I support legislation such as HR8557 that addresses the expungement of federal convictions. I am a candidate for a federal office. I believe the majority of these convictions to be at the state level but Bills such as these will provide a framework and example for states to follow." (Candidate Policy Survey)
"The burden is on the government to show that a restriction of a liberty is either the will of the people or justified in order to protect the rights of others. I don't believe the government has shown either to be true but yet marijuana is still federally illegal. This is indicative of something far greater in our system that is broken. The involvement of the federal government is never the best option for any solution and its existence and power is a necessary evil for carrying out constitutional obligations. Yet, we have a federal government that is ingrained into every fiber of our existence, and we are printing money to fund it. If we stop feeding the beast that is destroying us, we might stand a chance of defeating it." (Candidate Survey Response)
"The majority of drug related convictions are based on the enforcement of paternal laws which I am usually against. The "War on Drugs" was a mistake and a failure due to immoral standing, bad leadership, and little to no conviction of it being a worthy cause. The federal government needs to withdraw, admit their defeat, and attempt to make right the damage they did to citizens when they decided to make them criminals just for exercising their God-given freedom." (Candidate Survey Response)
"The constitutionality of the prohibition is a house of cards with cases such as Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich at their foundation. While Wickard v. Filburn has caused a wide spectrum of unconstitutional consequences that will not soon be undone, there has been some positive movement lately when Justice Thomas suggested that Gonzales should be revisited. My position is best defined by Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, 'If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the 'powers delegated" to the Federal Government are 'few and defined', while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.'" (Candiate Survery Response)
In response to a candidate survey on cannabis policy, Dunlap stated, cannabis "needs to be removed from the list of Schedule I drugs by the DEA." (Candidate Survey Response)
Self-reportedly, Dunlap supports the use of physician-authorized medical cannabis, noting, cannabis "needs to be removed from the list of Schedule I drugs by the DEA." (Candidate Survey Response)