Rand not pro marijuana?wth?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Rand has said that the states should have the right to legalize marijuana, which should really be all that matters since Rand will likely be running for President, not Governor of a state. It's not necessary for him to make the case for outright legalization of drugs. I support that, but most Americans aren't at that point yet, and certainly not most Republicans.

If you never take a stand on principle and simply float in the wind of public opinion you're no different than the other 500 establishment hacks that continuously pillage, loot, enslave, and imprison us. President is the best marketing position in the U.S. If you're not using it to its full extent what is the point of getting there. It would be like if some Progressive ended up winning the Presidency, but never making a peep about progressive issues and policy, and even taking opposite stands because 'most american's aren't there yet'. That's why you make the case and persuade folks especially when you have such a large arena to do so! In any event, I don't expect him to make an outright case for it, but when asked questions don't give a completely anti-libertarian answer just to placate the tyrannical views of some bullshit puritans.

 

[jmdrake]

LOL. To the OP, you want Rand to undo the progress he's made on even getting Mitch McConnell to go along with legalizing hemp by saying "Oh by the way, next we need to legalize marijuana?" I don't like the way Rand does everything he does, but this is a good move. One of the most important thing to educate people on WRT hemp is that you can't actually get high off of it.

 

[EBounding]

LOL. To the OP, you want Rand to undo the progress he's made on even getting Mitch McConnell to go along with legalizing hemp by saying "Oh by the way, next we need to legalize marijuana?"

YES! He should also tear off his suit revealing a t-shirt with a big picture of Ron and yell "RON PAUL R3VOLUTION!" and proceed to light one up.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

ZOMG! This is terrible! What's next? Are we gonna find out Rand is not pro-prostitution?

You don't have to be 'pro'-prostitution to be pro-Liberty. I'm sure you know this, though.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Weed is also a major issue because our per capita prison population is the highest in the world and most of our prisoners are non-violent drug offenders with a roof over their head and a 3 square on uncle sam subsidies to the tune of 30-50k per head to the private prison industrial complex not to mention federal subsidies to the drug war. If the economy is important to you, then the billions we spend keeping pot heads in prison should be important to you and the billions we spend fighting the "war on drugs" should bother you.

Amen. That is the type of discussion that needs to get more mainstream. (especially WRT the prison industrial complex and slave labor) I do like that Rand Paul is behind the push to legalize hemp. (It should be common sense for every member of Congress but I appreciate him taking the time to spoon feed them- not that I'd doubt some powers that be are behind why hemp was made illegal in the first place, and have 'swayed' [bought] some votes against this effort.)

 

[Confederate]

ZOMG! This is terrible! What's next? Are we gonna find out Rand is not pro-prostitution?

I'm sure he'll lose dannno's support if he doesn't support marijuana and prostitution.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm sure he'll lose dannno's support if he doesn't support marijuana and prostitution.

This is not about supporting prostitution and marijuana. Quit being so obtuse.

 

[brandon]

It's all political posturing.

 

[Tax the Fed]

a Rand Paul administration would not see federal interference in the state rights in California or Colorado etc
as being in the purview of the federal government.

Enjoy . . .

 

[surf]

decriminalizing pot is not an obtuse political posture to take these days, particularly if you dangle the "tax revenue" cherry out there for republicans to drool over.

i'd have preferred that marijuana mention to sound more freedom-centric, but I can only imagine the audience he had in Kentucky

bongloads?

 

[Canderson]

weed is a minor issue compared to economy and the wars at the current moment.

doesnt particularly bother me, although id like to see weed addressed later on.

Your wrong, it is a MAJOR economic issue. It is the largest cash crop in California, our MOST AGRICULTURAL STATE, despite being illegal. It is the basis of the northern part of the states economy which was devastated by the death of the logging industry. Im sure there are plenty of similar instances in appalachia and other pot growing areas. As probably the last Californian in his 20s who does't smoke pot, it is a major issue.

 

[dannno]

If you never take a stand on principle and simply float in the wind of public opinion you're no different than the other 500 establishment hacks that continuously pillage, loot, enslave, and imprison us.

That's not true, it depends on who you are beholden to.

 

[TheGrinch]

If you never take a stand on principle and simply float in the wind of public opinion you're no different than the other 500 establishment hacks that continuously pillage, loot, enslave, and imprison us. President is the best marketing position in the U.S. If you're not using it to its full extent what is the point of getting there. It would be like if some Progressive ended up winning the Presidency, but never making a peep about progressive issues and policy, and even taking opposite stands because 'most american's aren't there yet'. That's why you make the case and persuade folks especially when you have such a large arena to do so! In any event, I don't expect him to make an outright case for it, but when asked questions don't give a completely anti-libertarian answer just to placate the tyrannical views of some bullshit puritans.

This logic is just baffling to me... If you don't try to push every controversial idea right away, then you're "no different than the other 500 establishment hacks that continuously pillage, loot, enslave, and imprison us", the same ones who take lobbyist money and make laws for their self-interests? Really? Because it's clear that Rand is doing what he's doing for the right reasons, whether you agree or disagree wqith his methods. He IS better in many ways, and so it is not necessary to demonize him as he pushes to start there with industrial hemp.

Also, context is everythin,g rather than fixating on his out of context quotes like the gotcha media. He actually prefaced it with, "I know many have concerns" that the law will allow for more than it says it will, so how is it dishonest for him to assure them it won't lead to something that state has told him it doesn't want? Isn't that what states rights is all about? It's not just supposed to be your soapbox for anything controversial the majority doesn't support, he's a representative.

Do I wish he would talk about the problems of a black market and incarcerations of non-violent offenders? Sure, but as someone who lives in a Southern state where everyone knows there's no chance of legalization of pot in the near future, I surely understand why he's starting with a battle he can win. There will be other states that will show the benefits of legalization without him painting himself in a corner.

Fine if you disagree with whether how he's doing things will work, but I think he's made it very clear what he's trying to do, and it isn't to sell out, it's to win battles he can win for liberty.

 

[TheGrinch]

To sum up what I said above, let me ask this question: Is Rand pushing for industrial hemp for his own selfish reasons or for liberty and the economy of his state?

If it's the latter, then it is absurd to reduce him to the self-serving politicians. It's one thing to shift the argument for your own personal gain, it's another alltogether to shift the argument to try to implement sound policies and work towards what is impossible in the current environment there, outright legalization. There's little doubt he'd be in favor if his constituents were in favor of legalization.

Are you also upset with those who seek to legalize marijuana first before addressing all harder drugs? Why is he held to this impossible standard we wouldn't hold others to?

Rand is not Ron, he's not trying to be, but he sure is doing the best he can to make real gains and build on what Ron made more acceptable to the mainstream.

 

[supermario21]

Why aren't you guys upset that Massie pretty much said the same things? Massie said he's a Rand Paul guy more than a Ron Paul guy! You can't get everything you want on day 1, and this hemp battle is an important one in Kentucky which has bipartisan support and Rand's leverage has finally gotten McConnell behind it. I feel bad that a large number of people on these forums would likely be disappointed in even a Ron presidency because he could probably not get more than 10% of the things he'd want done.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand has said that the states should have the right to legalize marijuana, which should really be all that matters since Rand will likely be running for President, not Governor of a state. It's not necessary for him to make the case for outright legalization of drugs. I support that, but most Americans aren't at that point yet, and certainly not most Republicans.

I agree. This is not Rand's battle, this is for the people in each state, their legislature and their governor.

 

[thoughtomator]

Has everyone forgotten Rand's old nickname, "Aqua Buddha"? When you smoke so much pot you get your own pot-themed nickname, you're not going to turn into a prohibitionist, ever. Relax folks, Rand is not playing us, he's playing the propaganda-fed ignoramuses.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand is gunning for the Presidency and upon attaining that position his job will only be not to obstruct states from doing what they wish on these matters. Don't put the Quarterback in at linebacker; everyone has their own role to play in this if we want to win.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You don't have to be 'pro'-prostitution to be pro-Liberty. I'm sure you know this, though.

Nor do you have be 'pro'-marijuana, as suggested by the OP. That is the whole point. But I am sure you know that.

 

[mczerone]

I like the statement, as I liked Rand's statement about Kyle's death, because it's political-speak.

First, "IF" the hemp bill did this, he wouldn't be for it. He leaves the listener comforted that their own assessment was correct. He didn't tell them it would or wouldn't.

Second, what does "take off" mean - increase the usage in the population? among teens? lead toward legalization?

It was a statement that can only increase support, and doesn't really say anything definitive.