Rand Paul: I don't promote marijuana

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/03/paul-i-dont-promote-marijuana-160075.html

"Look, the last two presidents could have conceivably been put in jail for their drug use and I really think - look what would've happened, it would've ruined their lives. They got lucky. But a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky and they don't have good attorneys and they go to jail for some of these things and I think it's a big mistake,” the Kentucky Republican said on Fox’s “Fox News Sunday.”

Paul said that he doesn’t support people using marijuana but said he also doesn’t necessarily support putting them in jail for extended periods of time.

"There are people in jail for 37, 50, 45 years for nonviolent crimes and that's a huge mistake," Paul said. "Our prisons are full of non-violent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. I think even marijuana is a bad thing to do. I think it takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things that you should be doing. I don't think that it's a good idea."

“I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make a mistake," he added. "There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on in their twenties they grow up and get married and they quit doing things like this. I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives."

 

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Thought it was funny how Mike Wallace corrected Rand by saying the last three presidents and included that he "Didn't inhale".

 

[brandon]

Dannnos not gonna be happy

 

[jkr]

medicine

 

[TheGrinch]

Dannnos not gonna be happy

I'd imagine Danno will realize that a politician cannot take a stronger stance than the one he's taking. I mean, he also isn't going to go up there and say "Drinking alcohol is great!".

Stick to the victimless crimes, dangers of prohibition, and medicinal benefits. Those are strong arguments in themselves without painting yourself into a corner preaching "it's no big deal" to people who still think it is. He can tip-toe around its harmlessness, but he will be smeared if he acts like he endorses the behavior.

 

[wetroof]

lol mentioned g.w bush's drug use. that is kind of in bad taste. I don't think g.w bush owned up to it like Obama.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Thought it was funny how Mike Wallace corrected Rand by saying the last three presidents and included that he "Didn't inhale".

That was hilarious!

 

[thoughtomator]

Marijuana handles its own promotion just fine.

 

[Matt Collins]

Aqua Buddha FTW!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It's a shame how so many can not separate promotion or endorsement from legality. It is perfectly consistent to prefer no government involvement without endorsement.

 

[thequietkid10]

Thought it was funny how Mike Wallace corrected Rand by saying the last three presidents and included that he "Didn't inhale".

not true....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DWx5u0nPc4

 

[Brett85]

It's a shame how so many can not separate promotion or endorsement from legality. It is perfectly consistent to prefer no government involvement without endorsement.

Exactly. Why would anyone demand that a politician actually endorse marijuana use?

 

[AFPVet]

Cannabis doesn't promote the kind of lethargy that he says any more than alcohol or prescription sedatives do.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't endorse it. I think its stupid. Granted, I suspect (I'm not that knowledgeable, but I'm almost certain) that medical marijuana is somewhat useful, and that recreational marijuana is probably more in the ballpark of nicotine cigarettes than crack... But I still don't endorse cigarette use either. I just don't want users to go to jail. The same could be said for marijuana, or even crack. I don't expect Rand to endorse it either. I wish he would openly advocate legalization. He doesn't have to endorse legalization by Congress, he could easily just say "I believe it should be legal but because of the 10th amendment this is a state issue" or something, but to continue to advocate for its illegality is a bit annoying. Yet, Rand doesn't support legalization. Oh well, he fell from the same tree as his dad, just a different branch. I can tolerate it.

 

[Brett85]

I don't endorse it. I think its stupid. Granted, I suspect (I'm not that knowledgeable, but I'm almost certain) that medical marijuana is somewhat useful, and that recreational marijuana is probably more in the ballpark of nicotine cigarettes than crack... But I still don't endorse cigarette use either. I just don't want users to go to jail. The same could be said for marijuana, or even crack. I don't expect Rand to endorse it either. I wish he would openly advocate legalization. He doesn't have to endorse legalization by Congress, he could easily just say "I believe it should be legal but because of the 10th amendment this is a state issue" or something, but to continue to advocate for its illegality is a bit annoying. Yet, Rand doesn't support legalization. Oh well, he fell from the same tree as his dad, just a different branch. I can tolerate it.

He didn't explictly say that he opposes legalization, just that he's not advocating it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, word games

Granted, that may be exactly what Rand Paul is doing. He may well support legalization but yet be politically savvy. I don't care though. I'm disappointed in him for not being at least somewhat willing to fight for victimless 'criminals.' At the very least he should be willing to advocate for legalization of pot.

 

[rubioneocon]

He didn't explictly say that he opposes legalization, just that he's not advocating it.

It is afterall a state rights issue . . . ok in Colorado and California for example
and a tobacco state like Kentucky should be able to do whatever it's fine and honorable citizens
so choose to do as well.

The next President of the United States really should act presidential unequivocally at all times,
and not allow himself to get cornered into talking about social issues . . . also read as
the social engineering of society by the non-constitutionalists, non-liberty candidates, and / or neocon war mongerers.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't claim that Rand should try to legalize drugs at the Federal level. He should, however, support legalization and advocate for it at the state level. The 10th amendment is the best thing we've got right now.

Granted, all Rand has to do constittutionally is to leave it to the states, so I can forgive him, but I wish he'd be more open about it like his dad.

 

[dinosaur]

I don't claim that Rand should try to legalize drugs at the Federal level. He should, however, support legalization and advocate for it at the state level. The 10th amendment is the best thing we've got right now.

Granted, all Rand has to do constittutionally is to leave it to the states, so I can forgive him, but I wish he'd be more open about it like his dad.

The way that Rand argues the issue causes people to stop and think. If he did it your way, they would dismiss him and his arguments. Which would you rather have happen?

 

[Brett85]

Oh, word games

Granted, that may be exactly what Rand Paul is doing. He may well support legalization but yet be politically savvy. I don't care though. I'm disappointed in him for not being at least somewhat willing to fight for victimless 'criminals.' At the very least he should be willing to advocate for legalization of pot.

He said in the interview that he's opposed to throwing people in jail for victimless crimes, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. The fact that he doesn't like to use the term "legalization" doesn't mean that he's in favor of drug use being a criminal activity.