Rand Paul: I don't promote marijuana

[Rudeman]

If pot was that big of an issue in Colorado then why didn't Gary Johnson win the state? In fact Colorado wasn't even one of his top 10 states.

 

[scottditzen]

I just meant that supporting "gay marriage" isn't the true libertarian position, because such a position advocates increasing the government's role in marriage. It's a position that expands the size and scope of government.

I repped you on your analysis of Paul's marijuana stance.

But you frequently lose me on your SSM logic. I'm not buying the size and scope of government angle. I don't follow. Like, the increased paper work for additional marriage licenses cause some sort of catastrophic burden?

It's overly simplistic to think that one somehow sacrifices libertarian street cred by supporting same sex marriage. You can have your core beliefs and still recognize you have to work within the framework you are stuck with. We're locked into federal treatment of marriage just as we're locked into driving on public roads.

The street I take to work is filled with potholes. I believe privatizing streets could be optimal. However, I'm not going to waste my time advocating to privatize the road. I want these holes fixed asap. Instead I'm going to write my local officials and try and get some tax money diverted to fix the damn potholes full-knowing they'll do a lousy job anyhow.

 

[enjerth]

I repped you on your analysis of Paul's marijuana stance.

But you frequently lose me on your SSM logic. I'm not buying the size and scope of government angle. I don't follow. Like, the increased paper work for additional marriage licenses cause some sort of catastrophic burden?

It's overly simplistic to think that one somehow sacrifices libertarian street cred by supporting same sex marriage. You can have your core beliefs and still recognize you have to work within the framework you are stuck with. We're locked into federal treatment of marriage just as we're locked into driving on public roads.

The street I take to work is filled with potholes. I believe privatizing streets could be optimal. However, I'm not going to waste my time advocating to privatize the road. I want these holes fixed asap. Instead I'm going to write my local officials and try and get some tax money diverted to fix the damn potholes full-knowing they'll do a lousy job anyhow.

Libertarian or not, my stance is that I want a life where I don't have to justify myself to the state with papers at every turn. Life doesn't happen on paper, and living by paper is confining yourself to the boxes on the forms that they provide. Drawing outside of the lines is verboten.

And asking the dragon for a meal is never wise, even if you've already paid the dragon according to his demands.

 

[scottditzen]

Libertarian or not, my stance is that I want a life where I don't have to justify myself to the state with papers at every turn. Life doesn't happen on paper, and living by paper is confining yourself to the boxes on the forms that they provide. Drawing outside of the lines is verboten.

And asking the dragon for a meal is never wise, even if you've already paid the dragon according to his demands.

Preaching to the choir.

But at the same time, just like me you likely have a drivers license and your car registered and you pay taxes etc. etc. Very confining if you ask me.

I'm for the legalization of marijuana. I wish the government had zero role in its manufacture or sale. However it's extremely likely that, when legalized, it will be taxed and regulated ie bigger government. Should libertarians vote down legalization because of this? Or is it okay to choose a lesser of two evils?

I think Rand is perfectly demonstrating how ones personal views can be different than ones policy decisions.

 

[enjerth]

Preaching to the choir.

But at the same time, just like me you likely have a drivers license and your car registered and you pay taxes etc. etc. Very confining if you ask me.

I'm for the legalization of marijuana. I wish the government had zero role in its manufacture or sale. However it's extremely likely that, when legalized, it will be taxed and regulated ie bigger government. Should libertarians vote down legalization because of this? Or is it okay to choose a lesser of two evils?

I think Rand is perfectly demonstrating how ones personal views can be different than ones policy decisions.

The choir it isn't. (speaking to RP forums)

Do we stand for all of our rights and aggressively take them back inch by inch and give up no ground?

Or do we divide into lesser factions that are for this part or that part of the ideal, each compromising a part of the whole message to foot their political message?

Which one holds more power, the whole truth? or divided, processed and packaged truth?

Which one turns the world on a dime?

 

[HigherVision]

Preaching to the choir.

But at the same time, just like me you likely have a drivers license and your car registered and you pay taxes etc. etc. Very confining if you ask me.

I'm for the legalization of marijuana. I wish the government had zero role in its manufacture or sale. However it's extremely likely that, when legalized, it will be taxed and regulated ie bigger government. Should libertarians vote down legalization because of this? Or is it okay to choose a lesser of two evils?

I think Rand is perfectly demonstrating how ones personal views can be different than ones policy decisions.

If you think about it, there could be similar or maybe even more of a licensing process for driving if all roads were fully privatized because consumers would likely not want to drive on roads where there is no verification process for whether people are safe to drive or not. Know what I mean? It's not really the license that's the freedom infringing thing as much as the government being in charge of it. The market might make the qualification tests for driving on popular roads even more difficult than they are now, which maybe wouldn't be a bad thing because a lot of teenagers are awful drivers.

 

[speciallyblend]

If pot was that big of an issue in Colorado then why didn't Gary Johnson win the state? In fact Colorado wasn't even one of his top 10 states.

we changed the constitution in colorado. I just suggested folks can vote for gary johnson, bottom line if the gop candidate doesn't support legal hemp and marijuana. They will not win colorado.

we change the colorado constitution 2 times and all you can do is cry about GJ and whine that we will not support a big gov mandating republican who opposes legal hemp and marijuana! I guess you better make sure the gop nominates rand paul or else they get their asses handed to them by colorado voters!

 

[speciallyblend]

Uh-huh, I'm sure weed is the biggest voting issue on most peoples' minds in Colorado. Give me a break.

Furthermore, what exactly in the Politico article did Rand Paul say that sounded pro-drug war? Oh right, nothing.

well actually it was , check vote totals and the fact that colorado voters changed the colorado constitution 2 times not polticians. This is a solid voter block over 20 years. ignore it and lose!

All i said is if the gop candidate does not support legal hemp and legal marijuana. Then they will be exposed to the colorado majority voter block. In my county i will work against any republican that wants to ignore individual liberty and legal hemp. Many voters in colorado will not support a candidate that opposes their liberty.

I doubt i will vote for a candidate that doesn't support my wife's right to live or right to smoke marijuana over morphine. I do not want a dancing gop candidate. you are either for legal marijuana or not and they will be held accountable by a majority voter block take it or leave it. If you leave it. You will not win colorado.

 

[Brett85]

I repped you on your analysis of Paul's marijuana stance.

But you frequently lose me on your SSM logic. I'm not buying the size and scope of government angle. I don't follow. Like, the increased paper work for additional marriage licenses cause some sort of catastrophic burden?

It's overly simplistic to think that one somehow sacrifices libertarian street cred by supporting same sex marriage. You can have your core beliefs and still recognize you have to work within the framework you are stuck with. We're locked into federal treatment of marriage just as we're locked into driving on public roads.

The street I take to work is filled with potholes. I believe privatizing streets could be optimal. However, I'm not going to waste my time advocating to privatize the road. I want these holes fixed asap. Instead I'm going to write my local officials and try and get some tax money diverted to fix the damn potholes full-knowing they'll do a lousy job anyhow.

1) I never claimed to have a libertarian view on this issue, or be a libertarian in general. Hence, my username. There are essentially about four issues that I disagree with libertarians on, which is why I don't give myself that label; abortion, marriage, border security, and the death penalty.

2) I believe that the authentic libertarian position on marriage is to get the government out of marriage altogether, even at the state level. I don't necessarily agree with that either, hence why I don't call myself a libertarian. But, I admit that my position isn't the libertarian position and that the position to have no government involvement at all in marriage is the libertarian position. But, it seems to me like expanding the definition of marriage is an even bigger government position than the position the traditional marriage people have. For example, if we start having federal recognition of same sex marriages, it will just cause Social Security to go bankrupt even faster, due to the government having to give out more Social Security Survivor benefits. You can go down the list and you have the same problem. Expanding the definition of marriage is basically just going to mean more spending by the government.

 

[Brett85]

I think Rand is perfectly demonstrating how ones personal views can be different than ones policy decisions.

Rand doesn't support gay marriage either.

 

[speciallyblend]

Run your own presidential campaign with a legalize pot platform. Good luck.

actually we coloradians did run a campaign 2 times and won, medical and personal marijauna is the colorado constitution. you supply the money and i will organize. deal

 

[asurfaholic]

we changed the constitution in colorado. I just suggested folks can vote for gary johnson, bottom line if the gop candidate doesn't support legal hemp and marijuana. They will not win colorado.

So obama supported hemp and marijuana? I give you a pass on the first term, but term 2 was different.

Not trying to be smartass, but somebody won CO and im pretty sure they didnt openly support weed.

Edit, post may not be clear, but to clarify, i dont know if obama won anything in CO. But if it wasnt obama, then its mcCain or romney, neither of which supported Mj.

 

[scottditzen]

1) I never claimed to have a libertarian view on this issue, or be a libertarian in general. Hence, my username. There are essentially about four issues that I disagree with libertarians on, which is why I don't give myself that label; abortion, marriage, border security, and the death penalty.

2) I believe that the authentic libertarian position on marriage is to get the government out of marriage altogether, even at the state level. I don't necessarily agree with that either, hence why I don't call myself a libertarian. But, I admit that my position isn't the libertarian position and that the position to have no government involvement at all in marriage is the libertarian position. But, it seems to me like expanding the definition of marriage is an even bigger government position than the position the traditional marriage people have. For example, if we start having federal recognition of same sex marriages, it will just cause Social Security to go bankrupt even faster, due to the government having to give out more Social Security Survivor benefits. You can go down the list and you have the same problem. Expanding the definition of marriage is basically just going to mean more spending by the government.

I'm not questioning your personal beliefs (which you've been admittedly been pretty clear about on this forum) I was questioning your analysis of the same sex marriage issue. I just don't see the bigger government angle as being a convincing argument. Opponents of same sex marriage would do better opposing on moral grounds. The "get government out of marriage" argument (which makes so much sense to me) in a way is a political sidestep as it's a near certainty that government fully intends to remain in the equation.

 

[bbjaylive]

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.

People like that are either sheep, wilfully stupid or have an agenda.

 

[scottditzen]

Rand doesn't support gay marriage either.

My point is that even if President Rand Paul was 100 percent against recreational drug use, he doesn't seem at all like the type to send the DEA after citizens of Colorado. Even though such action would be perfectly allowable under the Constitution.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

My point is that even if President Rand Paul was 100 percent against recreational drug use, he doesn't seem at all like the type to send the DEA after citizens of Colorado. Even though such action would be perfectly allowable under the Constitution.

I'll have to disagree here. The Constitution grants Congress limited powers as seen in Art I Sec VIII and does not grant them nor the Prez the power to send armed Fed agents to govern state affairs especially in terms of intra-state commerce. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was put in place to hedge against any unclear intentions made in the Constitution and a final preservation of individual liberty. The 9th Amendment states that even those rights which aren't listed in the BoR can't be disparaged nor denied from individuals and consumption of anything is clearly a right that would fall in that category. Rights, by nature, are moral principles defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context and thus any non-aggressive action is a right for an individual.

 

[scottditzen]

I'll have to disagree here. The Constitution grants Congress limited powers as seen in Art I Sec VIII and does not grant them nor the Prez the power to send armed Fed agents to govern state affairs especially in terms of intra-state commerce. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was put in place to hedge against any unclear intentions made in the Constitution and a final preservation of individual liberty. The 9th Amendment states that even those rights which aren't listed in the BoR can't be disparaged nor denied from individuals and consumption of anything is clearly a right that would fall in that category. Rights, by nature, are moral principles defining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context and thus any non-aggressive action is a right for an individual.

Well....I actually agree with you 100 percent. However nobody on the Supreme Court is going to see it our way. I'm in an office with a guy known as a Constitutional scholar and sadly even he doesn't see things our way.

But again, my point is that whatever Rand's personal views are (and who could even be sure he's being truthful) I see him respecting a states prerogative to legalize marijuana or gay marriage. Whether his reasoning is based on libertarianism, the Constitution, natural law, morality or whatever I see myself agreeing with his (and Ron's) hands off approach on the matter.

p.s. I'm an attorney...please don't hold that against me.

 

[speciallyblend]

So obama supported hemp and marijuana? I give you a pass on the first term, but term 2 was different.

Not trying to be smartass, but somebody won CO and im pretty sure they didnt openly support weed.

Edit, post may not be clear, but to clarify, i dont know if obama won anything in CO. But if it wasnt obama, then its mcCain or romney, neither of which supported Mj.

i already said plainly and clearly in my post. that is doesn't matter if obama or the dems are for or against(my original post in this thread). the republican/gop is known as big gov war mongering police state folks and that is how folks will treat republicans who oppose individual liberty. I clearly said once again sadly it will not matter where the dems stand. Folks view the republican party as neo-cons,right-wing nuts and rightly so after 40 years of gop BS! I am talking about republicans not dems. All ican do is hold republicans accountable with my vote. I cannot concern myself with dems who i do not vote for. I can only oppose republicans who oppose my wife's rights and peoples rights. If the gop wants to run someone other then rand paul. They will lose in 2016. The gop candidate will have to firmly support state rights legal hemp and legal marijuana in colorado. If they fail to do that. They will lose. The only one i could even trust is rand paul. all i am saying is 2/3 of colorado voters over 20 years will hold the gop accountable if they start dancing around the issue. double dare them! more folks voted for 64 then obama or romney! only one can be trusted Rand Paul, the rest could never be trusted they are big gov establishment. I suggest rand paul watch what he says so he doesn't piss off our large voter base. If rpf folks and republicans want to discount what i say. Then i predict loses in colorado across the board by republicans if they fail to address the largest voting block in colorado across generations now. Large enough to change the colorado constitution 2 times!! ignore and the gop will fail!

 

[Michigan11]

I definitely am pro weed and like it very much, it's a relaxing smoke. It's growing in popularity, however the majority of voters are 65 and older which is our current problem, for a politician standing up for it and winning. You can't do it just yet, but it's sliding that way politically. Our current problem when really looking at it politically is the older, consistent voting bloc. They are aging and lossing voting power by the day, however.

 

[libertyjam]

Like I keep saying, the vast majority of those that are against legalization will be dead soon. There is already an overwhelming majority in favor of decriminalization if not outright legalization across the population, it is only a matter of time now.