Rand Paul: I don't promote marijuana

[Brett85]

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.

The most recent polls show that a majority of voters support marijuana legalization. At least by 2016 it's going to be a popular position to support marijuana legalization. Presidential elections bring out a lot of younger voters as well.

 

[Michigan11]

The most recent polls show that a majority of voters support marijuana legalization. At least by 2016 it's going to be a popular position to support marijuana legalization. Presidential elections bring out a lot of younger voters as well.

That baby boom generation is something fierce, they are living longer and are still in control of the country's purse pockets. If Rand comes out completely in pro- of it, I would believe it's because what you said, I just think it's better to edge your way in to the public consciousness. It's coming though, some pro weed voters may have certain party affiliations they stick too or have other "one voter" issue they tend to gravitate towards, in this divisive electorate we are today. Who knows. Let's keep pushing in our own ways. Nobody I knows caresless about weed anymore, including the older voters, so who knows. Maybe the media is that powerful?

 

[Brett85]

That baby boom generation is something fierce, they are living longer and are still in control of the country's purse pockets. If Rand comes out completely in pro- of it, I would believe it's because what you said, I just think it's better to edge your way in to the public consciousness. It's coming though, some pro weed voters may have certain party affiliations they stick too or have other "one voter" issue they tend to gravitate towards, in this divisive electorate we are today. Who knows. Let's keep pushing in our own ways. Nobody I knows caresless about weed anymore, including the older voters, so who knows. Maybe the media is that powerful?

The problem with Rand saying that he's opposed to legalizing marijuana is that you get articles like this.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/27/unlike-his-father-rand-paul-just-says-no-to-marijuana-legalization

 

[Michigan11]

The problem with Rand saying that he's opposed to legalizing marijuana is that you get articles like this.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/27/unlike-his-father-rand-paul-just-says-no-to-marijuana-legalization

Grabs the votest that count. The loyal 65 and older, should be a caliber name for them

 

[Rudeman]

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!

lol, really you neg repped me for that? Sorry I'm not delusional. MJ is not an issue that will determine the presidential election, not in Colorado or anywhere else. The fact that GJ barely got any of the vote in Colorado is proof of how minor of an issue Coloradans think it is. If the people didn't care that much the year that MJ was legalized why would they care more in 2016?

 

[No Free Beer]

The problem with Rand saying that he's opposed to legalizing marijuana is that you get articles like this.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/27/unlike-his-father-rand-paul-just-says-no-to-marijuana-legalization

MSNBC will do anything to discredit him. I say, who cares?

 

[supermario21]

How many people watch Martin Bashir??? More people probably watch or listen to Infowars.

 

[Origanalist]

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

You haven't seen me on the rare occasions I have used it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The problem with Rand saying that he's opposed to legalizing marijuana is that you get articles like this.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/27/unlike-his-father-rand-paul-just-says-no-to-marijuana-legalization

This isn't a problem. Its true. Rand is really, really strong on some issues, and borderline pathetic on others. As a whole package, he's pretty good, but he completely fails on the pot issues.

lol, really you neg repped me for that? Sorry I'm not delusional. MJ is not an issue that will determine the presidential election, not in Colorado or anywhere else. The fact that GJ barely got any of the vote in Colorado is proof of how minor of an issue Coloradans think it is. If the people didn't care that much the year that MJ was legalized why would they care more in 2016?

Its a big issue for libertarians, albeit not the biggest one...

 

[Brett85]

This isn't a problem. Its true. Rand is really, really strong on some issues, and borderline pathetic on others. As a whole package, he's pretty good, but he completely fails on the pot issues.

When you look at the statements Rand made before he ever ran for the Senate, he made some statements that made it sound like he was a hardcore opponent of the war on drugs. I think right now he just isn't willing to take a position that could hurt him in a Republican Primary in 2016. I don't think he's actually opposed to marijuana legalization privately.

 

[Christian Liberty]

When you look at the statements Rand made before he ever ran for the Senate, he made some statements that made it sound like he was a hardcore opponent of the war on drugs. I think right now he just isn't willing to take a position that could hurt him in a Republican Primary in 2016. I don't think he's actually opposed to marijuana legalization privately.

Its possible but this also shows a weaker spine than I would like. If he can sell out to get elected, he can also continue to do so once in the White House. I think Rand Paul is a better politician than most others, but he's still a politician. And therefore I have to say I don't 100% trust him. I am fairly confident Rand Paul will at least to some extent fight for our liberties in the White House, but I would have bet my life on it with Ron Paul.

Rand is playing with fire and trying not to get burned, which is always a risky proposition at best.

 

[Rudeman]

Its a big issue for libertarians, albeit not the biggest one...

I'm not saying it isn't an issue of importance to some people, but to pretend that it is an issue that will decide the 2016 presidential election is absurd. People like speciallyblend just reinforce the stereotype that libertarians/Ron Paul supporters are just a bunch of pot loving kids who are ignorant on the other issues (primarily used to discredit Ron's positions of ending the Fed/War etc. and why he was popular with the youth).

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not saying it isn't an issue of importance to some people, but to pretend that it is an issue that will decide the 2016 presidential election is absurd. People like speciallyblend just reinforce the stereotype that libertarians/Ron Paul supporters are just a bunch of pot loving kids who are ignorant on the other issues (primarily used to discredit Ron's positions of ending the Fed/War etc. and why he was popular with the youth).

Yeah, its not going to decide the election. Most people only care about the economy anyways...

 

[enjerth]

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.

Yes, but there is no authority to act in violence then if the government isn't allowed to seek retribution on you for not having your papers in order.

Like, not having your drivers license on you is currently reason enough for them to take additional liberties in the name of law enforcement.