[Video] Rand Paul on Real Time with Bill Maher 11/14/14

[trey4sports]

i was surprised to hear Rand say that he wants to end the war on drugs. It's great that he took such a strong stand but it will be played on loop during his primary attack ads.

 

[Carlybee]

I can see where these things might appeal to libertarians and maybe some liberals in a general election but how do they play with the Republicans that he has to win over to get the nomination in the primary?

 

[specsaregood]

i was surprised to hear Rand say that he wants to end the war on drugs. It's great that he took such a strong stand but it will be played on loop during his primary attack ads.

I think it was the perfect platform for Randal to once again purposely puts himself in what appears to be a losing position and inviting an attack he is well prepared for.

Note: he didn't make the "mistake" of arguing for legalizing all drugs, he simply said he wanted to end the war on drugs. Its a big difference, one he can capitalize on when attacked incorrectly.

 

[Schifference]

I can see where these things might appeal to libertarians and maybe some liberals in a general election but how do they play with the Republicans that he has to win over to get the nomination in the primary?

Maybe all these new found supporters will register Republican and get him the nomination.

 

[CaptUSA]

i was surprised to hear Rand say that he wants to end the war on drugs. It's great that he took such a strong stand but it will be played on loop during his primary attack ads.

It's like asking to be thrown into the briar patch. It is so easy to make a conservative case that the war on drugs is a colossal waste of money. Not only that, it will allow him to bring Pat Robertson's name into the mix which will appeal to evangelicals. It's like a goalie flashing open the five-hole. As soon as the shot is taken, this opening will be closed in dramatic fashion. Any opponent will be demolished if they try it - which of course, they will.

 

[Todd]

i was surprised to hear Rand say that he wants to end the war on drugs. It's great that he took such a strong stand but it will be played on loop during his primary attack ads.

And it's not 1986. It will be 2016. Much less salient than a generation ago.

 

[jmdrake]

I wonder how Rand will answer the question if he's asked whether marijuana should be legalized.

He said he was committed to ending the war on drugs. To me that goes further than just legalizing marijuana. I found the answer to the global warming question interesting. "There's no question that carbon is increasing since the industrial revolution". But he never said anything about whether carbon was causing global warming. Then he talked about middle ground solutions that don't wreck the economy and finished of with a "deregulate alternative fuels" coup de grace. I can't believe Bill Maher is such an idiot on the subject. Then again I can.

 

[jmdrake]

i was surprised to hear Rand say that he wants to end the war on drugs. It's great that he took such a strong stand but it will be played on loop during his primary attack ads.

During this last election cycle marijuana decriminalization was as much of a winner as were republicans. The only reason it didn't pass in Florida was that they needed 60%. It will likely be a wash in the GOP primary. In the general election taking any other stance will hurt Hillary.

It's like asking to be thrown into the briar patch. It is so easy to make a conservative case that the war on drugs is a colossal waste of money. Not only that, it will allow him to bring Pat Robertson's name into the mix which will appeal to evangelicals. It's like a goalie flashing open the five-hole. As soon as the shot is taken, this opening will be closed in dramatic fashion. Any opponent will be demolished if they try it - which of course, they will.

I had forgotten about Pat Robertson. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=0

 

[Brett85]

He said he was committed to ending the war on drugs. To me that goes further than just legalizing marijuana. I found the answer to the global warming question interesting. "There's no question that carbon is increasing since the industrial revolution". But he never said anything about whether carbon was causing global warming. Then he talked about middle ground solutions that don't wreck the economy and finished of with a "deregulate alternative fuels" coup de grace. I can't believe Bill Maher is such an idiot on the subject. Then again I can.

But in this interview he said that he supports ending the war on drugs, but he's never said that he supports legalizing marijuana. So he must not view "ending the war on drugs" as being the same thing as "legalizing marijuana." Maybe he just meant "end the federal war on drugs and send the issue back to the states," or "stop the mass incarceration of non violent drug offenders."

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/rand-paul-assures-evangelicals-that-he-d

 

[specsaregood]

./

 

[jmdrake]

But in this interview he said that he supports ending the war on drugs, but he's never said that he supports legalizing marijuana. So he must not view "ending the war on drugs" as being the same thing as "legalizing marijuana." Maybe he just meant "end the federal war on drugs and send the issue back to the states," or "stop the mass incarceration of non violent drug offenders."

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/rand-paul-assures-evangelicals-that-he-d

So let me see if I understand you. Unless Rand supports passing a law saying that all states must legalize marijuana that's not good enough? Seriously? Never in the history of the U.S. has the federal government every passed a law saying that states must legalize the use of any particular substance. When prohibition of alcohol was repealed states still could choose to be dry if they really really want to do so.

By the way, I clicked on your link. Just another "reason" not to trust reason.com. I'm surprised you of all people can't see through this. From "reason".com.

“He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” [said Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa].

Since when is Brad Sherman a spokesman for Rand Paul? What Rand actually said.

“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” [Rand] said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

Rand never said "And I think marijuana should remain illegal". Now here's where "reason" got tripped up.

Paul said he believes in freedom and wants a “virtuous society” where people practice “self-restraint.” Yet he believes in laws and limits as well. Instead of advocating for legalized drugs, for example, he pushes for reduced penalties for many drug offenses.

So Rand goes to a conservative event, says "I'm not for smoking pot" then goes around and talks about how prisons are overcrowded and we should at least reduce penalties. Great! The inclusion of the one does not mean the exclusion of the other. Yes, first things first, reduce penalties for drug offenses. But the "war on drugs" will continue until there are no federal drug penalties. So saying "I'm for ending the drug war" = complete drug decriminalization.

It's just like Rand talking about "carbon emissions having increased since the industrial revolution". Cool. But he never said "And so I accept the position of Al Gore that CO2 emissions are causing global warming." But someone could twist the Bill Maher interview to say that the same way "Reason" is twisting what happened at the Value Voters summit into "Rand really doesn't want to end the war on drugs".

And note that the Reason article itself is refuting your position. It's title is "Rand Paul "Assures" Evangelicals That He Doesn't Want to End the Drug War". But you're claiming that ending the war on drugs is somehow different from decriminalizing drugs.

 

[jmdrake]

//

 

[jmdrake]

Like I mentioned above, I don't think he would have promoted ending the war on drugs on such a public platform if he wasn't 100% ready to defend that position and turn it into a winner.

And you are correct, "end the war on drugs" <> "legalize drugs". He has said before (like his father) that it should be treated like a medical issue. And coincidentally enough this "dea raids nfl teams" thing comes up at just the right time for him to promote the thought his father promoted that the war on drugs is a war on doctors.

You cannot end the federal war on drugs without de facto legalization of drugs at the federal level. I'm not sure what some of you are wanting Rand to say.

 

[Brett85]

So let me see if I understand you. Unless Rand supports passing a law saying that all states must legalize marijuana that's not good enough? Seriously? Never in the history of the U.S. has the federal government every passed a law saying that states must legalize the use of any particular substance. When prohibition of alcohol was repealed states still could choose to be dry if they really really want to do so.

No, I'm saying that in the past he's said that he doesn't support laws like the one in Colorado that legalize marijuana. Now he's saying that he wants to "end the war on drugs." So if we're going to assume that he hasn't changed his past position, then Rand's claim that he wants to "end the war on drugs" doesn't mean that he endorses state efforts to completely legalize all drugs.

 

[specsaregood]

You cannot end the federal war on drugs without de facto legalization of drugs at the federal level. I'm not sure what some of you are wanting Rand to say.

Is there not a difference between legalization and decriminalization? I look at legalize as regulate and arguably "approve". Whereas I see ending the war on drugs as more of a deregulation at the federal level or no opinion. Or Return it to the state level as you said. I think we pretty much agree here.

 

[jmdrake]

No, I'm saying that in the past he's said that he doesn't support laws like the one in Colorado that legalize marijuana.

A) Where has he said that? He didn't say that in that stupid Reason article you posted which actually refutes your position.
B) As president what the hell difference does that make? A president doesn't have veto power of Colorado law. All a president can do is to override it by federal law.

Now he's saying that he wants to "end the war on drugs." So if we're going to assume that he hasn't changed his past position, then Rand's claim that he wants to "end the war on drugs" doesn't mean that he endorses state efforts to completely legalize all drugs.

Again, why the hell should he? He's not running for governor of Colorado.

 

[trey4sports]

my concern is not so much what "end the war on drugs" means to folks like you and I but rather how the average low-information voter will comprehend that.

 

[jmdrake]

Is there not a difference between legalization and decriminalization? I look at legalize as regulate and arguably "approve". Whereas I see ending the war on drugs as more of a deregulation at the federal level or no opinion. Or Return it to the state level as you said. I think we pretty much agree here.

Rand holds federal office (U.S. Senator) not state office. Rand is running for federal office (U.S. President) not state office. If California and Oregon both legalized drugs and even if the federal government actually followed the constitution, the federal government could still arrest people for transporting drugs across state lines. So for Rand to "end the war on drugs", drugs would have to be defacto legalized at the federal level. Where I live there was a referendum on whether or not grocery stores should be able to sell wine. Should Rand have issued an opinion on that as well?

 

[Brett85]

A) Where has he said that? He didn't say that in that stupid Reason article you posted which actually refutes your position.
B) As president what the hell difference does that make? A president doesn't have veto power of Colorado law. All a president can do is to override it by federal law.



Again, why the hell should he? He's not running for governor of Colorado.

I'm not suggesting that he say anything different than he's been saying. I'm not criticizing him. I'm just making the point that when Rand says "end the war on drugs," he's not advocating the outright legalization of all drugs at the state level.

 

[Brett85]

He's said that he doesn't endorse state marijuana legalization efforts many times. I've heard him say that on Hannity's radio show.