Rand not pro marijuana?wth?

[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 bull$#@! 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.

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Bunch of goddamn hippies all of you.

Slutter McGee

i dont even

wut

[bubbling sound] [cough hack wheeze cough]

[devil21]

While marijuana is still illegal, a Senator doesn't want it to happen. Im not a fan of the comment he made and thought it was unnecessary but marijuana production, while illegal, hurts all those that get involved if the laws are used against them. It's not always about "omg think of the children!". The law comes crashing down on the grower in the hemp field and his life is tossed upside down. I can't speak for what Rand meant here but sometimes what politicians don't say is as important as what they do. It's a state issue and Rand may be opposed to use and that's ok too. Im gonna bet Ron is too. So hard to measure anyone up against Ron Paul, even his own kid.

[kcchiefs6465]

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

The point is Rand Paul has apparently different visions of Liberty. Not being for people to ingest what they wish is a very statist view. [albeit, a popular statist view] The only way you can enforce that is with a swelling prison industrial complex and with an ever increasing [un]funded war on drugs. Now, I would assume Rand Paul knows this and is against industrialized slave labor, and militarized pigs beating on your door for any 'probable cause' they see fit. (AF recently posted a story of a home ransacked by these thugs after aerial pictures of sunflowers were determined to be marijuana) I would very much like for him to state these things, personally. You want rhetoric that appeals to more people? State decriminalization and our out of control prison population of non-violent drug offenders. State the addiction is a medical ailment and should be treated as such. (a self-inflicted medical ailment, usually, but an ailment all the same) Believe it or not, the people that are against that are dwindling yearly. The young people see the problems with our current system [or can be awoken to see] and are [or could be] by and large against locking up people for non-violent mainly victimless crimes. I don't believe I have to be an $#@! and state, 'But I am sure you know this' again, do I?

[Southerner]

He's a Senator. Senators represent their constituents. ... Glen opposed it because he didn't feel the government has a role in marriage. However, his vote reflected his constituents. Don't like what Rand is doing then get his base to support legalization.
Politicians aren't elected to "go their own way" after election. They are elected to do what their constituents wish.
...

AMEN, EXACTLY, SPOT ON & THANK YOU!!!

[GunnyFreedom]

Um. Ron Paul isn't "pro-marijuana" either, he's "pro-Constitution." It was always a neocon trope to label Ron as "pro-drug" no matter how much of a lie it was. You can be hard-core anti-marijuana and still believe that the Constitution should be obeyed and people have a right of ownership over their own bodies.

I think what we have here is much ado about the same concept described with different dialects of the English Language.

[GunnyFreedom]

He's a Senator. Senators represent their constituents. An interesting case study is our own Glen Bradley. In N.C. we had Amendment One to keep gays from marrying. Glen opposed it because he didn't feel the government has a role in marriage. However, his vote reflected his constituents. Don't like what Rand is doing then get his base to support legalization.
Politicians aren't elected to "go their own way" after election. They are elected to do what their constituents wish.
If you are from KY then let him know your views. Every email and phone call counts. It's the only way a politician knows what "the people" want.

I'm officially counted as a "no," actually. I only went so far as to ensure that it landed on the referendum like I promised my constituents I would. Once it had a demonstrable 10 vote margin for passage, I no longer felt like I had to vote for the thing to keep my promise to my constituents that I would make sure it landed on the referendum.

However, my opposition to the Amendment is why I am not in the GA today. When people voted for the guy who won the primary, he was lying to them. They actually thought they were nominating a Bradley clone who also loves the marriage amendment. Turns out he is literally NOTHING like me in any way of course lol. A LOT of voter's regrets have already came up to me to tell me this stuff exactly.

"If I had only known.... he said he was just like you in EVERYTHING but unlike you he opposes gay marriage!" (another lie, of course, I don't support gay marriage, I support getting government out of marriage altogether.)

It is my experience that the electorate prefers a liar over a truthteller every single time.

Not gonna stop me from telling the truth, but I'm a LOT more cynical here than I used to be. Seeing the back end of a sick elephant spew all that feces everywhere has had an effect.

[kcchiefs6465]

Um. Ron Paul isn't "pro-marijuana" either, he's "pro-Constitution." It was always a neocon trope to label Ron as "pro-drug" no matter how much of a lie it was. You can be hard-core anti-marijuana and still believe that the Constitution should be obeyed and people have a right of ownership over their own bodies.

I think what we have here is much ado about the same concept described with different dialects of the English Language.

Must spread some reputation around.

[Occam's Banana]

The point is Rand Paul has apparently different visions of Liberty. Not being for people to ingest what they wish is a very statist view. [albeit, a popular statist view] The only way you can enforce that is with a swelling prison industrial complex and with an ever increasing [un]funded war on drugs. Now, I would assume Rand Paul knows this and is against industrialized slave labor, and militarized pigs beating on your door for any 'probable cause' they see fit. (AF recently posted a story of a home ransacked by these thugs after aerial pictures of sunflowers were determined to be marijuana) I would very much like for him to state these things, personally. You want rhetoric that appeals to more people? State decriminalization and our out of control prison population of non-violent drug offenders. State the addiction is a medical ailment and should be treated as such. (a self-inflicted medical ailment, usually, but an ailment all the same) Believe it or not, the people that are against that are dwindling yearly. The young people see the problems with our current system [or can be awoken to see] and are [or could be] by and large against locking up people for non-violent mainly victimless crimes.

Oh, Jesus H. Christ on a hopped-up Harley with a Satan in a sidecar!

The man said "If I thought this was going to allow marijuana to take off in our state I wouldn't be for it" and "we don't want that to happen".

He was testifying at a hearing on the legalization of hemp in Kentucky. NOT marijuana. Hemp. His remarks were an attempt to dismiss the baseless concerns of those critics who want to spread wild-eyed nonsense about how legalizing hemp will somehow result in the state being overrun with marijuana traffic. How the hell anyone gets from that to the notion that Rand is somehow tacitly supportive of the WoD-fueled Prison-Industrial Complex is utterly beyond me. Why the hell should he be expected to stump on behalf of marijuana legalization under such circumstances (and thereby play right into the hands of the opponents of hemp legalization)? Why? Just for the sake of scoring some Libertarian Macho Flash points? Replace the word "marijuana" with "prostitution" in what Rand said and the reason for the absurdity of the criticisms being directed at him in this instance becomes even more abundantly clear than it already is.

Get it through. Rand was not trying to educate people on the evils of marijuana criminalization. He was trying to convince people of the virtues of hemp legalization.

I swear, I don't know which group is more unhinged: the Rand defenders who run around excusing him for every position he takes and every word he utters on the basis that Rand is some sort of "super-secret infiltrator who is just using lies and pandering as a tactic in order to trick his way into the White House, where he'll suddenly throw off his stealth cloak and reveal his true identity as a hard-core-Ron-Paul style truth-bomber" - or the Rand critics who run around parsing molehills into mountains because Rand doesn't sieze every opportunity to hop on one or another of the Liberty Movement's favorite hobby-horses and ride it into the ground (no matter how tangential it is to the matter actually at hand - which in this case is HEMP legalization).

I don't believe I have to be an $#@! and state, 'But I am sure you knowthis' again, do I?

Apparently, you do.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Um. Ron Paul isn't "pro-marijuana" either, he's "pro-Constitution." It was always a neocon trope to label Ron as "pro-drug" no matter how much of a lie it was. You can be hard-core anti-marijuana and still believe that the Constitution should be obeyed and people have a right of ownership over their own bodies.

I think what we have here is much ado about the same concept described with different dialects of the English Language.

Ron used moral and medical arguments for marijuana more frequently than legal and constitutional arguments. He also has stated numerous times that it's safer than alcohol. And he drinks alcohol. It's pretty safe to say he's pro-marijuana.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ron used moral and medical arguments for marijuana more frequently than legal and constitutional arguments. He also has stated numerous times that it's safer than alcohol. And he drinks alcohol. It's pretty safe to say he's pro-marijuana.

Yes, by all means, despite the several hundreds of times Ron Paul has insisted that he is against recreational drug use of any kind, including marijuana use, we should absolutely stick to what we wish he thought instead of what he actually says he thinks. Since our own preferences for what we want Ron Paul to think are obviously so much more accurate than what he, himself, says.

Good lord. What Occam's Banana said times a million. The entire liberty movement seems to be losing their minds.

[Southerner]

"You can be hard-core anti-marijuana and still believe that the Constitution should be obeyed and people have a right of ownership over their own bodies."

You and I can believe that, but the VAST majority of older and "establishment AND moderate" GOP voters do not, will not, ever. THEY TALK the "constitutional talk", but walking it is something very different indeed. Might even find millions of them willing to not give EGYPT 3.5 billion$ of military hardware every year, but when you also talk about stopping that aid to ISRAEL, they go ballistic. nutso. whacko.

[GunnyFreedom]

"You can be hard-core anti-marijuana and still believe that the Constitution should be obeyed and people have a right of ownership over their own bodies."

You and I can believe that, but the VAST majority of older and "establishment AND moderate" GOP voters do not, will not, ever. THEY TALK the "constitutional talk", but walking it is something very different indeed. Might even find millions of them willing to not give EGYPT 3.5 billion$ of military hardware every year, but when you also talk about stopping that aid to ISRAEL, they go ballistic. nutso. whacko.

Well, we've won about 60% of NC Tea over to eliminating Washington DC from any and all drug policy, and as you may know, the Tea people are more difficult to move on this point than establishment.

But then we've specifically stayed engaged with NC Tea since 2009. A LOT of the stuff where Liberty and TEA disagree, we've reconciled here in NC, and agreed to "the Constitution or bust" in order to form a coalition larger than the establishment.

I even sent a mass email discussion where I spoke about WHY coming together around the Constitution works for this type of coalition, because it worries us ALL equally. See, for the social conservative, it's a bit nerve-racking knowing that Washington DC isn't allowed to set drug policy, while for the Libertarian, it's not a repeal of prohibition because the State WILL be setting drug policy. Both parties compromise around a common goal - government that obeys the Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, even the parts that make us nervous.

And I had social conservative Tea people cheering THAT because we were able to find and build a Liber-TEA coalition that will overwhelm the establishment.

By making the rallying point "strict construction of the US and NC State Constitutions" full stop, it has compelled even the wacky Tea people to climb on board because they know innately that to oppose that is hypocrisy.

I still SMH when I see all the angst between liberty and Tea around the US. We just don't have that in NC. If more people had listened back in 2009-2012-2011 when I was screaming 'stay engaged with the Tea people' we'd probably have such a coalition NATIONWIDE today.

Still, if you start NOW, we we WILL have such a coalition by 2016 no sweat.

You just have to ask yourself, do you want a Constitutional Conservative President (like Rand Paul) badly enough to suffer through engaging with your local Tea Parties?

We can win this. if you want it.

[GunnyFreedom]

And here is a bit of a rant, but you want to know what REALLY burns my shorts?

OK, so we work for four years and manage to build a REAL and effective electoral coalition with social conservative Tea Parties without compromising on basic principle. I'm all happy and giddy that we've been able to pull off some kind of miracle bringing libertarians and social conservatives into a coalition around the common principle of restoring the Constitutional order.

So then I come back home to my Paul people.....

and we are all at each other's throats over bull$#@!.

straight up superficial bull$#@!.

It's time for a f'n gut check.

We still have time to make an enormous difference, and a big part of that difference is the 2014 primaries.

Then the December 2014 / January 2015 dollar collapse.

And then the 2016 Primaries.

It's all good though. If you want Rick Santorum as dictator of America - keep it up!

Or we can take Ben Franklin's advice and Join or Die.

When I see NOOT lovers and SANTORUM lovers displaying more tolerance acceptance and unity than Paulers -- friends let me tell you, it drives me to weep.

[juleswin]

Drugs are a freedom of religion issue not a states rights issue.

Rastafarians are being discriminated against by anyone who wants to leave it to the states - which is just a smaller version of the federal govt. But this is very low on my priority list to be worked up over it.

But now if I hear that Rand supports the federal war on drug, then I will be bring out my pitch fork and will be coming for Rand

[Brett85]

Rastafarians are being discriminated against by anyone who wants to leave it to the states - which is just a smaller version of the federal govt. But this is very low on my priority list to be worked up over it.

But now if I hear that Rand supports the federal war on drug, then I will be bring out my pitch fork and will be coming for Rand

I don't think Rand even supports the state war on drugs. He made statements before he ever ran for the Senate where he said that there shouldn't be "non violent crimes." He's willing to bend his views in order to get elected and to make himself look more "reasonable," and a lot of people don't like that. But going by his statements before he ever ran for political office, I think that Rand secretly has extremely libertarian positions on these kinds of issues.