19 votes

Rand Paul Upsets Marijuana Activists by Saying the Drug Is 'Not Healthy'

Ahead of his Thursday visit to Nevada, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., reiterated his personal opposition to marijuana use. Pro-pot activists say Paul is spreading misinformation about the drug.

"I personally think that marijuana use is not healthy," Paul told the Las Vegas Sun in an interview published Wednesday. "People that use it chronically have a loss of IQ and a loss of ambition, but at the same time states have the right to make these decisions."

Marijuana activists tell U.S. News that Paul's claims about ambition, health and IQ are wrong.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Takes After His Dad

Ron Paul does the same thing: keeps the argument where it should be.

This battle is not about whether or not marijuana is healthful. This battle is over our natural rights.

Where Rand it different, is, he's well aware that by making that statement, he gives people who believe it's a bad drug an example to follow: you don't have to approve, you are not endorsing, just because you recognize the rights of others. Ron Paul is always saying the same.

Marijuana activists who hold that against him are shooting themselves in the foot.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Well said

In fact I've heard the elder Dr. Paul voice similar sentiments.

i suggest that everyone

actually read the article linked to, closely, and the lively comments that follow.

Marijuana activists tell U.S. News that Paul's claims about ambition, health and IQ are wrong.

"It's unfortunate, but Senator Paul is basing his opinion about marijuana on "Reefer Madness"-fueled fear-mongering instead of sound science," said Kris Hermes, a spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, a group that lobbies in favor of medical marijuana. "Contrary to Senator Paul's unscientific assessment... there are more than 200 peer-reviewed studies that clearly show marijuana's medical efficacy."

Hermes speculated that "Paul and others' lack of education is the primary cause of our federal marijuana policy, based more on emotion and moral indignation rather than public health and medical science."

Paul is often thought of as one of the most marijuana-friendly politicians, but his approach to advocating drug policy reform is notably more nuanced than the fiery denunciation of drug prohibition that was a libertarian crowd-pleaser during the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns of his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul.

Chronic use for years

may not be healthy for most people.

Even if that is the case it's not a valid reason for
maintaining the prohibitionist system we have now.

Including that part of it that Adam Kokesh has run into -
otherwise legal possession of a firearm magically
becomes a felony if he (or you, or anyone) also possesses
or uses *any* controlled substance - even if the substance
in question is legal under state law.


Are we going to see Rand in the forefront of tackling that
injustice? Would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

And what about medical cannabis applications? If Rand goes
back to Israel maybe he could time out from sucking up to
the rabid Zionists and work in a visit to Tikkun Olam
which has been researching this since the 1960's:


Hey Rand, maybe you could even talk to some Palestinians while you're at it.

And give a read to this recent UC San Diego study that concludes:

"The classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug as well as the continuing controversy as to whether or not cannabis is of medical value [59] are obstacles to medical progress in this area. Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking. It is true cannabis has some abuse potential, but its profile more closely resembles drugs in Schedule III (where codeine and dronabinol are listed). The continuing conflict between scientific evidence and political ideology will hopefully be reconciled in a judicious manner.."


Rand has correct position

I've also seen many studies. While all human brains are different I believe there are several good studies that show the deleterious effects of THC on IQ and motivation in heavy users. The drug subculture also contributes to alienation especially in persons with schizoid tendencies or social anxiety.

I was a heavy smoker in high school and it near ruined my life. My entire class (1978) was so unmotivated and anti-establishment that we are forever known as the worst class in the history of the school. 1978 has some of the highest pot use nationwide as any year on record. Many of my friends went from pot to cocaine and acid and all sorts of more serious drugs. Today I am sure many of them are addicted to pills in one form or another.

So, to me Rand is taking the correct libertarian position. Advocate for healthy lifestyles and personal virtue while at the same time pushing for states rights and non-government remedies. End the drug war but also move to limit the voluntary use of harmful drugs.

This is a mature position that many people like Rand, in mid-life come to as they marry and raise a family. One's perspective changes. One can be cool and realistic simultaneously.

This is also a winning. mainstream point of view.

Lead poisoning and exposure was also pervasive in the 1970s

"Lead has been recognized as a poison for thousands of years, but the profound impact that chronic exposure to even low levels of lead can have on developing children only became widely recognized in the United States in the 1970s. At that time, it was not uncommon for pediatricians to see lead poisoning cases in which the children had blood lead levels greater than or equal to 45 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL), at which point children often exhibit both neurological problems and anemia. At higher blood lead levels (70-100 µg/dL), children can suffer from comas and seizures, or even die. "


"It is clear that blood lead levels have fallen significantly over the last 40 years. During the 1970s, childhood blood lead concentrations of 40 μg/dL were not unusual. The available evidence suggests that mean blood lead levels are now in the range 2–4 μg/dL in the United States and much of Europe."



Did you read the comment that reported the study?

I have firmly believed that children and adolescents should not be exposing their brains to any toxins, alcohol or cannabis. Their young brains, according to the study, were the only ones that showed IQ effect. People 18 and above had no problem. It's been around and used, by many segments, of the population, for years. Those, that don't know this, have their heads buried in the sand!

So, continuing the present drug war assures the dealers have direct lines to your kids at school. They can't even keep drugs out of prisons. And, they think they can keep them from kids!?

Controlled regulated access has done well at decreasing smoking by kids. The same thing would,very likely, help keep cannabis out of the hands of children. Illegal drugs cannot be regulated. So, the catch-22 has to be ended and the production and selling of cannabis has to be made legal and regulated. It has been reported kids can get cannabis easier than they can get booze or smokes!

People need to realize the unscientific things coming out will be debunked. But, smoking anything can have adverse affects on the lungs. Cannabis just does it less, in scientific studies, in contrast to the reefer madness comments that went on for years!

Let's legalize and regulate it, to take away the kids' access. LET'S DO IT FOR THE KIDS!!

Reading the entire post over again, it seems like an attack...

on Rand.

But it doesn't seem like it worked.

Oh well. No weapon forged...

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

i haven't read the entire thread

but some people have different views than rand, and in my opinion more knowledge on the subject. i don't care for his talking down to users, but i also don't consider a debate on this an attack on his person.

Oh for heaven's sake. I smoke

Oh for heaven's sake. I smoke pot occasionally, but when I wake up the next day with an elephant on my chest, I don't delude myself into thinking it was good for me. Geez!

well you are deluding

well you are deluding yourself or smoking crap weed, either way. There are better ways to smoke,so sorry you are still in the dark ages, http://www.realitysandwich.com/high_health_cbd_food_supply

Ron Paul 2016

LOL. I don't have time for

LOL. I don't have time for all the BS. I'm 42, have a wife and 2 kids and work 12 hours a day. I like it occasionally, but I like the other 99.9% of my life better. You keep studying CB1's and CB2's and CBD's and make a million bucks making it easy for weekend warriors like me to maximize the experience. I wish you luck.

try eatables

or get a vape, or don't smoke so much for crying out loud.

like katt williams says: it makes you hungry, happy and sleepy.


an indica strain on the other hand tends to energize. better for work.

I get too damned high when I

I get too damned high when I eat it.

then you're eating too much

if it's say a brownie, eat a third, not the whole thing.

the pot today is much stronger. a few hits from a water pipe should be good for most people.

I'm not upset. Rand Paul

I'm not upset.
Rand Paul 2016!

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams

I feel like Rand is

I feel like Rand is constantly playing a political game. I remember Rand giving speeches prior to getting directly involved in running for political office; specifically speeches when Ron ran for the 2008 Presidential election and Rand expressed ideas and principles that were basically identical to his father's. I feel like he decided at some point that someone with those ideas and principles needs to win a presidential election. I think the only way he saw that happening was to play a political game, unlike the unfiltered message Ron uses when he speaks. I think Rand's goal is to be elected president, and then use his position to fully spread the message. I get the feeling that Rand doesn't believe that marijuana "lowers IQ," and reduces ambition, but says this as a tactic to make his position more palatable to voters. It reminds me of the politician in Larken Rose's book The Iron Web, who once elected president reveals his true intentions in an epic address to the public. Of course I could just be overly optimistic about this and Rand could really believe some of the nonsense he says sometimes.


i don't think it's that complex

i just think he's a bit of a square, who from time to time tries to appear hip, but that never works. the youth see through that.

now his dad was so square that he came off as hip. he never tried to be what he wasn't. he was/is just plain old fashion honest, and again the youth see that and are drawn to it.

gary johnson appeals to the youth because he is a bit hip, and it's not put on.

rand would think a vaporizer was a new weapon the MIC were working on while johnson would know exactly what it is.

He's "hip"? Okay...I'm sure

He's "hip"? Okay...

I'm sure that's why they like Ron Paul so much too...

If this is your #1 issue you need to realize that people are being killed and tortured completely inhumanely on a daily basis.

i guess you missed this

now his dad was so square that he came off as hip. he never tried to be what he wasn't. he was/is just plain old fashion honest, and again the youth see that and are drawn to it.

where did i say this was my #1 issue? this thread is a about pot. relax.

You need to realize that not

You need to realize that not everyone in the world is going to agree with you, in fact no one will, not completely. Just because someone contradicts you does not mean they are angry.

you sound like a

holier than thou life coach or something. relax.

There you go again, asserting

There you go again, asserting my emotions.

if you write one thing

yet mean something else, there is no way to have a rational exchange.

Right. Also, if you ignore


Also, if you ignore what I say and bring up random topics... there is no way to have a rational exchange.

i'm glad you agree

and i agree with the 2nd part too. a good example of random topics is this:

If this is your #1 issue you need to realize that people are being killed and tortured completely inhumanely on a daily basis.

oh wait you wrote that, still, prime example wouldn't you agree?

Asclepius's picture

MJ advocates should be grateful for the progress made so far

I encourage MJ advocates to be grateful for and build upon the progress made so far in legitimizing its medical and decriminalizing its recreational use. Complaining about Rand's personal opinion on this issue is counterproductive and only helps further polarize those who support him.

While it is clear that some here don't believe in the merits of MJ use (particularly during adolescence), I think most would agree that Federal Prohibition is vastly more dangerous to society than MJ itself.

Those of us who come together for the cause of Liberty understand that laws and cultural norms for what we put into our body should be established at the local and state level allowing individuals more freedom to make such decisions based on the wisdom shared by their family, friends, and community.

Thus, if you believe in the merits of MJ use, your time would be better served by helping to establish the much needed "positive" cultural norms for the responsible and therapeutic use of MJ in states where that it is now possible.

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley

grateful? We the People did

grateful? We the People did it not BS politcians! We will continue to hold bs politcians accountable. We are not Grateful!!!! We did it not them bshitters in DC or our denver capital!!

Ron Paul 2016

scratching my head

The comments here are really beginning to baffle me...

I read the article and Mr. Paul is basically expressing 2 opinions here:

1) That he personally fells like marijuana use is "unhealthy" and causes "...loss of IQ and loss of ambition".

2) That he feels the feds have no business in it and that the "...states have the rights to make these decisions"

So which one is important? The second one obviously. I understand that pro-medicative marijuana activists are upset by the first opinion but the guy is pretty much taking the only position we should care about and that is THE FEDS KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF, STATES DECIDE.

His personal opinion on the issue of whether it is healthy is IRRELEVANT. Maybe he is misinformed, or maybe he really feels that way, or maybe he is playing politics. Why are we focusing on this point?

We are not going to agree with everyone on everything, but we can not expect to assimilate every persons opinion into our own narrow view of things. We need to find the common ground to work together or else this movement will NEVER succeed.

So at least from this article, Rand is basically towing the same line his father did, and that is advocating for states rights. The comments saying they can't support him now because he doesn't smoke two joints before each congressional session need to take another look at the opinion he is presenting.