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.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

"It's time to push hard for

"It's time to push hard for legalization on the federal level"

I'm glad you can still support Rand despite your Gary Johnson, "libertarian nationalist" perspective. "Legalization on the federal level" at best, for Rand [and Ron], will only ever mean its decriminalization. You will never hear Rand [or Ron] advocating for federal legislation specifically deeming the use of marijuana a lawful act. From both Pauls' perspectives it is similar to marriage. Neither Paul will ever support specific federal legislation banning or supporting gay marriage or defining marriage in any way.

What's your problem?

"Legalize it"

Of course I say "legalization" I mean repeal of all federal laws on cannabis. We may need a Constitutional Amendment, too.

Ron Paul along with (d) Barney Frank -Mass. introduced a bill to do exactly what I said; repeal all current marijuana legislation at the federal level...

So what's your problem?

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I've been actively involved

I've been actively involved with this particular issue my entire adult life. "Decriminalization" is quite specific, and that was Ron's intent when working with Barny Frank. "Legalization" is ambiguous. It can either mean "decriminalization" or [as you are perhaps suggesting with "Constitutional Amendment"?] pro-active legislation at the federal level that would establish enforceable federal protection for marijuana users superseding jurisdictions of local legislation. The latter was not Ron's intent, nor will it ever be Rand's. I'm not even injecting my own opinions on the matter here. I'm simply elaborating to you the perspectives of Ron and Rand.

I don't have a problem whatsoever. Do you? :)

Did I not clarify my position?

And if you want to label me a "Garry Johnson libertarian nationalist", so be it.

Why? Because I'd be for a Constitutional Amendment "legalizing / de-criminalizing" cannabis? That's what we did to repeal Alcohol prohibition so that it couldn't happen again.

So you are for State War on Drugs? You are for State governments being able to lock people up for the personal decision to use cannabis? Apparently, you are. Is it not a natural right?

And... As for your nit-picking of the language, specifically the term "legalization", let me tell you something abut the term you prefer; ""de-criminalization".

Many states, including CT, have already "de-criminalized" possession of smaller amounts of marijuana... And guess what?... It's still a VIOLATION, technically! You still get TICKETED! The STATE still controls it. By the way, cops still constantly arrest kids for possession of small amounts, despite the law, don't ask me how but I read about it daily. Apparently "de-criminalizing", isn't good enough. And when you look at it, there's no operative difference between the two terms. The only thing that matters is the wording of the law or laws that need to be passed to DE-REGULATE cannabis.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

chronological response...

"Did I not clarify my position?" - Early on* you were rather ambivalent. You succinctly clarified a position of support to remove the Feds from the equation. Simultaneously you ambiguously suggested considering the Feds becoming more involved, but in your favor [I assume].

*"Of course I say "legalization" I mean repeal of all federal laws on cannabis. We may need a Constitutional Amendment, too."

I meant nothing demeaning in reference to Gary Johnson. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. He has yet to claim support of Constitutional amendments specifically addressing things like marijuana and marriage. However, he maintains a far more nationalistic perspective on such issues than both Ron and Rand Paul. Regarding these particular issues I prefer the Pauls' perspective. No big deal. Perhaps you would prefer Gary's. I don't know. I was suggesting.

Good luck with a Constitutional amendment. I'll flirt with absurdity here. The right to own slaves and the right to use marijuana are quite obviously very different issues and not comparable behaviorally or morally. Yet they are comparable in how they would trash and abuse the Constitution, if they were incorporated directly as such. Constitutional abuse was at the heart of alcohol prohibition. It was enacted by passing the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment simply repealed the 18th. Regrettably to this day, the powermad nationalists have retained control of alcohol production, but lo and behold the sanity in it all is that the regulations regarding sale, age restriction, etc. went back to the States, counties, municipalities, and individuals. Oh by the way, what makes you think it all couldn't happen again?

I am not for a "State War on Drugs". I am not "for State governments being able to lock people up for the personal decision to use cannabis". Your capacity for deductive reasoning was either damaged along the way or never fully developed. I agree it is a natural right. Talk to your neighbors. Get involved with your local politics. Aim your passions at something within your reach. You will benefit by having the mechanisms of local ordinance already in place should the likes of Rand be successful in releasing the issue from entanglement with federal bondage.

"And... As for your nit-picking of the language" - Look who's nit-picking now. I thought we were beyond that. :D

"The only thing that matters is the wording of the law or laws that need to be passed to DE-REGULATE cannabis." - I'm confused again, since you earlier compared marijuana prohibition to alcohol prohibition. Today alcohol is heavily regulated. I used to be [years ago] quite up to snuff on all the ins, outs, and particulars regarding various differences between the terms "deregulation", "decriminalization", and "legalization". In fact there were/are differences within each term as well. I admit that I might be confused in using these particular terms today. Many different scenarios are suggested by those regarding the issue, understanding those scenarios is what counts despite the words we use to label them. Build your own scenario, discuss and tweak it with others, and promote it locally. That's historically how things have worked in America. Parochialism is your friend. Grandiose ideas like establishing a specific Constitutional amendment to specifically secure your specific right to smoke pot flirt simultaneously with drawing you closer to the potential threat of a specifically increased sweeping national ban specifically denying such a specific right. Alcohol prohibition is certainly evidence of that. Such are the horrors of "Democracy" unleashed beyond its restraint of local tether.

Sure, maybe it wouldn't align with your utopian vision, but let me ask you something. If today the Rand Pauls, Barny Franks, and Ron Pauls of the world successfully moved legislation through the US House and Senate removing federal statutes regarding marijuana [sending the issue completely back into being dealt with at relatively local levels of jurisdiction], would you want the President to sign it, or veto it? Pretty simple when you don't over-think it! ;)

I recognize most Constitutional amendments...

...to be RESTRICTIONS on the government, not declarations of it's power and authority.

Do you think the Constitution gives us the right to free speech, or to bear arms? It doesn't. Those are natural rights. The Constitution restricts the government from ever legally infringing on those natural rights. I would not be against a constitutional amendment that restricts the government from infringing upon an individuals right to possess & use a plant, so long as they are not infringing on another's natural rights.

The Law should be written in such a way.

I think you misunderstand the Constitution. Unless you are one of those who feels it is a failed document. It is a bit nationalistic, I guess. The idea that everywhere you go in the USA you have the same natural rights, written in the Constitution, under Law. This is part of what a Republic is. It is the good part and should be embraced, because it's articles / amendments are the chains which are meant to bind the government down.

*"Simultaneously you ambiguously suggested considering the Feds becoming more involved, but in your favor [I assume]."

- How can Feds possibly be MORE involved?!!

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

I like your perspective on the Constitution in general.

"I think you misunderstand the Constitution. Unless you are one of those who feels it is a failed document." -Neither are the case. Unless of course, you misunderstand the Constitution :D, because I generally agree with what you have expressed as your understanding of it.

But for maybe one point, a point that you have seemed to further clarify, and regarding that point I still remain somewhat ambivalent or more accurately, relatively unsettled. Believe it or not, back in the day, many good freedom loving people actually made a case to not have a Bill of Rights incorporated therein. Many good folk recognized that their State constitutions already incorporated such Bills of Rights and that having a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution may someday set forth contention with their local writs. The ability of the central government to help protect individuals from oppressive State governments is a double edged sword, a clever but awkward Madisonian concept, and when wielded has been abused as often as it has been used wisely. Is the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution directly applicable only to federal laws, or are they directly and homogenously applicable to State laws and constitutions as well? This is an important question when considering adding an amendment regarding marijuana use. Your words "The idea that everywhere you go in the USA you have the same natural rights, written in the Constitution, under Law." suggest to me that the new amendment would be used to overturn local guidelines and/or restrictions of marijuana use. Therein lies the answer to your wondering why I found your early notions ambivalent...

*"Simultaneously you ambiguously suggested considering the Feds becoming more involved, but in your favor [I assume]."

- How can Feds possibly be MORE involved?!!

After supporting the notion of the Feds being entirely removed from the issue, your concept of incorporating marijuana use protection directly into the US Constitution clashes by suggesting that the Feds might become quite involved [the other way] with overturning the efforts of people attempting to limit the use of marijuana in their local jurisdictions. I'm not even saying here that that would be good or bad. I'm just tellin' it here likes I sees it! You make the "marijuana rights" issue seem uncannily similar to "gay rights". Again, I'm not expressing any opinions of good or bad here, but thanks for stimulating my thoughts on the matter. :)

wolfe's picture

Yet another myth.

There is -no- known case of a pot smoker getting lung cancer from only the pot smoking. Further, testing the smoke proves it is considerably less harmful than cigarettes. And lastly, it takes a few puffs to get what you need to get stoned. Nobody is smoking two packs worth of weed a day (unless they are rich and stupid).

If you only took 3-4 puffs from a -cigarette-, even, on occasion every day for the rest of your life, your risk of lung cancer or permanent harm would not be greater than breathing whatever happens to be floating in the air.

Further, there is proof that the increased lung capacity caused by the style of smoking weed improves your breathing and respiratory system.

There are many studies that prove cannibinoids kill cancer.

There is now a study proving better insulin regulation in pot smokers, causing less excess fat which is a contributing factor to cancer.

One of the largest contributors to early death is stress. Weed does alleviate stress and so could be considered on par with a glass of wine or two in terms of longevity due to nothing more than stress relief.

And lastly... As someone else said - eat it, vape it, but don't lie about it.

Rand lied, used propaganda based science to further the myths. That IS pandering. He is smarter than that.

If he had invoked states rights without the undue slander, then that would be fine. But he cannot fix the problem by furthering the lie.

As I have said numerous times. Rand doesn't educate, which makes him worthless to the cause.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

"Rand lied,"?

You had me until the "Rand lied" bit. It was a great comment, very informative, and I agreed with everything until your reference to Rand. You display a great list of positive notions about marijuana, yet [just like Hermes and Tvert] you fail to list anything refuting anything Rand has said. The last three paragraphs of your comment are entirely disconnected and have nothing whatsoever to do with those preceding. Furthermore, if you think that a person utterly advocating the federal decriminalization of marijuana is worthless to the cause, then I utterly have no clue to what you are referring by "the cause".

"Further, testing the smoke

"Further, testing the smoke proves it is considerably less harmful than cigarettes."

...but still harmful, even if less so. The post you were replying to is still valid, I'd say.

wolfe's picture

Incorrect.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57356379-10391704/is-...

You didn't read my whole post. And perhaps I should have said NOT harmful, instead of less.

The fact is, if I smoked cigarettes as little as I smoked weed, even the cigarettes wouldn't be considered a danger to me. So to argue that weed, which contains no carcinogenic compounds is harmful is just flat out stupid.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I've never met a

I've never met a cannabis smoker yet who only smokes "a little".

edibles

you can also extract the THC from it and use it in food...
so... you're theory = blown.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Rand is obviously lacking in

Rand is obviously lacking in his knowledge of mj usage. Edibles and vaporizing is increasing but smoking is still by a LARGE margin the most common way to use. Inhaling smoke of any kind is not healthy. The only proof that anyone needs is the fact that you cough it out at first. Your body doesn`t reject things that should be in there. His IQ claim is bogus and the ambition thing is mostly temporary after using. What people should be focusing on is Rands stance on states rights when it comes to this issue...

His IQ claim is bogus?

Perhaps it IS bogus, but at least the vast majority of studies that have researched the topic come up with a different opinion from yours. At LEAST you would have to admit that it is not bogus for Rand to believe such a thing, based on the studies people have done and published in recent years.

On what basis do YOU believe marijuana does NOT negatively effect IQ?

Plug the search terms "IQ marijuana" into here...
https://www.ixquick.com/

Oh, and thanks for being honest in supporting Rand's claim regarding ambition.

"What people should be focusing on is Rands stance on states rights when it comes to this issue." -I won't argue with you there beyond possessive or plural. :)

My basis comes from living in

My basis comes from living in a VERY mj friendly section of California for my entire life (almost 50 yrs). I have not smoked pot since high school but deal with people that do every day. Business and personal relationships and everything in between. My beliefs are from a study taken with my own two eyes over many years. Did I take out my little IQ tester and officially check? No. Have I witnessed people making progressively bad decisions and saying stupid things that they would not have before pot? No. In fact, in many cases the opposite is true in my experience. I don`t support Rands opinion on ambition. He comes across as thinking that smoking pot will make you a lazy person. I think that it will effect you that way but only until the effect wears off. I do know quite a few people that were lazy before smoking and continued to be lazy after they started...

Pot Brownies are still

Pot Brownies are still brownies, theory destroyed.

...too funny! :D

On the other hand, my blood sugar is such that I find a meat brownie once in a while, just what the doctor ordered...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzT7QcQknQ&t=2m27s :D

strange times

With all the citations Hermes and Tvert spew forth [in defense of marijuana use], none refute Rand's personal claims regarding ambition or IQ. It's kinda strange, I've supported NORML. If I were still involved with NORML I'd be advocating support for Rand.

He's pandering

He's pandering

Really?

I suggest rethinking that particular claim, or at least rethinking the language of your sentiment. Pop open a dictionary, or maybe search the internet for appropriate usage of the term "pander".

Phxarcher87's picture

Politics

This is his way of getting people on board about legalizing it through states without coming out and saying everyone get stoned.

One of the biggest pitfalls in a "movment" is the temptation to get cultish about it and refuse to realize that it is only part of the picture. -Joel Salatin ; You Can Farm pg 202

wow...

There really are observant people still here at the DP... Rand is the man and knows exactly what he's doing.