25 votes

Rand Paul's Quiet Weed Overture

He’s carving out marijuana policy as an area of leadership, and that has some activists very, very excited.

By Lucia Graves | July 25, 2014
National Journal

If he runs for president, Sen. Rand Paul will not be your typical Republican candidate. On Thursday the Kentucky senator filed yet another amendment protecting the states that have implemented medical-marijuana laws—as well as the patients and doctors acting in accordance with them—from federal prosecution.

The amendment, attached to the "Bring Jobs Home Act," would allow states to "enact and implement laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana for medical use" without threat of federal interference. The measure would also protect patients in places where medical marijuana is legal (23 states and the District of Columbia) from prosecution for violating federal marijuana laws.

Paul, who is widely believed to be eyeing the presidency, introduced a separate measure in June to stop the Drug Enforcement Administration from using federal funds to go after medical-marijuana operations that are legal under state law. A similar version of the amendment introduced by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Sam Farr easily passed the lower chamber in May, underscoring marijuana's growing national acceptance.

Paul's press person has said that the new amendment, if enacted, would go beyond the Farr-Rohrabacher legislation by providing a more formal framework for protecting states that have enacted medical-marijuana laws.

Read more: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/rand-paul-s-quiet-we...

Comment viewing options

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

Rand is a smart and good dude.


I will vape to that!

Thank you.

Rand's really rockin' on weed!

What I find interesting in Lucia's article though, is kind of a tangent...

"When calling or writing, remember that you catch more flies with sugar than honey," advises one post, presumably meaning you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. "Reframing the medical cannabis issue as a human-rights issue, not a partisan one, will also help."

Lucia fails to catch the other author's meaning in the play on words, the refinement of the old quotation. It wasn't sloppy or ignorant on the other author's part. It was with purpose.

Help me out.

Not unlike Lucia, I've neither heard nor read "...more flies with sugar than honey" and can't find an example of it online.

I'd appreciate it.

Work for pay, pay for freedom
Fuck 'em all, we don't need 'em

The writer probably just made it up [on the fly :D],

assuming that readers would be familiar with the previously popular quotation. Sure, writers sometimes make faux pas as such, but I more often give benefit of the doubt to their writing actually what they meant to say. If there was a poor choice of words in his quote it was the word "also", toward the end. That single word thrusts the last sentence into potential discontinuous ambiguity separating the intents of the two final sentences, presenting them as two in a series and not the same thing being said twice but in two different ways as directly juxtaposed metaphor.

In other words, by saying...
"remember that you catch more flies with sugar than honey [with honey than vinegar]"
...the author is not simply reminding his readers to be polite and such. What the author is doing is telling the readers to...
"Reframe the medical cannabis issue as a human-rights issue, not a partisan one"
The writer is using the "catch more flies with sugar than honey" as direct analogy for "Reframing the medical cannabis issue as a human-rights issue...". The author has refined the old quotation into something new and used it to up the ante.

I'll go the second step and explain the analogy...
One could look at it as "sugar" is even sweeter than "honey", and that would suffice to somewhat understand it, but it works even better more specifically. "Sugar" is a general term. It represents the essence of sweetness. That which makes honey sweet is its sugar. That which makes jelly sweet is its sugar. Some people like honey. Some people like jelly. "Jelly or honey" is a partisan issue, but both parties like the sugar. "Sugar" is not partisan. No matter who your representative is, with what political party he/she is affiliated, what their stance on the drug war may be, etcetera, frame your concern that you express to your representative ---> as a human rights issue. That's the sweetest thing you can do! i.e. Do it for the children! They will trip over each other competing to show that they are the most concerned!

Lucia missed all that as she simply chalked the wordplay up to the other author's being a dumb-ass.