Rand Paul "Assures" Evangelicals That He Doesn't Want to End the Drug War


Gage Skidmore

In preparation for a 2016 presidential run, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is courting evangelical leaders. And we all know what that means! It's time to throw those hedonistic, libertine, drug-obsessed libertarians under the bus. The Washington Post reports on how that's going:  

At a lunch Friday with about a dozen evangelical pastors in a Cedar Rapids hotel, the younger Paul assured the group that he disagrees with libertarians who support legalizing drugs. When one pastor inquired about ideological ties between Paul and his father, the senator asked that he be judged as his own man.

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.

"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."

"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].

Just to hammer home what's been said already: Paul isn't a libertarian on drugs. He wants to keep everything illegal, but institute gentler penalties. That's not remotely libertarian. (Is it politically practical? Sure. So are farm subsidies.) 

As for "traditional marriage," here's how Paul is selling his position to evangelicals: 

He said he's not ready to "give up on" the traditional family unit. But he added that it is a mistake for conservatives to support a federal ban on same-sex marriage, saying, "We're going to lose that battle because the country is going the other way right now."

"If we're to say each state can decide, I think a good 25 or 30 states still do believe in traditional marriage, and maybe we allow that debate to go on for another couple of decades and see if we can still win back the hearts and minds of people," he said.

"Win back the hearts and minds of people"? What does that even mean? That if we give the country enough time, a majority of voters will change their minds about extending equal protection to same-sex couples, and revoke it? And that would be a good thing?

Considering just how "radical" candidate Obama was, I can't help but wonder how Paul would be different from any other Republican president.  

NEXT: A.M. Links: Ammo Shortages Continue, Obama, Clinton Not Benghazi Probe Targets, Says Issa, Texas Regulating Bitcoin Operators

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The only thing worse for person liberty than a soccer mom is an evangelical leader.

    1. Soccer moms, as a cohort, are no worse for the cause of liberty than the population at large. They just have different interests and "issues".

      Evangelicals are also a bit complex - there are more than enough "Huckabee" types who, certainly are anti-liberty. But, since I became interested in what the LvMI has to offer I have also discovered that a large number of Evangelicals could be described as "paleo-libertarians" for want of a better term. Yes, they, in their personal lives are very much bible-believing folks but unlike the Huckabee-types they do not want to legislate their beliefs and often believe that to do so is actually sacrilegious. After all, Jesus was offered political power and declined it.

      1. While those paleo-libertarians may well exist there are none on the political scene.

        1. Exactly! By and large they don't WANT to be. There may be very rare times (i.e. when Ron Paul ran in the primary) when they become active but usually they try to stay away from the election process - they prefer to be active through educational efforts.

        2. I would like to believe in the existence of Evangelical Paleo-libertarians, but my 8 years in an Evangelical church with Dominionist leanings convinced me that, not only don't they exist, their churches won't LET them exist.

          That's kinda what I tried to *be* when I was there, and it did NOT fly, let's just say.

          Evangelicals are NOT Libertarians. They will make Common Cause, briefly, if they think it will help smash Liberals, but the only freedom they are interested in is their own ... and only as much of THAT as Pastor says God wants them to have!

          They are essentially Authoritarians and Feudalists.

          1. There are many like that, yes - but there are also quite a few who are working against that.

            There is certainly room for evangelicals to move toward a more libertarian position, even drawing on the traditions of their faiths.

          2. Actually, you're wrong on this. Libertarianism is integral to the Baptist tradition, even if some (the SBC in particular) have forgotten it. The idea that one's "Freedom of Conscience" should not be bound by laws or external authorities is at the core of our denominational values.

      2. You had to get involved with LvMI to find this out?

        I was right here all along.

        1. robc,

          I came into libertarianism through the Objectivist movement. So, I am now ashamed to say, that I was once very hostile to the idea that someone could be both a hardcore Christian and supportive of liberty. I have since drifted away from Objectivism and more to the Rothbardian side of things.

          1. Rothbard was a fat clown who plagiarized Ayn Rand while smearing her in public.

            Fuck Murray Rotbard, anarchy is not freedom and subjectivism is not individualism; your whims do not determine reality. It is very telling that the Rothbardians had to hijack LvMI in order to ride the coattails of Mises, who despite his own theoretical failings, was never gullible enough to fall for the "anarchy is freedom and capitalism" rationalistic bullshit.

            1. Explain how anarchy isn't freedom.

    2. There are a lot of Libertarian evangelicals these days. But drug legalization is a non-starter for a presidential candidate anyway. I would rather have someone in office who isn't going to make any effort to conduct the drug war than an opportunistic Democrat who is going to spend money to look tough on the issue.

    3. Damned straight!

      No Nannystater like a faith-based Nannystater (although we'd probably have to call them the more-authoritarian "Daddystaters".)

  2. Rand Paul: The Most Frustrating Man in Washington

    1. Rand Paul "Assures" People who Supported His Father That They Don't Want to Vote For Him

      1. The oxymoronic wing of the Libertarian party - the "Statist Libertarians"

    2. Here is a nice medium-sized blog post about succeeding in coalitions which features a quote from the widely beloved political theorist Bonnie Honig.

    3. Would you rather he be the most frustrated?

  3. When are these people gonna stop pandering to the fucking fundies? It doesn't work!

    The GOP - snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since 2008.

    1. You can't win/place/show in the Iowa Caucuses by pissing off the evangelicals.

      I will still pick Rand over any other Repbulican that is likely to run in 2016.

      1. Ron won Iowa.

        Werent you a big part of that?

        1. Yes.

          Ron took the delegates from Iowa to the National Convention where they were shut out by the party apparatus. And paulites pretty much control the state level party aparatus.

          But, Ron did not win the straw poll that drives press coverage and funding coming out of Iowa. On caucus night, evangelical Protestants picked a Roman Catholic over a devout Southern Baptist due to Ron's perceived animosity to Israel.

          Rand is making sure that he wins the straw poll outright on caucus night.

          A Republican that promises to impose sane policies on illegal drug use is clearly a distant second to a Libertarian that wants to legalize everything. But a Libertarian is never going to be elected to POTUS.

          At this point, I am about 90% happy with Rand, which is miles ahead of every other elected official at this time.

          1. Im probably less than 90%, but I will take 80%.

            Plus, he goes up every time he pisses off the right people.

            He is far and away the best Senator Ive had in my lifetime.

            1. I have Senator envy. The good news is that Harkin is retiring and asshole representative King from western Ia has announced he won't run.

              Does Rand have any siblings that can be exported to Ia?

              1. The Paul family is huge, he has a ton of them.

                1. To be specific, he has four: Ronnie, Lori, Robert, and Joy.

                  1. So the next question is to figure how to get one of them to move to Iowa. This could be an insurmountable problem.

                  2. Joy is my wife's ObGyn.

        2. I am still a registered Republican so that I can caucus for Rand in 2016.

    2. Worked pretty well for Bush, Reagan, etc.

      If libertarians want Republicans to stop pandering to fundies, they need to start putting up cash, votes, and support that is meaningful to politicians.


  4. So Bill Maher edges back in front of Rand Paul in the LP Purity Test scoring.

    1. Nope, there are still 1 million reasons Bill Maher is not a libertarian.

    2. Palin's Buttplug| 5.13.13 @ 9:17AM |#
      "So Bill Maher edges back in front of Rand Paul in the LP Purity Test scoring."

      No, shreek, Maher's score re freedom is in the negative numbers. Pretty much like you.

    3. That is high quality trolling there. Things have been slipping recently, so I'm glad to see some improvement.

  5. I guess Doherty wasn't available to do this one, eh Riggs?

  6. That apple must have fallen during a tornado to have landed that far from the tree.

  7. For what it's worth, this article gives me a worse feeling about Rand's stance on the drug war but it gives me a better feeling about his stance on the gay marriage debate. I honestly thought he might support a federal ban.

  8. I'm a constitutional conservative.

    That's cool. Point out the Constitutional basis for the War on Drugs.

    1. Damn you, you stole my comment!

    2. At the state level?

      There isnt one at the federal level obviously.

      1. If he said he wants to leave drug management up to the states (which he has pretty much said in the past) this wouldn't be a big issue. But he tries to cater to the socon crowd by saying that he doesn't want to end the War on Drugs (which would imply the federal level). And as P Brooks pointed out further down that is very disappointing since the WoD has almost completely eradicated the 4th amendment, one of the causes Rand usually champions.

        1. he doesn't want to end the War on Drugs

          Once again, I ask, as I asked below, did he use that phrase?

          The "war on drugs" isnt the laws against the drugs, the "war on drugs" is the way the government goes about it.

          As he supports the 4th, and I would guess opposes asset forfeiture, and wants to lessen the penalties, and supported CO and WA, Im not sure that qualifies as wanted to continue the "war on drugs".

          There is a difference between legalizing (at least at the Federal level) and ending the war. You can end the war and still have the drugs illegal.

          1. You can end the war and still have the drugs illegal.

            No you can't. Not with all that cash being made without taxes being paid. It goes against the very nature of government to turn a blind eye to that. They want their share, and since the activity generating that money is illegal, their share is the whole shebang.

          2. When you asked below, I re-read and I admittedly read more into his statements. But if something remains illegal there is always the possibility that it will be enforced, and there is just too much money in drugs (illegal sale and enforcement of keeping them illegal) for it to be on the books but not enforced.

            In theory, drugs can be illegal and the war can end. In reality, that's an impossibility.

            1. Then how'd they do it in Holland?

            2. Then how'd they do it in Holland?

              1. Selective enforcement. Drugs are illegal in the Netherlands.

                1. See? It is possible, and stable for at least decades.

        2. Nah Rand is trolling for votes. He has to run right bc that is who primaries

          He is going to thread the needle with federalism in the general. He's going to come out for states rights on gay marriage and pot. Considering some states have already legalized and many cities have decriminalized.
          This approach to give voters more say will keep evangs off his back and likely make gains in the upper midwest, Nevada and Colorado

    3. He said he's a 'constitutional' conservative, not a 'Constitutional' conservative. He's being 'pragmatic'.

      And just like the team members who turned a blind eye to Bush's lack of small-government principles and the other team members who turn a blind eye to Obama's basic illiberalness, I suspect there are a lot of team members here who are going to be willing to excuse Rand for 'saying what he has to say to get elected even though we know in his heart he doesn't really believe the words that are coming out of his mouth, he's just being pragmatic'.

      If you were paying attention to his drone warfare filibuster, you should have known he wasn't the real deal. He objects to certain aspects of the policy but he has no objection in principle to the policy itself. An unprincipled libertarian is no libertarian at all.

    4. The 18th amendment 😉

  9. Bye, Rand, I had hopes for you, but I appreciate you taking the mask off this early in the game. I know now that I won't be voting Republican in the next presidential election.

    Maybe we could get Penn Gillette or Drew Carey to run for the LP. That would actually get media coverage...

    1. Drew Carey would lose his CBS job. So that's not gonna happen.

      Penn Gillette is closer to being "independently" wealthy. So it's within the realm of possibility. But highly, highly, highly unlikely.

      As depressing as it is to admit this, I think the LP is never ever going to do better than Gary Johnson. Would it really be impossible to teach him decent public speaking skills in 2.5 years?

      1. "Penn Gillette is closer to being "independently" wealthy. So it's within the realm of possibility. But highly, highly, highly unlikely."

        Penn Gillette would get three sentences into the first speech; a bunch of us would be howling with laughter and the party regulars would be fainting in droves.
        The man is entirely too honest to ever succeed in politics.

        1. But that's OK. The point is to actually get media attention. Gary Johnson couldn't, it takes (for a third party candidate) insane amounts of money, like Perot, or celebrity status, like Penn or Drew. I think Penn would not shock the LP party regulars, though I'm now talking well outside of my experience. If he shocks the Red/Blue regulars, that's a feature, not a bug.

          1. Party regulars aren't shocked by anyone; not by Starchild, not by the guy who suggested arming fetuses to end the abortion debate, not by the guy who dyed himself blue.

            Look, I used to hear that Clint Eastwood was a libertarian. This past presidential election he did the most important work to Mitt Romney elected. The Mittster would have garnered under 1,200 votes nationwide if not for Dirty Harry's herculean efforts.

  10. Politically speaking, is there a bigger wild card than Rand Paul? Every group he appeals to has as many, or more, reasons to be disgusted by him.

  11. It's not known as "the Stupid Party" for nothing.

  12. Considering just how "radical" candidate Obama was, I can't help but wonder how Paul would be different from any other Republican president.

    Because gay marriage and drug legalization are the only pressing issues the nation faces? Besides, decriminalization instead of legalization may not be the pure libertarian position, but it would be no small feat. And unlike other likely candidates, Rand does not support a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

    1. Ding, ding.

      Decriminalization at the Federal level is more than any other viable Presidential candidate is willing to do.

      I'll take that over the status quo and hope for better down the line over waiting for the libertarian unicorn who will magically take us all to libertopia in one go.

      1. Trouser:

        A useful thought. I'm with you on the political element.

    2. No, because if he is willing to equivocate on gay marriage and drug legalization, he's probably willing to equivocate on everything else. That's what politicians do. So what would lead you to not wonder how Paul would be different from any other Republican president?

      1. Considering he has only been iffy on gay marriage and drug legalization and on all other issues has been uncompromising, I'm not worried about him caving.

    3. "Because gay marriage and drug legalization are the only pressing issues the nation faces?"

      Those are the issues the mainstream media continue to shove in our faces... so like it or not, you gotta acknowledge them if you're ever gonna have a fighting chance at the Presidency these days.

      Rand's not gonna be the perfect libertarian candidate, but I'm not gonna let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd be happy with him knocking MJ down a couple Schedule notches and deferring to the states for legal status.

  13. I smoke pot every day and will continue to support Rand. I don't expect him to jeopardize his very good chance at the GOP nomination on what is a comparatively insignificant issue. Just like with his response to the abortion issue, he supports the states making these types of decisions for themselves. He also supports better priorities and reduced penalties at the federal level. That's a lot more than can be said for Obama and almost definitely much better than whatever positions his primary opponents will take.

    1. I agree with you. I don't fault Rand for playing the game. I think he's been one of the best to do it since the best to do it. My anger and resentment lies with socon and evangelical Republicans who are every bit as statist as the lefties, but feel they are on a moralistic high ground because they have their individual book of faith to trot out in front of their talking points.

      1. Meh. I wish him well. I really do. He's probably the best we could ever hope for. But I'm probably not going to vote for an R for the first time in my life, much less offer substantial financial/time support, for such a squish.

        1. I don't fault him for playing the game either ..... as long as I'm sure who is being played.

  14. I'm glad my hope is being drained away so early this time.

    1. LOL I know, right?

  15. True story. My family was playing "Apples to Apples" yesterday for Mother's Day. The green card drawn by my dad was "Idiotic". I played the "Republicans" red card, thinking that it would have been a good one since he seems to be leaning libertarian more and more. Well, my answer was thrown out immediately, so I guess he's not as libertarian as I was hoping or thought he was.

    I even said that the GOP isn't called "the Stupid Party" for nothing, but he insisted that was a liberal meme. I said it's not just a liberal smear campaign when they have every opportunity to win the presidency in 2012 and they run Mitt Romney.

    I love my dad, but he is a prime example of why Republicans will never be able to win nationally again. They are incapable of running a candidate who is libertarian enough on social issues to attract Democratic leaning independents WITHOUT alienating their entire socon base, and vice versa.

    1. Your dad is John?

      1. Haha sometimes it seems that way.

        1. That's OK. My father has about as much understanding of basic economics as Tony.

    2. Now you know why I hate SoCons more than any group in America. They made George W. Bush the rule in the GOP - not the exception.

      1. You aren't old enough to know the difference between Rockefeller Republicans and Goldwater Republicans. Bush was the rule in the Republican party long before Bush.

        1. "Smart" works much better than "old" in this case.

    3. Republicans will never be able to win nationally again.

      That's what they said after Tricky Dick, then along came Jimmy Carter...


    4. He didn't know that Bobby Jindal made the "Party of Stupid" crack?

  16. The great libertarian conundrum is how to get people who do not seek power into positions of power where they can reduce or restrain that very power they don't want.


    1. So if New Hampshire can't even balance out Iowa, what hope the Free State Project?

  18. Rand Huckabee?

    There are 2 things that will make Rand POTUS.

    1. Switch to the Democratic Party.

    2. Go on the campaign trail and say this over and over: "Minorities and vaginas are being oppressed by old white guys, and free cell phones and abortions, for everyone!"

    That's pretty much it. Everything else in an effort to get elected POTUS, is a waste of time.

  19. My liberal friends used to whine that Rand Paul followed Ayn Rand too closely and [their personal spin on] Jesus Christ not closely enough. Be careful what you wish for ....

  20. "Win back the hearts and minds of people"? What does that even mean?

    It means that he wants to win. Just like Reagan wanted to win.

  21. Considering just how "radical" candidate Obama was, I can't help but wonder how Paul would be different from any other Republican president.

    As long as he's not different from Coolidge, the nation will be in pretty good shape.

    1. ^^This.

      His father was far more republican than people like to remember sometimes too. He got criticized for it a lot.

      Rand it probably moreso than his Dad, or at least spinning it that way. If you combine this statement with his support for CO and WA, it makes him very much a federalist, more than either a libertarian or conservative. And his Dad was much the same way.

      And while it isnt perfect, a federalist is much better than anything the GOP has run in my lifetime.

    2. Yes, Coolidge had a libertarian reputation despite enforcing (and apparently supporting) Prohibition.

      1. In Coolidge's defense, at least the anti-EtOH warriors had the decency to amend the constitution instead of just shitting on it like the anti-other-intoxicant warriors have done.

        1. Yep. Prohibition was stupid and wasteful, but it was absolutely constitutional.

      2. Re: Eduard van Haalen,

        Yes, Coolidge had a libertarian reputation despite enforcing (and apparently supporting) Prohibition.

        You have to remember that Prohibition existed because of a Constitutional amendment, so even if Coolidge did not support the idea in principle, he had to
        enforce it as a matter of law. Remember also that Roosevelt had originally campaigned with NO mention of repealing Prohibition, at first, or during the conventions. It wasn't until the general election that the future president made an unequivocal appeal to end Prohibition.

        I'm not saying that Rand is going to follow a page from the same book, but his words seem to suggest it.

        1. Not to mention that #18 was in place before Coolidge was even elected veep.

    3. Rand would be the best president that any of us have ever lived to see.

      It's a moot point, whoever the Dems trot out to spout their 'everything is free, just vote for me' non-sense, will win.

      The reason Rand is pandering to these SoCon idiots, is because he wants to get the nomination. It makes sense, because it's how that prick Santorum did better than Ron is most states.

      Rand won't even be the candidate, though, as the GOP establishment will never allow it, no matter how many votes he gets. They will nominate some Dem-lite, like douchebag Christie, like they always do, and lose again.

      Although, I doubt it will be Christie, because I think it's more likely that he will switch to team blue and seek that nomination instead. If he does that, he might wind up POTUS, as long as Hitlary is too old and hobbled by then.

  22. I don't expect him to jeopardize his very good chance at the GOP nomination on what is a comparatively insignificant issue.

    Seriously? The War on Drugs has been the justification for the nearly complete destruction of the Fourth Amendment. The War on Drugs has been the justification for asset forfeiture policies which are nothing more than government sanctioned pillage and gangsterism.

    How can any thoughtful American claim to believe in freedom and not be adamantly in favor of ending the War on Drugs?

    1. One question: Did Rand use the phrase "war on drugs" at any point or is the headline a lie?

      A think there is a subtle difference between opposing legalization and supporting the war on drugs.

      You could defund the agencies prosecuting the War while leaving the laws in place, for example.

    2. Absolutely. Anyone who says the War on Drugs is no big deal doesn't really understand the War on Drugs. (Or perhaps understands it too well.)

      1. I wonder how many people would be okay with it if he said:

        "As President, Im not going to waste any political capital fighting with congress over drug laws, Im going to spend my entire domestic focus on controlling spending."

        I think its better than what he said. But, while we might like it better, how many SoCons would like that better?

        IF (and this is the big IF), he still supports letting individual states make their own decisions, then wouldnt that be far better than what we have had or have right now?

        1. I really wish he would say that, actually.

    3. Rand wants the GOP nomination.

      He also knows that there is no road to legalization at the federal level. The states will legalize weed, and a president Rand would ignore this.

    4. The Late P Brooks:

      "How can any thoughtful American claim to believe in freedom and not be adamantly in favor of ending the War on Drugs?"

      Beats me!

  23. Susan Collins is more likely to be the Republican Presidential nominee than Rand Paul. As fast as he backpedals away from *us*, the media, aided by the Mitch McConnell wing of the party, will paint him as some sort of radical anarchist gleefully rubbing his hands together at the thought of filthy impoverished starving children and barefoot pregnant teenage meth whores.

    1. McConnell hired Paul's campaign manager for his campaign this time around. I think he was worried about getting primaried. He is, at least within KY, trying to sell himself as closer to Paul.

      Whether that extends past Nov 2014 is another question entirely.

  24. You could defund the agencies prosecuting the War while leaving the laws in place, for example.

    I could be induced leave the law in place, but make the penalty (for any quantity, for any number of violations) two dollars. I think that would cause the cops more anguish than if drugs were legalized across the board. How many cops would drag themselves out of bed in the middle of the night to smash down a door in order to bust somebody for a crime punishable by a two dollar fine? Would they run the risk (however small) of getting one in the neck for that?

    1. Exactly.

      There isnt a "war on jaywalking" for example, because the fine is so petty that the cops dont give a damn.

      Sometimes someone gets busted for it (a friend of mine did when he got hit by a car on North Ave in Atlanta), but its rare.

      1. As long as selling illegal drugs generates piles of cash, the cops will be more than happy to steal it.
        As long as drugs are illegal, people involved in the black market must resort to violence when settling disputes since the courts are not available to them.
        Sorry, but legalization is the only way to get rid of the problems created by prohibition.

        1. I dont disagree, but the lesser the penalties, the lesser the risks involve, the less that stuff happens.

          It is a continuum.

          I do think there is a big step function at the legalization point too, but above that, the lower the penalties, the better.

      2. Had he not been hit by the car I wonder if he would have been.

        1. Nope. That was why he got the ticket. The cop showed up, called the ambulance, made sure he was okay. When he realized he was going to be fine, just bleeding a bit, he gave him the ticket.

          1. Like when a cop showed up after I went over the hood of a car that had run a red light, and gave me a DUI for riding a bicycle after having a few drinks.

            1. Different. In this case, my friend was entirely in the wrong. He jaywalked, the car hit him, the driver wasnt at fault.

              1. To add insult to injury, the police report made no mention of the fact that the kid who hit me ran a red light, resulting in my being forced to shell out a couple grand to fix the car that destroyed my bicycle and shoulder.

            2. DUI?

              Doesn't the "D" stand for driving?

              1. Bicycles on the road are required to follow all the rules that cars do.

                Or the major subset of them, at least.

              2. The normal rule of the road (and I know that it's codified as law in the jurisdictions around where I live) is that bicyclists are subject to every traffic law from which they are not explicitly exempt.

      3. That's some hard core rationalization, imo.

        The feds -- you know, the government of which the President is part -- doesn't have a constitutional basis for a $2 fine for drug use or possession.

        But, yeah, Rand wants to leave all the laws in place so drugs are still illegal, just make them meaningless. Again, sounds like rationalization.

        1. The Feds dont have a constitutional basis for 90% of the shit that they do.

          Supporting any kind of "compromise" on 90% of government actions is hard core rationalization by your standard.

          Which Im okay with you holding that standard. I mean, I agree, but I also favor moving in the right direction when possible.

          I refuse to vote for candidates whose best qualification is that they would move us in the wrong direction slower. I will take small baby steps in the right direction, however.

          1. I'm not saying he wouldn't be the best alternative. I'm saying his "constitutional conservative" ploy is disingenuous bullshit and he should be called on it just as much as any other politician is called on disingenuous bullshit.

            Other politicians get called on compromises even if they are sometimes necessary. That's fine. Maybe his position here is "necessary," but he shouldn't get a pass on indefensible reasoning.

      4. "war on jaywalking"

        Great minds link alike.

  25. I for one welcome a new libertarian political pragmatism. Pity it will have to be about wooing the Jesus crowd. Or banish Rand Paul for straying from his principles for dirty political reasons, I don't give a shit.

    1. I am increasingly of the view that the ballot box is not the answer. A combination of education and civil disobedience is what is needed.

      1. Don't bother with engaging the troll. You've been warned.

        1. I can't decide whether to picture you in a leather dominatrix getup or full fascist regalia when you make these pronouncements.

          1. Ah -- to be the subject of Tony's fantasies!

            1. You should be so lucky.

      2. I also think technology will play a big role. Things like 3D printing, and the ever expanding availability and accessibility of information will hamper the scum in government.

  26. Does the following argument to socons not work?

    "Look, I'm against drug use, and would love to see a society that is free from such abuse. Being for legalization does not mean that I am for abuse. In fact, the past several decades have shown that banning something in no way discourages abuse. There was a time - prior to the thirties, I believe, when one could purchase legally virtually any drug including heroin, cocaine, and pot. Yet, the movement at the time was to ban ALCOHOL, ultimately resulting in a failed movement to ban its use. Think about it: the choice of alcohol as the drug to ban indicated that it was seen as being more abused/dangerous than all the other drugs... Our ultimate goal is for a drug-free society. History has proved - with alcohol and other drugs - that we can come closer to this ideal by providing medical help to abusers rather than putting them in prison."

    What would have happened to Rand if he had said the above?

    1. I believe cocaine and heroin were banned before Prohibition. In the nineteen teens IIRC.

        1. Actually, I don't think it was banned in 1914 federally (maybe some states), but I think it became regulated, requiring doctors note or something. I am pretty sure an outright ban on alcohol happened first.

          1. Alcohol could also be obtained with a prescription. And Catholics could still drink wine with Communion.

    2. I dont think the "providing medical help" part is a big winner here. It isnt with me.

      If he made it clear that it is the church's responsibility to provide that help, then that is a much better statement.

      1. I don't necessarily agree with everything I said in the hypothetical quote - I don't personally think the government has any right/responsibility to provide anything in terms of medical help. I was trying to present a possible statement that would be acceptable to typical socons.

        1. It might be acceptable to those who directly heard it.

          When the Santorum commercials run saying he supports heroin use in elementary schools, the lower info socon voters wont support him.

    3. He'll lose the SoCon vote in the primaries, to Sweater Vest or Huckabee.

      That's what this is all about, imho.

      By talking about other civil liberty issues, like protecting American citizens from drones and military arrest, he thinks he will still get the L vote. Most Ls don't vote, and he knows this.

      No one running for POTUS, besides Ron Paul, is ever going to come out and say they want to legalize all drugs.

      1. I dont remember him saying it either.

        At best, he wanted to let the states decide.

        1. He is for complete legalization. That is, when he's asked whether it should be legal at a philosophical/ethical level, that was his response since the beginning, like from his Libertarian party days. But politically, yes he is limited to a Federalist approach

        2. He's a resident of Texas, so what's his position on Texas legalizing? Judging by his past statements I'd think he's in favor.

      2. He'll lose the SoCon vote in the primaries, to Sweater Vest or Huckabee.

        You mean you aren't encouraging every libertarian you know to go join their county GOP and take over as much of the Republican Party as they can the way Pat Robertson and Ron Paul did?

        The GOP isn't tens of millions of voters, it's 6 or 8 guys who get together for coffee at the IHOP one Saturday a month. Get 10 or 12 of your buddies to join the local GOP with you and suddenly you are the GOP.

    4. Arguments don't work on most 'SoCons' period. They are the progtards of the right. You have to make them feel good and make them feel that you are one of them. Once you can do that you can do all kinds of stupid crap that flies in the face of any objective reading of the SoCon agenda.

    5. Well said waterboard. The argument should remain a practical one and not ideological. Too bad R. Paul can't stick to his guns like his dad. If he were to remain on his dad's platform, it would only grow in popularity as Washington continues on the same destructive path. I thought he was going to continue to buck the system for a while until the last few weeks. And yes, the failure of any forms of prohibition should be the only argument about drugs, guns, whatever. Morons in government cannot stop what people want. It is that simple. Rand Paul is rapidly sounding like any other stooge who wants to be powerful.

  27. That's some hard core rationalization, imo.

    Well, yeah. If those laws will never ever be taken off the books, blah blah blah.

    My (hopefully obvious) preference is complete abandonment of prohibition, in favor of enforcement of laws against crimes with actual victims and quantifiable damage.

    If you come home from work and light up a big fattie on your front porch swing, you're not hurting anybody. If you are burglarizing homes to support your "habit" that should be punished.

    1. Had this conversation with a guy in the office here. He asserted that we need to have laws that discourage people from doing bad things while on drugs so that is why drugs should be illegal - to discourage crime caused when on drugs. The fucking logical gymnastics these people do to rationalize things is incredible.

      They guy is pretty smart but he is a big prog. He once told me he was unhappy with Obama because he wasn't progressive enough.

  28. I see this like I see Obama coming out firmly against gay marriage back when he was running for president the first time.

    Everybody knew where he really stood on gay marriage, but his supporters (including gay rights people) kept supporting him despite being against gay marriage--because they understood there were certain things he needed to do in order to get himself into the White House. ...and how much good could Obama do for gay rights issues if he can't get into the White House?

    I see Rand Paul's position on the Drug War the same way. Given his other position on other issues, I think I know where he really stands on the Drug War. ...and I also understand that there is a list of certain people Ran Paul needs to please if he's going to win the Republican nomination. Unfortunately, libertarians who hate the Drug War aren't high on that list of supporters--but social conservatives in Iowa are.

  29. Being for legalization does not mean that I am for abuse.




  30. For someone who understands freedom, Rand sure doesn't understand freedom.

  31. "I can't help but wonder how Paul would be different from any other Republican president."

    Hahahahaha! If you don't support drug legalization, you're the same as Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney? OK!

    1. "Hahahahaha! If you don't support drug legalization, you're the same as Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney? OK!"

      None of those people were president.

      1. Substitute with Nixon, Reagan, and Bush

  32. Leaving all the terrible laws in place but not prioritizing them allows for selective enforcement. That is in some ways worse.

    And despite reduced jail time, you'll still be a felon. Heck even without serving time at all, a felony and/or drug record will (mostly) ruin your life.

  33. Courting the religious freaks in a big mistake - I guess it really will be Hilary or Biden in 2016 - smh

  34. The problem I see here is that he's pandering on this issue right at the moment in historical time when it's no longer necessary to do so.

    He's fighting not even the last campaign but his father's 2008 campaign.

    It's not 2008, Rand.

    By 2015 he'll realize that he would have been better off not caving on this. He benefits from the Paul "No Compromise" brand and he shouldn't moderate from that brand unless it's absolutely necessary. And by 2015 it won't be necessary - not on pot, at least.

    1. "The problem I see here is that he's pandering on this issue right at the moment in historical time when it's no longer necessary to do so."

      If SoCons in Iowa are feeling overrun right about now, then maybe this is the best time to address their concerns.

      I don't think he's going to win the nomination by overwhelming the SoCons in the Republican Party, anyway. He'll win by unifying a slice of them with the Tea Party people.

      That's what Reagan did. It just wasn't the "Tea Party" he was bringing the social conservatives into back then; it was the "supply siders".

  35. I find libertarians can be very imprecise with their goals when talking about drug legalization. If the point is to make all drugs legal, you need to focus on abolishing the FDA...which is the biggest hindrance to a free drug market. Otherwise, what's the strategy? Make pot available next to aspirin while there are lifesaving drugs that can't even get to market? Those priorities are part of what make people dislike libertarians.

    1. Anti-prohibition is not pro-drug.

    2. One of the great things about being libertarian is that since we all generally agree that everyone should be free to make their own choices, we don't have to agree on much of anything else.

      Certainly not strategy.

      You might be able to get the Objetivists, Paultards, Paultard Jr. supporters, Free Staters, seasteaders, neoconfederates, cosmotarians, anarcho-capitalists, and the Libertarian Party to all agree on some issue--but if you're trying to get them all to agree on one strategy?

      Yer outta yer fucking mind.

      1. Yeah getting absolutists to agree on anything and god forbid compromise or take practical incremental positions is absurd. As absurd as those kinds of groups ever getting real political power.

        1. Go fuck a duck, Tony.

        2. That's for sure, Tony! You nailed it. You see absolutists all the time shouting "abortion is murder!" or "we don't have a spending problem!" I'd be amazed if anyone like that ever got real political power.

    3. Not throwing people in jail and not ruining their lives--not just for pot, but for supplying meds unlicensed (which Reason also covers)--is always a first step. Getting rid of the FDA alone would not solve that issue!

      Regulatory matters are a separate issue than prohibition, politically and legally speaking. Even though I agree in a truly free market, it shouldn't be.

      1. Let's do a little thought experiment on what would change if just the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act were repealed. It would still leave all the state pharmacy laws, which are pretty much boilerplate the FFDCA, just that the states haven't had to each run an equivalent of FDA because the feds have; then each state pharmacy board would have to act on submissions instead, which would be no picnic for someone trying to get a new drug, food additive, etc. licensed for sale. (The state laws say that articles specifically legal for sale in interstate commerce are exempt from in-state licensing.)

        The US Controlled Substances Act and state Controlled Dangerous Substances acts would still be on the books too.

        Strange as it may seem, we're better off with a FDA than without it, all else being equal. Of course the climate that would lead to the abolition of FDA would also lead to deregulation in many states, but it would not get anywhere nead abolition of FDA before substantial progress was made in other regards. So federal food & drug law reform is much more important and productive than efforts at repeal. If it became easier and cheaper to bring cannabis preparations to market federally, for instance (which would be about reforming the FFDCA rather than the CSA), that would go a long way toward making CSA's provisions on marihuana irrelevant.

  36. Why you SHOULD NOT "Stand With Rand"
    Rand Paul is NOT the answer to the Movement. Those of you that are Ron Paul supporters should already know this by how the GOP establishment treated Ron in the events leading up to and at the GOP convention. After all that, one has to ask, "why are they behind Rand?" The reason is that the "Tea Party" is just a GOP ploy to throw the true conservatives a bone and give the illusion of diversity. Don't be fooled!

    Besides this article, he supports sanctions which have NO effect on a governmental level and only hurt the sick, children and poor.
    Then there's his devotion to Israel. "Absolutely we stand with Israel. What I think we should do is announce to the world ? and I think it is pretty well known ? that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States." ~Rand Paul: Daily Paul Liberty Forum 05/02/13

    1. Find someone better with a shot at winning and then come back.

      1. You think Rand would be "winning"? See, that's the problem. This 2 party system is a hoax. Stop voting for "less evil" and "I'm only voting for x because at least it ain't y" mentality has to go.

        1. So you're fine with going in the wrong direction instead of slowly toward the right direction? Or do you completely deny that Rand is the right direction and that he's just another Romney (he's not)?

  37. The real issue is that evangelicals still support legislating morality and personal activity through unconstitutional federal "laws," still support treating drug abuse as a legal problem to be addressed by the State rather than a social problem to be addressed by the church, and still support throwing people into prisons for non-violent "crimes." There is no Biblical basis for this position.

  38. I guess it kinda sucks when the gold paint chips off your statue.

  39. There's a middle ground between ending the WoD and legalizing drugs. Not everything that's illegal has a "War On" it; ever heard of a War On Jaywalking or a War On Collapsible Batons?

    Rand Paul is trying to thread the needle here on an issue where the country is united against the libertarian position (aside from MJ) and you guys are damning him for not pooping on the social conservative's carpet as you would if you had the chance.

    1. He's just another politician saying whatever he needs to say to get elected. That's what it always boils down to eventually.

      1. Rand's public position on drugs is better than that of 99% of our politicians, so even if that's his real position he's great from a libertarian POV, making Riggs' and others' continuous stream of priggish nitpicking articles uncalled for.

        It's possible that he's really in favor of legalization and is trying to avoid the immediate exile to irrelevance that any politician advocating legalization of heroin, for example, would receive. We don't know this is true but it would be even better if it is.

        1. He'll say what he needs to say to the people he needs to say things to in order to get elected. That includes you, Mr Smartypants. If he's already got you on his side, he doesn't need to speak to you or your interests anymore. If you'll defend him even when he goes against your interests, he's already won the battle.

          1. I don't use, buy, manufacture, grow, trade, or sell any currently illegal drugs, so I don't really have any interests in this matter for him to go against. He's not really going against my position either, since there's absolutely no way general drug legalization is going to happen within the next 20 years. What he's voicing is the best we can do right now.

            1. What he's voicing is the best we can do right now.

              Sounds like he's already reeled you in and thrown you in the bottom of the boat. If he's your guy, more power to you. I guess you'll be bitching up a storm in three years because a bunch of people were too stupid to vote for the right guy again.

    2. Because jaywalking and black market drugs have so much in common. Tard.

    3. i can't imagine myself in attempt to convince my liberal/neocon aunts and uncles

      try to temporarily concede a point or two in a private conversation in order to advance the topic just to have it quoted next morning in newspaper.

      he should just keep some of these conversations private. i can't imagine a 1 on 1 conversation without some flexible wiggle room and privacy when you're trying to convince someone holding adamantly different views. quite frankly i'm surprised he hasn't been singled out more.

      1. As Mitt Romney and many others have found out.... it's hard to keep any appearance to a large group private in this day and age.

  40. for those comparing rand to ron on this issue. was ron ever for legalizing drugs? no.

    he is for the states to decide. is rand saying he 'doesn't want drugs legalized anywhere?' no. neither of them are for drug legalization per-se, rand just approaches it "smarter."

    ron emphasizes the (partially) legal aspect, rand, when talking to evangelical pastors, emphasizes the (partially) restricted aspect, to each state accordingly. he is assuming Libertarian's position is to overwrite states law and force legalization nation-wide. if that's the case, he is against it. i don't think i would support a federally forced legalization either, if locals for some reason want to put a restriction on it.

    1. neither of them is* for drug legalization per-se

    2. Ron Paul is absolutely in favor of legalization at every level, as seen in his 1988 Morton Downey Jr Show appearance. As a federal politician he had no special power to change state laws so he didn't emphasize his position on state laws, but it's pretty clear to those who study him closely.

      1. he might be "for" it but forcing through legal means even those states and towns

        who for whatever reason wish to restrict drugs is an entirely different thing. i went through 90%+ of ron paul's various speech and appearances from 08 to 12 and i am pretty sure that's where he stands. he will have no problem with 50 states each legalizing drugs legally, neither will he have problem with 45 states vs 5

      2. and btw just to add ron paul is even more of a states right 'fundamentalist' guy than rand at least in rhetorics.

        it may be for political reasons, but rand has conceded in some cases the federal government should intervene in the states on civil rights issues such as if the states decided to enact jim crowe but i remember quite clearly ron wants almost absolute autonomy in a way for the states. both guys have their point and it would be a luxury if we're at the point where that debate matters, so i won't draw a conclusion here.

  41. So, if I want someone to run around naked, I feed them The Devil Weed. Am I hearing Rand correctly?

  42. "Considering just how 'radical' candidate Obama was, I can't help but wonder how Paul would be different from any other Republican president. "

    See, it's statements like this that make wonder if libertarians aren't just a bunch of curmudgeons. I mean, it is literally impossible for Paul to be the same as every Republican President (should he get elected), because no two Republican Presidents have been the same. If the only two important issues are gay marriage and pot, then sure, vote Democrat. And it does make one wonder how much he'll bend on farm subsidies and entitlement reform.

    1. As long as you don't show that you are bigoted, which he isn't, many gays think debt, taxes and unemployment, war, surveillance and civil liberties violations are bigger issues than marriage. Though they still are impatient with people who think they aren't deserving of all the same rights to contract as everyone else.

  43. And still better than all the other major parties candidates. On the one hand he has now given libertarians a reason to vote LP rather than for Rand Paul. On the other hand I would still consider re-registering to vote for him in a primary, and even voting for him in a general election. Possibly even while running for lower office as a Libertarian, depending on the constellation of other presidential candidates in the election.

    1. If I lived in a swing state.

  44. Rand Paul is the best chance in quite a while for the Frank Meyer style fusion of liberty and virtue. On most issues, Rand Paul sees these as complementary, not contradictory. Contrast this with other candidates, who want the federal government to engage in a crusade in behalf of virtue, or even in behalf of non-virtue dressed up as virtue.

    Even if he wobbles with regard to drugs (a complex issue), who would you rely on more to respect state decisions on drug policy - Rand, or someone like Obama, Graham, McConnel, etc?

  45. I would love to have to make the choice between voting for Rand Paul or the LP nominee in the general election.

  46. LOL!

    Rand has the old folks fooled. We all know that in his spare time, he's a pot smoking gay nudist.

  47. Very sad: Senator Paul is caving in to pressure to compromise his libertarian principles! Nothing new here but it is disappointing nonetheless.

  48. Until the religious right is defanged, any Republican who wants to be president has to at least give lip service to them. If he wins the presidency and the Republicans really take over the house and senate then it is possible for this to be a states rights issue. Until then would you rather Hillary or Rand?

    1. neither

  49. In the USA there are only 2 teams that have the strength to move the country anywhere, so you have to choose which to hitch your wagon to if you want to get anything done. The horses in each team have a direction they want to move in, but you can steer them a few degrees aside from that direction. You don't have the strength to move your wagon anywhere by yourself, and you don't have the power to steer either team wherever you want to go. So you might as well do what you do have the power to do, and take a hand at the reins of one of the teams if you're lucky enough to have the opp'ty. If you try to steer them too far out of the range they want to go in, they won't respond at all.

  50. Rand Paul is a talented politician; Ron Paul was an awful politician.

    A willingness to play within the Stupid Party's Overton window is why this first-term senator has a shot at the Presidency while his dad spent his entire career crying out in the wilderness or performing the political equivalent of herding cats. Whether he believes in this socon bullshit or not, Rand has to pander to old socons to get elected. And whether he believes them or not, President Rand would be the most libertarianish president since Silent Cal.

  51. Some free political for Rand... One doesn't need to repudiate the idea of weed being legal in order to make inroads in the GOP. The most ideological tolerable way to sell a less obtuse approach to drug use would be through the prism of state's rights- at least as far as soft drugs like marijuana or ecstasy are concerned. Hard drugs like skag or meth should be treated as a health issue rather than a law enforcement issue. I think a position like the one I just articulated would be both palatable to conservatives and libertarians alike...but I might be wrong

  52. This isn't just about this issue, though the WOD is one of the primary destroyers of liberty in this country (all you Repbulicans in Libertarian clothing who hang out here can fuck off with your "but only spending matters!" bullshit).

    It is about what this means for Rand as a principled opponent of government power. Barack Obama talked a VERY good talk on civil liberties before coming to office. He even talked an OK talk on foreign policy, though he wasn't the dove people portrayed him as on the campaign. And then he got into office and proved how much those words were worth. Rand isn't even bothering to talk the talk. If reducing mandatory minimums is the farthest he's willing to go on drugs, then fuck him. Thanks for the filibuster and trying to stop NDAA, Rand, but that's about all you've done of any note.

    Where is he on Syria? Many in his party are advocating intervention - he should be leading the charge to stay the fuck out. Instead he's in Iowa pandering to religious fucktards.

    I'll probably plug my nose and vote for him against Hillary, but I will have absolutely no confidence in this craven disgrace to the Paul name.

    1. Obama hardly talked about any civil liberties worth speaking of, and those influential in his party hardly ever thought to ask him about them. Contrast with Rand Paul, who is being asked by those influential in his party about something extremely few in the leadership of either party are interested in taking on, i.e. narcotics. The very fact he has to reassure those people he's not on the extreme of that issue puts him miles ahead of Obama, or of anyone else for that matter. Put this in context folks: Where other candidates are just assumed to have positions very close to the status quo, Rand Paul is not--and people think it's important enough to ask him about them rather than treating him like a nut! Maybe the rest of you don't see how far he's pushed the envelope, but I sure do.

      Nearly all politicians have been in practical lock-step on the subject of narcotics for approximately 50 yrs. That was about the last time there was serious consider'n given to policy direction, and the direction taken then was to add uppers, downers, and hallucinogens to the restrictive regime that until then applied to just a few drugs, and to reject other regulatory possibilities. Not even Goldwater spoke out against it, nor was he even asked, at that time. Now there's someone being treated as among the front runners for a major party presidential nomination, and who would probably do a lot better than Goldwater, and he is not assumed to be part of that lock step. That's enormous.

  53. well, that's the beauty about being a constitutional conservative -- you know that it's not the president's business to legislate and obstruct things like gay marriage or the states voting to legalize whatever drugs they want (including his big push to legalize hemp in his home state of Kentucky). He can tell these people whatever he wants, it doesn't mean he is going to sign an executive order banning gay marriage or jailing pot smokers for long periods. As long as he professes to uphold the constitution, his personal opinions don't really matter. I don't think he's telling these people he wants to spend trillions bolstering the police state and ramping up constitutionally offensive policies that take away rights of citizens in favor of continuing the drug war.

  54. Stop it Mr. Paul! You will destroy your good ideas in pandering to this sort. Never again!

  55. Obviously, RandPaul is not above compromising his principles, but then I have yet to meet a "libertarian" who wasn't! It's a null-set political ideology, one with convenient beliefs, and customizeable ideology, like RandPaul's version. In other words, ALL they believe in is POWER! He's the worst of the lot, and has NOTHING to offer as a "candidate" for President. Just more of the same-old same old, we've already had too much of, thank you anyway.

  56. Is it radical Liberatrianism to seek drugs such as marijuana be regulated like alcohol (like strong penalities for providing to juniors or driving under influence)? Is it radical to suggest that marriage as defined by churches is between a man and a woman, but that it is an establishment of religion that such a belief may determine or restrict the rights of those outside "traditional" marriage? Yes, RP jr. must modify his open pronouncements to be acceptable to enough of the electorate to get their votes, but these principles need not be "thrown under the bus".

  57. Rand Paul can't win a national election pandering to evangelicals! They're only twenty-five to thirty percent of the population, and are fewer every day. Hillary Clinton will be our next president if she wants the job.

    1. Democrats will have ceaseless control of the Presidency if they want it. It's theirs to lose. The entitlement state combined with support for rights from minority groups will never allow another Republican to be elected again, except for the type of Republican their own base wouldn't support.

  58. When I tell people I am an expat and have escaped the US, they ask how I could possibly want to live in some country with a "corrupt government". Setting aside few or none of these people have actually been to the Philippines, Paraguay, Singapore, etc., I tell them that at least the momentum in these countries is on the upswing. In The Land of the Free, even the "best" politicians like Rand Paul pander to dishonest special interest groups and throw their values under the bus for a vote. Then they punish their opponents like Obama has used the IRS. Sounds more like an unfree system than a "free" one to me, but I guess anything that keeps people fat, happy, and ignorant works for them.

  59. I warned you people about Rand
    I warned you....

  60. Rand Paul, of all people, must know the cannabis prohibition disaster was partly the fault of evangelical Christian Ministers. Why in the world would he favor any group of Americans, unless he's just another opportunistic vote grabber? Disgusting! I had some hope for him. But, John Stossel, Judge Andrew Napolitano, or Burnie Thompson would be far better choices to run this nation than RINO Rand, or Marco Rubio. I'm at the point of asking, "Where's the real Libertarian who'll step up & put his money where his mouth is?" American voters are hungry for justice, constitutional government, a 10% flat tax (on sales), the end of the alphabet agencies, the smallest possible government, & the greatest amount of liberty possible. How does continuing our horrible war on cannabis users help America? It doesn't. Cannabis is here to stay, & in a big way, thanks to prohibitionists. Rand Paul just shot himself in the foor with the majority of American voters who are running for the exit doors to escape both the Democrat & Republican parties. The only option is Libertarian, & there are excellent potential leaders there. But, we just can't go on this way. Bye bye Rand, you're done as a potential President by selling out to any special interest group. Your father must be real proud of you.

  61. I fully believe that drugs should be decriminalized and thus we would see the violent, deadly and costly drug cartels evaporate into thin air. I can't pretend to delve into Rand Paul's thinking on this..but,
    I do wish he would follow more closely the principles of his father Ron Paul who truly values this nation's ONLY Supreme Rule of Law.

  62. This ship took a hundred years to get in the place we are at. It going to take some time to get the ship turned around.I'm pretty sure I know where he's coming from.Incrementalism is what got us here.

  63. RAND PAUL HAS STATED REPEATEDLY THAT THE DRUG WAR IS A FAILURE AND THAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN IMPRISONING PEOPLE FOR NON-VIOLENT DRUG USE. (For example, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ug-crimes/). That is clear; libertarian purists you can calm down. That being said, Paul is trying to thread a very fine line here. Give him a little credit -- he is savvy enough to realize having the term "legalization" associated with his name means political death within the GOP. So he is doing the next best thing: trying to reduce or eliminate federal drug sentencing, and letting the states determine the appropriate punishment (a very libertarian view), if any. In his heart, there is no question (to me) that he is solidly libertarian on the drug issue. Basically, he is trying to be true what he believes without coming right out and saying what he believes. I've seen him in many interviews and Paul is extremely smart: he knows that certain words and phrases are to be avoided at all costs. He doesn't have to lie, and he hasn't so far. This is politics, and it is a game he has to play well if has a chance of winning in '16.

  64. American-christians (hyphenated and small "c") worship a different god than Jesus. They worship the state. The state dictates their morality, and take away the state they have not morals.

    They don't listen to the fact that the U.S. government with their support is hurting people down south and within the country. To them, those people don't matter since they are not relevant to their god the state.

    Same thing with Social Security. They'll decry welfare and medicaid, but the pastors stay silent on Social Security and Medicare. Most likely because those same people tithe often and a lot.

    Then, there's the military - same thing, basically, since fellow Christians are being killed because of the wars they support. Except I was told once that the blood of the young was needed to preserve their freedoms (lifestyle). No Joke! I was told exactly that.

    They're the most selfish and ignorant people ever.

  65. maybe its rastafarian evangelicals, which would be sweet then and brownies for communion

  66. Very disappointing.

  67. You may not like his "sell out" but for a libertarian to do any good, they have to get elected. It looks like Rand is doing exactly what he needs to do to have a shot at getting elected. We've all seen policies can change after one is elected.

  68. You ain't gonna win no GOP nomination by saying that you support drug legalization and the like.

    Rand needs all the help he needs to get, because the GOP would rather go with Rubio. Good looking Cuban who help initiated immigration reform. He was the GOP response to Obama's SOTU, while Rand gave the tea party response.

  69. I can assure Rand that he won't get my vote!

  70. Senator Paul must stop pandering to authoritarians if he seeks to be a champion of human liberty. Any worthwhile Republican victory will leave the Fundamentalists to decide which side their bread is buttered on. Courting them borders on the obscene.

  71. I'm a christian libertarian and I am against the war on drugs. I think it's wrong to throw people who are emotionally, mentally and spiritually broken in jail for drug use and make their lives that much worse.
    With that said If I was running for office as big as the presidency or any other national position, I would not run on a pure libertarian platform either, Why? because if you do you wont win. If you just want to run and get people to here your message like Ron Paul then that's great, but if you seriously want to win then you have to water it down and tell the majority what they want to hear, that's how the bad guys win elections so why cant we do the same? While the the libertarian movement has made made huge strides and grown a great deal, it's still not a main stream philosophy.
    The only thing I would do different than Rand is I would stress that the states have to pass their own drug laws and I would not try to make drugs legal or illegal on a national level. I would remind Evangelicals about the 10th amendment. I don't like what he said either but getting the penalties reduced would be better than nothing, at least its a step in the right direction. I still think Rand is our only hope to get things going in the direction we want. I like Gary Johnson but if he doesn't get in the debates he's not winning.

  72. Another manipulator
    Gary Johnson just got my vote.

  73. Rand has to lie to evangelicals to win their vote and anyone who believes him is as dumb as they are. This is called politics?in the real world. Not a place where most Libertarian Party members spend a whole lot of time.

  74. No To Gay Marriage, in fact; we need to Stop 'Government Licensure of Marriage completely!

    Yes to Religious (entheogenic) & medical; 'Grow & Use' Rights guaranteeing their right to Cannabis! This is the Right path!

    We need to Give every Citizen their Secured Right to their own Sovereign intellect! Every citizen should have their intellectual properties secured, that no Law can hinder us in our pursuits of happiness as we discover and promote them, not as 'governed' by 'Law'!

    If living in sin, is your pursuit of happiness, as long as you don't 'effect' other's causing recognizable harm (psychological or biological) , anyone nor 'deny them their rights' (no victim exists) than your actions should not be persecuted!

    We know however, that they who have died with Him, will live out the rest of their lives accomplishing God's willing, because it is God within us who is doing His will; we cannot continue to sin. God forbid that we do, that grace need further be given; we are saved by payment made not by our own acts! And now that we have been paid for, we no longer act; but God acts from within us!

  75. End the drug war, we have a better chance of living in peace. Don't end the drug war, a good excuse to start thumping the heads of prohibitionists. I prefer peace but I'm NOT tolerating any more injustice.

    Declaration of Rights of Cannabis Users

    https: //www.facebook.com/ notes/42013/ all-n-one/ 618387918222605

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.