Election 2014

Libertarian Senate Candidate Sean Haugh Talks About Smoking Pot on the Campaign Trail, Drinking Underage in Gay Bars

The most open candidate in the North Carolina race.

|

No arthritis pain today!

Matt Laslo of Bills and Brews has interviewed Sean Haugh, the Libertarian Party's candidate to represent North Carolina in the Senate. Haugh's poll numbers are greater than the margin between the two major candidates, so he's been attracting more coverage than most third-party candidates get.

The headline here is that Haugh tells Laslo he not only has smoked marijuana in the past but has continued to do so during the campaign, a question he answers with direct (and perhaps slightly tipsy) honesty. He also talks about going to Tulsa's gay bars when he was 15 because he knew they'd sell him beer. And then there's the part where he says it's "stupid to take" PCP. When Laslo follows up by asking whether it's stupid to take LSD too, Haugh says he's "not going to judge that."

Ordinarily all this would be very impolitic, but if you're seeking the support of a niche—a boutique bloc of voters, not unlike the craft beers that Haugh praises and drinks during the interview—then it might be savvier than it sounds. At any rate, you can watch the whole thing here:

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.

51 responses to “Libertarian Senate Candidate Sean Haugh Talks About Smoking Pot on the Campaign Trail, Drinking Underage in Gay Bars

  1. Ok. That’s two out of three. But what about the Mexicans?

    1. They didn’t ask him about that and he was stoned so he forgot to mention it.

  2. Craft beer flows in my veins.

    1. There is too much blood in my alcohol system…

  3. I want to see Adam Carolla run for office and get on the debate stage. That would be the funniest thing ever. I can just imagine him saying ‘Fuck it, you bunch of pussies!’.

  4. One of my FB buddies insists that his campaign is being funded by the Kochtopus so that the Dems will lose.

    1. I would love to believe that a Libertarian candidate can attract disgruntled Democrats as well as disgruntled Republicans because if they can’t they just become useful idiots for the left and accomplish nothing. Savis attracted more Dem voters than Republican voters in the VA governor’s race. So maybe this guy is too. I have yet to see any real evidence one way or another.

      1. if they can’t they just become useful idiots for the left and accomplish nothing.

        They get you to say moronic stuff like that. Admittedly, that’s pretty easy.

        1. So a Libertarian Party consisting entirely of angry Republicans and no former Democrats accomplishes what exactly?

          I can’t figure out if you are a troll or just that fucking stupid. You seem utterly incapable of seeing the consequences of actions and projecting into the future. It is kind of remarkable if a bit terrifying.

          1. It’s cute how you pretend to understand politics while seeming to have no concept of incentives.

            1. Your stupidity, however, is not cute. It would be cute if you are not so forceful about it. As it is, its just profound and a bit disturbing.

              You honestly live in this fantasy world where the entire Republican party is going to come running to Libertarians and admit the error of their ways. God only knows what else goes on inside your head but it is likely to be a very disturbing place.

  5. This sort of talk is nice and all but how does it help him get more votes? It seems to me that it just turns people off by making him look like someone who wants to change the law just so he can smoke dope.

    I think Libertarians do themselves a disservice by framing the drug war in terms of “we should let people do what that.” That statement, while true, is not very useful politically since it makes the person saying it look self serving and does nothing to help create a culture of self reliance and responsibility. The better way to frame the issue is “people are responsible for their own actions and it is not and should not be the government’s job to save them from themselves.” It effectively means the same thing as the first statement. It just frames the issue of the drug war as an issue of personal responsibility rather than hedonism. The problem with endorsing a culture of hedonism instead of one of personal responsibility is that a culture that values hedonism instead of hard work and personal responsibility will support the welfare and regulatory state over the free market nearly every time. So anything that furthers a culture of hedonism makes the case for economic freedom that much harder to make.

    1. There you go – but alas, your analysis could lead libertarians into an alliance with the SoCons, which would be a form of ritual pollution, hence unthinkable.

      1. It would be a form of ritual futility. Been there, not doing that again.

    2. hat statement, while true, is not very useful politically since it makes the person saying it look self serving

      I have a lot of problems with your outlook on this, but this one in particular rubs me wrong. We’re all self serving; this dude at least has the balls to state it.

      1. Perception is not reality. Just because it looks that way, doesn’t mean it is. Sure it is nice that this guy is honest as opposed to every other politician of this age who did drugs and then lies about it. The problem is that it doesn’t look that way. And the point is not to be honest and feel good about yourself, the point is to convince people of your views. If you can’t do that, you are wasting your time.

        I am not saying the guy should lie about his past. I am saying that talking about that past doesn’t help his cause. If he wants to talk about his past, great. But he should do so by saying “yes I did drugs and did so responsibly and whatever harm I did to myself by doing them is my own fault.” The issue is not “I did drugs and I should be able to do more”. The issue is “whatever I do, it is not yours or the government’s problem to save me from the consequences of that”.

        1. Ok, that I’ll agree with.

          1. Libertarians have got to take on the addiction industry if they are ever going to make progress on the war on drugs. The addiction industry has convinced people that drug addiction is a disease and a large percentage of people who try drugs will end up being addicted through no fault of their own.

            I think that is a complete lie. If I believed it, however, I would have a hard time arguing that something that is literally poison and robs people of their free will should be legal. Libertarians view self determination as a absolute value so that fact doesn’t bother them. What they need to understand is that most people don’t see it that way and that fact, if true, bothers them a lot.

            The drug war will never end until the “addiction lie” is but to rest. The vast majority of people who use or try drugs never get addicted. And those who do get addicted are just using the drugs as an excuse for irresponsible behavior that they would have engaged in anyway.

            1. d a large percentage of people who try drugs will end up being addicted through no fault of their own.

              That part really pisses me off. They’ve sold that lie so well there’s nothing to be done; if you wind up addicted to crack, it’s your fucking fault.

              1. Pisses me off too. It is the reason why some of the most pig headed drug warriors are the families of drug addicts. They can’t admit to themselves that junior or older brother just turned out to be a selfish piece of shit. So, instead, they listen to the addiction advocates and tell themselves “junior is a good person and would have been okay had he never been poisoned by drugs”. It is a very seductive lie. But it is a lie and a very damaging lie.

  6. I just saying that it doesn’t help he looks like a kid diddler in the lead pic.

    1. Really? I thought he looked like Al Franken.

      1. Wow it’s uncanny.

      2. Po-TAY-to, Po-TAH-to…

      3. Not mutually exclusive.

      4. I also saw the resemblance to Franken, in both visage and manner. I wrote to Sean that, if he were to be elected, we would get what Franken voters perhaps hoped in vain to get: an affable, easy-going fellow who spoke political truth with a humorous twist. I also urged him to channel his “inner Andy Taylor” for debates and his ongoing series of video shorts. To judge from events so far, either he took my advice, or that was already part of his plan.

        Sean has one big advantage over Franken. Although voters for the latter must have liked the idea of sending a self-aware comedian to the US Senate, of the two, I have noticed that Senator Franken doesn’t generate much laughter, if any, whereas every speech from the NC hopeful is guaranteed to include one “Ha!” (at least when he is introduced). 😉

  7. OT; Here’s my conundrum- the Libertarian candidate for US Senate in IL states the the Sandy Hook massacre is a fake. She’s beyond nuts. So… whom do I vote for now?

    1. Don’t vote for her. If you do, you are just rewarding the Libertarian Party for nominating a nut. I don’t see how that works out well. The whole point of voting “Libertarian” is because the other parties haven’t done enough to earn your vote. That logic works when applied to the Libertarian party too. If Libertarians will vote in numbers for any candidate the party puts up, the party has no reason to put up better candidates.

    2. It’s Illinois, it doesn’t fucking matter, you’re going to vote D. Now if you’re wondering who you should try to vote for, that’s a more difficult question.

      1. At this point, it’s an impossible question. I may have to leave that part of the ballot blank or write in Jesse Jackson, Jr, for shits and giggles.

        1. Vote for the Green candidate. That way you are helping to support an alternative to the big three parties and also helping to create more headaches for the ruling party. A no kidding viable Green party would give the Dems just as big of a headache as a viable Libertarian Party would give the Republicans. And you are not rewarding the Libertarians for nominating a nut.

          1. No Green on the ballot, apparently. R, D, and L only according to League of Women Voters.

            1. Then just vote R. It is not like the guy is going to win and it is the only way to punish the Libertarian party without also supporting the status quo.

              1. Not gonna happen. The R dude is a toad.

                1. Is he insane? If not, he probably beats the L candidate. Moreover, it is not about voting R. It is about telling the Libertarian party to do better.

                  1. What’s worse, insane or crooked?I’m not so sure that the former is the correct answer…

                2. Thom Tillis is a fucking despicable person.

                  Kay Hagan is no better.

                  I’m voting for this dude.

    3. Hey OMWC,

      DON’T VOTE!

      There you go. Tell ’em to eff themselves. Or find a place where the L candidate is speaking and make sure you call her a nut and that you consider yourself embarrassed to even consider voting for a party that supports a candidate like her. If you need to make your voice heard, and voting is untenable, maybe that’s the way to do it.

  8. This is nice, but those who can should still vote for Tillis. Haugh’s conduct during the campaign is sometimes irritating and Tillis is pretty good.

    1. Tillis spent a lot of money trying to prevent gays from marrying. He’s no better than the D candidate, just has a different letter after his name.

      1. Tillis spent a lot of money trying to prevent gays from marrying.

        Bad, but not the end all be all.

        He’s no better than the D candidate

        That is bullshit. He was a great reformist NC House speaker.

        “The state house overseen by Tillis enacted a complete restructuring of the state’s tax code, including a reduction of personal and business income taxes, elimination of the estate tax, and a cap on the gas tax.[10] It has also passed legislation to sunset existing state rules and regulations and limit new regulations to a ten year duration, unless renewed by the state government.[11]”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..cal_career

        This is the kind of ‘swinging our way candidate’ libertarians really have to support if they want influence.

  9. my best friend’s step-aunt makes $84 every hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for 9 months but last month her pay was $18787 just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this website …..

    ?????? http://www.cashbuzz40.com

  10. The host missed an opportunity to point out that NC is not just a craft beer mecca, but that our state capitol was specifically designed to sate the thirst of beer drinking legislators.

    The city of Raleigh was laid out in 1792, following a resolution by the 1788 North Carolina General Assembly that an “unalterable seat of government” should be established within ten miles of Isaac Hunter’s tavern, a watering hole popular with the legislators of the time.

  11. There’s a Rothbard Brew Pub Glass?!?

    1. Shit, there are Mises and Hayek glasses as well. And for the truly discriminating paleolibertarian, a Hazlitt glass.

  12. http://www.seanhaugh.com/on_israel

    http://www.seanhaugh.com/about-me (his entire site is a real eye opener)

    “While I appreciate the support, I now have a whole new reason to despise Koch brothers & their dark money.” Haugh, on receiving support from a group that was reported to be funded by the Koch brothers.

    1. This guy is nuts, he is a liability to the libertarian movement, and the LP has disgraced itself yet again.

      1. Is he any less nuts than Sharon “Sandy Hook Is A Hoax” Hansen?

        I’m getting tired of having to tell people “small l.”

  13. My buddy’s sister-in-law makes $83 /hour on the computer . She has been without work for 8 months but last month her pay was $17994 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  14. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

    http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.