Marijuana

Why Won't Marco Rubio Admit He Smoked Pot?

The senator, a likely presidential contender, says he must stay silent-for the kids.

|

Wikipedia

As Nick Gillespie noted the other day, Jeb Bush recently admitted that he smoked pot in high school, which prompted the Daily Mail to ask other likely Republican presidential candidates (but not the Democrats, for some reason) whether they had ever consumed cannabis. The responses ranged from silence to candor, with various gradations of evasiveness in between. Evidently this is still a touchy subject for Republicans, which on the face of it is rather puzzling. Judging from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), most American between the ages of 20 and 65 have tried marijuana at some point in their lives. In other words, that experience is normal for this age group, which includes almost all of the potential candidates questioned by the Daily Mail.

The most forthright was Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), whose spokesman said he "foolishly experimented with marijuana" as a teenager. Cruz, who is 44, graduated from Houston's Second Baptist High School in 1988. Nationwide, according to the Monitoring the Future Study (MTF), 47 percent of high school seniors that year had tried marijuana, so the foolish experimentation in which Cruz engaged was quite common.

The same may have been true for Bush's graduating class at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, in 1971, as Bush himself suggested. MTF data do not go back that far, but the lifetime rate for marijuana use among high school seniors was 47 percent in 1975, when the study started. In the 2013 NSDUH, 53 percent of 55-to-59-year-olds admitted that they had tried pot. Bush, now 61, was 59 the year of the survey.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Texas) graduated from high school in 1981, when MTF data indicate that 60 percent of high school seniors had tried marijuana. The rate for college students in the early-to-mid '80s, when Paul attended Baylor University, would have been even higher. His spokesman pointed the Daily Mail to a 2014 interview in which Paul, asked whether he had smoked pot in college, replied: "Let's just say I wasn't a choirboy when I was in college, and that I can recognize that kids make mistakes, and I can say that I made mistakes when I was a kid."

A spokesman for former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said  "he's never used pot." That is pretty plausible, since Bolton turned 65 in 2013, when the NSDUH found that less than 20 percent of Americans 65 or older had tried pot. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who turns 65 next month, and 68-year-old real estate tycoon/TV host Donald Trump (whom at least one editor at the Daily Mail evidently considers a likely presidential candidate) also deny smoking marijuana.

A denial would be less plausible coming from former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who is 60 and in 2013 fell squarely into an age group where 53 percent admitted smoking pot. The actual percentage is probaby somewhat higher, since people may be reluctant to report illegal behavior even in confidential surveys. When the Daily Mail asked whether Fiorina was part of that pot-smoking majority, her spokeswoman would say only that "Carly continues to be opposed to legalizing marijuana."

The Daily Mail says "spokespersons for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former neurosurgeon Ben Carson never responded to requests for information about their likely candidates' histories with marijuana." All three are in age groups where experience with marijuana is common enough that denials might raise eyebrows. [UPDATE: In 2012, The Hill reports, Christie said on Twitter that he has never consumed cannabis.] 

Like Fiorina, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is 43, dodged the question. Instead of answering, a spokesman sent the Daily Mail a link to a 2014 interview:

Rubio told Fusion, a joint venture between Disney and the Spanish-language Univision network, that he would decline to say whether he had ever smoked pot.

"I'll tell you why I never answer that question," he said at a February 2014 Miami event. "If I tell you that I haven't, you won't believe me."

"And if I tell you that I did, then kids will look up to me and say, 'Well, I can smoke marijuana because look how he made it.'"

"The answer to your question is: at this point, it's irrelevant," Rubio said.

Rubio's position is similar to George W. Bush's: I can't answer that question, because saying yes would set a bad example for the youth of America by implying that you can smoke pot in high school or college and still succeed in life. Since that happens to be true, Rubio is saying, like Bush, that it's important, for the sake of deterrence, to maintain the noble lie that marijuana invariably will ruin your life. Yet almost no one actually believes that, precisely because it is contradicted by their own direct and indirect experiences with marijuana. In the 2013 NSDUH, 47 percent of 40-to-43-year-olds admitted trying pot, which suggests, once you take underreporting into account, that most Americans in that age group have direct experience with the drug. Hence Rubio's fear that people would be skeptical if he said he had never used marijuana.

If the impact on young people were Rubio's real concern, he could take the same approach as Cruz, Paul, and Barack Obama, admitting youthful marijuana use while calling it a mistake. More likely he is concerned about what Republican primary voters will make of the news that he joined half (or more) of his peers in trying the world's most popular illegal drug. While recent polls indicate that most Americans support marijuana legalization, most conservatives and Republicans continue to oppose it. Contrary to what you might think, a 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center found that Republicans were only a little less likely to admit smoking pot than Democrats (43 percent vs. 47 percent). But they were much more likely to say smoking pot is "morally wrong" (47 percent vs. 26 percent), substantially more likely to feel uncomfortable around marijuana users (61 percent vs. 49 percent), and much less likely to support legalization (37 percent vs. 59 percent).

The Pew survey did identify one area of bipartisan agreement: Most Republicans (57 percent) and most Democrats (59 percent) said the federal government should not try to enforce marijuana prohibition in states that have legalized the drug for medical or recreational use. Majorities in both parties (67 percent of Republicans, 71 percent of Democrats) also agreed that "government efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they are worth." It seems that Republican politicians would be on pretty safe ground if they joined Paul in supporting marijuana federalism and a de-escalation of the war on weed, including decriminalization of possession for personal use. And it's not clear that many Republicans care whether a candidate tried marijuana in high school and college, as long as he is careful to say he regrets it, although you can see why someone like Rubio might worry that such an admission would hurt him.

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.

133 responses to “Why Won't Marco Rubio Admit He Smoked Pot?

  1. Because he is a mendacious, craven little shit. That is why.

    1. In other words, a politician.

      1. No, I’d say Marco qualifies as a craven little shit even amongst craven little shits.

  2. Would “none of your damn business” be an acceptable answer?

    1. no. not if they have support for policies that impact the “drug war”.

      For a president to admit to smoking pot- or snorting lines of coke off a semi-conscious hooker asshole- matters when they then want to put people in jail for doing the same things they did without getting caught.

      1. snorting lines of coke off a semi-conscious hooker asshole

        Or off of Buster’s boner.

        1. like any women politicians would ever do such a thing!

        2. I’m confused here. Are you,snorting it off of the hooker’s asshole or the hooker herself an asshole?

          Because she’d have to be one hot hooker to get past a sour personality. And that asshole better be glisteningly clean.

      2. not if they have support for policies that impact the “drug war”.

        Good point. Unfortunately, the media uses the question as a “Gotcha!”, not as a means of questioning the Drug War.

      3. Didn’t seem to matter for Clinton or Barry O.

  3. All three are in age groups where experience with marijuana is common enough that denials would raise eyebrows.

    Im 45. Ive never smoked pot. I dont see why that denial would raise eyebrows.

    Ive never smoked anything. My Father was a (tobacco) smoker and it bothered my allergies so Ive never smoked cigarettes or cigars or pot or crack. I love the smell of a high end cigar, if you want to smoke one around me, Im fine with it while I enjoy my bourbon.

    1. Yeah. I know a lot of people who have never tried drugs. That denial shouldn’t raise eyebrows.

    2. Same here. I have allergies and chronic asthma, and for whatever reason, my lungs really don’t like tobacco smoke.

    3. yes, but have you eaten it?

      1. Not that I know of.

        1. oh, you would know.

    4. Huh. And here I thought I was alone on that front.

      1. WHAT KIND OF LIBERTARIANS ARE YOU?!!!?!

    5. Ever substituted Cannabaceae Cannabis indica for Cannabaceae Humulus lupulus in a brew? I hear it isn’t too bad, though the amount required makes for a pricy drink.

      1. Nope. Ive never heard any good results from it.

        People think the idea is cooler than the result.

      2. sounds like a good way to ruin a beer.

    6. what a bunch of pussies we have around here. I breathe in diesel fumes while smoking three cigarettes at the same time.

      1. only 3? what about the other holes?

        1. Well, one gets a cigar, right?

          /B. Clinton

          1. What a pussy.

    7. I’m 23 and I’ve never smoked tobacco or done any drugs, mainly because I regard both as an expensive and wasteful habit to keep.

      That would probably raise a lot of eyebrows if I were questioned on it for a job interview.

      1. GM: As the number of “never used drugs” diminishes, I encourage you to maintain your status. I’m in my 50’s, came from an era of heavy drug use, and also never partook. And I consider it a badge of honor that I abstained for the right reasons (not because I was a scared nerd) and that peer pressure slid right off my back.

        You will not raise eyebrows (at least not in any negative way) for abstaining.

        With regards to the Potential Presidential Politicians.

        If any of them could say: “I have never done drugs as I have always considered them to be detrimental to both my intellect and ambition, and I would encourage all young people to consider very carefully before engaging in any drug use. However, I firmly believe in the individual’s right to decide for themselves and I call for an end to the criminality of drug use, sometimes known as the “war on drugs”.

        This politician would be the next President of the USA.

      2. an expensive and wasteful habit

        That’s why I’ve stopped buying food.

        1. Are you really doing the Soylent thing?

            1. You’re not fooling me. That’s just an antiwar.com article with some food references edited in!

        2. Hey Nikki, you’re so fine, you’re so fine you blew my mind.

        3. What Nikki fails to reveal is that she’s the centerpiece of a, Epi-Nikki-Warty Human Centipede project now.

          1. Another need for

            glisteningly clean

            assholes, eh?

            /of course that would ruin the mood

            1. Why the hell didn’t I preview/use quotation marks?

      3. No it wouldn’t – only idiots ever admit to drug use on an employment questionnaire.

        Hell, the military asks that question. And asks it again if you say yes.

        Then they ask *again, in an exasperated tone, if you say yes again.

        If you don’t say no *that* time, they assume you’re either too stupid or too honest for military service.

        1. Back in the mid 80’s they just gave me a waiver when I told them I had tried pot. No big deal. Of course I scored super high on the ASFAB test so they really wanted me.

          But if I remember it was OK to do it before you joined, but they’d kill you if you popped on a drug test while in.

        2. What people don’t understand about the “YES” and “NO” columns on the appication questionaire is that the are actually acronyms, not responses to questions.

          NO = New Opportunities!

          YES = Your Enlistment Stops.

    8. I’ve smoked one cigar, which made my throw up repeatedly and ruined my night.

    9. I am in my 40’s. I lived with my grandparents while I was in grade school and my grandfather, who I was close to, died by inches from emphysema during that time. I never had any inclination to smoke anything at all. I’ll drink but I don’t much like getting drunk. The appeal of drugs eludes me.

      Frankly, Rubio’s answer that it is irrelevent seems the correct one but he should not have justified it any further than that.

    10. I lived with my grandparents wuite a bit when I was in grade school. During that time I saw my grandfather die by inches from emphysema. I never had any desire to smoke anything whatsoever. While I’ll drink I can take it or leave it. The appeal of drugs eludes me.

    11. Yeah, I don’t think it was as big a thing for those who graduated from high school in the late 80’s as it was either before or after. At least that was my experience — nearly everyone drank, but many fewer used marijuana.

  4. When he was on The Independents, Bolton told us he’d never tried, mostly because he hated hippies in college.

    1. Hmmmm…Ive never connected the two, but I hated hippies in college also!

    2. In fairness Matt, everyone hates hippies. If hating hippies meant you will never use drugs, drug use would be almost non existent.

      1. I think hippies hate hippies even more than the rest of us do.

        1. you know who I hate more than hippies? yippies.

          1. Yeah. Small dogs suck.

      2. I have a soft spot for actual hippies. But young people pretending to be hippies are annoying.

        1. ^^^this^^^ in the early oughts these neo-hippies absolutely overran and ruined 2 big music festivals I use to enjoy. Damn those smelly grubby goat-cheese-sandwich pan handlers mal-nourished dog owning twirling fucks.

          1. They’ve *always* been smelly, goat-cheese sandwich panhandler, mal-nourished dog owning fucks.

            The only reason people tolerate ‘original’ hippies *now* is that those guys are older, wiser, and actually have some money so they’re no loner pan-handling and the dog gets fed regularly.

    3. Yeah, there were always a few squareheads like Bolton that EVERYBODY hated.

      1. “Screw it, let’s bomb Ivory Coast. I mean Libya, whatever.”

      2. And if they think hippies are the only ones using drugs, they are woefully misinformed.

    4. I 100% believe that of John Bolton.

  5. it’s important, for the sake of deterrence, to maintain the noble lie that marijuana invariably will ruin your life.

    Yeah. It’s important to maintain a noble lie like that so that when kids do smoke the stuff, and discover all the horror stories to be false, they’re going to ignore good advice that isn’t based upon lies. What a wonderful idea. What could possibly go wrong.

    I’ve already had “the talk” with the stepkid regarding pot and other drugs. Basically I told him that it’s not the drugs themselves that are bad. What’s bad are the consequences of being caught. As in no student aid, no military service, no government jobs, no jobs with government contractors, and a host of other barriers that will be there for the rest of a person’s life if they’re caught. Sure, nobody expects to be caught, but the surest way to not get caught with drugs is to not use them and to not keep company with people who do.

    *shrug*

    1. there is a very strong arugment that showcasing responsible consumption is way more important that hiding it and covering the truth with lies… one day you’ll be in the ditch, flies buzzing around your eyes, blood on your saddle…

      sorry, this wasn’t a dylan thread, was it…

    2. I wonder how many kids hear the lie, try pot, discover that the lies about how harmful it is are actually well… lies and then start to wonder about how much other shit the adults have lied to them about… I mean they lied to me about MJ, they’re probably not telling the truth about coke, heroin or meth.

      Funny that the noble lies told about pot could actually help foster the progression of kids from something rather benign to the harder stuff. I know crazy talk.

      1. We knew that in the 1960s.

      2. Most people who try pot or really any drugs figure out fairly quickly that they are not that great or even if they don’t grow up and lose interest.

        In some ways I wish the drug warriors had more personal experience with drugs. Maybe they would realize they are not some magical elixir. The reality is using drugs mostly sucks, most drug users are boring, and no one in their right mind would ever want to be an addict.

        If they would ever realize that, they would understand that ending prohibition wouldn’t cause many or maybe anyone to use drugs who are not already doing so.

        1. tell that to miles davis.

          1. If being a junkie his whole life worked for Miles, good for him. It would, however, suck for most other people.

            The underlying assumption behind the drug war is that drugs are this magical substance that can take away your free will and are so desirable to use otherwise good people turn bad from using them. That of course is complete bullshit. In some ways, however, anti-prohibitionists sometimes further this narrative by lauding the benefits of drug use.

            The reality is using drugs is not that great and doing them very much is no more attractive to most people then being a falling down drunk. If people ever realized that, their panic over drugs and support of the drug war would fall greatly.

            1. The reality is using drugs is not that great and doing them very much is no more attractive to most people then being a falling down drunk.

              There is a middle ground, John.

              1. Sure there is. But that doesn’t mean anyone but you occupy it. You may want to spend you life stoned. If so, good luck. Most people, don’t, however. And you kidding yourself if you think using or most users are in any way interesting or attractive. People whacked out on drugs are boring and annoying as hell.

                1. John, you’re the one using the word “most,” not me.

                2. And you kidding yourself if you think using or most users are in any way interesting or attractive.

                  I wouldn’t be so sure. Most drug users don’t look like drug users and are productive members of society. The losers are just the ones you notice. There are a lot of people who do spend their lives stoned who you would never guess did so.

                  Not that it really matters to the discussion at hand. And I think that you are right that most people do grow out of it or find that frequent drug use doesn’t fit in with their lives after a certain point. I suspect that if drugs were all legalized, you would see some more addicts to harder drugs. But the harm of the addiction would be so reduced that it would be more or less a wash.

                  Again, none of this really matters to the rights based argument against prohibition.

                  1. I wouldn’t be so sure. Most drug users don’t look like drug users and are productive members of society.

                    A lot of very productive people drink a lot. That fact doesn’t make them any less annoying or noxious to be around when they are drunk. And those people may be productive, but when they are actually stoned, they are not particularly interesting anymore than the drunk is. And most people wouldn’t want to be that way just like most people choose not to be heavy drinkers.

                    1. I still say you’d be surprised. Pot is a drug that affects different people rather differently. I think you are making the mistake of assuming that your experience is typical.

                    2. The most annoying people of all are sober people who talk about how annoying drunk and stoned people are. Yeah, duh, you’re sober. The key is to be just as fucked up as everyone around you. It’s really quite simple.

                    3. This helps explain why everything you say is retarded.

            2. please read sarcasmic’s comment below.

        2. also, most drugs CAN be used without being abused. Not all users become addicts.

          1. Even with the worst drugs, 98% of users don’t become addicts.

        3. I can tell by that comment that you’ve never used drugs. Some drugs are in fact really great, and a lot of drug users are really fun people. Additionally, most claims about addiction are bunk. Most people who are referred to as addicts are not really addicted. They just happen to enjoy their drugs. Labeling everyone who enjoys drugs as an addict is yet another lie meant to distract from the fact that many people can use and enjoy drugs in a responsible manner. The people who can’t probably aren’t that responsible to begin with.

          1. Plus, acid, in the mid 90s, was like $5 a hit and would last all night long. Way cheaper than booze, and easier to procure for the under 21 crowd. Also, no vomiting.

            1. Plus, acid, in the mid 90s, was like $5 a hit

              And I would buy it by the sheet for $200-275. What the hell happened to all the acid? Jerry Garcia died and then *phoom* acid dries up forever.

              1. I was just having a conversation about that. It’s all E and molly now. sad.

                1. If you don’t like molly then clearly the girl you took it with wasn’t hot enough,

                  Regardless, psychedelics are still huge, and now DMT is readily available…

                  1. I’m going to laugh the first time I hear the phrase “DMT addict” in a hysterical news story.

          2. I can tell by that comment that you’ve never used drugs.

            While the details of those records are permanently sealed due to strict company policy, I can assure you utterly dead fucking wrong about that.

            And yes, some drugs are great for a short while just like being drunk is great, for a while. Like anything else, it gets old. At some point you grow up and just get tired of it. I would no more take hard drugs today than I would want to drink like I in college. Neither is that interesting anymore.

            If pot were legal, I would probably drink less and use that. I would not however be inebriated any more often than I am now, which is not that often.

            1. I understand that. I gave up all drug use a long time ago. i’ve got stuff to do. However, the illegality of it isn’t what stops me. I find that attitude strange.

              1. The legality certainly is an issue. But I thought it was an interesting experience but not something that really appeals to me. I don’t know perhaps once in a while. I like being drunk. I have the constitution of an elephant and can drink in copious amounts when I want to. Yet, I don’t do it very often because it just isn’t worth it. Its only fun sometimes. If I did it all of the time it would suck.

              2. I’ve never done any drugs, but I agree with the sentiment. I just have better things to do than be high and better things to spend my money on than drugs. Legality ain’t got nothing to do with it.

            2. I won’t use hard drugs because I like to have a regular sleeping pattern. Don’t want to be up until dawn or zonked out at noon.

              1. That is my point sarcasmic. You have responsibilities, other things to do. You really wouldn’t want to take really powerful drugs even if you could.

                1. You really wouldn’t want to take really powerful drugs even if you could.

                  Don’t be too sure about that. 😉

            3. You seem to be equating any drug use with “being drunk”. There is such a thing as moderation for both.

              1. Depends on the drug Rywun. It is pretty hard to take a “moderate” dose of LSD. You could probably take a little bit of speed or coke. But that would kind of take away a lot of the fun of it.

                A moderate dose of a pain killer would certainly put me in a good mood, but it would also slow my thinking down and make it unsafe to drive or do a lot of other things. Same with pot.

                I suppose if speed were legal again, taking a bit of speed to get through the day wouldn’t be bad. But would I really want to do that every day? And if not, why some days and not others?

                Other than smoking a bit of a joint to mellow out, I can’t see even moderate drug use being that attractive unless I suffered from chronic pain or something.

                1. Well, there isn’t a whole lot of innovation in this area. Absent punishment, there’s no reason to believe that the market couldn’t come up with safe and enjoyable ways to enjoy a regular dose of any of these drugs. Part of the reason people tend to overdo drugs is because they’re illegal – the same effect as seen with college freshmen and beer.

                2. It is pretty hard to take a “moderate” dose of LSD.

                  I hate to get all bogged down in minutia. But this isn’t really true either. From experience, I can tell you that small dose of LSD or mushrooms can be quite pleasant without sending you to lala land. There are actually a number of people studying uses of small doses of psychedelics as treatment for various mood and neurological disorders.

                3. Same reason anybody takes speed some days & not others: because some days it’s more important, or more onerous or difficult, to get things done than others.

              2. You seem to be equating any drug use with “being drunk”. There is such a thing as moderation for both.

                Exactly. Just because many pot smokers smoke themselves into a coma doesn’t mean it’s not possible to take a puff or two and set it down.

                1. Sure it is sarcasmic. But that doesn’t make taking a puff or two worth doing. It is a nice feeling and all, but it is not that great. And that shit makes your lungs burn and tastes and smells like shit.

                  All I am saying is that drugs are not all they are cracked up to be and even if they were legal most people who don’t already use them would not find using them very fun or something they would want to do very often.

                  1. Speak for yourself, John. I happen to like a puff or two after work here and there.

                    1. I think you are in the minority.

                    2. I think you are in the minority.

                      Only because the stuff is illegal and as such it’s unwise to talk about it openly. I would wager good money that you’ve got several friends who use drugs responsibly but keep it to themselves. So much so that you’d be shocked if you found out.

                    3. I would wager good money that you’ve got several friends who use drugs responsibly but keep it to themselves.

                      People who aren’t even boring. I think most people would be surprised to know how many people they know who are like that.

                    4. And that is why drug prohibition is tyranny of the majority!

                  2. and tastes and smells like shit

                    I find the smell rather delightful, myself. Perhaps you just don’t like pot very much. Plenty of people don’t.

                    1. I think people that say this have never smelled really good pot, but maybe I’m wrong.

                  3. “And that shit makes your lungs burn and tastes and smells like shit.”

                    How did you discover what shit tastes like? From tossing some broad’s salad or actually eating feces? just curious…

          3. I agree with most of what you say here, and this is from someone who quit 28 years ago (believe me, I have no problem with others doing what they may with regard to drugs). The last sentence is the one with which I disagree. Absent drugs (and I believe that I qualify as one who was addicted), I’m quite responsible. I never once, though, blamed the drug. I understand that is is in my constitution, should I start to use them, to not stop just because I got a buzz.

            1. “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

      3. It’s worse than that. Seriously. If kids discover that laws against drugs are stupid and based upon lies, then there is a chance that they’ll lose respect for the law in general. If this happens, and they don’t already have a strong moral footing, they can become dangerous criminals.

  6. it’s important, for the sake of deterrence, to maintain the noble lie that marijuana invariably will ruin your life.

    Dad: “You keep smoking this shit, and you might end up a politician! Is that what you want?! Huh?!

    Kid (in tears): “NO DAD! I’M SORRY!”

    1. Now that is being scared straight!

    2. Indeed, if you want to scare a teenager straight, say, “Do you really want to be like Marco Rubio? Is that what ‘cool’ is to you!?”

  7. but how many have dropped acid?

  8. If a person is between 50 and 65 and says he has never smoked pot, it is 95% certain that either he is lying, or is a total dork, or is a religious nut, or has a Nazi-like sense of obedience to the State. If he’s running for office, the most likely case is that he’s lying. Even a pathological liar like Bill Clinton knows better than to lie outright about smoking pot.

    1. That is not true. I know several people who fit that description and are none of those things. Some people just never wanted to try it.

      1. He covered that with total dork.

      2. Somebody who has never used drugs is by definition a dork. NTTAWWT.

    2. 98% of people who make generalizations are complete assholes.

    3. I am a bit under 50, but never did….I am only a partial dork, so there!

  9. If a person is between 50 and 65 and says he has never smoked pot, it is 95% certain that either he is lying, or is a total dork, or is a religious nut, or has a Nazi-like sense of obedience to the State.

    Never done drugs. Nor am I on your list. I am the 5%!

    1. one cannot say they are not a total dork. that is an external judgement.

      1. one cannot say they are not a total dork. that is an external judgement.

        You may have me there. What is the criteria for dorkdom?

        1. it’s subjective.

    2. “If a person is between 50 and 65 and says he has never smoked pot, it is 95% certain that either he is lying, or is a total dork, or is a religious nut, or has a Nazi-like sense of obedience to the State.”

      citation needed.

      Imagine a person who is neither a sheeple to the state, nor a sheeple to the drug culture he grew up in. That is a person who has his/her shit together.

      1. Being a dork is fine, embrace the dork, be the dork, own the dork.

      2. We get it, you’re old and you don’t like drugs.

        1. A friend of mine, who never smoked and hated the smell of tobacco smoke, tried smoking pot and found it pointless, since he didn’t know how to smoke. Nothing happened. And nobody seemed to be around at the time with the edible kind.

          And now I (err… my friend) doesn’t seem to know anybody who uses it. But we’re getting closer to legalization here in Michigan…

          1. You and Bill…didn’t inhale…

          2. Where in Michigan are you? If around Flint, your, um, friend can get a doctor’s recommendation very simply.

      3. “If a person is between 50 and 65 and says he has never smoked pot, it is 95% certain that either he is lying, or is a total dork, or is a religious nut, or has a Nazi-like sense of obedience to the State.”

        “citation needed.”

        CatoTheElder said it, dumbass. Can’t you fucking read?

  10. “Have you ever smoked pot?” is a great question to ask all presidential candidates. If they answer “yes” then it’s no big deal to almost everyone. But if they hem and haw, and don’t answer the question directly, we know they’re equivocating or lying. And that is a big deal. Unfortunately, the average voter is deemed too stupid to hold this against the candidate.

    Of course, a candidate can answer with a direct “no.” The fact that a lot of them don’t means they’re worried that some ex-classmate will squeal on them and they’ll be caught in a lie.

  11. “I tried it, but it gave me horrendous cotton mouth.”

  12. I think Rubio’s comment that it is irrelevent is spot on but he should not have elaborated past that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.