Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rand Paul stands by claim on unemployment and drugs

The Rand Paul campaign sends over a statement responding to my post below, essentially sticking by his claim that a good solution to the drug problem may be to reduce government interference in investment by the rich.

But the campaign is elaborating a bit, adding that investment by the middle class and working class is also crucial.

As I noted below, Paul had previously gotten in a bit of trouble for saying the drug problem in eastern Kentucky is "not a pressing issue." In an interview with a local TV station, Paul clarified his claim, saying drugs were a serious problem but suggesting that the best solution was to remove the shackles on private investment by the rich, creating jobs, reducing unemployment, and ultimately, bringing down drug use.

The question then became: Does Paul really believe the best solution to unemployment and drugs is to get out of the way of the rich? Paul spokesman Jesse Benton sends over a statement clarifying again:

One of the things that has made America great is ability of our citizens to invest in themselves. We must fight to preserve the power of not just the rich, but also the middle class and working class to invest through savings and investment to build a nest egg and earn financial security, or to invest in business that creates jobs for their neighbors. Dr. Paul is committed to cutting unsustainable debt and spending so we can fundamentally strengthen our economy and preserve our American way of life.

The abuse of both legal and illegal drugs is serious and complex issue. We must keep a strong focus on prevention, treatment and enforcement, and healthy employment is great prevention. There is no silver bullet, but a gainfully employed, productive person will be far less likely to succumb to the evils drugs. Dr. Paul will fight onerous EPA regulations and Obama's plans for Cap and Tax scheme so we can preserve and grow Kentucky coal jobs in the eastern part of our state.

While the statement clarifies that we need to "keep a strong focus on prevention, treatment and enforcement," it doesn't say how, or whether government should have any role in doing that. The statement says twice that healthy employment is a good cure, and says the best way to ensure high employment is to free up investment -- not just by the rich, but other classes as well.

In other words, though he's broadening the original claim, the Paul campaign is basically sticking by the central thrust of it, which is that getting government out of the way of private wealth may be the best long term solution to unemployment, and by extension, drug use.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 17, 2010; 1:57 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rand Paul's solution to unemployment and drugs: Rich people?
Next: Right wing's latest falsehood: Obama "voted present" on Cordoba House

Comments

"invest through savings and investment"

Ah so THAT's how they do it!

Seriously, anyone who votes for this person is either wealthy or totally incapable of coherent critical thinking.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 17, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Reposting my comment on prior thread (with edits)...

Speaking of "Cap/Tax" We're so afraid of the word TAX (i.e. "cap and tax" "energy tax" etc) that we're willing to allow our economy to become 3rd rate.

This from benen:

In June, a New Jersey company held the license to technology that "makes solar panels cheaper, more efficient and less toxic to the environment." The company's chief executive, an American and retired Marine, decided he had no choice but to move his operation to China, which reached out to the company. "The Chinese have a major, aggressive movement to increase the technology in the photovoltaic area," Chuck Provini said. "They picked up the phone and called us and said, 'What do you do?'"

The result: an American company's technology will be commercialized overseas. The economic boost and the hundreds of new jobs will be in China, not here. As ABC News reported, we're not only lagging behind China, but Brazil, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain all have a national clean energy policy, and are all taking clean-energy investments more seriously than the United States.

And it's getting worse. Deutsche Bank has making billions of dollars in energy-policy investments. Guess where the money's going? Western Europe and China. Guess why:

Amid so much political uncertainty in the United States, Parker said Deutsche Bank will focus its "green" investment dollars more and more on opportunities in China and Western Europe, where it sees governments providing a more positive environment.

"They're asleep at the wheel on climate change, asleep at the wheel on job growth, asleep at the wheel on this industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry," [Deutsche Bank's Kevin] Parker said of Washington's inability to seal a climate-change program and other alternative energy incentives into place.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_08/025243.php

Heckuva job America.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 17, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Ethan,

China also announced a few weeks ago that they are enacting a cap & trade program for their top 1000 polluters over the next five years. They already have a huge jump on us, meanwhile we debate what the meaning of snow in winter is.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

We'll still be arguing whether climate change is happening as the waters flood our coasts. History isn't kind to ideological stupidity. Ask the Russians.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 17, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Actually Greg, most treatment programs are relatively ineffective in treating drug problems. There was an article posted in your very own newspaper last week to that effect about the most recent studies. Though I think Paul a rank amateur, a low rate of unemployment is at least as effective and probably more so than spending millions more on new treatment centers to combat drug addiction. Paul, who I would not vote for, is also probably correct in saying that the durg problem is not a pressing issue, mainly because it is unsovable. The saying in law school is that hard cases make bad law, and the drug problem is the hardest case of all. Legalizing pot on the same basis as alcohol is the first step, but not the final solution to tackling this intractable question.

Posted by: 54465446 | August 17, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I think China figured it out by listening to Rand Paul. See, they're investing... in INVESTMENTS. Oy vey.

We should have started down a vigorous path to sustainable energy and energy efficiency 10+ years ago.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 17, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Gregg - can you get an additional clarification from the Paul campaign? Can you find out their explanation for why there was rampant drug use during periods of low unemployment and economic growth then? If drug use is inversely proportional to unemployment they have some charts on unemployment vs. drug use rates to back that statement up, right? Because it seems to me that their has been a drug problem in this country during all levels of employment over the last few decades, how do they reconcile Rand paul's beliefs with reality? I'm just looking for somebody to ask the next logical follow-up to a statement like the one you quoted here.

Posted by: zattarra | August 17, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

I would hope the things you write about are because American executives are smart enough to realize most green energy initiatives are tremendous boondoggles. Ethanol is the classic example of billions of dollars thrown away on an energy source that is in no way superior to oil. Keep in mind that I am not in any way a denier of climate change or in favor of despoiling the environment. I have just done enough research to know that none of the current green energy initiatives is superior to oil and natural gas.

Posted by: 54465446 | August 17, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

@ 54465446 As one of our old posters used to say...Word up! You have nailed it on the drug problem!

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 17, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, "We should have started down a vigorous path to sustainable energy and energy efficiency 10+ years ago."

Actually, we should have moved definitively in those directions starting with the 1973 oil embargo.


Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 17, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"the drug problem is not a pressing issue, mainly because it is unsovable"

Cannabis is NOT the problem with KY.

It is Meth and Tobacco.

KY has the highest per capita cigarette smokers in the country:

http://www.statemaster.com/red/graph/hea_tob_use_tot_cur_smo-tobacco-use-total-current-smokers&b_map=1

Not coincidentally, KY is in the group of states with the highest incidence of lung cancer and highest rate of DEATH from lung cancer.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 17, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

ZATARRA:

National unemployment rates have little to do with local conditions. I am not aware of the situation in eastern Kentucky, but even in the best of times, Detroit has been made a virtual ghost town by the drop in auto industry employment there. Similarly oxycontin is nicknamed "West Virginia heroin" because of it's rampant use among the lower economic classes in that region.

Posted by: 54465446 | August 17, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone in the media - the KY media, preferably - pushed the Paul campaign for evidence to back their assertions? Ok, its anecdotal, but my memory says coke hit its peak during the go-go 80s; the economy was humming along, and ostentatious display of wealth - like throwing coke parties - was cool. Doesn't that fly in the face of the Paul campaign's implication that drug use would be reduced by an increase in jobs? Supply and demand applies to the underground market too - less money means less money for all consumables; not just legal ones.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 17, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"Ethanol is the classic example of billions of dollars thrown away on an energy source that is in no way superior to oil"

That is a vast oversimplification of the use of biofuels.

First you need to define "superior". Do you mean in energy output, cost efficacy, overall impact on economy?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 17, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Again at you 54465446...your posts have been cogent and you've attempted to engage without insult, malice, rank partisanship, or demagoguery. Kudos to you.

But I have a question with all due respect.
You said...."I have just done enough research to know that none of the current green energy initiatives is superior to oil and natural gas."

How can you be so sure of such a blanket absolute statement. There could be a mix of green that actually does work. I think even the most ardent greenie would confess there are going to have to be some lifestyle changes..mass transit etc...and that it will be slow and sluggish...but many of we children of the 60's remember Kennedy's promise to get us to the moon by the end of the decade. Based on simple gut feeling (admittedly no substitute for empirical science) it seems if we could get to the moon we can invent better batteries...solar panels..wind turbines etc.

I grant you the ethanol example but that was as much a result of our political system (too much power from the farm state reps) as much as failed science on our part.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 17, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Most liberals hate Ethanol, don't pin the green industry on that boondoggle. Ethanol is the result of a conservative farm state lobby and the Iowa caucus being first in the presidential cycle, it has long since been acknowledged as a waste by most clean enrgy activists and liberals. But you've got Iowa pushing it and cowardly politicians afraid to lose the Iowa Caucus backing it up.

Posted by: zattarra | August 17, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Drug addiction is, at root, a spiritual affliction for most people. Interesting that Paul's bromide for this malady of the spirit is wealth. Um, aren't consumerism and materialism the CAUSES of the spiritual emptiness in the first place?

Posted by: wbgonne | August 17, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1 writes
"Ethan, "We should have started down a vigorous path to sustainable energy and energy efficiency 10+ years ago."

Actually, we should have moved definitively in those directions starting with the 1973 oil embargo."


There's a great Pawlenty quote from about 2008 that 'we should have started addressing the energy problem 30 years ago' (I paraphrase), which, of course, was during the Carter administration - which did try to address the problem.

Someone ought to dig that up & prepare it for the 2012 campaign, perhaps mashed with a video of Carter addressing the nation from the oval office in a cardigan.

Posted by: bsimon1 | August 17, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

BSIMON!:

Unfortunately no. Alcohol consumption remains constant, even in a recession. Check the prices of liquor and beer company stocks which are considered safe havens even in a down market. Actually, the "go-go 80's" is also notable for the introduction of crack, which is the lowest cost version of a hihghly, highly addictive drug. In DC, it was like bringing a Walmart to the neighborhood for the way it cut drug prices and increased consumption.

Posted by: 54465446 | August 17, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Ethanol was totally ginned up by Agribusiness that can grow corn so cheaply that they don't even know what to do with it. That's how we got high-fructose corn syrup foods that made Americans obese and wrecked our health.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 17, 2010 2:52 PM | Report abuse

O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | August 17, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Funny how Republicans find that making the rich richer is the solution to all of our problems.

Posted by: jgllo | August 17, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

OT yet actually on every topic we've discussed.

I'm am truly concerned for our nation as is everybody else...liberal, conservative, tea partier, moderates....there has been a fundamental shift since WWII that I believe is at the core of ALL of our problems.

Originally credited to Aesop but perhaps most famous in our country as an utterance from Patrick Henry..."United we stand divided we fall." Imagine Patrick Henry's speech on the floor of Congress today...how would GOPTV cover it? Rush Limberger? Glen Beck?

Patrick Henry used the phrase in his last public speech, given in March 1799, in which he denounced The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Clasping his hands and swaying unsteadily, Henry declaimed, “Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs."

The counter to this maxim of course is another old saying..."Divide and Conquer"

I won't even get into partisanship after that observation...but I MUST ASK...

Does anybody here see any of our leaders making and attempt to unite us?

Does anybody here see any of our leaders trying to divide and conquer us? Conquer as in the economic sense.

This is what makes me more fearful for our nation that even the plethora of HUGE problems facing us....we have difficulty now even passing OBVIOUS legistation...how can we possibly deal with our massive challenges?

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 17, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

But Paul is saying that fixing unemployment will solve the drug problem. I just want to see his data. If we want to ignore national data (which I would jsut think the Paul trade could get easier) and use local data I'm fine with that also. I would just like to see the empirical data that backs up the Paul campaigns claims. I can acknowledge that their may be specific data in Eastern Kentucky that backs Rand Pauls claim. I would jsut like to see the data the campaign uses to make this assessment. And if it is just that Eatern Kentucky has always been economically depressed and therefore always had high drug use problems I would like to know how the Paul campaign plans on helping investment in that region.

Saying by doing nothing and getting the government out things will magically be fixed doesn't cut it for me. Can he name an investor waiting to move into Eastern Kentucky as soon as the government stops... actually I'm not sure what the government is supposed to stop. Taxes I guess. And regulation. So as soon as we have no taxes and standards everyone will invest in the most economicaly depressed regions and pay good living wages. Is that the theory?

Actually I have a more fundamental question for the Rand Paul campaign - what does he see as his job as a United States Senator? What does a Senator do?

Posted by: zattarra | August 17, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

rukdding:

The problem with green enerrgy is scale. Currently only 5% of US energy production is from green energy sources. If we were to quintuple that production, you would still only be producing 25% of the nations energy from wind and solar, etc. Factor in the hundreds of billions of dollars in investment neccesary to reach that point, and you see the issue. Furthermore, two alternate energy sources, the most cost effective, nuclear and hydroelectric are simply prohibited in the minds of the most vocal proponents of green energy. Two things we are NOT building are nuclear power plants and dams. To scale up solar or wind power to reach 25% of usage would require massive land usage on a scale greater than the area of the biggest mining operations in the world. It's not a conspiracy, it's that the numbers don't work.

Posted by: 54465446 | August 17, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

54465446

Thanks for the response. In candor I am far from informed well enough on green energy solutions to disagree with you.

T Boone Pickens an Oilman seems to think otherwise...but you certainly have offered us all something to think about. Thanks.

I have spent most of my research online in two areas, HCR and the economy.
I must confess to ignorance when it comes to green solutions.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 17, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Corn ethanol is a boondoggle. It takes more energy inputs that it produces once made, plus it eats up food supply and food acreage. Other biofuels are not....algae oil and hemp oil are two that are promising. The other thing about renewables (and energy independence) is that we need a mix of energy sources. There is not one solution to all of our needs.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 17, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

54465446, I appreciate your attempt at a reasonable discussion on renewable energy.

The one HUGE factor that you are missing in your equation -- one that typically gets ignored -- is energy demand.

One of the big aspects of sustainability in the modern age is energy efficiency. Just as there are many ways of producing and using renewable energy, so are there ways of SAVING energy. In the green world these days, energy efficiency is just as important as any form of energy creation. Quite honestly, ethanol from corn was "the next big thing" in the early part of the 2000s. Not so much anymore for the reasons pointed out here.

But, point being, if we slash our energy demand through energy efficiency -- in our homes, buildings, and vehicles -- it will greatly aid our quest to dramatically increase the proportion of energy we derive from sustainable sources.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 17, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

So, following Paul's reasoning:

- Employed people do no use drugs;
- Rich people do not use drugs.

I wonder whether these are substantiated.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | August 17, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

bsimon1: "Someone ought to dig that up & prepare it for the 2012 campaign, perhaps mashed with a video of Carter addressing the nation from the oval office in a cardigan."

Along with photos of the Carter-installed solar panels being removed by the Reaganites from the WH roof.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 17, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

...and will save us all -- homeowners, car owners, businesses, local/state/fed government -- boatloads of money along the way.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 17, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Everybody step back and take a deep breath.
We are discussing actual issues...where is the snark? The partisan name calling? Might be time for another Mosque thread to draw out the righteous. Snark snark.

Seriously, this is why I come to this blog.
I have the utmost respect for Greg's journalistic integrity and the posters here offer a lot of info. In other words I can come here and actually LEARN something!!!

What a freaking concept!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 17, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

...and will create new domestic industries to aid the economy (renewable energy components, wind/water/wave turbines, solar panels, transmission wires and switches, batteries for car/home, etc etc etc).

Win-win-win-win-win.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 17, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

I agree entirely, RUK. I'd much rather be able to talk in depth about important issues and not have to scream at insulting imbeciles all day. Trolls suck.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 17, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 -
"Seriously, this is why I come to this blog.
I have the utmost respect for Greg's journalistic integrity and the posters here offer a lot of info. In other words I can come here and actually LEARN something!!!"

What you said :)

Posted by: carolanne528 | August 17, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, you are correct about demand, but again the problem is scale. If we were able to cut increased energy usage to zero annually, that would still leave us in the hole on changing our energy mix. Imagine also the effect of supposed green vehicles coming on line. Electric cars increase the consumption of electricity, a simple enough statement, but that also means greatly increased consumption of our two biggest sources for electrical energy generation, coal and natural gas. This also says nothing about the massive investment that would have to be made in the aged power grid nationwide to handle a greatly increased power load. Natural gas by the way is the most interesting of energy alternatives. You get different answers from different people as to whether or not it is a truly "green" source. The problem is that most natural gas comes as a by-product of drilling for oil, or in shale deposits. Ecoonmical and cleaner yes, but hardly an ideal replacement.

Posted by: 54465446 | August 17, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

@ 54465446 OK you've certainly earned my respect and it's obvious you've given this a great deal of thought and done your due diligence.

And so I have two questions for you.

1.) If the Plum Line could make you all powerful energy czar (oops sensitive word alert) director of energy what do you see as the solution? Or do you believe it to be unsolvable?

2.) Drag out your crystal ball and how do you see this crisis resolving itself...can you even imagine the United States with the political will to accomplish a solution?

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 17, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

What would help stem the growth of drug use:

(1) Intact families.

(2) Personal responsibility as a standard of character.

(3) Hope.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 17, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

All, my response to two right wing writers who attacked me:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/no_obama_didn.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 17, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

I personally don't think we're in that much of a crisis of energy. During the oil embargo many years ago, things got crazy because the market was complacent, and the price of oil discouraged exploration. Since that time, the price of oil has floated to a level that encourages worldwide exploration. In fact, many people who talk about our dependence on "foreign imported oil" don't even realize that Canada is the number one source of our oil imports. In fact, we get only 20% of our imported oil from mideast nations, total. Those nations Saudi, Iraq, and Kuwait, are at least nominally our friends.

If you have to replace our oil usage, then there is no way to do it without nuclear power. If is the only massive, self-supporting generating source available. Nobody likes it, and nobody wants it in their back yard, but you have to choose your devils. We can greatly increase our usage of natural gas, but that is probably not a realistic replacement for gasoline in cars. I would spend the hefty dollars to work on the electrical grid, which like our highways and water/sewage systems are dying of old age. Then like at the turn of the century with new automobiles, you have to see which of the new technologies works out the best. People forget that steam, and electric competed with gasoline in early autos, but gas won out on efficiency and price. I think given half a chance, the market will find an effective relatively safe, relatively green method of boosting energy. Hydrogen sounds too good to be true, but maybe in the future . . .

Posted by: 54465446 | August 17, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"What would help stem the growth of drug use:

(1) Intact families.

(2) Personal responsibility as a standard of character.

(3) Hope."

I would also add access to adequate mental healthcare. I believe many people with psychological issues turn to drugs/alcohol to self-medicate.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | August 17, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"Electric cars increase the consumption of electricity, a simple enough statement, but that also means greatly increased consumption of our two biggest sources for electrical energy generation, coal and natural gas. "

They may increase consumption of electricity, but we will be also adding new sources AND increasing efficiency.

"This also says nothing about the massive investment that would have to be made in the aged power grid nationwide"

We should be investing in our "aged power grid" anyway! We already started to do so with investment in the Stimulus. $3.4B to be exact (matched by an additional $4.7B by private industry):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/27/politics/main5424856.shtml

"The problem is that most natural gas comes as a by-product of drilling for oil, or in shale deposits"

Yes. Hydrofracing in shale deposits is an even BIGGER boondoggle -- and environmental problem -- than ethanol. Natural gas is not ideal as far as I'm concerned.

Frankly, the energy investments in the stimulus make up the ideal blueprint for where we should be headed on energy in the future. Efficiency, distributed energy sources, and manufacturing of cleantech components.

It's one of the reasons the criticism of the stimulus is so far off base. These investments are not only VERY smart, but they are long overdue.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 17, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Ethan wrote:

Yes. Hydrofracing in shale deposits is an even BIGGER boondoggle -- and environmental problem -- than ethanol. Natural gas is not ideal as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, but what is your idea to produce the necessary increase in electrical power. I respect your notion of conservation but nowhere have I read that conservation can do anything more than hold the line on increased power demand. What do you propose to replace coal and natural gas? On a very recent trip in western PA along the turnpike, I counted 16 huge wind turbines across the countryside. They are a tiny fraction of the number that would be needed. The energy industry has a term called "power density". It stands for the amount of area, real estate if you will, required to generate a given amount of energy. In this regard, nuclear is the clear winner, and turbines or solar the clear losers, because of the huge amount of space they take up. Do you think Americans will embrace solar or wind on a massive scale, when they see just how much of their green space, and actually all space that would be needed?

Posted by: 54465446 | August 17, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
===============
I would also add access to adequate mental healthcare. I believe many people with psychological issues turn to drugs/alcohol to self-medicate.

=============

Absolutely true but the treatment models seperate drug tx from mental health tx. The new wave is "dual diagnosis" which seeks to combine the two treatment approaches. It is gaing acceptance but it is still in its infancy.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 17, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Paul's rationale I suppose would be how much better life has gotten for Kentuckians over the past decade, following the Republican's dismantling of federal regulatory capabilities and generally throwing the treasury doors open and inviting the very rich in to stuff their pockets until all the money was gone. Because obviously, it would be silly to go around saying stuff like that if it was blatantly contradicted by such a recent and readily available, real-world example.

Posted by: CalD | August 17, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Does Paul know that Kentucky was the center of hemp production for 100 years! If we got both hemp and medical marijuana legalized, he could solve a lot of problems and have a "green investment" that would be unsurpassed. Paul, focus your efforts on bring hemp back to your state! It was a thriving business from 1790 to 1890 in Kentucky!

Join the Hemp Revolution!
http://www.healthygreenmedicine.com

Posted by: hempsolutions | August 17, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

legalize and industrialize

http://www.facebook.com/free.the.leaf

Posted by: freetheleaf | August 17, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul NEVER said drugs were not a pressing issue. He was asked whether he thought his preference for states rather than federal government to take the lead on combatting drugs would hurt him with voters and he said THAT issue, which should take the lead, was not a pressing issue with voters. He is not 'clarifying' because he was clear the first time but quoted out of context. I am sick of his having to correct bad reporting and having the correction of the reports be called some sort of a change of position by him.

Posted by: sailingaway1 | August 17, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

"There is no silver bullet, but a gainfully employed, productive person will be far less likely to succumb to the evils drugs. "

So what is it that wealthy, gainfully employed who can afford to use the very best white powders, and do,do?

Or why is it that so many well off athletes, actors, and other public figures end up getting busted for drugs?

I know that reality occasionally attacks Kentucky, so how does RP keep missing out on the pictures?

Posted by: ceflynline | August 17, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company