Ahead of his Thursday visit to Nevada, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., reiterated his personal opposition to marijuana use. Pro-pot activists say Paul is spreading misinformation about the drug.

"I personally think that marijuana use is not healthy," Paul told the Las Vegas Sun in an interview published Wednesday. "People that use it chronically have a loss of IQ and a loss of ambition, but at the same time states have the right to make these decisions."

Marijuana activists tell U.S. News that Paul's claims about ambition, health and IQ are wrong.

"It's unfortunate, but Senator Paul is basing his opinion about marijuana on "Reefer Madness"-fueled fear-mongering instead of sound science," said Kris Hermes, a spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, a group that lobbies in favor of medical marijuana. "Contrary to Senator Paul's unscientific assessment... there are more than 200 peer-reviewed studies that clearly show marijuana's medical efficacy."

Hermes speculated that "Paul and others' lack of education is the primary cause of our federal marijuana policy, based more on emotion and moral indignation rather than public health and medical science."

NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre told U.S. News Paul's approach to the issue is "either pandering, or some really smart coalition-building" in favor of drug policy reform.

St. Pierre disagrees with Paul's claim that marijuana is broadly harmful to health, pointing to a study published by the Annals of the American Thoracic Society in June by UCLA medical school professor Donald Tashkin. That study found light or moderate marijuana use isn't associated with a higher risk for lung cancer.

"Even with long-term heavy amounts [of marijuana] there is little effect on long-term cognitive functions," St. Pierre added.

The Washington Free Beacon Tuesday reported that Jack Hunter, who serves as social media director for Paul, once worked as a radio shock jock for two different stations in Charleston, S.C., advocating for secession and the Confederacy. Hunter, who helped write Paul’s book “The Tea Party Goes to Washington,” called himself the “Southern Avenger” and wore a Confederate flag mask at public appearances.
“People are calling him a white supremacist,” Paul said in an interview with the Huffington Post. “If I thought he was a white supremacist, he would be fired immediately. If I thought he would treat anybody on the color of their skin different that others, I’d fire him immediately.
“All I can say is, we have a zero tolerance policy for anybody who displays discriminatory behavior or belief in discriminating against people based on the color of their skin, their religion, their sexual orientation, anything like that,” Paul, 50, said. “We won’t tolerate any of that, and I’ve seen no evidence of that.”
As a radio shock jock, Hunter once voiced his support for the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln and his opposition to the immigration of Spanish speakers to the United States. In a statement posted to his website Tuesday, Hunter, 39, said he now opposes many of the views he shared as a radio host.
“I am embarrassed by some of the comments I made precisely because they do not represent me today. I was embarrassed by some of them even then,” Hunter wrote in a statement. “I abhor racism and have always treated everyone I’ve met with dignity and respect as individuals. This was true in the past and it is true now.”
Paul said he did not know of Hunter’s past views, which the Kentucky senator said he opposes, before hiring him, but said prior knowledge of Hunter’s opinions would not have deterred him from adding Hunter to his staff.
“I think it’s hard,” Paul said. “The thing is, I grapple with this. What am I supposed to do? I’m going to have a lot of people working for me. They’ve all got writings and opinions,” Paul said. “It was a shock radio job. He was doing wet T-shirt contests. But can a guy not have a youth and stuff? People try to say I smoked pot one time, and I wasn’t fit for office.”

It’s also quite tone deaf for Paul to defend Hunter’s previous insensitivity by arguing that he was doing wet t-shirt contests. So the fact that Hunter also demeaned women during his shock jock period is supposed to absolve him?

There are a few broader points to draw here — one as it pertains to limited government philosophy and the other as it pertains to Paul’s political future. Let’s be clear. Nothing in American history has done more harm to the limited government cause than the association of state sovereignty arguments with defenses of slavery. Confederates who employed limited government arguments to argue for preserving a brutal and inhumane practice shouldn’t be deemed friends of limited government. Having an abstract argument about secession is one thing. But within the context of the Civil War, it’s clear that ultimately, the South was seceding to preserve the institution of slavery. That Paul is tolerant of neo-Confederate views — whether or not he personally holds them — undermines his drive to become a credible champion of limited government. This leads us to his political future.

Dave Weigel, who has reported on the Pauls about as much as anybody in Washington, recalls the racist newsletter controversy surrounding Ron Paul’s presidential campaigns, and writes that, “The lesson Paulworld took from the ‘associations’ scandals of 2008 and 2012 is that there’s no real long-term damage from such scandals; Paul ended up winning all of Iowa’s gettable delegates in the county caucuses, and his allies took over the state party.” But they did have a long-term effect. The elder Paul underperformed in New Hampshire both times and never burst out of niche candidate status. Rand Paul, however, has been working hard to break through that ceiling of support. His Senate career has been a delicate balancing act meant to mainstream many of his father’s views while maintaining a critical mass of his father’s energetic supporters. Ever since his successful filibuster of President Obama’s drone program, Paul’s star has been on the rise, leading many pundits to take him seriously as a contender in 2016. The Hunter controversy alone won’t kill his political ambitions, but his obtuse response demonstrates he still isn’t ready for prime time.

That's the Paul way. Nearly six years ago, as his donations were taking off, observant reporters noticed that Ron Paul was getting support from white nationalists. I spotted people reading Stormfront.org at Paul's Ames Straw Poll tent, and FEC-watchers noticed that Paul had taken $500 from Stormfront's avowedly white supremacist Don Black. By December of 2007, reporters were asking Paul why he didn't give back the money. He said this:

Why give it back to him and use it for bad purposes?
And I don't even know his name. I never heard of it. You know, when you get 57,000 donations a day, are we supposed to screen them and find out their beliefs? He sent the money for my beliefs. And if he promoting my viewpoints and my attitudes, why give it back to him if he has bad viewpoints?
And I don't endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses. They come to me to endorse freedom and the Constitution and limited government. So, I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody that sends me money. I mean, it is impossible to do it. It is a ridiculous idea that I am supposed to screen these people.
Hunter, obviously, is much closer to Rand Paul than Black was to Ron Paul, and joking about killing Lincoln is not the same as founding a site where people predict the date the race war will begin. But this generally summed up Paulworld's take on the "associations" game. When Paul entered the 2010 race for Senate in Kentucky, I asked him whether his father's darker associations would be a problem. He didn't just disagree—he seemed offended by such a preposterous question.

He considers these questions preposterous because Paul knows he's not a racist. He's aware of, or confronted by, the argument that to blame federal power for racism is actually an excuse for racism. But like many conservatives, he finds the charge of "racism" to be terribly watered down by overuse. Why do white supremacists or Southern avengers like him so much? Well, they're misled—lucky enough, they've found Paul-style libertarianism, and they will discover that color-blind politics is a far better use of their time.

This probably sounds crazy to Paulite outsiders, but it doesn't to them. They don't think the left, or neoconservatives, are in any position to tell them about racism.

jerseyhoya wrote:The Texas abortion bill passed the Texas Senate tonight 19-11.

Also this week Huffington Post/YouGov found 59-30% support http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/abortion-poll_n_3575551.html]for a federal law banning abortion after 20 weeks. Poll slightly different as it mentions rape and incest as exceptions, which are not in the recently passed bill. But it doesn't mention life of mother exception, which is in the Texas bill.

In any case, seems like a pretty widely supported step.

jerseyhoya wrote:What are you referring to with the 'that'? Confiscating unused tampons or bringing used ones in for protesting?

The security people also said they caught protesters trying to smuggle in jars of urine and shit - "DPS officials also said they found and confiscated one jar of suspected urine, 18 jars of suspected feces, three bottles of suspected paint, as well as glitter, confetti and “significant quantities” of feminine hygiene products."

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:What are you referring to with the 'that'? Confiscating unused tampons or bringing used ones in for protesting?

The security people also said they caught protesters trying to smuggle in jars of urine and #$!&@ - "DPS officials also said they found and confiscated one jar of suspected urine, 18 jars of suspected feces, three bottles of suspected paint, as well as glitter, confetti and “significant quantities” of feminine hygiene products."

getting #$!&@ flung at you would suck.

having someone shoot and kill you with the guns the troopers were apparently obliged to continue allowing through would, y'know, KILL YOU.

jerseyhoya wrote:The Texas abortion bill passed the Texas Senate tonight 19-11.

Also this week Huffington Post/YouGov found 59-30% support http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/abortion-poll_n_3575551.html]for a federal law banning abortion after 20 weeks. Poll slightly different as it mentions rape and incest as exceptions, which are not in the recently passed bill. But it doesn't mention life of mother exception, which is in the Texas bill.

In any case, seems like a pretty widely supported step.

drsmooth wrote:Barry, the point is that authoritarian preversions of representative government are fine, unless they're brought about by some nut in venezuela

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Barry, the point is that authoritarian preversions of representative government are fine, unless they're brought about by some nut in venezuela

I think a democratically elected government should generally be allowed to make laws supported by solid majorities of their people, yeah

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Barry, the point is that authoritarian preversions of representative government are fine, unless they're brought about by some nut in venezuela

I think a democratically elected government should generally be allowed to make laws supported by solid majorities of their people, yeah

uhhhhhmmmm.... we're talking about tampon confiscation here, aren't we?

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Barry, the point is that authoritarian preversions of representative government are fine, unless they're brought about by some nut in venezuela

I think a democratically elected government should generally be allowed to make laws supported by solid majorities of their people, yeah

uhhhhhmmmm.... we're talking about tampon confiscation here, aren't we?