• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul: Marijuana users lose IQ points and lack motivation

Now, I have a question: Do you hire drinkers? That is, do you test for it, or even ask candidates?

No clue what his rationale might be on this, but I do see a SIGNIFICANT difference at least at this point in time.

One is illegal, one isn't.

I don't disagree with the notion that, by and large, Alcohol is the more dangerous product AND the more deterimental to ones performance on a job site. That said, the illegality currently associated with Marijuana enters new issues into the equation.

An employee who smokes marijuana has proven themselves and individual that, to at least some degree, will wantonly violate the law for their own enjoyment. As a retailer, for example, this would be a red flag type of trait due to the prevelence of employee caused shrink in that business.

An employee who smokes marijuana is also someone who is routinely putting themselves in danger of legal action that may hinder their profession. A job that has a public facing side of it may take issue with this, and any job could take issue in terms of dependability. While illegal action can occur while an individual is drinking, it requir additional actions to do so. The very actions of purchasing marijuana as well as smoking it are things that put the individual at direct risk of possible legal action.

If/When Marijuana becomes legalized then I would agree....testing for it would be somewhat foolish if one doesn't also go about asertaining if the individual drinks as well. But at the time being, the notion that it IS an illegal substanc adds an entirely different dynamic to the situation that one can't simply ignore.
 

Good thing I didn't quote you and ask for your response. I'll put your opinions in the garbage with the rest of them I heard from you today though, so thanks for quickly filling up the refuge :lamo
 
No clue what his rationale might be on this, but I do see a SIGNIFICANT difference at least at this point in time.

One is illegal, one isn't.

I don't disagree with the notion that, by and large, Alcohol is the more dangerous product AND the more deterimental to ones performance on a job site. That said, the illegality currently associated with Marijuana enters new issues into the equation.

An employee who smokes marijuana has proven themselves and individual that, to at least some degree, will wantonly violate the law for their own enjoyment. As a retailer, for example, this would be a red flag type of trait due to the prevelence of employee caused shrink in that business.

An employee who smokes marijuana is also someone who is routinely putting themselves in danger of legal action that may hinder their profession. A job that has a public facing side of it may take issue with this, and any job could take issue in terms of dependability. While illegal action can occur while an individual is drinking, it requir additional actions to do so. The very actions of purchasing marijuana as well as smoking it are things that put the individual at direct risk of possible legal action.

If/When Marijuana becomes legalized then I would agree....testing for it would be somewhat foolish if one doesn't also go about asertaining if the individual drinks as well. But at the time being, the notion that it IS an illegal substanc adds an entirely different dynamic to the situation that one can't simply ignore.
That is a well-reasoned free market rationale that any true libertarian should appreciate.
 
I think what people are missing here is weed is like food for some people. Obesity is caused by compulsive behavior. Some people who use weed can't stop once they start, it is compulsive behavior. Some people are more prone to addiction, those are the people that need protecting.

So you're in favor of the government "protecting people" from themselves.

Some people are individual who engage in horrible judgement, or have very bad tempers that give way to common sense or reason, do we need ban guns for everyone becuase there are those people that need protecting?

Some people have addictive, compulsive behavior, as you say. They eat themselves into obesity, disease, and sometimes death on horriblely fatty and sugary food. Do we need to have the government ban high sugar or high fat foods for everyone because there are those people that need protecting?

Some of those same people with addictive, compulsive behavior, love htemselves some alcohol. Once they start drinking they can't really stop, and it affects their entire life. On top of that, their impaired judgement can lead to others being harmed as well. Shall we have the government ban alcohol for everyone because there are those that need protecting?

Or are you suggesting that JUST those with compulsive behavior need helping...in which case it would mean you should be arguing for legalization, with the government providing assistance or support to those with such behavior, rather than punishing all to "protect" a few from themselves.
 
No clue what his rationale might be on this, but I do see a SIGNIFICANT difference at least at this point in time.

One is illegal, one isn't.

I don't disagree with the notion that, by and large, Alcohol is the more dangerous product AND the more deterimental to ones performance on a job site. That said, the illegality currently associated with Marijuana enters new issues into the equation.

An employee who smokes marijuana has proven themselves and individual that, to at least some degree, will wantonly violate the law for their own enjoyment. As a retailer, for example, this would be a red flag type of trait due to the prevelence of employee caused shrink in that business.

An employee who smokes marijuana is also someone who is routinely putting themselves in danger of legal action that may hinder their profession. A job that has a public facing side of it may take issue with this, and any job could take issue in terms of dependability. While illegal action can occur while an individual is drinking, it requir additional actions to do so. The very actions of purchasing marijuana as well as smoking it are things that put the individual at direct risk of possible legal action.

If/When Marijuana becomes legalized then I would agree....testing for it would be somewhat foolish if one doesn't also go about asertaining if the individual drinks as well. But at the time being, the notion that it IS an illegal substanc adds an entirely different dynamic to the situation that one can't simply ignore.

Perhaps, to all of what you say, but there is no evidence for much of it. For example, there is no evidence that shrinkage is higher when hiring marijuana users. And there is a big huge fat assumption there about the reason people don't steal. When I worked in retail, they said opportunity was by far the largest factor. Only 10 pct of people, supposedly, would never even Think of stealing from you.

Dependability? Good god, have you met a raging alcoholic?

In any case, we don't have to speculate about HIS reasons. He has made it clear he thinks recreational users are exceedingly likely to become hard users and are highly likely to become dumber as a consequence, and that is the only reason he has given so far.
 
So do you feel he doesn't deserve criticism for his generalizations of drug users?

I feel that the criticisms of him should be based on what he actually said and realistic to what his statements were. If people want to criticize him for those statements, I've no issue with it.

However, droning on about "Silicon Valley guys" as a counter to a statement about those who smoke "all the time" isn't legitimate and deserved criticism unless one is suggesting those "Silicon Valley guys" are the types, while they're running / working at those companies, who spend all their time just constantly getting high.

I asked him if that's what he meant...and he of course refused to answer and then started droning on about Rand Paul being generally negative towards the notion of pot use and complaining that I actually expected him to be responding to what Paul said, not what he wants to imagine he said.

If you want to criticize Paul for suggesting those who smoke pot all the time tend to Lose IQ points (with no inference as to whether this is some kind of permanent loss, or simply temporary while they're "getting high all the time) and lack motivation....then be my guest. I may disagree with the criticism, but I don't feel it'd be undeserved criticism if people disagree with it. There's a chance I'd also agree with the criticism, if it was focused on criticizing him for using such an "absolute" type of statement.

If you want to criticize Paul for implying a general disapproval for pot use, be my guest again. I think it'd be rather retarded for someone to stop supporting him singularly on that, but if you want to criticize him for it again I wouldn't necessarily feel it's undeserved (I'd just think it's stupid).

But if you want to criticize him for suggesting that those who have smoken pot before, or those who occasionally or in moderation still do, lose IQ points and lack motiviation then I would say it's undeserved criticism because it's criticizing something he didn't suggest.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, to all of what you say, but there is no evidence for much of it. For example, there is no evidence that shrinkage is higher when hiring marijuana users.

Doesn't matter really. There's no grand expectation that an employer is going out of their way to research a bunch of studies to pick the perfect employee. It's a reasonable assumptions of an employer to make though that someone who wantonly violates the law for their own enjoyment is highlighting an undesirable trait that is potentially problematic.

Dependability? Good god, have you met a raging alcoholic?

Absolutely. However, nice job glossing entirely over the specific actual point being made (which was not specifically about the notion of general dependability) and instead grabbing hold of a single word. Shows your absolutely desire to be honest in debate and not simply having a specific agenda that you wish to push and are thus focused on contorting everything possible to fit that agenda :roll:

Though you do reach a whole different potential issue. Depending on the employement laws in a particular state, I believe there is significant difference between asking questions about and refusing to hire someone based on their partaking in a LEGAL activity...and doing so for an ILLEGAL one.

Regardless of what his reasons may be, and seemingly his reasons are rather laughable, there are legitimate differences between Marijuana and Alcohol that DON'T favor the notion that it's unreasonable for a business to test for Marijuana but not Alcohol. The very fact that it IS illegal and an individual is wantonly violating the law simply due to their own desire for enjoyment IS an unquestionable factor with Marijuana that is completely missing from the equation with alcohol.
 
Actually, those "people" you refer to are wanting limited government the same as you. I think those libertarians that agree with pot being illegal should get the **** out of the libertarian party.

To be fair, the people he's refering to are not wanting "limited government" that is "the same as [him]". He spoke about those libertarians who are "libertarians" based on the singular political issue of drug legalization.

Those individual would not necessarily be individuals who want "limited government" as an across the board notion, such as Guy. Rather, they're individuals who want limited government in a VERY limited sense, and don't have a strong political care beyond that.

He SPECIFICALLY said he was talking about "libertarians" who were part of the party only because they feel drugs should be legalized.

That's not wanting limited government "the same as" Guy.
 
Getting stoned is no more a bad idea than getting drunk.

At the present point in time, in the vast majority of the country, that is not true.

I did not violate the law and put myself at legal risk to purchase my alcohol. I would not be violating the law to imbibe my alcohol.

If Marijuana becomes legalized, then I'd agree with you. I'd even say that perhaps getting drunk would be an even worse idea than getting stoned (with both still being, in general, a bad idea). But CURRENTLY...no, I'd say all actions being equal in terms, that there is a reasoned argument that getting stoned is more of a bad idea currently than getting drunk.
 
Your point is idiotic. Yes, i proudly pass judgment on drug users, as is my right, and the judgment is that the liberarian party does not need to be associated with you. We would let you have your substances and let it be perfectly legal, but for God's sake keep it to yourself!

If you read my first post you would see that I already said smoking pot is equally bad as drinking alcohol.

Well, actually, you wouldn't let them do anything becuase your already incredibly irrelevant party with no electoral hope for victory what so ever would become even smaller because you'd be driving support away from you.

I agree that the way people present arguments or acts can drive people from a political entity. I've suggested such with Ron Paul fans for some time. That said, not every "drug user" are the types who argue for legalization in such ways that it likely does more damage to the cause than help. Hoping to purge the libertarian party from all "drug users" would likely net the party a significant loss of membership that is beneficial to the party, not just those who possibly do more harm than good.
 
Well, actually, you wouldn't let them do anything becuase your already incredibly irrelevant party with no electoral hope for victory what so ever would become even smaller because you'd be driving support away from you.

I agree that the way people present arguments or acts can drive people from a political entity. I've suggested such with Ron Paul fans for some time. That said, not every "drug user" are the types who argue for legalization in such ways that it likely does more damage to the cause than help. Hoping to purge the libertarian party from all "drug users" would likely net the party a significant loss of membership that is beneficial to the party, not just those who possibly do more harm than good.

It is humorous to me that you think that. Just wait ten or fifteen years, and the Conservatives in the republican party are going to give way to the libertarian wing entirely. It is already happening on drugs and immigration. If we can't keep our pothead element under control then it might take more like twenty. :shrug: But it's inevitable. Conservatives are ****in dinosaurs.
 
Last edited:
At the present point in time, in the vast majority of the country, that is not true.

I did not violate the law and put myself at legal risk to purchase my alcohol. I would not be violating the law to imbibe my alcohol.

If Marijuana becomes legalized, then I'd agree with you. I'd even say that perhaps getting drunk would be an even worse idea than getting stoned (with both still being, in general, a bad idea). But CURRENTLY...no, I'd say all actions being equal in terms, that there is a reasoned argument that getting stoned is more of a bad idea currently than getting drunk.

I was refering to the actual effects not the legality (I know I didn't specify). But yes, I do see your point on the legal thing.
 
Why we lost prohibition is that demand was basically unchanged yet production and especially the distribution then became super profitable, untaxed and under control of organized crime. This is true of all "recreational" drugs, including marijuana. While social problems certainly exist due to recreational drug (ab)use (for any such substance, including alcohol) they pale in comparison to the problems involved with keeping them legally banned.

That's pretty doubtful. How often do you really run into a heroin abuser in the course of a normal day in a normal occupation How often would you were there no legal restrictions on recreational heroin use?

Or to use a more personal example, I've never in my life tried marijuana. One of the main reasons was that it was illegal.
 
Doesn't matter really. There's no grand expectation that an employer is going out of their way to research a bunch of studies to pick the perfect employee. It's a reasonable assumptions of an employer to make though that someone who wantonly violates the law for their own enjoyment is highlighting an undesirable trait that is potentially problematic.



Absolutely. However, nice job glossing entirely over the specific actual point being made (which was not specifically about the notion of general dependability) and instead grabbing hold of a single word. Shows your absolutely desire to be honest in debate and not simply having a specific agenda that you wish to push and are thus focused on contorting everything possible to fit that agenda :roll:

Though you do reach a whole different potential issue. Depending on the employement laws in a particular state, I believe there is significant difference between asking questions about and refusing to hire someone based on their partaking in a LEGAL activity...and doing so for an ILLEGAL one.

Regardless of what his reasons may be, and seemingly his reasons are rather laughable, there are legitimate differences between Marijuana and Alcohol that DON'T favor the notion that it's unreasonable for a business to test for Marijuana but not Alcohol. The very fact that it IS illegal and an individual is wantonly violating the law simply due to their own desire for enjoyment IS an unquestionable factor with Marijuana that is completely missing from the equation with alcohol.

I don't think I am glossing over anything. Dependability is the issue, not dependability issues caused by illegal Marijuana use. That is not dishonest. In fact it is far more honest than making the matter irrelevantly narrow, as you have done. I don't have time for a longer response right now.

Would the agenda you mention as being mine be the one where I don't want to stupidly incarcerate people for stupid ideas of criminality? That would be correct. As for twisting things, making a sufficiently narrow focus is erroneous, and that is what you have done. So the person actually twisting things for an agenda? That would be you.
 
Last edited:
I was refering to the actual effects not the legality (I know I didn't specify). But yes, I do see your point on the legal thing.

Yeah, in terms of effects...I agree. Heck, I'd say in terms of effects I'd say drinkin would actually be the worse idea.
 
And Rand Paul could also be wrong. Do you accept that possibilty?

Of course. I wasn't defending Rand Paul, but I jump like a lion on a sheep when it comes to "he is wrong because I....." arguments. Second nature really.
 
There is no evidence that Marijuana is a gateway drug.

Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die | TIME.com

No, there is not 'no evidence'.

You just don't like/agree with it.

Yale study: Marijuana may really be gateway drug

Yale study: Marijuana may really be gateway drug - Connecticut Post

Personally, I believe it can be a gateway drug for some people.

How many? No idea. Probably not the majority that start meth/crack/heroin.

For me it was booze/arrogance/being semi-tricked into it.

Note: again, I quit in '02.

So, the notion that Marijuana acts to entice to other drug use is false. And I just don't buy that you can say what you would have done, or anyone else would have done. I am inclined to say that people who like the idea of altering their consciousness will choose to do so, and will start with SOMETHING.

We could say that the thrill of skiing leads people who are Adrenalin junkies to learn to skydive, where many are killed. Nobody just jumps out of a plane unless they are bat**** crazy. Etc.

Many of the most fun things in life are also deadly. So, I will just say that if our goal is to save lives, legalization will make drug use safer. Taxing illegal drugs enough to pay for rehabs, which are not available right now for people who need them, would make addiction less deadly. Instead of channelling profits into drug kingpins coffers, we could channel them into recovery programs for addicts. We can also much more easily regulate hard drugs if they are legal. We can then squeeze them into vastly reduced use, like we have done with cigarettes.

So, the saving of lives through prohibition argument is ass backwards, in my book.

I strongly agree with legalizing drugs though.
 
Last edited:
Right, but that doesn't answer the question of why you think weed was responsible for affecting his judgement and making him "want to seek the ultimate high". In fact, you seem to now be suggesting the opposite, and that he was a compulsive person to begin with.

I'm also not sure what you mean by "weed is like food for some people". I mean, even if that were true (which it provably isn't), what would it have to do with someone going out and using hard drugs?

And again, I'm sorry to push the point, but you stated he "started out" smoking weed. Are you sure he'd never tried alcohol? That's scientifically proven to be far more addictive and physically damaging.

positive, weed was his first high, there is a reason it is illegal an should stay that way
 
I have found one Ronald Reagan quote that I agree with: "Governments job is to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in trying to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan

Think about it.

I agree to a point but pot laws protect everyone, not just the user
 
So you're in favor of the government "protecting people" from themselves.

Some people are individual who engage in horrible judgement, or have very bad tempers that give way to common sense or reason, do we need ban guns for everyone becuase there are those people that need protecting?

Some people have addictive, compulsive behavior, as you say. They eat themselves into obesity, disease, and sometimes death on horriblely fatty and sugary food. Do we need to have the government ban high sugar or high fat foods for everyone because there are those people that need protecting?

Some of those same people with addictive, compulsive behavior, love htemselves some alcohol. Once they start drinking they can't really stop, and it affects their entire life. On top of that, their impaired judgement can lead to others being harmed as well. Shall we have the government ban alcohol for everyone because there are those that need protecting?

Or are you suggesting that JUST those with compulsive behavior need helping...in which case it would mean you should be arguing for legalization, with the government providing assistance or support to those with such behavior, rather than punishing all to "protect" a few from themselves.

Now that is just a lie, weed smokers operating cars or equipment are endangering others not just themselves
 
What is "just a lie"? You quoted my whole post and specified nothing. Are you saying everything in it is a lie?

And yes, weed smokers operating cars or equipment endanger others, not just themselves. So do alcohol drinkers operating cars and even people who use cell phones.

Shall we have the government ban alcohol and cell phones from everyone because some individuals that partake in them may take actions that put others in danger? Or does your big government nanny state only extend to pot?
 
"Governments job is to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in trying to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan

Interesting quote coming from Mr. Just say no.
 
Back
Top Bottom