Thank you.

Your impatience with me was completely justified.
I will try to pay closer attention in the future.

A

I pardon you.

:-)

I get that it's an important issue and I hope the next administration works to make all of the necessary changes in that regard.

I am merely lamenting the decidedly non-serious nature of the debate on international issues. As just one of many outsiders looking in and as a big fan of the promise of America, my focus is always on US foreign policy.

"I'm wondering if the 2016 presidential election campaign should, in any way, hinge on a serious discussion of marijuana reform."

It absolutely should. It absolutely won't.

wRong Paul has said that he would pardon all non-violent War On Some Drugs prisoners. If his princeling would promise the same, he'd get my vote although I agree with him about next to nothing. Prohibition, militarized police, and the prison industrial complex have to end. It all amounts to the intention creation of a permanent criminal class to feed a corporate monster.

"Rand Paul can't quite get himself disentangled from the Puritan-American notion that anybody involved in a pleasurable activity is engaged in a victimless crime."

That's because he's a christian fundy. You don't hear any libertarian talk out of him in regard to gay marriage or abortion.

""I'm a fan of the drug courts which try to direct you back towards work and less time in jail." See what I mean? Paul's position is: Stop having fun and get to work"

I think it's actually worse than that. I think he believes that, if you're "doing drugs", you're also robbing and stealing to "pay for your habit".

A comment of mine has gone missing in the Snap Judgment Thread. I only mention it because I went on record stating I believe Trump likely hit his high water mark at the 2nd debate. I'm noticing the press is drifting in that direction....also the term "jump the shark" (which I used) is getting bandied about by respectable journalists. So, if you could see fit to apply the plunger and give me a prognostication time stamp, I would be much obliged. :-)

I should mention that I didn't say Trump had jumped the shark, only that would down the road. We'll know it when we see it, and will be huuuuggg-uh! Gotta get a bigger boat huge.

Just wanted to apologize about our exchange on a previous thread.

After going back and rereading the comments, it really did appear like I was beating around the bush.

That wasn't my intention.

I had the same discussion in another forum a while back, and after a looong back and forth, the other person claimed that until the government makes a statement or documents are released, there was no proof and thus no possibility of substantiation.

In other words, facts exposed through journalism were meaningless.

So, when you raised issues with my first journalism source, I thought it was fair to ask for clarification about that central issue and which journalism sources were acceptable before going into it.

I'm sorry I did such a poor job of clarifying what I was trying to get at... and for pissing you off.

A

Thanks for pointing out this exchange.

I have to agree with TS.
We don't mandate treatment for alcohol use, so drug courts and mandatory treatment for pot are a bullshit "tough-on-crime-lite" position that defends punishment for pleasure seekers. It seems that I've heard something somewhere about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And the position likewise ignores that repeat "offenders" go right back into the disastrous War on Drugs system.

Similarly, the "damage to themselves" and "damage to employers" claim is bullshit. The evidence is clear that alcohol is more damaging to both the body and productivity.

Unfortunately, the "gateway drug" myth is still widely believed, so Paul should have called out Krispy to help put an end to that nonsense.

I'm always amazed at how little comment is attached to CW.com posts on marijuana. Reform is a big deal. Just like Prohibition was a big deal, for all the same reasons: counter productive, expensive and corrupting.

"I would like to see more rehabilitation and less incarceration. I'm a fan of the drug courts which try to direct you back towards work and less time in jail." See what I mean? Paul's position is: Stop having fun and get to work, and no that is not merely a suggestion.

Enforcement of the no-fun doctrine has always been spotty. The Bush family is known to enjoy yachting. Yachting is fun, and is by the Puritan-American doctrine, a victimless crime. Back to work matey! So, why is there no call for yacht court?

Christie's approach is to define recreational use of the wrong drug as a medical problem, and then mandate treatment. Paul attacks him from a 10th amendment perspective, but I would use Christie's own ample girth to point out the hypocrisy/wishful thinking of his position. Morbid obesity is a serious health problem in the USA. We have fat camps for kids (in my experience camp is mandatory), but why no fat court and mandatory fat clinics for adults? Well, one good reason is that medicine doesn't doesn't really know how to cure obesity very well, some would argue not at all. If Christie didn't know that before his lap band surgery, I think he strongly suspects it now. Christie still has a dangerously huge butt, because not every medical problem has a known medical solution, and drug use is basically another one of those problems. There is no good cure for alcohol, and no good cure for pot.

To Paul and Christie: stop fooling yourself, stop fooling the public, stop pandering to the Republican Base.

I'm wondering if the 2016 presidential election campaign should, in any way, hinge on a serious discussion of marijuana reform.

Don't get me wrong, though ... I'm glad to hear that there was a serious discussion about something. How low can the bar go?