For the past several decades, every time a big-government socialist Left-appeasing RINO is president, he does nothing to return the government to constitutionalism. Instead, he runs up more debt, signs more regulation into law,and entangles us further into self-defeating foreign affairs. When the campaign comes around, he has no credibility as opposition because he is NOT opposition - and he loses to a Leftists who is even further left than the last one. How do you think we got to this point? Because not since Reagan - who was an exception to the rules that preceded him - has any conservative opposed the Left. And the "Reagan Revolution" didn't last through 1 term of the RHINO Bush1. And we just keep sliding into socialist tyranny,...

So you want to defeat Obama. But maybe it's more important to defeat what he stands for. And you cannot defeat what he stands for by electing a candidate who stands for so much of the same thing. This cannot be personal. It must be ideological, because the Left has controlled the ideology of this nation for nearly 100 years. They must be OPPOSED.

So your defense of Romney - Romney, the socialist who favors states' rights without any regard for INDIVIDUAL rights - Romney, the loser who lost to the loser who lost to Obama - your defense of him is that on the plus side, at least he's an aliance-building fund-raising glad-handing smiling insider who's been in constant campaign mode since 2007. I will vote for Obama before I vote for that charlatan. It's better that a Leftist continues to discredit the Left, than a RINO gets a chance to discredit the opposition. Or put it this way: Caesar wasn't killed by his Obama. He was killed by his Romney.

The intent of the moderator and those who designed the 'event' was to prohibit content.

King strictly limited the candidates' time to answer, did not limit his own time to talk, and burdened them with 'questions' about their personal product preferences. Obviously he was trying to prohibit content.

Good. The more bumbling the totalitarians are, the better.

Jin, his parents couldn't have predicted it because pot does NOT drive people insane. Your friend is an extremely unusual case, and probably was doing more than just pot. "Reefer Madness" is propaganda. I smoked pot for 6 months as a teen. I ended up no more insane than I started. Every former pot smoker I've ever known can say the same.

Recovering addicts need to avoid their poison no matter how available it is. Either they can deal with that fact or they cannot. And if they cannot, then their lack of willpower is their own problem, and does NOT give them the right to force a tyrannical "drug war" on everybody else.

It is NOT your business because what occurs between consenting adults is NOT the business of those who aren't themselves involved. If you define us by our laws, then you define us by Prohibition. And no country defined by forcibly intruding itself into the private affairs of consenting adults can claim to be truly civilized. And yes, drug manufacture, transport, sale and use IS private because nobody is forcing anyone else to participate, and no government property or employees are used. (Unless you believe the conspiracy theories.) Yeah, every "civilized" society has those uncivilized laws. That is the old "but everyone else is doing it!" excuse. That excuse is a non-starter. And yeah, we have laws restricting alcohol - and those...

There already IS a "free-for-all" on drugs. The state can't even keep them out of PRISONS, and that's about the most controlled environment on earth. Anyone who wants drugs can get them. Removing access to them is a fantasy. Just a wishful-'thinking' FANTASY.' But to your point: no doubt use would go up hugely - for a while. So what? Let it.