PatrickKelly2012

The outcome would be nothing but positive. You'd take drug money out of the hands of cartels and gangs. You'd stop arresting and jailing non-violent people who do no harm to others. You'd go a long way to ending our overpopulation of prisons. And you'd actually reduce the number of drug users over time, particularly among teenagers.

Leave it up to the states to regulate it as they please just like we leave alcohol.

My view on the dispensaries are they're better than what we had, but I'd rather see it just move to something closer to alcohol sales. A lot of the dispensaries don't want weed to be legal because they have a cartel running on it now. Some people view this as a better way to control drug sales, but I just see it as a way to keep prices high. Of course, being in KY, I don't have any right to tell CA what to do, and I wouldn't vote to force them to legalize or anything. If CA wants to keep a dispensary system then they can. And if NY wants to keep pot completely illegal, they can, but we shouldn't have a federal ban on it or any other drug, because it simply doesn't work.

I'll tell you, nothing is more awesome than busting out information on LFTRs at a debate and having the other candidates go "well...coal...and pipelines". Engineers FTW!

I'm pretty pro-nuclear as long as it can be done safely, and Molten Salt Reactors go a long way in ensuring safety. The nuclear failures in the past have unfortunately done a lot of damage to the name and so it's important that we have the right people with understanding. I think LFTRs, especially when explained by Kirk Sorensen, can undo a lot of that damage. I'm generally ok with fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors.

The backlog is a big problem, and it's not something I'm well researched on so I don't have an answer on it, but it is something I would heavily study before making any rash decisions.

I feel it's a solution to fix a symptom rather than a solution to fix a problem. The problem is rising healthcare costs. We used to have very cheap medical care in the US, but government manipulation through things like the HMO act of 1973 disconnected the price controls from the system which caused prices tospiral out of control. Other countries that have universal healthcare hide the rising costs through mandating prices or wages, but it also comes at a cost as well. Hospitals run on deficits. Doctors leave countries for better wages elsewhere. Granted, these systems would help a lot more people in the short term than our current system, but I'd rather fix what's broken and build a better system.

The alternative is that we bring price controls back into the system by ending many of the mandates and restrictions on insurance. We've tried to force insurance to become something that it wasn't meant to be. Insurance should be there to protect you against the unexpected, not against the routine. I personally operate under an High Deductible Health Plan and a Health Savings Account, and I've been able to save myself a lot of money, even with having medical emergencies. My maximum out of pocket expenses with my current plan are less than my minimum out of pocket expenses with an HMO. I am able to pick my service provider and reward the provider that provides the best service at the cheapest price. If more people were on HDHPs and HSAs, we'd be able to majorly drive down the cost of medical care in the US. The problem is more and more restrictions are being added on to them every year.

Another thing we could do to drive down the cost of health care is make a lot more things over the counter and allow more products that are proven to work over seas be accepted here without the need to go through 12 years of FDA approval.

It depends on the circumstances. I could answer it, but if I did, I would hate myself in the morning.