She actually didn't know as evidenced by her writings that much about the subject. We are objectivists. We have to think for ourselves not simply take as gospel whatever Ayn Rand may have said on a subject.

Regardless, the government has no right or contract whatsoever to tell adults what they can or cannot consume.

I think we passed it some time back.

She doesn't explicitly say that. Here are the words:
"I agree with states’ rights. But we are misleading young people when we tell them that marijuana is just like having a beer. It’s not."
My interpretation is she's saying allowing states to regulate/prohibit marijuana to the same extent as beer means the gov't is asserting they're "just like" one another-- because if they were any different the gov't would be regulating them differently.

What? That's not what she said.

Well said both of you. +1 each. It's so far in the rear view mirror it's over the rear horizon.

Carly Fiorina said in the debate something to the effect if the gov't isn't imprisoning people for smoking marijuana that's saying we think it's a good idea. Unstated premise: We lock people up for everything except for those things the gov't thinks is a good idea.

Hello jbrenner,
...In the rear view mirror and accelerating away...
Regards,
O.A.

Then we were fast approaching that inversion. Now we have passed it.