OK, to come clean, my question is entirely rhetorical. I know exactly why this is plunked in the news: yet another guilt-by-association tactic. That's why the OP can't answer the question; it would give him away.
Now as for Rand Paul himself I happen to believe the best thing he can do for his country would be to resign from the Senate and go live in Bhutan as an Aqua Buddha monk for the rest of this life. But his son getting arrested for intoxication has absolute zero to do with any of that. It is, in a word, irrelevant. To anything.
When you aim your political reasoning at the cheap seats you'll never again be taken seriously as anything more than a monger of snake oil. Ask Rupert Murdoch.
Surely we can do better than this.
The OP is somebody who supports Rand at least 60% of the time, for the record. I posted this because it happened.
I can't make sense of your priorities, however. This is nonsense designed for "guilt-by-association," but the anonymous story about "Aqua Buddha" with absolutely no evidence whatsoever is serious.
You posted it "because it happened". Uh huh. The other day I dropped a piece of paper on the floor. I didn't drop everything to rush in here and make it into a freaking news story. You want the story? You could scoop the world.
So diga me, kemo sabe... if your whole purpose here isn't some gossipy guilt-by-association fallacy, would you have posted this story if William Nobody Smith got arrested, i.e. minus the association?
OK then.