Look at his questioning in COVID-related oversight hearings, there's a lot of grandstanding - given that he has a medical education it's disappointing that he leans so heavily on rhetoric instead. I would not be at all surprised to see him vote against a cannabis legalization bill, citing some obscure technicality or averring that it doesn't go far enough. We might even find out this session.
His questions were certainly valid - why were we pushing a jab on kids who don't need it, of which we don't know the long-term effects, for a "vaccine" that's rendered mostly ineffective after 4 months, against a disease that almost never kills kids (less than 100 in the U.S. who had serious health problems).
The rushed rollout and forced mandates of these products across the country invited much criticism. If that's a tough pill to swallow, maybe you'd be happier in Canada or Australia, or China, for that matter - their COVID policies are basically the same in abnegating personal choice and freedom for bodily autonomy.
Careful, your opinions might be considered heresy by some.
It's been shocking to observe how quickly society descended into "trust the science", when time and again the public has been betrayed for trusting these institutions, the pharmaceutical companies, the politicians and even scientists.
I'm not saying I agree with one side or the other completely, but it's a relief to see the tide of public opinion turning toward critical thinking. (Maybe not though, the manufacture of consent is as powerful as ever.)
