Ron Paul on drugs.

[geauxtohell]

And Ron Paul never proposed such a thing, did he?

Are we back on Ron Paul?

No. I have no problem with Ron Paul's thoughts on the War on Drugs, with the exception that I wouldn't leave the legalization of heroin, cocaine, and meth up to the states.

It's just the other 70% of what he says that I can't stand.

I never thought we left this topic, but I haven't read all the pages. Isn't this thread about him and his stance on drugs?

Why would leaving the legislation of heroin, cocaine, and meth up to the states? Do you honestly believe that states would flat out legalize these drugs?

A funny thing about meth is that it can be argued that it was a creation due to the War on Drugs. The War on Drug gave addicts the incentive to devise cheaper and more effective ways to get high and to get around the system. That in the absence of the War on Drugs, the incentive to create meth would not be there. Of course, this is just a hypothetical argument.

Many people cannot stand the ideas of sound money, a different foreign policy based on trade and diplomacy, restoring American values, and liberty. His message is not for everyone.

Hurray for Ron Paul!

Happy?

 

[JohnA]

You can make a good argument that MDMA's (ecstasy) adverse effects are related to impurities. That can't be said for other drugs. Heroin doesn't get anymore pure than morphine, and that, my friend, is a dangerous drug that needs to be administered under the supervision of someone that knows what the hell they are doing. 10 mg of morphine will spike an opiate naive person. It won't touch a heroin abuser. Cocaine is also dangeorus (and disfiguring is you use it in excess). I see little use in legalizing opium and stimulants purely because people want to get high. I don't want to live in a "Brave New World".

What I mean about the "cost of abuse" is that alcohol and tobacco cost this country a ton of money. If we just discovered the joys of alcohol, there might be room for some debate on the matter. However, we are far beyond that. The cat is out of the bag.

I wasn't aware that getting high was a constitutional right that could be infringed.

So you are saying the cats of of the bag with alcohol but we have not yet discovered the joys of others drugs
What rock have you been hiding under
the fact is the market for other drugs pot etc is larger then the market for alcohol its just not under the govt control hence the *drug wars *
never implied it was a right that could not be infringed . we do thou with the declaration of independence have the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness .

First off, let's correct something before someone else nukes you on it. The Declaration of Independence is a nice historical document where we told King George to fuck off. It's not, nor has it ever been, the law of the land. It has absolutely no legal binding and pseudo-Lockian niceties like the vague "pursuit of happiness" (ever wonder why it's not actually what Locke wrote: "Life, liberty, and property?) are completely irrelevant when we are talking about the law. The Supreme Court has yet to hear a case for claims of violation of the Declaration of Independence.

Saying the "market is larger" is somewhat misleading. More people use alcohol then use illicit drugs. The revenue might be higher in the narcotics business, but that is only because illegality has driven up the price of narcotics far beyond their true market value. That unto itself is not a convincing reason for legalization either.

I am being pragmatic about this. Alcohol will always be with us and so will tobacco, because they were in wide use for recreational purposes long before this country was founded. I also have no problem with people simply wanted to get "altered" and am all for legalizing MJ for that reason alone. I would also support legalizing MDMA for medicinal use as studies have shown that it is safe when controlled and has real benefit for people suffering from PTSD.

I am not for legalizing drugs that are highly addictive, require IV administration, and can be lethal.

I see minimal benefit to society in legalizing amphetamines, cocaine/crack, and opiates. Will it fuck over the drug lords? Sure. So what? At some point, we have to acknowledge that criminality is always gong to be with us and we can't start simply legalizing everything as a result. Other than that, the only argument I see is shrouded in esoteric libertarian bullshit (no offense). It's great that your political belief system leads you to think that people should be able to ingest/inject whatever the hell they want too since it is their body. I just disagree that that sentiment is good for our society at large. I also don't want to see the incidence of hepatitis C among the 18-25 year old demographic skyrocket.

Some of these drugs are dangerous, and I can only assume you guys have no clue just how dangerous they are. Every year, teens die from alcohol related incidents. Most are trauma (motor vehicle collisions), but a much smaller percentage are from acute overdose. It's hard to OD on alcohol, but it can be done. It's easy to OD on opiates.

So, if you want little Sally at the high school field party trying to estimate the safe dose of heroin to stick in her arm under the guidance of some sketchy 35 year old junkie who brought their *now* perfectly legal heroin and hepatitis covered fucking needle to a high school party in the hopes that they could score some ass by bringing the drugs, then by all means.

But I'll continue to think you are fucking stupid for believing that.

Again, I am evoking some hyperbole, but not simply to offend. I am willing to bet you've never seen someone OD or withdrawal from that shit. I am willing to bet you've never seen a cocaine induced heart attack in a 20 something year old. I am willing to bet you've never watched the painfully slow and miserable death of someone with Hep C and end stage liver failure.

no ive not seen any of the exact instances you posted if you have you must either be in the medical profession , a drug dealer /user ,or some sort of legal /police person .

what i have seen thou is a girl friend overdose , a family broken up cus the man was incasarated for smoking a reefer , a cop seriously permanetly injured trying to arrest a drug dealer from another country . knew several folks killed by a drunk , lost a family member who got cancer from smoking . just a few instances im going to share with you not that alters my opinion about legalization in fact it makes my stance more valid .

those killed by a drunk driver would still have still died cus alcohol is legal
the smoker would have still died cus nicatine smoking is legal

the cop the broken family would not have happened had drugs been legal .
leaving just the g/f that was years ago and she got hold of some (dope ) that was tainted had it been legal and regulated it might never had happened .
just let you know if your against drugs that are additive then why dont you advocate banning alcohol and nicatine .coffee
cus we are used to then dont make them less dangerous
if you smoke and drink you get your *drugs * legally why should not somebody who uses a another *additive drug* have the same privilege ive managed to finish this post with out calling you names if you cant respond with out doing so perhaps you should go away and play with your tin soldiers i

 

[Shogun]

That being said, it's fucking hilarious to watch all the cavalier libertarians talk about allowing businesses to ban ethnicities when, in less than 50 years, you silly white motherfuckers could be eating your own crow.

You are confusing a right with a moral compass. Plus, the last thing I want to do is roll back the CRA. That is not even something that crosses my mind, but some people like to make a fuss about it.

However, suppose you chop down your tree and build a chair out of it. I believe that chair now belongs to you and you have the right to sell it to anyone you want. You can also discriminate based on race, sex, creed, etc. I think it would be wrong to discriminate, but you still have that right. I also think it is wrong for the government to make you act moral. That is your responsibility, not the government's.

Fifty years from now, I don't care if I "eat my own crow". In fact, this support my argument. If someone doesn't want to do business with me based on the color of my skin, then I rather them be upfront about it rather than try to look for loopholes. They would have done me a favor by allowing me to filter them out of my life.

I also have a much benign view of minorities. Most that I have met are not racist and would not discriminate for petty reasons. However, you are of the opinion that they would. You have a more pessimistic and vulgar opinion of minorities that borders on an outright insult.

I guess it's easy to be so cavalier about eating your own crow while looking down from the upside. If someone, nay EVERYONE, chooses that gringos can't shop in their stores like we saw the last time No ******* signs were posh then I'm betting you'd change your tune.

I am of the opinion that people of all races do not inherently gravitate toward non-discrimination as it is human nature to favor what is similar and alienate what is different. But, to be honest, I'm fine with your passive-aggressive crybaby retort if that is how you would choose to continue in this thread.

 

[Auxous]

That being said, it's fucking hilarious to watch all the cavalier libertarians talk about allowing businesses to ban ethnicities when, in less than 50 years, you silly white motherfuckers could be eating your own crow.

You are confusing a right with a moral compass. Plus, the last thing I want to do is roll back the CRA. That is not even something that crosses my mind, but some people like to make a fuss about it.

However, suppose you chop down your tree and build a chair out of it. I believe that chair now belongs to you and you have the right to sell it to anyone you want. You can also discriminate based on race, sex, creed, etc. I think it would be wrong to discriminate, but you still have that right. I also think it is wrong for the government to make you act moral. That is your responsibility, not the government's.

Fifty years from now, I don't care if I "eat my own crow". In fact, this support my argument. If someone doesn't want to do business with me based on the color of my skin, then I rather them be upfront about it rather than try to look for loopholes. They would have done me a favor by allowing me to filter them out of my life.

I also have a much benign view of minorities. Most that I have met are not racist and would not discriminate for petty reasons. However, you are of the opinion that they would. You have a more pessimistic and vulgar opinion of minorities that borders on an outright insult.

I guess it's easy to be so cavalier about eating your own crow while looking down from the upside. If someone, nay EVERYONE, chooses that gringos can't shop in their stores like we saw the last time No ******* signs were posh then I'm betting you'd change your tune.

I am of the opinion that people of all races do not inherently gravitate toward non-discrimination as it is human nature to favor what is similar and alienate what is different. But, to be honest, I'm fine with your passive-aggressive crybaby retort if that is how you would choose to continue in this thread.

No one is being cavalier about racism nor am I being passive aggressive. Seriously, only a fucking idiot would be cavalier about racism.

You are an idiot who has a pessimistic, vulgar, about erroneous views of minorities. How is that for passive aggressive?

 

[JohnA]

That being said, it's fucking hilarious to watch all the cavalier libertarians talk about allowing businesses to ban ethnicities when, in less than 50 years, you silly white motherfuckers could be eating your own crow.

You are confusing a right with a moral compass. Plus, the last thing I want to do is roll back the CRA. That is not even something that crosses my mind, but some people like to make a fuss about it.

However, suppose you chop down your tree and build a chair out of it. I believe that chair now belongs to you and you have the right to sell it to anyone you want. You can also discriminate based on race, sex, creed, etc. I think it would be wrong to discriminate, but you still have that right. I also think it is wrong for the government to make you act moral. That is your responsibility, not the government's.

Fifty years from now, I don't care if I "eat my own crow". In fact, this support my argument. If someone doesn't want to do business with me based on the color of my skin, then I rather them be upfront about it rather than try to look for loopholes. They would have done me a favor by allowing me to filter them out of my life.

I also have a much benign view of minorities. Most that I have met are not racist and would not discriminate for petty reasons. However, you are of the opinion that they would. You have a more pessimistic and vulgar opinion of minorities that borders on an outright insult.

However, suppose you chop down your tree and build a chair out of it. I believe that chair now belongs to you and you have the right to sell it to anyone you want. You can also discriminate based on race, sex, creed, etc. I think it would be wrong to discriminate, but you still have that right. I also think it is wrong for the government to make you act moral. That is your responsibility, not the government's.

well said

 

[Shogun]

You are confusing a right with a moral compass. Plus, the last thing I want to do is roll back the CRA. That is not even something that crosses my mind, but some people like to make a fuss about it.

However, suppose you chop down your tree and build a chair out of it. I believe that chair now belongs to you and you have the right to sell it to anyone you want. You can also discriminate based on race, sex, creed, etc. I think it would be wrong to discriminate, but you still have that right. I also think it is wrong for the government to make you act moral. That is your responsibility, not the government's.

Fifty years from now, I don't care if I "eat my own crow". In fact, this support my argument. If someone doesn't want to do business with me based on the color of my skin, then I rather them be upfront about it rather than try to look for loopholes. They would have done me a favor by allowing me to filter them out of my life.

I also have a much benign view of minorities. Most that I have met are not racist and would not discriminate for petty reasons. However, you are of the opinion that they would. You have a more pessimistic and vulgar opinion of minorities that borders on an outright insult.

I guess it's easy to be so cavalier about eating your own crow while looking down from the upside. If someone, nay EVERYONE, chooses that gringos can't shop in their stores like we saw the last time No ******* signs were posh then I'm betting you'd change your tune.

I am of the opinion that people of all races do not inherently gravitate toward non-discrimination as it is human nature to favor what is similar and alienate what is different. But, to be honest, I'm fine with your passive-aggressive crybaby retort if that is how you would choose to continue in this thread.

No one is being cavalier about racism nor am I being passive aggressive. Seriously, only a fucking idiot would be cavalier about racism.

You are an idiot who has a pessimistic, vulgar, about erroneous views of minorities. How is that for passive aggressive?

It's not a matter of a view on minorities, Dr. Fuckstick. It's an observation on the nature of pluralistic interaction among ethnic variations within a common location. You can't name one culture in which widely different ethnic identities are naturally willing to promote equality over self-serving favoritism without a common governance that forces it upon the population.

I do, however, look forward to reading your ironic retort.

 

[Ravi]

Soggy, your new avatar sucks.

Just sayin.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I support legalizing pot. NO MORE DRUG war. The government could tax it if it wishes...but I feel it is stupid to throw people in prison over doing it. Waste of resources.

 

[Auxous]

I guess it's easy to be so cavalier about eating your own crow while looking down from the upside. If someone, nay EVERYONE, chooses that gringos can't shop in their stores like we saw the last time No ******* signs were posh then I'm betting you'd change your tune.

I am of the opinion that people of all races do not inherently gravitate toward non-discrimination as it is human nature to favor what is similar and alienate what is different. But, to be honest, I'm fine with your passive-aggressive crybaby retort if that is how you would choose to continue in this thread.

No one is being cavalier about racism nor am I being passive aggressive. Seriously, only a fucking idiot would be cavalier about racism.

You are an idiot who has a pessimistic, vulgar, about erroneous views of minorities. How is that for passive aggressive?

It's not a matter of a view on minorities, Dr. Fuckstick. It's an observation on the nature of pluralistic interaction among ethnic variations within a common location. You can't name one culture in which widely different ethnic identities are naturally willing to promote equality over self-serving favoritism without a common governance that forces it upon the population.

I do, however, look forward to reading your ironic retort.

There is nothing to retort. You rather initiate a flame war than hold a conversation and I find that rather insipid.

There are elements of tribalism within the world. However, there are plenty of cases where individuals transcended this. In fact, libertarianism philosophy teaches and embraces this. It is an individual philosophy that transcends tribalistic attitudes.

You have a pessimistic and bleak outlook that man will never be able to see the individual before the group. That is rather unfortunate, but this is where we obviously disagree.

 

[Montrovant]

Both of these conversations, whether drugs should be legal and whether businesses should be able to discriminate, are about principle vs practicality IMO.

As a matter of principle, I agree that all drugs should be legal. However, would the effect on society be negative enough to make that a bad idea? Would it lead to more addicts of hard drugs, or more young adults becoming exposed to those drugs? Would it make them more accessible to children? Would it lead to greater strain on our already overstressed health care system? We have to decide if the principle of allowing people to choose to grow/make/sell/imbibe whatever substances they wish conflicts too greatly with the reality of the harm they cause.

As a matter of principle, I agree that anyone who owns a business should be able to discriminate if they want to. It is their business. However, would that lead to enough negative societal effects to make it a bad idea? People could find themselves unable to purchase goods anywhere in their vicinity if they are part of some sort of vilified minority. It might lead to greater segregation and racial (or religious, or gender, or orientation) tension than we already have. So again, we must weigh whether this particular principle is worth whatever potential harm allowing it might cause.

I am pessimist and cynic enough to not feel confident that either of these scenarios will end well. I certainly think it's possible that legalizing all drugs would, in the end, be either a benefit or at least neutral effect on society. I think it's possible that if we allowed businesses to discriminate, that only a very rare few would decide to do so. I don't have enough faith in human nature to think either of them are a good idea, at least all at once. Perhaps a gradual transition would be effective.

 

[geauxtohell]

Both of these conversations, whether drugs should be legal and whether businesses should be able to discriminate, are about principle vs practicality IMO.

As a matter of principle, I agree that all drugs should be legal. However, would the effect on society be negative enough to make that a bad idea? Would it lead to more addicts of hard drugs, or more young adults becoming exposed to those drugs? Would it make them more accessible to children? Would it lead to greater strain on our already overstressed health care system? We have to decide if the principle of allowing people to choose to grow/make/sell/imbibe whatever substances they wish conflicts too greatly with the reality of the harm they cause.

As a matter of principle, I agree that anyone who owns a business should be able to discriminate if they want to. It is their business. However, would that lead to enough negative societal effects to make it a bad idea? People could find themselves unable to purchase goods anywhere in their vicinity if they are part of some sort of vilified minority. It might lead to greater segregation and racial (or religious, or gender, or orientation) tension than we already have. So again, we must weigh whether this particular principle is worth whatever potential harm allowing it might cause.

I am pessimist and cynic enough to not feel confident that either of these scenarios will end well. I certainly think it's possible that legalizing all drugs would, in the end, be either a benefit or at least neutral effect on society. I think it's possible that if we allowed businesses to discriminate, that only a very rare few would decide to do so. I don't have enough faith in human nature to think either of them are a good idea, at least all at once. Perhaps a gradual transition would be effective.

That basically sums it up.

 

[Texanmike]

B

As a matter of principle, I agree that anyone who owns a business should be able to discriminate if they want to. It is their business. However, would that lead to enough negative societal effects to make it a bad idea? People could find themselves unable to purchase goods anywhere in their vicinity if they are part of some sort of vilified minority. It might lead to greater segregation and racial (or religious, or gender, or orientation) tension than we already have. So again, we must weigh whether this particular principle is worth whatever potential harm allowing it might cause.

Not to jack the thread but can you name one industry where anti-discrimination laws were never really a factor?

Mike

 

[dblack]

Not to jack the thread but can you name one industry where anti-discrimination laws were never really a factor?

Mike

I switched careers to software about five years ago, and I don't think I heard anyone ever talk about it in the workplace.

 

[Texanmike]

Not to jack the thread but can you name one industry where anti-discrimination laws were never really a factor?

Mike

I switched careers to software about five years ago, and I don't think I heard anyone ever talk about it in the workplace.

I was thinking college football/basketball/sports in general. It would seem that once it starts people will do whatever it takes to be the best. I think that's what would happen in the absence of anti-discrimination laws. Companies that refused to hire the absolute best business would be punished by losing revenue.

Mike

 

[ShackledNation]

Not just Marijuana...all drugs...crack, coke, meth, heroin...all drugs legalized.


Discuss.

Ron Paul 2012.

 

[Montrovant]

B

As a matter of principle, I agree that anyone who owns a business should be able to discriminate if they want to. It is their business. However, would that lead to enough negative societal effects to make it a bad idea? People could find themselves unable to purchase goods anywhere in their vicinity if they are part of some sort of vilified minority. It might lead to greater segregation and racial (or religious, or gender, or orientation) tension than we already have. So again, we must weigh whether this particular principle is worth whatever potential harm allowing it might cause.

Not to jack the thread but can you name one industry where anti-discrimination laws were never really a factor?

Mike

Not sure of the point of your question, but I certainly can't name any. I don't know if any industries were free from discriminatory practices before anti-discrimination laws went into effect.

It would certainly be nice to think that businesses would employ or sell to whoever would provide revenue, regardless of race or religion or gender, etc. Unfortunately, we can see from our past that that hasn't always been the case, and while the country is certainly not the same as it was many years ago, there is still plenty of bigotry and hatred of people who are different in some way to go around.

I doubt a big company like Wal Mart would be suddenly discriminatory if they were able to legally. However, smaller businesses might, mom-n-pop stores, or even places like Wal Mart at the local level. As I said, I am not certain of how it would play out, I just am far too cynical to be optimistic.

 

[freedombecki]

It's called freedom. How hard is that to understand?

Freedom means you are free to do as you wish, knowing there are consequences.

If a store owner wants to put up "Chinese only", with freedom the person can. If there are enough Chinese to support his business, good for him. If not, or if the majority of Chinese decide not to shop there because he won't allow others, then the business fails.

Freedom means unless you directly harm someone (discrimination doesn't count), you do as you wish.

But your big girl panties on. Pussies aren't fit to be free.

Its called stupid. Who wants to drive on streets with people loaded on drugs like heroin, cocaine and marijuana and god only know what else. Meth heads are the most dangerous because it makes them paranoid.
Druggies on the streeets is a danger to us all.

Well said.

A druggie does not have the right to take other people's lives away by using whatever he "feels like" taking that could kill somebody else.
And I hope a judge throws the book at that creep driving a car while yapping it up on his cell phone - right into a man in a wheelchair at Second and Center streets several years ago.

Driving still matters.

 

[freedombecki]

Not just Marijuana...all drugs...crack, coke, meth, heroin...all drugs legalized.

Discuss.

Ron Paul 2012.

That makes no sense to me. First, his budget cuts are going to reduce the police force severely, then turn loose the drug dogs on the street to do hit and runs of citizens with nobody minding the laws of the road?

Good holy grief.

 

[Zona]

Do you own your own body? If so, then by what right does anybody tell you what you can or can't ingest, inhale, inject, or otherwise into it?

I dont want a drunk or cracked out ass hole in front of me on the highway.

Is your question also geared towards military members? Police? Teachers? Heavy equipment workers? Who exactly?

 

[Zona]

It's called freedom. How hard is that to understand?

Freedom means you are free to do as you wish, knowing there are consequences.

If a store owner wants to put up "Chinese only", with freedom the person can. If there are enough Chinese to support his business, good for him. If not, or if the majority of Chinese decide not to shop there because he won't allow others, then the business fails.

Freedom means unless you directly harm someone (discrimination doesn't count), you do as you want.

Wipe your tears. Pussies aren't fit to be free.

I agree, freedom means freedom. You deny blacks & they burn your joint down. That is freedom and equality. LOL!!