Ron Paul on drugs.

If the legal age were set to 30. I think the average 30 year old has the gray matter to know it's a bad idea to inject themselves with a syringe full of smack and if they don't, then I have no problem with social Darwinism in that regard.

By 30, you should know better.

30?? really? ok, but then after that (assuming our little fiction of a foolproof way to keep it away from them until then) you'd be ok with people doing whatever drugs they wanted?

I wasn't really trying to 'entrap' you or anything. But my experience has been that most people in favor of prohibition are worried about more than just the children. They feel that, essentially, government should treat all of us as children - deciding what's best for us and protecting from our own poor judgement. And I can't really square that with a free society.

No, with me, it's basically about kids making poor decisions that will affect them the rest of their life.

It's hard enough to keep it away from them now. I think our sense of social liberties can take a hit in order to try and perpetuate a society of people who don't have shot livers, track marks, meth mouth, and shot nasal sinuses.
 
That's my argument against legalizing certain drugs.

I'll admit it's a "think of the children" argument, but that's relevant...

I suspect it's more than 'think of the children'. For the sake of clarity, indulge me in a 'thought experiment'. If the protection of children weren't an issue at all - if there was some rock solid way to keep dangerous drugs away from kids - would you still argue for prohibition?

If the legal age were set to 30. I think the average 30 year old has the gray matter to know it's a bad idea to inject themselves with a syringe full of smack and if they don't, then I have no problem with social Darwinism in that regard.

By 30, you should know better.

Why not just make it illegal to sell it? No one has a right to make a profit selling poison, after all.
 
I suspect it's more than 'think of the children'. For the sake of clarity, indulge me in a 'thought experiment'. If the protection of children weren't an issue at all - if there was some rock solid way to keep dangerous drugs away from kids - would you still argue for prohibition?

If the legal age were set to 30. I think the average 30 year old has the gray matter to know it's a bad idea to inject themselves with a syringe full of smack and if they don't, then I have no problem with social Darwinism in that regard.

By 30, you should know better.

Why not just make it illegal to sell it? No one has a right to make a profit selling poison, after all.

Because that would make life ten times easier for the criminals. I mean, they really profit from the current system. Imagine how fucking rich they would get if we eliminated all risk for their customer base?
 
If you want to stuff your body full of meth, cocaine whatever,I don't care. Make it all legal. If you want to support your habit with crime THEN you should go to jail for a long time which will be possible because they will be about empty with the drug laws being repealed. Want to overdose and kill yourself, so be it.
 
No, with me, it's basically about kids making poor decisions that will affect them the rest of their life.

FWIW, I'm with you on that. Though 30 seems a little silly. If a person is old enough to go off to war, they're old enough to make these kinds of decisions for themselves.

It's hard enough to keep it away from them now. I think our sense of social liberties can take a hit in order to try and perpetuate a society of people who don't have shot livers, track marks, meth mouth, and shot nasal sinuses.

Couple of things. First, illegal drugs were more available to me and my friends in high school than they are now as adults. Furthermore, illegal drugs were more available than the legal ones. (it was easier to score a joint in junior high than a fifth of whiskey.) I'm not convinced prohibition protects children as much as it promotes their victimization. The gangs and dealers recruit minors as mules and the lure of easy money is particularly insidious for poor urban youth.

Second, I don't think it's the governments job to define the virtuous life and push society toward it. Government is a tool that allows us to get along despite having differing values and goals. it's not there to decide for us what those values and goals must be.
 
I suspect it's more than 'think of the children'. For the sake of clarity, indulge me in a 'thought experiment'. If the protection of children weren't an issue at all - if there was some rock solid way to keep dangerous drugs away from kids - would you still argue for prohibition?

If the legal age were set to 30. I think the average 30 year old has the gray matter to know it's a bad idea to inject themselves with a syringe full of smack and if they don't, then I have no problem with social Darwinism in that regard.

By 30, you should know better.

Why not just make it illegal to sell it? No one has a right to make a profit selling poison, after all.

I disagree.

Signed,
Terminex Guy




Mike
 
No, with me, it's basically about kids making poor decisions that will affect them the rest of their life.

FWIW, I'm with you on that. Though 30 seems a little silly. If a person is old enough to go off to war, they're old enough to make these kinds of decisions for themselves.

It's hard enough to keep it away from them now. I think our sense of social liberties can take a hit in order to try and perpetuate a society of people who don't have shot livers, track marks, meth mouth, and shot nasal sinuses.

Couple of things. First, illegal drugs were more available to me and my friends in high school than they are now as adults. Furthermore, illegal drugs were more available than the legal ones. (it was easier to score a joint in junior high than a fifth of whiskey.) I'm not convinced prohibition protects children as much as it promotes their victimization. The gangs and dealers recruit minors as mules and the lure of easy money is particularly insidious for poor urban youth.

Second, I don't think it's the governments job to define the virtuous life and push society toward it. Government is a tool that allows us to get along despite having differing values and goals. it's not there to decide for us what those values and goals must be.

Define "Illegal drugs". Are we talking about MJ or heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine?

I am not concerned with virtue. I am concerned with wasting a generation to drugs and the cost that the rest of us will bear from that before we figure out this was a bad fucking idea.
 
If the legal age were set to 30. I think the average 30 year old has the gray matter to know it's a bad idea to inject themselves with a syringe full of smack and if they don't, then I have no problem with social Darwinism in that regard.

By 30, you should know better.

30?? really? ok, but then after that (assuming our little fiction of a foolproof way to keep it away from them until then) you'd be ok with people doing whatever drugs they wanted?

I wasn't really trying to 'entrap' you or anything. But my experience has been that most people in favor of prohibition are worried about more than just the children. They feel that, essentially, government should treat all of us as children - deciding what's best for us and protecting from our own poor judgement. And I can't really square that with a free society.

No, with me, it's basically about kids making poor decisions that will affect them the rest of their life.

It's hard enough to keep it away from them now. I think our sense of social liberties can take a hit in order to try and perpetuate a society of people who don't have shot livers, track marks, meth mouth, and shot nasal sinuses.

No offense but it isn't the government's job to parent your child.

Mike
 
If the legal age were set to 30. I think the average 30 year old has the gray matter to know it's a bad idea to inject themselves with a syringe full of smack and if they don't, then I have no problem with social Darwinism in that regard.

By 30, you should know better.

Why not just make it illegal to sell it? No one has a right to make a profit selling poison, after all.

Because that would make life ten times easier for the criminals. I mean, they really profit from the current system. Imagine how fucking rich they would get if we eliminated all risk for their customer base?

Only a small percentage of criminals really profit from the current system. Most low level street dealers make less than the minimum wage and still live at home with their mothers.

However, people rather tie up our public safety resources going after low level street dealers than actual crime and people higher up the food chain. When this policy fails, what happens? It just gets more funding.

The War on Drugs is America's longest and most expensive war. It is time to give up failed ideas and policies.
 
30?? really? ok, but then after that (assuming our little fiction of a foolproof way to keep it away from them until then) you'd be ok with people doing whatever drugs they wanted?

I wasn't really trying to 'entrap' you or anything. But my experience has been that most people in favor of prohibition are worried about more than just the children. They feel that, essentially, government should treat all of us as children - deciding what's best for us and protecting from our own poor judgement. And I can't really square that with a free society.

No, with me, it's basically about kids making poor decisions that will affect them the rest of their life.

It's hard enough to keep it away from them now. I think our sense of social liberties can take a hit in order to try and perpetuate a society of people who don't have shot livers, track marks, meth mouth, and shot nasal sinuses.

No offense but it isn't the government's job to parent your child.

Mike

Already addressed.

BTW, I don't have any children, so none taken.

If you do, and you would want to facilitate a situation where your daughter is going to get advice on how much smack to stick in their arm from some skeezy 35 year old junky and his dirty needle, I question your sanity.

If you think that all the best raising in the world is going to keep your kids from making a bad decision, the I question your memory. Or maybe you've been a Saint your whole life, I don't know.

Either way, outlawing dangerous drugs doesn't equate to the government "raising your kids".
 
Why not just make it illegal to sell it? No one has a right to make a profit selling poison, after all.

Because that would make life ten times easier for the criminals. I mean, they really profit from the current system. Imagine how fucking rich they would get if we eliminated all risk for their customer base?

Only a small percentage of criminals really profit from the current system. Most low level street dealers make less than the minimum wage and still live at home with their mothers.

However, people rather tie up our public safety resources going after low level street dealers than actual crime and people higher up the food chain. When this policy fails, what happens? It just gets more funding.

The War on Drugs is America's longest and most expensive war. It is time to give up failed ideas and policies.

Yes. I've read Freakonomics too.

I never said the War on Drugs was a smashing success. I just don't think blanket legality is the right solution to poor policy.
 
No, with me, it's basically about kids making poor decisions that will affect them the rest of their life.

It's hard enough to keep it away from them now. I think our sense of social liberties can take a hit in order to try and perpetuate a society of people who don't have shot livers, track marks, meth mouth, and shot nasal sinuses.

No offense but it isn't the government's job to parent your child.

Mike

Already addressed.

BTW, I don't have any children, so none taken.

If you do, and you would want to facilitate a situation where your daughter is going to get advice on how much smack to stick in their arm from some skeezy 35 year old junky and his dirty needle, I question your sanity.

If you think that all the best raising in the world is going to keep your kids from making a bad decision, the I question your memory. Or maybe you've been a Saint your whole life, I don't know.

Either way, outlawing dangerous drugs doesn't equate to the government "raising your kids".

I don't want my son to do a lot of things. Some of them are things that are legal. I am not asking the government to make them illegal even though I think they are stupid and irresponsible. I view drug use much the same way. Will my son mess with drugs? I hope not. Do you think them being legal affects that? Probably not. My parenting and the involvement that I have in his life will have a lot more to do with that than anything.

Mike
 
No offense but it isn't the government's job to parent your child.

Mike

Already addressed.

BTW, I don't have any children, so none taken.

If you do, and you would want to facilitate a situation where your daughter is going to get advice on how much smack to stick in their arm from some skeezy 35 year old junky and his dirty needle, I question your sanity.

If you think that all the best raising in the world is going to keep your kids from making a bad decision, the I question your memory. Or maybe you've been a Saint your whole life, I don't know.

Either way, outlawing dangerous drugs doesn't equate to the government "raising your kids".

I don't want my son to do a lot of things. Some of them are things that are legal. I am not asking the government to make them illegal even though I think they are stupid and irresponsible. I view drug use much the same way. Will my son mess with drugs? I hope not. Do you think them being legal affects that? Probably not. My parenting and the involvement that I have in his life will have a lot more to do with that than anything.

Mike

You don't think illegality acts as a deterrence for drugs like heroin, meth, and cocaine for high school kids?

I mean, I saw a lot of pot in High School. The sentencing for pot is pretty mild. It was college before I saw anything harder than that (cocaine).
 
Because that would make life ten times easier for the criminals. I mean, they really profit from the current system. Imagine how fucking rich they would get if we eliminated all risk for their customer base?

Only a small percentage of criminals really profit from the current system. Most low level street dealers make less than the minimum wage and still live at home with their mothers.

However, people rather tie up our public safety resources going after low level street dealers than actual crime and people higher up the food chain. When this policy fails, what happens? It just gets more funding.

The War on Drugs is America's longest and most expensive war. It is time to give up failed ideas and policies.

Yes. I've read Freakonomics too.

I never said the War on Drugs was a smashing success. I just don't think blanket legality is the right solution to poor policy.

And Ron Paul never proposed such a thing, did he?
 
Only a small percentage of criminals really profit from the current system. Most low level street dealers make less than the minimum wage and still live at home with their mothers.

However, people rather tie up our public safety resources going after low level street dealers than actual crime and people higher up the food chain. When this policy fails, what happens? It just gets more funding.

The War on Drugs is America's longest and most expensive war. It is time to give up failed ideas and policies.

Yes. I've read Freakonomics too.

I never said the War on Drugs was a smashing success. I just don't think blanket legality is the right solution to poor policy.

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.
 
Yes. I've read Freakonomics too.

I never said the War on Drugs was a smashing success. I just don't think blanket legality is the right solution to poor policy.

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.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I've read Freakonomics too.

I never said the War on Drugs was a smashing success. I just don't think blanket legality is the right solution to poor policy.

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.

Why don't you trust the States to create their own criminal codes? Has murder been legalized anywhere? What about rape? What about arson? What about drunk driving?

You nationalists are the radicals.
 
If the legal age were set to 30. I think the average 30 year old has the gray matter to know it's a bad idea to inject themselves with a syringe full of smack and if they don't, then I have no problem with social Darwinism in that regard.

By 30, you should know better.

Why not just make it illegal to sell it? No one has a right to make a profit selling poison, after all.

Because that would make life ten times easier for the criminals. I mean, they really profit from the current system. Imagine how fucking rich they would get if we eliminated all risk for their customer base?
I see your point. Still, it's hard not to compare it to prohibition.

I think 25 would be a better age as that seems to be a tipping point with rationality (going by insurance company statistics). And move up the age of consent to that while we are at it.
 
Drugs are not all the same and, thus, shouldn't be lumped into a common category. pot =/ meth and making pot legal should not infer any kind of logic to make meth legal. I wouldn't mind removing the Fed from the equation and letting states make their own choices though. I doubt, even if some legalize pot, any will legalize the harder drugs.


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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top