"The Trouble with Rand Paul"

[thanatos144]

That's quite a stretch. Ending the drug war is shrinking government, not growing it.

Really? cause the department they will make to regulate and tax drugs not to mention the money it will cost to take care of all the junkies???? LOL I live in reality friend and this isnt a magical action and before you say it it is not like beer cause I can have one drink and NOT get wasted.

Someone could have one joint and not get high. Regardless, who wants them to make a department or tax drugs or pay for treatment of people who hurt themselves by using drugs? Nobody. Even with all of that, however, there's the moral aspect that every person inherently owns their own body. If they want to pollute it with drugs and alcohol nobody, not even the government, has the right to stop them.

Thats a lie. You can not smoke one joint and not get high. I know this from personal experience.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Really? cause the department they will make to regulate and tax drugs not to mention the money it will cost to take care of all the junkies???? LOL I live in reality friend and this isnt a magical action and before you say it it is not like beer cause I can have one drink and NOT get wasted.

Someone could have one joint and not get high. Regardless, who wants them to make a department or tax drugs or pay for treatment of people who hurt themselves by using drugs? Nobody. Even with all of that, however, there's the moral aspect that every person inherently owns their own body. If they want to pollute it with drugs and alcohol nobody, not even the government, has the right to stop them.

Thats a lie. You can not smoke one joint and not get high. I know this from personal experience.

Allow me to rephrase. One drink of alcohol does impair you in some capacity, in some cases it won't be noticeable but it does happen regardless. One joint does impair you in some capacity as well, but it doesn't necessarily have to be noticeable. Also, since you apparently "know this from personal experience," perhaps you also know that not all weed is created equal from personal experience.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hey fool maybe you should try again cause I dont want government to grow and you seem to with making drugs legal LOL ******* hypocrite.

Here let me give you a pop quiz today.

Which of the following people wants government big enough to regulate what plants people grow, what's in the air they breath, and what they do to themselves in the privacy of their own home?

A.) Dr. Drock
B.) thanatos144

Which of the following people wants the government to continue spending $500 per second on the drug war?

A.) Dr. Drock
B.) thanatos144

It's a pretty simple quiz, not even you should screw this up.

How foolish of you to think it will cost less to regulate it LOL

What do you think is more expensive, the cost to regulate alcohol and tobacco sales or the war on drugs?

Drug War Clock | DrugSense

There's been almost $20 billion spent on the war on drugs so far this year and it's barely more than half over.

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2013summary/pdf/fy13-atf-bud-summary.pdf

The entire 2012 budget for the alcohol and tobacco sections of the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms was $23 million.

 

[thanatos144]

Someone could have one joint and not get high. Regardless, who wants them to make a department or tax drugs or pay for treatment of people who hurt themselves by using drugs? Nobody. Even with all of that, however, there's the moral aspect that every person inherently owns their own body. If they want to pollute it with drugs and alcohol nobody, not even the government, has the right to stop them.

Thats a lie. You can not smoke one joint and not get high. I know this from personal experience.

Allow me to rephrase. One drink of alcohol does impair you in some capacity, in some cases it won't be noticeable but it does happen regardless. One joint does impair you in some capacity as well, but it doesn't necessarily have to be noticeable. Also, since you apparently "know this from personal experience," perhaps you also know that not all weed is created equal from personal experience.

Impair? Lets see.....Nope ...Cause depending on the drink I will still be sober....One joint ... I would be fucked up. Now I dont drink and drive ...hell I seldom drink. Before we get all into this conversation you need to know that if a bill is made and passed that makes Pot legal I really wouldn't care I just understand the reality that it will grow government. I can not will not EVER agree to harder drugs being legal having again seen first hand what they do.

 

[thanatos144]

Here let me give you a pop quiz today.

Which of the following people wants government big enough to regulate what plants people grow, what's in the air they breath, and what they do to themselves in the privacy of their own home?

A.) Dr. Drock
B.) thanatos144

Which of the following people wants the government to continue spending $500 per second on the drug war?

A.) Dr. Drock
B.) thanatos144

It's a pretty simple quiz, not even you should screw this up.

How foolish of you to think it will cost less to regulate it LOL

What do you think is more expensive, the cost to regulate alcohol and tobacco sales or the war on drugs?

Drug War Clock | DrugSense

There's been almost $20 billion spent on the war on drugs so far this year and it's barely more than half over.

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2013summary/pdf/fy13-atf-bud-summary.pdf

The entire 2012 budget for the alcohol and tobacco sections of the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms was $23 million.

You liberal moron. Understand this. You will not save money or shrink government any iota if you made drugs legal....Most likely you would increase cost and grow government to deal with your ignorance of the consequences of a flood of legal drugs.

 

[Dr.Drock]

How foolish of you to think it will cost less to regulate it LOL

What do you think is more expensive, the cost to regulate alcohol and tobacco sales or the war on drugs?

Drug War Clock | DrugSense

There's been almost $20 billion spent on the war on drugs so far this year and it's barely more than half over.

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2013summary/pdf/fy13-atf-bud-summary.pdf

The entire 2012 budget for the alcohol and tobacco sections of the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms was $23 million.

You liberal moron. Understand this. You will not save money or shrink government any iota if you made drugs legal....Most likely you would increase cost and grow government to deal with your ignorance of the consequences of a flood of legal drugs.

I provide facts with credible links to back them, you provide insults.

Let me know when you acquire the ability to talk like a grown up.

 

[thanatos144]

What do you think is more expensive, the cost to regulate alcohol and tobacco sales or the war on drugs?

Drug War Clock | DrugSense

There's been almost $20 billion spent on the war on drugs so far this year and it's barely more than half over.

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2013summary/pdf/fy13-atf-bud-summary.pdf

The entire 2012 budget for the alcohol and tobacco sections of the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms was $23 million.

You liberal moron. Understand this. You will not save money or shrink government any iota if you made drugs legal....Most likely you would increase cost and grow government to deal with your ignorance of the consequences of a flood of legal drugs.

I provide facts with credible links to back them, you provide insults.

Let me know when you acquire the ability to talk like a grown up.

You provide nothing. You say it costs so much money to keep drugs illegal but you dpont show how much it will cost after they are legal????? Why cause you ******* cant. All you would do is trade one cost for another and more regulation and bigger government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thats a lie. You can not smoke one joint and not get high. I know this from personal experience.

Allow me to rephrase. One drink of alcohol does impair you in some capacity, in some cases it won't be noticeable but it does happen regardless. One joint does impair you in some capacity as well, but it doesn't necessarily have to be noticeable. Also, since you apparently "know this from personal experience," perhaps you also know that not all weed is created equal from personal experience.

Impair? Lets see.....Nope ...Cause depending on the drink I will still be sober....One joint ... I would be fucked up. Now I dont drink and drive ...hell I seldom drink. Before we get all into this conversation you need to know that if a bill is made and passed that makes Pot legal I really wouldn't care I just understand the reality that it will grow government. I can not will not EVER agree to harder drugs being legal having again seen first hand what they do.

Yes, it does impair you to some degree, but, like I said, it may not be noticeable at first. Poison is still poison, even if you don't ingest a lot of it.

As for legalizing harder drugs, again, every person owns their own body. You don't have the right to tell me what I can do with my own body, and neither does Barack Obama or any number of Congressmen and Senators.

 

[dblack]

Hey fool maybe you should try again cause I dont want government to grow and you seem to with making drugs legal LOL ******* hypocrite.

Here let me give you a pop quiz today.

Which of the following people wants government big enough to regulate what plants people grow, what's in the air they breath, and what they do to themselves in the privacy of their own home?

A.) Dr. Drock
B.) thanatos144

Which of the following people wants the government to continue spending $500 per second on the drug war?

A.) Dr. Drock
B.) thanatos144

It's a pretty simple quiz, not even you should screw this up.

How foolish of you to think it will cost less to regulate it LOL

It's quite far-fetched to imagine that legalization would cost taxpayers more than prohibition, but thanatos raises a good point.

As obvious as it is that the drug war should end, and as straightforward and simple as ending it should be, it's almost a certainty that our government would **** it up.

I was reading a few days ago about proposals to 'privatize' liquor sales in Pennsylvania. Currently we can only buy liquor via state owned and operated outlets. The plans to end the "state drug dealer" function are of course turning into a byzantine corporatist fiasco. Every 'major player' involved has descended on the state house lobbying reps for perks and advantage. What could be as simple as closing up shop has turned into a corrupt free-for-all designed to enhance state power, not diminish it.

I imagine something similar would happen if and when they approach legalizing pot (or other recreational drugs). Bloated agencies and programs would be created to hand out limited distribution rights (only to well represented corporate interests of course) and regulators would stay busy cooking up new ways to enhance their power. The entire process would be a festival of political gaming.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You liberal moron. Understand this. You will not save money or shrink government any iota if you made drugs legal....Most likely you would increase cost and grow government to deal with your ignorance of the consequences of a flood of legal drugs.

I provide facts with credible links to back them, you provide insults.

Let me know when you acquire the ability to talk like a grown up.

You provide nothing. You say it costs so much money to keep drugs illegal but you dpont show how much it will cost after they are legal????? Why cause you ******* cant. All you would do is trade one cost for another and more regulation and bigger government.

Well I provided a link to show how much it costs to keep 2 gov't approved drugs legal, $23 million a year, and I provided a link to show how much it costs to keep gov't unapproved drugs illegal, $19 billion in 6 months.

Now apply a little common sense to that and it's pretty easy to see who's more pro-liberty, who's more fiscally conservative and who wants a smaller federal gov't out of the 2 of us.

 

[Paulie]

What bullshit How do we know this?????Cause we can see how cigarettes are is how drugs will be....Nothing but a cash cow for the government and another reason for MORE and MORE government.....How very non conservative of you to wish this LMAO

I'm a social liberal, I don't want gov't regulating what plants people can grow, what's in the air they breath and what they do to themselves in the privacy of their own home. You being an authoritarian statist, demand gov't regulates these things.

Only the biggest brain dead idiot would think ending the trillions we've spent on the war on drugs would result in more gov't.

Common sense tells you american farmers would start growing cannabis because it'd make them a lot of money.

Social liberal means full liberal

Oh my god just go kill yourself please

 

[Oddball]

Here let me give you a pop quiz today.

Which of the following people wants government big enough to regulate what plants people grow, what's in the air they breath, and what they do to themselves in the privacy of their own home?

A.) Dr. Drock
B.) thanatos144

Which of the following people wants the government to continue spending $500 per second on the drug war?

A.) Dr. Drock
B.) thanatos144

It's a pretty simple quiz, not even you should screw this up.

How foolish of you to think it will cost less to regulate it LOL

It's quite far-fetched to imagine that legalization would cost taxpayers more than prohibition, but thanatos raises a good point.

As obvious as it is that the drug war should end, and as straightforward and simple as ending it should be, it's almost a certainty that our government would **** it up.

I was reading a few days ago about proposals to 'privatize' liquor sales in Pennsylvania. Currently we can only buy liquor via state owned and operated outlets. The plans to end the "state drug dealer" function are of course turning into a byzantine corporatist fiasco. Every 'major player' involved has descended on the state house lobbying reps for perks and advantage. What could be as simple as closing up shop has turned into a corrupt free-for-all designed to enhance state power, not diminish it.

I imagine something similar would happen if and when they approach legalizing pot (or other recreational drugs). Bloated agencies and programs would be created to hand out limited distribution rights (only to well represented corporate interests of course) and regulators would stay busy cooking up new ways to enhance their power. The entire process would be a festival of political gaming.

Or not, seeing as even the lowliest of amateurs could just grow it in their backyard.

 

[Paulie]

Hey fool maybe you should try again cause I dont want government to grow and you seem to with making drugs legal LOL ******* hypocrite.

That's quite a stretch. Ending the drug war is shrinking government, not growing it.

Really? cause the department they will make to regulate and tax drugs not to mention the money it will cost to take care of all the junkies???? LOL I live in reality friend and this isnt a magical action and before you say it it is not like beer cause I can have one drink and NOT get wasted.

They're going to create a whole new department just to regulate and tax drugs huh?

How about this...The ATF is perfectly capable of adding marijuana to its agenda, and of course the IRS already exists for taxation in this country...so pray tell, what on earth would make you think there would be brand new departments for this?

 

[Paulie]

This ******* thanatos cat is LOST

 

[Oddball]

This ******* thanatos cat is LOST

Always has been, dude.

 

[Paulie]

How much money and resources would be saved if the DEA was shit canned?

I'm curious.

 

[Paulie]

This ******* thanatos cat is LOST

Always has been, dude.

Quickly becoming the Truthmatters of the right around here, and there's some pretty good competition there as it is.

 

[Paulie]

Drug Enforcement Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The total cost of the DEA from 1972 to 2009 according to the agency website was $536,367,800,000.00 with 10,784 employees in 2009. For the data available for the years 1986 to 2009, the average cost per arrest made was $9,893.09

Half a TRILLION dollars spent as of 2009. $10k to make one arrest.

I can't imagine it costing anywhere NEAR that to just legalize it and add it to the ATF's agenda.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Interesting, and surprising, historical fact: Murray Rothbard endorsed George Bush in 1992.

As often happens, my current quandary was put best by my old friend, Prof. Ralph Raico. He was an ardent Buchananite, but as the horrible nomination of "Slick Willie" loomed, he began to admonish me, in his hilarious mocking half-serious tone: "Remember Murray, we must do nothing to harm the President." When the Perot phenomenon hit, Raico, for some unaccountable reason, failed to share my enthusiasm for the little punk from East Texas. After the Great Betrayal, I was ranting and raving over the phone to Raico, who took it all in, and then concluded: "I'm glad to see you're working your way back to the President."

Yes, gulp, I'm down to the grim, realistic choice: Which of two sets of bozos is going to rule us in 1993-1997?

No one has been more critical of George Bush than I, but yes, dammit, I am working my way back to the President. What? "Four More Years?" Yes, there is only one rational answer for the conservative, the libertarian, or indeed any sensible American.

COLUMN RIGHT/ MURRAY N. ROTHBARD : Hold Back the Hordes for 4 More Years : Any sensible American has one real choice--George Bush. - Los Angeles Times

David Gordon has responded to this.

Murray Rothbard's remarks on the 1992 election make clear that for him the dominant issue was foreign policy. He thought that the first George Bush was less a warmonger than Clinton and also that Bush had a more evenhanded policy on the Middle East than his Democratic rival. If this true, it is not altogether clear how Rothbard's remarks can be taken to excuse an endorsement of Mitt Romney. Unlike the senior Bush, Romney thinks that we need a more aggressive foreign policy. Given the extensive financial support he has received from Sheldon Adelman, and the even extensive support for him which has been promised from that source, an evenhanded policy on the Middle East is the last thing one can expect from him.

Rothbard on the 1992 Election « LewRockwell.com Blog

 

[dblack]

How foolish of you to think it will cost less to regulate it LOL

It's quite far-fetched to imagine that legalization would cost taxpayers more than prohibition, but thanatos raises a good point.

As obvious as it is that the drug war should end, and as straightforward and simple as ending it should be, it's almost a certainty that our government would **** it up.

I was reading a few days ago about proposals to 'privatize' liquor sales in Pennsylvania. Currently we can only buy liquor via state owned and operated outlets. The plans to end the "state drug dealer" function are of course turning into a byzantine corporatist fiasco. Every 'major player' involved has descended on the state house lobbying reps for perks and advantage. What could be as simple as closing up shop has turned into a corrupt free-for-all designed to enhance state power, not diminish it.

I imagine something similar would happen if and when they approach legalizing pot (or other recreational drugs). Bloated agencies and programs would be created to hand out limited distribution rights (only to well represented corporate interests of course) and regulators would stay busy cooking up new ways to enhance their power. The entire process would be a festival of political gaming.

Or not, seeing as even the lowliest of amateurs could just grow it in their backyard.

Assuming it was allowed. Is it that far fetched to imagine that a legalization 'deal' would maintain a ban on personal production? Isn't that the sort of deal we have worked out now with big pharma and the FDA?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against legalization. I'm just not particularly optimistic that it would work out well. Government is like a screw that only turns in one direction. No matter what we think it's doing, it will always seek out more power.