Raw Story: Ron Paul jokes: ‘I don’t want to use heroin’ so I need drug laws

[sailingaway]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/05/ron-paul-jokes-i-dont-want-to-use-heroin-so-i-need-drug-laws/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7Zp41fByE&feature=player_embedded#t=144s

[MikeStanart]

A nice kick-off to the campaign. That was an unscripted, great come-back by the good Doctor!

+rep

[nobody's_hero]

It was a great way for the doctor to inject humor into the issue to highlight how ludicrous we can be with our laws. :D

I think he should follow up though, if he wants to appeal to older GOP social conservatives, by driving home the fact that communities/churches and the like are better suited to dealing with the drug war than the Federal government, which has used the 'War on Drugs' to grow government since it started with alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century.

Gary Johnson helped though, by stating that these drug users are better qualified to be patients than criminals, and that change in perception alone would be a huge improvement in the way we're handling the war on drugs.

[AGRP]

Looks like Carl 'toe suck' Rove will be voting for Ron Paul.

[nate895]

Gary Johnson helped though, by stating that these drug users are better qualified to be patients than criminals, and that change in perception alone would be a huge improvement in the way we're handling the war on drugs.

Yes, what was weird about this is that Johnson is more outspoken about wanting to legalize drugs than Paul, but he answered the question much better than Paul did. I think if Paul would have emphasized that the drug problem needs to be solved by churches and not by the criminal justice system, he could have scored a lot more points with the conservative base. I think we need to emphasize that by punishing something we are making it a matter for the criminal justice system, and there are only a few cases where I think the government actually needs to wield the sword to suppress wrongdoing.

[R3volutionJedi]

I liked this come back. Maybe it's not some people's style. but it adds to his charm I suppose.

[torchbearer]

I don't want to use heroin, so i need government laws to keep me from using it.

[Romulus]

I completely lost it with his comeback! He still retains such personal charm even when mocking the hosts.. I felt like after this quip the whole setting was a lot more relaxed.

[anaconda]

Looks like Carl 'toe suck' Rove will be voting for Ron Paul.

Really? Link?

[BuddyRey]

I actually thought that was the single best soundbyte in the entire debate. Ron couldn't have done a better job at defusing that question and putting the burden of proof back on the drug warriors, where it belongs.

Remember guys...it's not our job to show why the Drug War should be ended...it's their job to demonstrate why it should be continued; something they have been woefully incapable of doing for decades now. Ron put the Drug Warriors on the defensive for once, and it worked like a charm!

[BuddyRey]

Even MOXNEWS is covering this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJow2ALVirk

[Indy Vidual]

I completely lost it with his comeback! He still retains such personal charm even when mocking the hosts.. I felt like after this quip the whole setting was a lot more relaxed.


I actually thought that was the single best soundbyte in the entire debate. Ron couldn't have done a better job at defusing that question and putting the burden of proof back on the drug warriors, where it belongs.

Remember guys...it's not our job to show why the Drug War should be ended...it's their job to demonstrate why it should be continued; something they have been woefully incapable of doing for decades now. Ron put the Drug Warriors on the defensive for once, and it worked like a charm!

I liked it too. :)

[speciallyblend]

I actually thought that was the single best soundbyte in the entire debate. Ron couldn't have done a better job at defusing that question and putting the burden of proof back on the drug warriors, where it belongs.

Remember guys...it's not our job to show why the Drug War should be ended...it's their job to demonstrate why it should be continued; something they have been woefully incapable of doing for decades now. Ron put the Drug Warriors on the defensive for once, and it worked like a charm!

yep

[BuddyRey]

Can I get a pre-dawn bump?! ;)

[Texan4Life]

Best answer of the debate! the fact that the crowed loved it and cheered is icing on the cake!!

[devil21]

The place went nuts at the "govt needs to take care of me" part! It got BY FAR the most audience applause of any part of the debate.

[Batman]

I loved it. That'll do for "best one liner".

Did you see how angry the questioners were at his answer. It's like they were forced to eat soggy bread dipped in vinegar.

[BucksforPaul]

I loved it. That'll do for "best one liner".

Did you see how angry the questioners were at his answer. It's like they were forced to eat soggy bread dipped in vinegar.

Yes and did anyone else notice how the so called "moderators" rolled their eyes like adolescent children whenever Dr. Paul spoke the truth? I could see those being used in a youtube montage while in slow motion.

[S.Shorland]

The questioners were MORE angry at his reply to the Israel question. Look at Williams' face after Ron's answer.Williams LIED about Paul's position Re Israel and although Ron didn't point out the lie,he gave a very good answer.It is up to the campaign TODAY to point out the lie in the question so it does not happen again on such a CRITICAL issue.

[tasteless]

haha, he calls Ron Paul "Senator"

[ronpaulitician]

I use the same line of thinking when people say that if there were no drug laws, everyone would start using. "You would?" "Well, no, not me. But others." "Your wife? Your parents? Your friends?" And then the argument basically comes down to "No, but people inferior to me and my beloved would."

I for one thought this was the highpoint of the debate.

[sailingaway]

I do think Ron has to keep the wider GOP primary audience in mind, though. I think Fox is trying to marginalize him this time on what primary voters consider the more 'out there' side of libertarian positions.

[parocks]

What is his position on this? I coulda sworn it was "let the states decided". If so, why is he acting as if any state would legalize heroin. It was certainly funny, but it leaves people with the impression that Ron Paul thinks heroin would be legal somewhere in the US. Is the idea to make all drugs legal, or to get the Fed Gov out of an area that it should not be in, Constitutionally?

[sailingaway]

What is his position on this? I coulda sworn it was "let the states decided". If so, why is he acting as if any state would legalize heroin. It was certainly funny, but it leaves people with the impression that Ron Paul thinks heroin would be legal somewhere in the US. Is the idea to make all drugs legal, or to get the Fed Gov out of an area that it should not be in, Constitutionally?

He did say that about states but Wallace pressed about whether heroin and prostitution were an exercise in liberty and Ron can't take a dare....:p

[jmdrake]

Great answer. Ron didn't have enough time, but I wish he had added the point that letting the states decide gay marriage is exactly what conservative South Carolinians should want or else the federal government will eventually decide that they have to accept gay marriage. Even better the government needs to disentangle itself from marriage by getting rid of the federal income tax and moving away from defined benefit insurance and pension plans to defined contribution plans were the individual owns the money and can do with it what he or she wants.

[Occam's Banana]

Wallace pressed about whether heroin and prostitution were an exercise in liberty and Ron can't take a dare....:p

Your points (here & elsewhere) about Ron needing to secure the support of GOP primary-goers are well taken. I agree.

But Ron really can't pass up a dare, can he? Bless his lion-heart!
If he could, he wouldn't be Ron - and we wouldn't be here.

[sailingaway]

Your points (here & elsewhere) about Ron needing to secure the support of GOP primary-goers are well taken. I agree.

But Ron really can't pass up a dare, can he? Bless his lion-heart!
If he could, he wouldn't be Ron - and we wouldn't be here.

Yeah, I'm torn between admiration and wanting him to win....

[V3n]

Heroin doesn't get applause - Liberty does!!

[speciallyblend]

Heroin doesn't get applause - Liberty does!!

exactly, as i remind folks the gop will alienate themselves as we grow!!!If the gop keeps trying to ignore what we are saying. The gop will eventually be ignored!! bottom line iof the gop does not change soon!! Then the gop will become irrelevant eventually in our lifetime! They can take that vote to the gold vault;)

[raystone]

Looks like Carl 'toe suck' Rove will be voting for Ron Paul.

You are thinking of slimeball Dick Morris

[idirtify]

What is his position on this? I coulda sworn it was "let the states decided". If so, why is he acting as if any state would legalize heroin. It was certainly funny, but it leaves people with the impression that Ron Paul thinks heroin would be legal somewhere in the US. Is the idea to make all drugs legal, or to get the Fed Gov out of an area that it should not be in, Constitutionally?

Yes, and yes. Why do you express concern? Are you one of the people Ron was mocking?

[JohnGalt1225]

This was my favorite moment of the debate.

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/05/ron-paul-jokes-i-dont-want-to-use-heroin-so-i-need-drug-laws/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7Zp41fByE&feature=player_embedded#t=144s

Good ol' Senator Paul!

If I had a dime for every time I heard someone call him a Senator... I'd have $0.20.

[ARealConservative]

Yes, and yes.

meth production is dangerous and no sane person would want it manufactured next door to them.

I for one was disappointed in his debate. We could do so much better then running another education campaign, but if we are going to get sucked into heroine issues, it will amount to nothing more then educating the slow and stupid, while remaining marginalized.

[Paulitical Correctness]

This was my favorite moment of the debate.

+1

[S.Shorland]

Meth production would probably void a home insurance policy.

[georgiaboy]

meth production is dangerous and no sane person would want it manufactured next door to them.

I for one was disappointed in his debate. We could do so much better then running another education campaign, but if we are going to get sucked into heroine issues, it will amount to nothing more then educating the slow and stupid, while remaining marginalized.

I understand where you're coming from I think, I share your concern, but I think this can be overcome in a few ways.

Firstly, though, Fox asked bogus non-essential questions for this campaign season and what Americans are really concerned about. Fox is genuinely to blame for going right after smearing Ron as the 'crazy libertarian' all over again.

However, Ron could've attempted to sidestep these lower-tiered issues and gone right into economics, big gov't, etc., but that's just not Ron. He answers questions that are given to him, and stands by his positions like no other. His answers this time around to these same questions were much better, and if he were to point to them as big gov't examples, he could take them right back around to the economy.

Ron could also call the moderators out and ask them point blank why on earth they're concerned about gay marriage and drugs when the economy is headed for ruin? I bet the "social conservative" South Carolina audience would've given him a standing ovation if he had put it right back on the moderators. Again, though, I don't think this is Ron. yet.

[extrmmxer]

I loved Paul's response. Instant classic.

[cubical]

Great comeback by Paul!

[AuH20]

Ron should have made it clear that we shouldn't subsidize heroin users habit, when they end up in publicly funded hospitals. I would have liked to hear him say that, instead of going exclusively for the freedom route minus the personal responsibilty angle. Sure, you can use whatever you want, but don't come crying to us when you're seeking unpayable medical treatment.

[speciallyblend]

What is his position on this? I coulda sworn it was "let the states decided". If so, why is he acting as if any state would legalize heroin. It was certainly funny, but it leaves people with the impression that Ron Paul thinks heroin would be legal somewhere in the US. Is the idea to make all drugs legal, or to get the Fed Gov out of an area that it should not be in, Constitutionally?

parocks what is ron running for president of the united states? or president of a state? I think it was pretty obvious he was talking about state rights ,since the war on drugs is being waged at the federal and state level depending on the state! That answers your question!! It is obvious as night and day that he was talking about the federal war on drugs since he isn't running for the president of a state but the united states!!

[falconplayer11]

I thought the response was great. It showed the absurdity of the drug war without boring the audience with statistics about the drug war and the "Constitutionality" of anti-drug laws.

[idirtify]

So it looks like we have at least two volunteers for the chopping block.

ARealConservative uses the excuse that making meth harms the neighbors. With such an obvious fallacy (a double fallacy, since legalizing meth would make home manufacture obsolete), ArealConservative is obviously scared shitless that without gumint he/she would be going out and snorting meth.

Georgiaboy agrees and proceeds to distract away from drug issues, thereby implying that he too is worried that he may not be able to protect his own urges from legal methamphetamine without help from gubmint.

You see, Ron actually made one of the BEST arguments. Since no prohibitionist’s reasoning is reasonable, the only thing left to assume is that they are afraid of their own inability to abstain from doing stupid things and needs the state to act as their nanny. So it only makes sense, when we hear the pablum rationalizations, to throw their infantilism right back at them.

[ARealConservative]

Ron should have made it clear that we shouldn't subsidize heroin users habit, when they end up in publicly funded hospitals. I would have liked to hear him say that, instead of going exclusively for the freedom route minus the personal responsibilty angle. Sure, you can use whatever you want, but don't come crying to us when you're seeking unpayable medical treatment.

That is a big part of my problem.

I fully support his views on drugs, but debate formats don't allow you to explain these things in a way that can appeal to the majority of voters. If they disagree initially, 2 minutes of talk time certainly won't sway them.

Anytime these issues come up, he first needs to chide the moderator for wasting time on legislation that belong to the states when so many more pressing federal matters exist, then he can give a flippant answer about freedom and that morality issues are not settled by government, but by churches and what not instead.

It certainly wouldn't hurt to conclude whatever method he uses to remind everyone that heroine would certainly remain illegal in each and every state even with a Ron Paul presidency, making the question an utter waste of time.

[idirtify]

Ron should have made it clear that we shouldn't subsidize heroin users habit, when they end up in publicly funded hospitals. I would have liked to hear him say that, instead of going exclusively for the freedom route minus the personal responsibilty angle. Sure, you can use whatever you want, but don't come crying to us when you're seeking unpayable medical treatment.

I suspect that if Ron were to make anything like that clear, he would point out the fact that way MORE people who can’t pay end up in hospitals for medical treatment BECAUSE OF PROHIBITION. Considering your nonsensical point, I must ask if you are one of the people Ron was ridiculing?

[idirtify]

It certainly wouldn't hurt to conclude whatever method he uses to remind everyone that heroine would certainly remain illegal in each and every state even with a Ron Paul presidency

That’s YOUR conclusion, NOT Ron’s.

[AuH20]

I suspect that if Ron were to make anything like that clear, he would point out the fact that way MORE people who can’t pay end up in hospitals for medical treatment BECAUSE OF PROHIBITION. Considering your nonsensical point, I must ask if you are one of the people Ron was ridiculing?

I think the point of the matter is the execution of free will. If someone wants use heroin and can handle it, more power to them. However, if they overdose, that's their problem as opposed to society's. Like Ron says, we're all adults, no babying. Freedom is a two way street. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk.

[idirtify]

I think the point of the matter is the execution of free will. If someone wants use heroin and can handle it, more power to them. However, if they overdose, that's their problem as opposed to society's. Like Ron says, we're all adults, no babying. Freedom is a two way street. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk.

Fine, but that wasn’t your original point, which was FOR continued prohibition. IOW, for your original point to be valid, you would have to argue AGAINST prohibition, since it’s the cause of far MORE unpaid hospital admittances.

[idirtify]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?291309-SAVE-ME-FROM-DRUGS-GOVERNMENT!-This-will-win-the-election-for-us./page5

If mockery is ever appropriate it is with things like the drug war, which sadly is still supported by popular opinion. Little else seems to successfully expose the fallacy of prohibition to these people. Reason and logic and good economics certainly don’t seem to get through. Maybe this will. And YES, I’m also talking to lots of folks right here on RPF who still demonstrate support for prohibition. In the spirit of the video, here’s a typical prohibitionist: “please gubmint, I is too stupid not to do dat heroin, it’s like, you know, it’s like hoos going to take care of me like like like if gubmint dusnt?”

[AuH20]

That is a big part of my problem.

I fully support his views on drugs, but debate formats don't allow you to explain these things in a way that can appeal to the majority of voters. If they disagree initially, 2 minutes of talk time certainly won't sway them.

Anytime these issues come up, he first needs to chide the moderator for wasting time on legislation that belong to the states when so many more pressing federal matters exist, then he can give a flippant answer about freedom and that morality issues are not settled by government, but by churches and what not instead.

It certainly wouldn't hurt to conclude whatever method he uses to remind everyone that heroine would certainly remain illegal in each and every state even with a Ron Paul presidency, making the question an utter waste of time.

Ron gives these prohibition hawks ammunition by sounding like an irresponsible dreamer, who will essentially subsidize the fallout of irresponsible drug users, without explaining his philosophy. Personal freedom cannot separated from personal responsibility. If you want to use, sorry but no methodone clinic. Bye bye. Drugs should be legal but the baby net should not exist. I bet ron would get a rousing ovation if he communicated this.

[AuH20]

Fine, but that wasn’t your original point, which was FOR continued prohibition. IOW, for your original point to be valid, you would have to argue AGAINST prohibition, since it’s the cause of far MORE unpaid hospital admittances.

You're saying prohibition primarily accounts for the epidemic of bad judgement? I think the cases would certainly shrink, but we would still have risktakers if drug prohibition was lifted. That's a human condition issue. People think they're invincible.

[idirtify]

You're saying prohibition primarily accounts for the epidemic of bad judgement? I think the cases would certainly shrink, but we would still have risktakers if drug prohibition was lifted. That's a human condition issue. People think they're invincible.

Do the fundamentals of prohibition have to be re and re and re explained?? Are you not familiar with the vast increase in violent crime that is a direct result of prohibition? Do you not think that increased crime results in increased (unpaid) hospital admissions? Per Ron, the only thing left to explain your inability to accept reason is your fear of your own ability to resist consumption of harmful addictive drugs.

[AuH20]

Do the fundamentals of prohibition have to be re and re and re explained?? Are you not familiar with the vast increase in violent crime that is a direct result of prohibition? Do you not think that increased crime results in increased (unpaid) hospital admissions? Per Ron, the only thing left to explain your inability to accept reason is your fear of your own ability to resist consumption of harmful addictive drugs.

Yes, there is a huge blackmarket fueling violence. However, even with that element removed, you would have people overdosing. The numbers would be diminished but it would still exist.

[Fredom101]

What is his position on this? I coulda sworn it was "let the states decided". If so, why is he acting as if any state would legalize heroin. It was certainly funny, but it leaves people with the impression that Ron Paul thinks heroin would be legal somewhere in the US. Is the idea to make all drugs legal, or to get the Fed Gov out of an area that it should not be in, Constitutionally?

He's saying it should not be illegal. He works with the federal government. If he was with state gov't he would say the same thing. It's principles, not laws, that we are trying to convey in these debates. I think his answer was perfect.

[idirtify]

Yes, there is a huge blackmarket fueling violence. However, even with that element removed, you would have people overdosing. The numbers would be diminished but it would still exist.

So what? Your point is moot. Do you not understand the excruciatingly simple concept of advocating the BETTER option? Again with some drug war basics: Although prohibition claims to be a “harm reduction” policy, it is actually a “harm expansion” policy. And overdosing would be significantly decreased after legalization because of product labels (which ICYHN don’t exist on bags of illegal drugs).

[tremendoustie]

Ron hit it out of the park with his answer. Those who want him to be a spineless slimeball like the others in order to supposedly have a better chance of getting elected need to check their priorities. The reason he has had an impact, and has public recognition at all, is precisely because he has not done that. The tea parties exist because of him. The fed is an issue because of him. I could go on and on.

To compromise and pussyfoot, to become just another politician whose highest priority is their own personal success, is the only possible way for him to fail. He is a threat precisely because he has not done that.

[Wolverine302]

Great answer. Ron didn't have enough time, but I wish he had added the point that letting the states decide gay marriage is exactly what conservative South Carolinians should want or else the federal government will eventually decide that they have to accept gay marriage. Even better the government needs to disentangle itself from marriage by getting rid of the federal income tax and moving away from defined benefit insurance and pension plans to defined contribution plans were the individual owns the money and can do with it what he or she wants.
GREAT point.

[ARealConservative]

That’s YOUR conclusion, NOT Ron’s.

he is running for president and would be the last to abuse the powers of office, so yes, each and every one of the 50 states would continue to make heroin illegal.

[idirtify]

he is running for president and would be the last to abuse the powers of office, so yes, each and every one of the 50 states would continue to make heroin illegal.

No one but you is talking about whether President Ron would usurp states rights. Of course he wouldn’t. And your prediction that no states will legalize heroin is just as ridiculous. So why make these comments? Was Ron joking about YOU? Do YOU think you need drug laws because you don’t want to use heroin?

[ARealConservative]

No one but you is talking about whether President Ron would usurp states rights. Of course he wouldn’t. And your prediction that no states will legalize heroin is just as ridiculous. So why make these comments? Was Ron joking about YOU? Do YOU think you need drug laws because you don’t want to use heroin?

I guarantee that no state legalizes heroin in the next 10 years and in 10 years, I would likely be willing to extend the bet for another 10.

Bringing these issues up are designed to divide us, and also make us appear fringe to a national audience.

[hugolp]

I do think Ron has to keep the wider GOP primary audience in mind, though. I think Fox is trying to marginalize him this time on what primary voters consider the more 'out there' side of libertarian positions.

This is pretty obvious. Ron Paul did not get any question about the economy and instead received all the question regarding the libertarian positions that could scandalize more the "mainstream" republican.

Fox is going to be more sublte this time. They know from experience that attacking him directly only helps him, so they are going to play it subtle. And they are good at it.

[dannno]

meth production is dangerous and no sane person would want it manufactured next door to them.

What does this argument have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING?? Back in the 50s, housewives were sold meth legally in order to clean their house better. Do you think the meth was being produced next door to a house, or in a commercial facility?

If heroin was legal, then opium would be legal. Most opiate addicts would switch to opium because heroin destroys red blood cells and causes illness during the comedown. The reason it is so prevalent today is due to the high concentrations, you can make a lot more money per pound with heroin.



I for one was disappointed in his debate. We could do so much better then running another education campaign, but if we are going to get sucked into heroine issues, it will amount to nothing more then educating the slow and stupid, while remaining marginalized.

I for one thought the debate was excellent. I love it when Ron Paul speaks his mind.

[dannno]

I guarantee that no state legalizes heroin in the next 10 years and in 10 years, I would likely be willing to extend the bet for another 10.

Bringing these issues up are designed to divide us, and also make us appear fringe to a national audience.


Heroin is made from poppies. If they legalized poppy production, they could make opium and then heroin would disappear into the sands of time. A few addicts will hold onto it, but they will either switch to opium or a few may die off.

[idirtify]

I guarantee that no state legalizes heroin in the next 10 years and in 10 years, I would likely be willing to extend the bet for another 10.

Bringing these issues up are designed to divide us, and also make us appear fringe to a national audience.

Your guarantee that no states will legalize heroin for 10 years is only your thinly disguised hope that they won’t. And your claim that the legalization issue divides us and makes us look fringe is just more disguised prohibition advocacy. If anything is divisive, it is YOUR defense of prohibition and opposition to legalization. And if you were watching the debate last night, you would realize that legalization is hardly “fringe” anymore.

Please, stop using your own fear of what you might do if drugs were legal as an excuse to perpetuate prohibition, and control and ruin other people’s lives.

[mello]

This is what I posted in the comments:

If hardcore drugs were legalized today, I would still have no intention of shooting up heroin or any other drug. I still know that drugs are bad for me so I wouldn't use them anyways. There would probably be a slight uptick at first but it would stabilize like when Portugal legalized drugs. People with that predilection for drugs would still use either way though. The difference though is that if legal, the U.S. would save approximately 200 Billion a year for prosecuting & incarcerating drug offenders. I.V. drug users would have access to clean needles which would cut down on the transmission of blood-born diseases which would also save billions in healthcare costs. Legalized drugs would have quality control built in so it would be "Safer". It would be another tax revenue source for the government. And drug related crimes would go down dramatically due to the fact that prices would go down since there would no longer be a prohibition on drugs.

I think that the government should use 100 billion that they would save for drug prevention & rehabilitation & put the other 100 billion towards the U.S. debt.

[ARealConservative]

What does this argument have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING??

it is the response to the person I was talking to that said all drugs should be legal


Back in the 50s, housewives were sold meth legally in order to clean their house better. Do you think the meth was being produced next door to a house, or in a commercial facility?

straw man, this discussion is about meth labs next door to me, not in areas zones commercially for hazardous materials


I for one thought the debate was excellent. I love it when Ron Paul speaks his mind.

We can only win if we tighten up the responses more like what Rand did to gain a senate seat.

[pacelli]

and dickface still called him senator.

[YumYum]

Man, I can see how far I have come since I first started supporting Ron Paul. I was against legalizing hard drugs, including meth. But now, I think that people should do whatever they feel they need to do as long as they don't hurt others. I heard that if you drink DRANO with moonshine through a straw you will see God. Hopefully, they will not make drinking DRANO a criminal offense. But some people need the government to tell them not to drink DRANO.

[idirtify]

Man, I can see how far I have come since I first started supporting Ron Paul. I was against legalizing hard drugs, including meth. But now, I think that people should do whatever they feel they need to do as long as they don't hurt others. I heard that if you drink DRANO with moonshine through a straw you will see God. Hopefully, they will not make drinking DRANO a criminal offense. But some people need the government to tell them not to drink DRANO.

People like ARealConservative, who replies with fallacies that indicate he/she still needs government laws to keep him/her from taking take meth or heroin. For example, even though I thoroughly refuted ArealConservative’s point about next-door meth labs (they would not exist after legalization), he/she ignored the fact and proceeded to repeat the fallacy to Danno.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ah....authoritarian conservatives still around? They are so fun.

[sailingaway]

Ah....authoritarian conservatives still around? They are so fun.

But we do want them to vote for Ron. Let's remember that this is a welcome booth at the convention, in one sense.

[nolvorite]

Thats right. You don't get people to kick their drug habit by simply making it illegal.

[idirtify]

But we do want them to vote for Ron. Let's remember that this is a welcome booth at the convention, in one sense.

Is this reminder to me? Please explain.

[idirtify]

Thats right. You don't get people to kick their drug habit by simply making it illegal.
deleted