Need Help To Respond To Ron Paul's Position & The War on Drugs

[libertygrl]

I'm getting slammed by conservatives about Ron Paul's drug stance even though I've done my best to provide the logic behind it.

The first post is at least an intelligent reply. The 2nd post is from a raving lunatic who thinks I'm a crazy drugged out Libertarian. He really went off the deep end after I said NO to his question of whether I would vote for another Republican if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination. My actual response was that unless someone comes along who is a REAL constitutionalist like Ron Paul, I cannot in good conscious vote them in. I told him I vote on principle and NOT by party. (That really drives people nuts!)

Here are the 2 posts:

....the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime.

Ron Paul and the "Libertarians" are wrong on this issue for many reasons. While the above statement is true, the problem is how the burrocrats fought the war. We could save a bundle by not arresting and imprisoning users of drugs. But legalizing and allowing the DC Gang pols to profit from this human disaster would be more costly. You should check out my posting regarding the use of drugs as a weapon of war by the US, the Russians, the Chinese and many others...

These figures do not take into account the cost of:

- millions of people whose lives were destroyed by drug use.
- millions of families wrecked by a member's drug use.
- the cost of caring for drug related illnesses.
- the cost of caring for children of drug addicts

Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's hundreds of thousands of IV drug users had heart valve replacements, ofen repeated several times due to noncompliance.

(An intravenous (IV) drug abuser underwent repeated valve replacements because of recurrent infective endocarditis. Is it ethically permissible to withhold valve surgery in a recalcitrant, noncompliant IV drug abuser? We believe so, and in our analysis, discuss the principles of futility, rationing, personal responsibility, and justice. Because of her continued drug abuse, the patient is responsible and accountable for the medical consequences.)

Hundreds of thousands of crack babies, year after year, each requiring intensive care after birth, whether they lived for a few minutes or several years. Do you know the cost of intensive care in a hospital? And, then how about the after care of the child?

(The first wave of crack-exposed children entered first and second grades in New York City this fall, a year after one state report estimated the cost of special care for them could total $2 billion over the next 15 years. Harlem Hospital researchers estimated that the cost of caring for crack babies costs the country $500 million a year.)

(As many as 100,000 crack babies are born every year. In the best of worlds, these children would be quickly identified and placed in foster care while their addicted mothers also got the help they need. In reality, many crack babies are not identified immediately. And social service agencies can't even meet the demand to help those who are.)

- the cost of a nation of airheads.
- OB1 probably elected because of the thinking processes of drug addicts and their children.
- cost of suicides in drug addicts (Usually the families suffer the most)

--------------------------------------------------


WARNING - THIS GUY IS A NUT CASE:

I see you totally bypased the Obama Administration getting a second term. And so we see who you are, and I do know you, and Libertarians. Ron Paul Crazy. You will essentially only vote for Ron Paul even with Obama in the White House. You wear not-being a one-party voter like a badge of honor, however, worse than that you are a one-person voter. Ron Paul Crazy. As you say, you vote based on the person -- just as long as that person is a looney-toon named Ron Paul. It doesn't matter to tin-foil-hat-wearing cultists who is in the White House now, the person you will always vote for is Ron Paul. Like an Obama-Zombie, you are obsessed. Me? I want Obama on the unemployment line. You wanna preach and write in a loser. I understand and, like practical citizens everywhere, wrote off Ron Paul elections ago.

And to answer your question, unlike your rambling excuse: "no." The war on drugs has not been a success. That's because it is not being fought to win. So, I'm joining your side. If it is illegal and still happens, so cops have to enforce things, just legalize it!!!

Recreational drugs taking? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Your (and most addled Libertarians') Legalize it! You hide your thinly veiled agenda to legalize drugs by pretending it has anything to do with the criminals and police but that's just because the rest of us don't know how great a civil right getting high is, right? We owe you...

Speeding? Where in the Constitution does it say I can't speed on amphetamines or the highway? Legalize it (them)!
Rape? Assault with a friendly weapon. Legalize it!
Wars of aggression? A continuation of policy by other means. Legalize it!
Murder? People spend their entire lives searching for the thing that's gonna kill them and eventually die anyway -- why squabble over the cause or timing? Legalize it!

PS: I'm not a Republican.

[cordscords]

Second guy is a lost cause, but the first person has the potential to come around. Already concedes it's expensive and ineffective. Some things to point out:

-Ron Paul doesn't want to legalize pot. He wants it decriminalized at the federal level. There's nothing in the constitution that says anything about weed, pot, hash, bongs, joints, etc. Anything not stated in the constitution is left for the states to handle. As a federal official he takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. This makes him one of the few honest people in Washington to actually follow the constitution that he swore to protect. See the Paul-Frank bill that was introduced that would leave it to the states.

-Ask him what his solution is then. Seemed to get a little off topic IMO, didn't really know where the conversation went. He turned it into a health/crack baby debate. Instead of arresting and imprisoning, whats the plan?

[Bruno]

Ask him who owns his body.

If he believes the government does, then he is a lost cause. If he believes we own our own bodies and can choose to make good or poor decisons on what we do with them, and reap our own consequences for those decisions, then maybe there is hope for him yet.

[Canderson]

To the first one:

"There is a huge misconception the Ron Paul wants drugs completely legal, that is not at all what he advocates. He simply looks to the constitution and sees that there is no authority for a FEDERAL law, but county and state governments should be able to determine their own drug laws. The only role of the Federal government is through the commerce clause which should give them a highly limited role in preventing movement of narcotics from one state to another if the rule of law in one state is violated by that movement. For example, if California legalizes medical marijuana only and Nevada legalizes pot completely and there is a problem of not medical marijuana moving from Nevada to CA there would be justification for the federal enforcement to act. However, under the current situation the federal authorities with the backing of the beauracracy trample over any law made by the states. I think as conservatives, we should all be willing to unite behind the idea that the Federal Government should only be able to over ride Frankfort, Sacramento, Helena or any other state government when they are in violation of the Constitution."

to the second:

"You seem to be a little heated, which is understandable considering some of Ron Paul's questionable supporters last election, but they were a extremely small percentage and had no true hold on our movement, of that I can assure you. Your main concern with Paul seems to be his inability to defeat Obama. For that I will refer you to two of the many polls that prove hes our only hope of bringing down the Obama beast.

'Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama' http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7382-cnn-poll-ron-paul-stands-best-chance-against-obama

The Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41)
is even closer "Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even."

In both these polls Ron Paul is the only potential Republican candidate within the margin of error to beat Obama, and thats because he dominates, in every poll, the independent vote. The independent vote is key considering only 33% of voters are registered Republican against 43% registered Democrat. If republican go for anyone but Paul, the 24% registered independent or 3rd party will favor Obama. thats very little opinion and mostly statistics talking"

[ctiger2]

Ron Paul does NOT endorse drug use or prostitution for that matter. Ron simply wants the people of the states to decide what should be legal/illegal. The simple fact is drugs are now illegal and people use them and will always find a way to use them if they really want to. In a free society people should be allowed to put whatever they want into their bodies and deal with the benefits or consequences of their decisions. Making drugs illegal has nothing to do with saving lives. If that were the case then driving cars would be illegal. Many more people die in traffic accidents than from drug use. Freedom isn't free. There is always a price to pay. Society has deemed that 50K people dying per year is a reasonable price to pay for the freedom to drive a car. If you don't want to live in a free society, then by all means try to legislate morality. Good luck cause it will NEVER EVER work.

[libertygrl]

-Ask him what his solution is then. Seemed to get a little off topic IMO, didn't really know where the conversation went. He turned it into a health/crack baby debate. Instead of arresting and imprisoning, whats the plan?

I think he was just trying to point out the evils of drug addiction, and the toll it takes on users and their children; the expense of having to treat them, etc., and offered them as reasons not to legalize drugs. Is this part of his argument valid?

Some conservatives get pretty heated about this subject because they think that if drugs were legalized, Americans are all going to run out and become abusers.

I do have questions about the types of drugs that would be easily available if they were legalized. Pot is similar to alcohol but what about the other heavy stuff such as cocaine, heroine, LSD, etc. Does legalization make ALL drugs available to the general population? Or that comes down to the state level I guess. I wonder who would decide this? How that would work? Any thoughts?

[Watch]

I think he was just trying to point out the evils of drug addiction, and the toll it takes on users and their children; the expense of having to treat them, etc., and offered them as reasons not to legalize drugs. Is this part of his argument valid?

Some conservatives get pretty heated about this subject because they think that if drugs were legalized, Americans are all going to run out and become abusers.

I do have questions about the types of drugs that would be easily available if they were legalized. Pot is similar to alcohol but what about the other heavy stuff such as cocaine, heroine, LSD, etc. Does legalization make ALL drugs available to the general population? Or that comes down to the state level I guess. I wonder who would decide this? How that would work? Any thoughts?

They're argument is not valid. They are arguing against someone else's morality, which cannot be done, they are talking about the consequences of drug use, with no mention to legality. If one were to put together an equation legality doesn't even fit in their model, it's completely dodged by them.
You cannot save anyone, they have to save themselves, and you can only do that by presenting them with facts, and asking them to refute the facts.
Did the lift of prohibition of alcohol turn everyone into an alcoholic? No.
Have we no faith in our states to pass legislature that makes heroine illegal to sell? Well, essentially that is what they are saying, whether they know it or not.
Give them the Socratic interrogation, that's what Socrates gave us.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

You can't legislate morality. Trying to do so through coercively taxing people to pay for it is itself an immoral act. Freedom from government intervention means you have to allow people to make wrong decisions.

[dannno]

Some people, you just can't reach.

But at least it will make it that much more fun watching them wince when we wins.

One thing you could bring up is the Reason article on Portugal. Drug decriminalization did not increase drug use.

[MJU1983]

From the horses mouth:

An audio reading from his book, The Revolution: A Manifesto.

Ron Paul on Marijuana Prohibition and its Scandalous Racist Roots (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqG0-MWqUsg)

It's not up to the Federal Government per the 9th and 10th amendments. If the Feds want to have a say, amend the Constitution (think alcohol prohibition). They probably could have somewhere along the line but not now. If you really want to know how successful the drug war could possibly be...imagine a total authoritarian/totalitarian government with a constant police state 24/7. We have this example now, it's called prison, and there are still drugs in prison.

Ending the federal war on drugs wouldn't make drugs "legal" per se. As per the Constitution, it would be up to the state governments to regulate drugs accordingly. He is just making fallacious arguments that are not based on fact.

You can't legislate morality on any level, "drugs" are no different. No one should be in prison for a non-violent, victimless crime. It makes no sense on any level, especially is a supposedly "free" society. As long as you aren't infringing on the rights of others - life, liberty, property...you can't control me.

The good news is, nullification is catching on and works. Marijuana use is at an all time high (pun intended), I do believe.

[MJU1983]

One thing you could bring up is the Reason article on Portugal. Drug decriminalization did not increase drug use.

This is true. I spent some time in Portugal recently and they don't have a "drug" problem. Per the locals, they have a bigger problem with alcohol. Go figure. ;)

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

After 40 years of the " war on drugs " has there been any victory ?

In fact it has had the opposite effect.

It was a flawed approach from the start.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Here are the 2 posts:

....the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime.

Ron Paul and the "Libertarians" are wrong on this issue for many reasons. While the above statement is true, the problem is how the burrocrats fought the war. We could save a bundle by not arresting and imprisoning users of drugs. But legalizing and allowing the DC Gang pols to profit from this human disaster would be more costly. You should check out my posting regarding the use of drugs as a weapon of war by the US, the Russians, the Chinese and many others...

Just ask this person to explain how the human disaster would be more costly under prohibition. It sounds like he's making a baseless, factually inaccurate statement.


These figures do not take into account the cost of:

- millions of people whose lives were destroyed by drug use.
- millions of families wrecked by a member's drug use.
- the cost of caring for drug related illnesses.
- the cost of caring for children of drug addicts

Back in the 60's, 70's and 80's hundreds of thousands of IV drug users had heart valve replacements, ofen repeated several times due to noncompliance.

Bring up that ending prohibition and legalizing drugs would lead to less use. Harm reduction strategies that do not demonize illegal drugs and users are the answer: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/hatreatm.htm . The stigma of illicitness leads to a glamorization and underground appeal of illegal drugs that would go away under legalization.


(An intravenous (IV) drug abuser underwent repeated valve replacements because of recurrent infective endocarditis. Is it ethically permissible to withhold valve surgery in a recalcitrant, noncompliant IV drug abuser? We believe so, and in our analysis, discuss the principles of futility, rationing, personal responsibility, and justice. Because of her continued drug abuse, the patient is responsible and accountable for the medical consequences.)

Hundreds of thousands of crack babies, year after year, each requiring intensive care after birth, whether they lived for a few minutes or several years. Do you know the cost of intensive care in a hospital? And, then how about the after care of the child?

(The first wave of crack-exposed children entered first and second grades in New York City this fall, a year after one state report estimated the cost of special care for them could total $2 billion over the next 15 years. Harlem Hospital researchers estimated that the cost of caring for crack babies costs the country $500 million a year.)

Yeah, crack is bad. That's why the government shouldn't sell it. This guy doesn't have any points, really. His whole response read like a word salad.


I see you totally bypased the Obama Administration getting a second term. And so we see who you are, and I do know you, and Libertarians. Ron Paul Crazy. You will essentially only vote for Ron Paul even with Obama in the White House. You wear not-being a one-party voter like a badge of honor, however, worse than that you are a one-person voter. Ron Paul Crazy. As you say, you vote based on the person -- just as long as that person is a looney-toon named Ron Paul. It doesn't matter to tin-foil-hat-wearing cultists who is in the White House now, the person you will always vote for is Ron Paul. Like an Obama-Zombie, you are obsessed. Me? I want Obama on the unemployment line. You wanna preach and write in a loser. I understand and, like practical citizens everywhere, wrote off Ron Paul elections ago.

And to answer your question, unlike your rambling excuse: "no." The war on drugs has not been a success. That's because it is not being fought to win. So, I'm joining your side. If it is illegal and still happens, so cops have to enforce things, just legalize it!!!

Recreational drugs taking? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Your (and most addled Libertarians') Legalize it! You hide your thinly veiled agenda to legalize drugs by pretending it has anything to do with the criminals and police but that's just because the rest of us don't know how great a civil right getting high is, right? We owe you...

Speeding? Where in the Constitution does it say I can't speed on amphetamines or the highway? Legalize it (them)!
Rape? Assault with a friendly weapon. Legalize it!
Wars of aggression? A continuation of policy by other means. Legalize it!
Murder? People spend their entire lives searching for the thing that's gonna kill them and eventually die anyway -- why squabble over the cause or timing? Legalize it!

PS: I'm not a Republican.

This person is deranged. Good luck with these two lol.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yeah, second person thinks Ron would legalize wars of aggression lolololololol

[rbohlig]

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=xLROsSQnhvw

Show them this video. Even the neocons concede to the genius of Milton Friedman. The argument about the little poor girl in the ghetto is nearly impossible to refute.

[beerista]

Ignore the second guy. He’s a lost cause.

As for the first guy, it really isn’t that his argument is “wrong” it’s just that it’s irrelevant to the question of legality/illegality/whether the states or feds regulate drugs. Costs of the drug war are over and above costs of not having a drug war. The costs he’s pointing out are costs that could be the same with or without a drug war and are hence irrelevant. I think your best tactic is to accept (just for the sake of argument) his point, but to ask how continuing the drug war reduces the costs he points out. They are the costs of drug use, not the presence or absence of a drug war, and there is no reason to think these costs go down with sustained criminalization.

In fact, LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://www.leap.cc/), puts out statistics that the number of drug abusers is roughly equal now, after decades of effort and billions of dollars and many locked up instead of treated, to what it was before prohibition.

Don’t be distracted by your friend’s argument. It’s an emotionally manipulative diversion that may or may not be true but is irrelevant.

Good luck to you.

[libertygrl]

Believe it or not, the first guy actually likes Ron Paul even though he doesn't always agree with him on certain positions like legalizing drugs. The sad part is that he won't vote for him because he doesn't believe he will win. (God, every time I hear this I want to just bang my head against a wall!)

As for the second guy, I agree with sgt150, he IS deranged! lol! Either that, or he's an infiltrator trying to counter attack all my positive Ron Paul posts. He never really provides any facts to back up his positions. All he does is attack Ron Paul and ALL Libertarians in general. But other conservatives on the forum are starting to call him out on it. One person said his rants seem to come right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals! He's actually doing Ron Paul and Libertarians a favor. :D

[libertygrl]

Ignore the second guy. He’s a lost cause.

As for the first guy, it really isn’t that his argument is “wrong” it’s just that it’s irrelevant to the question of legality/illegality/whether the states or feds regulate drugs. Costs of the drug war are over and above costs of not having a drug war. The costs he’s pointing out are costs that could be the same with or without a drug war and are hence irrelevant. I think your best tactic is to accept (just for the sake of argument) his point, but to ask how continuing the drug war reduces the costs he points out. They are the costs of drug use, not the presence or absence of a drug war, and there is no reason to think these costs go down with sustained criminalization.

In fact, LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (http://www.leap.cc/), puts out statistics that the number of drug abusers is roughly equal now, after decades of effort and billions of dollars and many locked up instead of treated, to what it was before prohibition.

Don’t be distracted by your friend’s argument. It’s an emotionally manipulative diversion that may or may not be true but is irrelevant.

Good luck to you.

All excellent points. Thanks!

[libertygrl]

Some people, you just can't reach.

But at least it will make it that much more fun watching them wince when we wins.

One thing you could bring up is the Reason article on Portugal. Drug decriminalization did not increase drug use.

Wow, I didn't know that about Portugal. I'll have to check it out. Thanks!

[libertygrl]

I wanted to share the following with you guys. It's heartbreaking. I am definitely going to post it on the Conservtaives forum I've been talking to you about:

There is a book on Amazon entitled: Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society by Peter McWilliams

A refresher course on rights and personal freedom. What is your position on prostitution, pornography, gambling and other victimless crimes? This book will make readers consider their rights and the rights of others in a more humanistic and caring way.

Here is a post from an Amazon customer:


Peter died recently in a manner he could hardly have anticipated back when he wrote this book - yet his death, in a sad and poignant way, underlines the key point he makes in this wonderful tome.

The book documents - and ridicules - U.S. bureaucrats' attempts to legislate what people can and cannot see, read, and imbibe. Peter launches a particularly formidable argument against drug prohibition.

In 1996, when AIDS and cancer entered his life, he became an advocate for medical marijuana, testifying before the National Academy of Sciences and doing numerous media interviews. "As a recent cancer, chemotherapy, and radiation survivor who uses medicinal marijuana to keep down the anti-AIDS drugs that are keeping me alive," Peter wrote in an open letter in Daily Variety, in December of 1997, "I can personally attest to marijuana's anti-nausea effect."

Exactly seventeen days after he published those words, the Government responded the only way it knows how: with a full-scale raid. A swarm of DEA agents, guns drawn, stormed Peter's house in Laurel Canyon, Calif., confiscated his computer, his backup drives, and various research materials. Peter readily admitted to growing some marijuana for his own medical use, "in the time-honored tradition of Washington, Jefferson, and Timothy Leary."

The Feds had no warrant for his arrest at the time of the raid, but they finally came for him in July 1998. The indictment against Peter stemmed in large part from the fact that as publisher of Prelude Press, his own publishing company where he employed eighteen people, Peter had given an advance to an author for a book on medical marijuana. That writer, a fellow medical marijuana patient, used a portion of the advance to grow his own medicine. The Feds saw Prelude Press as the source of the funds the man had used to finance his little crop of marijuana. So they treated Peter as a drug kingpin, and they told his employees to look for work elsewhere, "because within six months, we're going to own this place."

Did Peter really break the law? Depends on whom you ask. California *explicitly allows the use of medical marijuana* under Proposition 215, passed into California constitutional law in 1996. The Federal Government, however, does not recognize the state's right to adopt its own drug legislation. So what Peter did was perfectly legal in his own state; it just didn't sit well with some drugfighting hardliners three thousand miles away, in Washington D.C.

One of the conditions of Peter's bail was a weekly urine test. Were he to test positive for illicit drugs, he'd return to jail, pending his trial. Besides, his mother (in her seventies) had put up her house as collateral for the bond. The Feds could seize her home and evict her if Peter violated his bail terms. So he had to be content with being sick as a dog on most days - much sicker than he would have been had he been allowed to smoke marijuana, whose medical benefit to cancer and AIDS patients is well documented. Frequently unable to hold down down his medication, Peter grew weaker and became wheelchair-bound.

The HIV virus wasn't the only thing hitting Peter where it hurts. The federal judge in the case wouldn't let him plead his defense to the jury. Peter's attorney wanted to argue that under California law, infirm Californians who get medical relief from marijuana are permitted to use it. But this line of defense was verboten, the judge decreed. The judge also forbade any mention that Peter suffered from AIDS and cancer, and that the marijuana helped his condition.

The case never went to trial. On June 14, 2000, while at home, taking a bath, the nausea overcame Peter once more. He choked to death on his own vomit. He was 50 years old. He died because the Government wouldn't let him have a toke. Few things better illustrate the monumental folly that is the War on Drugs.

"Ain't Nobody's Business" is vintage McWilliams -- funny, well-researched, expertly argued, and with a pleasant surprise on each and every page (a great quote, a deft turn of phrase, a piece of common 'wisdom' beautifully gutted and turned on its head).

I hope that the thought-provoking ideas in Peter's book will resonate with many people, even when memories of the man himself begin to fade.

http://www.amazon.com/Aint-Nobodys-Business-You-Consensual/dp/192976717X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311362659&sr=1-1

[Working Poor]

The other link did not work with Milton Friedman for me in case it did not work for someone else I will post one that is my favorite.

In this video Mr Friedman talks about why crack got started it being a market correction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

[Justinfrom1776]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bus9ooBol0

[erowe1]

Variations of the first guy's argument come up for every single issue:

I agree that the government's pursuit of goal x has been so bad that nothing at all would be better. But that's just because they've done it wrong and had the wrong people doing it. What we need is to get our guys in there to do it right.

The problem is, even if you agreed that it would work if the government did it differently, if you want to be honest about the way the government works, and how laws get made and agencies funded, and so on, you have to accept as a given that no government program will fit whatever mold you think is ideal for it. It will always be done wrong and by the wrong people.

[erowe1]

Maybe give the first guy this article:
http://blogs.forbes.com/artcarden/2011/06/23/the-drug-war-what-is-it-good-for/

Make the point that all those crack babies aren't because of the government doing too little against drugs. They're a consequence of the drug war itself.

[libertygrl]

Maybe give the first guy this article:
http://blogs.forbes.com/artcarden/2011/06/23/the-drug-war-what-is-it-good-for/

Make the point that all those crack babies aren't because of the government doing too little against drugs. They're a consequence of the drug war itself.

Wow! That's the best article so far. Great find. Thanks!

[libertygrl]

The other link did not work with Milton Friedman for me in case it did not work for someone else I will post one that is my favorite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

Got it. Thanks!

[thajuggla]

I always just keep pushing the fact that he only wants to decriminalize at the federal level. He doesn't condone those things, only that according to our Constitution, those are items that the state has power over, not the Federal Government.

[libertygrl]

I always just keep pushing the fact that he only wants to decriminalize at the federal level. He doesn't condone those things, only that according to our Constitution, those are items that the state has power over, not the Federal Government.

Ok, but how does that jibe with the argument that we own our own bodies, and that the government doesn't have the authority to tell people what they can or cannot do with it? - (as long as it doesn't hurt another person that is). Are we saying that the Federal govt. can't do this but it's ok for the states to? A little confuse on that point.

[beerista]

Variations of the first guy's argument come up for every single issue:


The problem is, even if you agreed that it would work if the government did it differently, if you want to be honest about the way the government works, and how laws get made and agencies funded, and so on, you have to accept as a given that no government program will fit whatever mold you think is ideal for it. It will always be done wrong and by the wrong people.

I once heard Harry Browne say the following and have never thought the same about government power since:


"Any time you give power to government it will be abused, it will be enlarged, it will be used in ways you never intended. ... Any time you give power to politicians they're going to use it in every conceivable way possible to please those who have the most political influence and it's never going to be you and it's never going to be me."

[First came across this on his radio show archives. Sure hope they're still available.]

[beerista]

Ok, but how does that jibe with the argument that we own our own bodies, and that the government doesn't have the authority to tell people what they can or cannot do with it? - (as long as it doesn't hurt another person that is). Are we saying that the Federal govt. can't do this but it's ok for the states to? A little confuse on that point.

Ideally, no government would have power over these areas of our lives. But Ron Paul is a current Federal government employee who is running for another Federal government office. His own positions as to what he would like to see people do with their own bodies and choices are irrelevant for two reasons: 1) he has a long record of not imposing his own beliefs upon others and in fact standing up for others' rights to do and believe differently from himself, and 2) he has a long record of separating that which is permissible for the federal government to interfere with and that which is permissible for the state governments to interfere with (not to mention that which shouldn't be interfered with or infringed at all which is where we would likely put the drug issue, but I think his position on this is largely a way of avoiding the question since it just doesn't matter at the federal level since they don't have that authority anyway) and keeping his nose out of that which is strictly states' business (since he's not a state government employee).
You've got to keep in mind that you're arguing on two fronts: 1) the right thing to do regardless of what level of government does it and who your preferred candidate is, and 2) the stuff that doesn't matter because Ron Paul won't touch it no matter what his own feelings on the matter are. In this case, the constitution doesn't allow for the Federal government to do anything about the issue, absent a new amendment. While it may be wrong and against our beliefs about individual rights for the states to take up this charge, it is not forbidden in the constitution (leave incorporation doctrine arguments for another day -- most people don't know about it anyway), so let it be.
So, are you arguing about the general idea of criminalizing drugs or are you arguing for Ron Paul specifically? Do you have the time and energy to turn these people around completely on the drug issue or do you just want to play on their own declared belief in the constitution to bring them to Ron Paul's federalist position (which admittedly leaves room for state-level tyranny)?
Of course, it's not fair that we have to do this, but most folks are simply afraid of liberty. They believe that they themselves can be trusted with choices, but their friends and neighbors will suddenly go all 'Reefer Madness' if they are allowed to choose. As I mentioned in my previous post though, the facts seem to be that levels of drug use remain fairly constant, so the only beneficiaries are those who build and service prisons.

[thajuggla]

Ok, but how does that jibe with the argument that we own our own bodies, and that the government doesn't have the authority to tell people what they can or cannot do with it? - (as long as it doesn't hurt another person that is). Are we saying that the Federal govt. can't do this but it's ok for the states to? A little confuse on that point.

The argument jibes because Ron Paul is running for a federal office right now. I don't necessarily condone states taking up laws for, or against drugs, but that is a different matter all together.

[thajuggla]

Ideally, no government would have power over these areas of our lives. But Ron Paul is a current Federal government employee who is running for another Federal government office. His own positions as to what he would like to see people do with their own bodies and choices are irrelevant for two reasons: 1) he has a long record of not imposing his own beliefs upon others and in fact standing up for others' rights to do and believe differently from himself, and 2) he has a long record of separating that which is permissible for the federal government to interfere with and that which is permissible for the state governments to interfere with (not to mention that which shouldn't be interfered with or infringed at all which is where we would likely put the drug issue, but I think his position on this is largely a way of avoiding the question since it just doesn't matter at the federal level since they don't have that authority anyway) and keeping his nose out of that which is strictly states' business (since he's not a state government employee).
You've got to keep in mind that you're arguing on two fronts: 1) the right thing to do regardless of what level of government does it and who your preferred candidate is, and 2) the stuff that doesn't matter because Ron Paul won't touch it no matter what his own feelings on the matter are. In this case, the constitution doesn't allow for the Federal government to do anything about the issue, absent a new amendment. While it may be wrong and against our beliefs about individual rights for the states to take up this charge, it is not forbidden in the constitution (leave incorporation doctrine arguments for another day -- most people don't know about it anyway), so let it be.
So, are you arguing about the general idea of criminalizing drugs or are you arguing for Ron Paul specifically? Do you have the time and energy to turn these people around completely on the drug issue or do you just want to play on their own declared belief in the constitution to bring them to Ron Paul's federalist position (which admittedly leaves room for state-level tyranny)?
Of course, it's not fair that we have to do this, but most folks are simply afraid of liberty. They believe that they themselves can be trusted with choices, but their friends and neighbors will suddenly go all 'Reefer Madness' if they are allowed to choose. As I mentioned in my previous post though, the facts seem to be that levels of drug use remain fairly constant, so the only beneficiaries are those who build and service prisons.

Oops! Guess I should have read further, much better argument overall than mine! :)

[libertygrl]

So, are you arguing about the general idea of criminalizing drugs or are you arguing for Ron Paul specifically? Do you have the time and energy to turn these people around completely on the drug issue or do you just want to play on their own declared belief in the constitution to bring them to Ron Paul's federalist position (which admittedly leaves room for state-level tyranny)?


It's been my experience, as I'm sure it has been for other supporters, that many Republicans misunderstand some of Ron Paul's positions on certain issues. Some hear soundbites from neo-con news shows and then just regurgitate what they've heard without further investigating it for themselves. I guess what I've been attemting to do was show the rationale behind drug legalization, so that they will come around to see the rationale of Ron Paul's position.

I think the only time some of these doubters actually grasp Ron's common sense approach to these issues, is when they read his positions from his books rather when they hear it articulated. At least that's been my experience. Thanks for the advice.