"You've dropped several pegs in my eyes."
So tell me. What do I gotta do to drop even more?
Posted on 05/11/2011 12:16:52 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Before last week's South Carolina Republican debate, Ron Paul supporters complained that their candidate was not getting the first-tier attention his polling and fundraising should bring. It is true that Paul has often been overlooked and dismissed, as one might treat a slightly dotty uncle. But perhaps some first-tier scrutiny is deserved.
Paul was the only candidate at the debate to make news, calling for the repeal of laws against prostitution, cocaine and heroin. The freedom to use drugs, he argued, is equivalent to the freedom of people to “practice their religion and say their prayers.” Liberty must be defended “across the board.” “It is amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way,” he said, “but not when it comes to our personal habits.”
This argument is strangely framed: If you tolerate Zoroastrianism, you must be able to buy heroin at the quickie mart. But it is an authentic application of libertarianism, which reduces the whole of political philosophy to a single slogan: Do what you will — pray or inject or turn a trick — as long as no one else gets hurt.
Even by this permissive standard, drug legalization fails. The de facto decriminalization of drugs in some neighborhoods — say, in Washington, D.C. — has encouraged widespread addiction. Children, freed from the care of their addicted parents, have the liberty to play in parks decorated by used needles. Addicts are liberated into lives of prostitution and homelessness.
But Paul had an answer to this criticism. “How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would,” he said to applause and laughter. Paul was claiming that good people — people like the Republicans in the room — would not abuse their freedom, unlike those others who don't deserve our sympathy.
The problem, of course, is that even people in the room may have had sons or daughters who struggled with addiction. Or maybe even have personal experience with the freedom that comes from alcohol and drug abuse. One imagines they did not laugh or cheer.
Libertarians often cover their views with a powdered wig of 18th- and 19th-century philosophy. They cite Locke, Smith and Mill as advocates of a peaceable kingdom — a utopia of cooperation and spontaneous order. But the reality of libertarianism was on display in South Carolina. Paul concluded his answer by doing a jeering rendition of an addict's voice: “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don't want to use heroin, so I need these laws.”
This is not “The Wealth of Nations” or the “Second Treatise on Government.” It is Social Darwinism. It is the arrogance of the strong. It is contempt for the vulnerable and suffering.
The conservative alternative to libertarianism is necessarily more complex. It is the teaching of classical political philosophy and the Jewish and Christian traditions that true liberty must be appropriate to human nature. The freedom to enslave oneself with drugs is the freedom of the fish to live on land, or the freedom of birds to inhabit the ocean — which is to say, it is not freedom at all. Responsible, self-governing citizens do not grow wild like blackberries. They are cultivated in institutions — families, religious communities and decent, orderly neighborhoods. And government has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations — including laws against drugs and against the exploitation of men and women in the sex trade.
It was just 12 years ago — though it seems like a political lifetime — that a Republican presidential candidate visited a rural drug treatment center outside Des Moines, Iowa. Moved by the stories of recovering young addicts, Texas Gov. George W. Bush talked of his own struggles with alcohol. “I'm on a walk. And it's a never-ending walk as far as I'm concerned. ... I want you to know that your life's walk is shared by a lot of other people, even some who wear suits.”
In determining who is a “major” candidate for president, let's begin here. Those who support the legalization of heroin while mocking addicts are marginal. It is difficult to be a first-tier candidate while holding second-rate values.
Me too. The war on drugs has not stopped anyone from getting drugs. It has increased crime and the police state. It costs a lot of money and is totally ineffective. If people want to kill themselves with drugs, its isn’t my business.
"You may not be able to control yourself without the threat of a prison sentence but most of us grown ups can."
From what I've seen, the threat of prison has very little impact on the criminal mindset. This 'Paul for legal heroin' stuff is not much more than a scary red herring.
Cocaine, heroine, pot, and other things used to be legal in the 19th Century but the 20th Century “progressives” put the kibosh on that, just as they tried to ban alchohol.
They always know what’s best for us, those smart, smart people.
(BTW, I use NO illegal drugs and I haven’t had a drink in months)
Prohibit something that is in demand and it will continue to be sold anyway. Only by gangsters instead of pharmacies.
make it legal sell it in the drug store take the profit out of it and it will kill the drug cartels
_______________________________________
No. It will LEGITIMIZE the drug cartels. They will become productive taxpaying members of society - as they continue to slaughter tens of thousands of Mexican rivals.
...And because that is true; Laws do cause people to be moral. That argument is irrational and so devoid of reason that I fear trying to have any meaningful conversation with you will be fruitless. Explain this: We have an ever expanding rule of law and yet we live in an increasingly immoral society. If law caused people to be moral how could this possibly be true?
“Before you go throwing the word “idiot” about, it might do you a little bit of good to do a little research into how Prohibition influenced not only organized crime, but how it influenced drinking patterns and alcohol content.
For example, did you know that Everclear was created in response to Prohibition? Did you know that prior to Prohibition, the rich drank wine, the poor drank beer; and the ‘drunks’ drank liquor. Prior to Prohibition, the consumption of Vodka, Whiskey, Bourbon and other high alcoholic drinks was considered a social ‘taboo’.
Thanks to the blessings of Prohibtion, Vodka, Tenn. Whiskey/Bourgon, Tequilla are now in vogue. It’s far more profitable to smuggle a barrel of whiskey, than a few cases of beer.
Conversely, thanks to our counter-productive ‘War on Drugs’; what started out as Cocaine has turned into Rock Cocaine and now Crystal Meth. That’s progress - it’s more potent, more addictive, more profitable and more dangerous.
Care to compare the THC content of pop from the 70’s with what we have today? For some UNKNOWN and suspiciously magical reason, Pot plants have over 10x the THC content today, than they had just 20 years ago. Ever wonder why this happens?
We now have more potent, more damaging and more addictive drugs on the market today - than we did just a few years ago. Why? Because the War on Drugs is counter-productive.
How many innocents have to die, before you allow a degenerate to consume the poison he wants (and is willing to kill you, me, my family and yours - in order to satisfy his insatiable need).
Make it legal, make it pure, make it economical - this will bankrupt the drug cartels. Yes, we will essentially ‘write-off’ a large percentage of our population. Call it cleaning up the gene pool, call it weeding out the weak. But, unless you have been living under a rock; the war on drugs has been a collassal waste of time, money and effort.
But don’t ask me ... talk to the families of the 30,000+ dead along the Mexican border.”
Awesome post!
Bigger and Badder.
Sure, just like the beer wars of prohibition Chicago went on and on.
Criminals will always be criminals-—they will try to find some ways to operate outside the law-—but the DEGREE of violence will simmer down, just as the old bootleggers had to find other, less violent means to beat the system.
... as they continue to slaughter tens of thousands of Mexican rivals.
_______________________________________
They will do no such thing. The legal way is way cheaper than a gang war.
I don’t think reality will prove you correct.
But the fact you are backing Paul should make me feel safe. You’ve not a chance in hell of getting your way thankfully.
You libertarians are all about destruction of the fabric of society. That is why I say you are anarchists. You believe that mankind can behave itself without any rules or laws. That has never worked out.
I am not a liberla by any means but I know that the WOD was lost a long time ago. I don’t care at all about the people who would kill themselves with this they are already lost anyway. I’ve know people who could do things and walk away from them while others did and became addicted. It is up to the person and whgat they want, why are we expected to be responsible for the irresponsilble?
I agree.
In these parts, prescription drugs are a big problem. Pill mills knock out oxycontin and the like and then peddle the crap. But I have not heard of any oxycontin drug massacres.
If anybody gets killed over that crap it is slow motion compared to the border.
Let adult people decide their own fate.
That’s how it was until the “progressives” decided they knew better than the regular folks about how to live.
Amen.
A combination of prudery and progressivism has put us behind the 8-ball fighting an unwinnable war.
So we have legal gambling in Las Vegas all run by legitimate public companies instead of gangsters. If tobacco were illegal, we would have gangsters running that business instead of Altria selling Marlboro's. Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you some kind of troll?
This one comment distills all of your posting history to one clear totalitarian bright line.
Kill anyone who disagrees with you.
Wow. I didn't think you'd ever come right out and admit to be the stalinist we've suspected has been barely cloaked for all this time. Impressive.
“Destruction of the fabric of society?”
Libertarians have one hell of a long way to go to catch up to what the libs, or “progressives” have done. How much dependency have libertarians created? How much debt have they amassed? How many wars have they gotten us into?
I haven’t decided for Paul yet but I am leaning in his direction more and more because at least with Paul what you see is what you get.
I like Rand Paul a lot but he is as green as a gourd in politics ad needs some seasoning before he tries to move on to bigger things. His “The Tea Party Goes to Washington” is a pretty good book.
BTW, jumping on a bandwagon so far out seems a little foolish. Half the candidates who are in will leave and some new ones will join in.
Upthread you said....
“The purpose of a law is not to coerce someone to do that which is right, but to punish those that commit do wrong.”
And we fundamentally know that punishment is a moral standard. Of that - there is no question.
Here’s where I could post the founding fathers ideals and values on that - but hey. You got Google as I do. Go look ‘em up yourself.
“Explain this: We have an ever expanding rule of law and yet we live in an increasingly immoral society. If law caused people to be moral how could this possibly be true?”
Pehaps I could have pointed out that laws can be immoral as well as moral. Or to put it another way - a law can be morally wrong.
Case in point: The repeal of DADT. Yes, we have more laws than ever before, bad laws, if you will. And because of this... we are in fact living “in an increasingly immoral society”.
Repeal immoral laws. Enforce the moral laws we have. And IGNORE the immoral fools like Paul who call for enacting immoral laws.
“We have an ever expanding rule of law and yet we live in an increasingly immoral society. If law caused people to be moral how could this possibly be true? “
They never asks if something works, or even if it is worth fighting for.
Wow. I touched a nerve, huh.
Truth is - Ron Paul is the (kook) head of the Libertarian Party. He is the voice for all things libertarian. When you think of libertarians - you think of Ron Paul.
And so on. And so on.
No, I don’t want us to be like China. I want it to become like the USA was before all the WOD stupidity. Think you could handle that? Where was the giant drug problem in the 1800s and early 1900s when everything was legal? It is not like the WOD has been an unqualified success. In spite of 40+ years of WOD, anybody in the USA who wants drugs can get them now anyways. This whole WOD thing is working out pretty much like prohibition did, complete with organized gangs of bootleggers. If it were legal we could at least regulate the sales to a degree and take the profit motive out of it for the gangs. I think the whole WOD is a massive waste of time and resources. Perhaps I am just uninformed and you can point me to the data that show the startling progress we have made in ending illegal drug use by spending billions of dollars a year on the WOD? BTW, the whole killing the users thing comes off as kind of unreasonable and it is not MY government, anymore than it is yours.
You want this to become like China?
No, but apparently you do.
You going to charge the family for the cost of the bullet like they do in China?
“You libertarians are all about destruction of the fabric of society. That is why I say you are anarchists. You believe that mankind can behave itself without any rules or laws. That has never worked out.”
Not at all, my rights end where they start to affect another person. We have no right to tell someone they can’t drink or or smoke something. Why not make it illegal to consume more than 2,000 calories a day or make us all not eat salt and fat?
Oh, you’re right. I’m wrong. All we need do is legalize drugs and the cartels will happily give up a trillion dollar industry and simply walk away.
“Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you some kind of troll?”
Right back at ya, fool!
Surely you can provide some examples, some sources for this statement. Please do.
When you run a criminal enterprise, you have expenses that a legitimate company does not have. Such as Quality Control, NOT having to keep bribes for judges, policemen, detectives, rival drug cartels, bodyguards and security, etc.
So, please inform me as to what former Bootlegger opened up a legitimate Whiskey, Tequilla, Vodka, Boubon business and is in business today? Surely from the THOUSANDS of bootlegger, there should be no problem finding ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE!!
As for prostitution, in 49 of the 50 states, it is STILL illegal. Where it is ran legally; the managment was taken over by the Gov't and somehow the Gov't managed to bankrupt a whorehouse - go figure that one out.
Pandora's Box was opened, and cannot be closed. Did you know that for nearly 1,000 years Opium was legal and not regulated. Sure, we had addicts; but we had not 1% of the drug trade we currently enjoy today. Did you know that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew, havested and used Marijuana? I'd wager you did not. Fascinating reading, though. George Washington wrote about getting the best results through judicious removal of the male flowers for the best results. And no, he wasn't growing Hemp to make jeans or tie-died T-shirts.
As for historically - you are aware that never in the course of human history, has Prohibition ever been successful. Never in recorded history. All you have to do, is look at the prolific studies that were done on the Temperance Movement during America's Prohibitionary period. Look, read and learn.
What does Poland have to do with this?
What BS. The arrogance virtually drips off of the nanny staters. We are "strong" but you are weak and "vulnerable", so we must pass laws to force you to conform so you will not "suffer". So called conservative "elitists" are no less disgusting than liberal "elitists". They both hold in contempt anyone who does not live by their expectations. They are both truly enemies of freedom.
Where exactly have I indicated in any manner that he is "my boy"?
Does agreeing with him on one issue make me a sycophantic follower?
You can't back up your claims so you tried even more belittlement and disparagement as if that accomplishes anything. Truly pathetic and beneath you.
You've dropped several pegs in my eyes.
Tried to buy sudafed lately? Enjoyed giving them evidence that WILL be turned into the cops for them to examine and decide whether or not to no-knock on your door? Yeah that real damage to the Constitution that really was done by the 100% failed war on drugs.
Actually a lot less than a century ago. Most drugs were legal in most states until well into the 60s. We won WWII with drugs legal, they can’t be that bad.
You’ve not gotten us into any wars because you’re not a political force yet powerful enough to do any harm. But if you had the power you’d be worse than liberals because you are for complete elimination of all rules and laws. You’re all about letting everyone do what ever they want. That is anarchy and very destructive to society as a whole.
Libertarians are for abortion on demand, open borders, legalization of gay marriage, legalizing all drugs, legalization of prostitution, and the only one I agree with them on is keeping government from controlling guns.
If Ron Paul is so “what you see is what you get” then how come he is running as a Republican instead of what he really is, a libertarian? He’s not honest. He’s nuts. He believes America is responsible for the attacks on 9/11.
Both Pauls are crazy. Libertarians are just as bad as liberals but more so in the fact they believe in complete anarchy. They are like 13 year olds who think that if everything were legal and available society would be happy and everyone would be nice to each other. What a load of garbage that is. It’s never worked and never will.
Maybe not. I think drugs are bad news. But somehow our country survived for about 100 years without any drug laws. Our government says we have a "war" on drugs, but if that were true we would have surrendered long ago. Right now I think as long as the pols and their brothers in different enforcement agencies get a cut of the action, it's going to keep on keeping on.
ML/NJ
Maybe not. I think drugs are bad news. But somehow our country survived for about 100 years without any drug laws. Our government says we have a "war" on drugs, but if that were true we would have surrendered long ago. Right now I think as long as the pols and their brothers in different enforcement agencies get a cut of the action, it's going to keep on keeping on.
ML/NJ
Do you know how to create a libertarian? Take a conservative and remove all common sense.
So he wants onions banned, does he??
legal drugs
Do you know how to create a RINO? Take a conservative and get him on board with the New Deal Commerce Clause.
There are many distilleries that operate today that were bootleggers in the days before prohibition. Ever hear of the whiskey rebellion? Examples are Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, etc etc etc.
Criminals have turned legit on many fronts. Their are many who ran gambling in Vegas before it was legit in any other city and they still murdered, robbed and did as they would in any other city. Study some history on the subject, The examples are numerous.
Prostitution is legal in parts of NV and is ran by private business. It’s still not a clean enterprise. In Amsterdam and other cities where it is legal it may be legit but it’s not without it’s social and criminal harm.
Opium was legal and it has caused endless problems before it was made illegal. Opium wars in China come to mind on that subject. Heroin addictions during the 1800s were numerous and many died from it’s over use. It also filled the asylums with many who couldn’t care for themselves any longer.
Washington and Jefferson raised hemp. They did so as farmers do today, for industrial reasons. Not for narcotic reason as you indicate. Hemp is a major cash crop even today (but less so compared to back then). Show me proof that either used marijuana for getting high. Not that they might not have, but I think you pot head have a misunderstanding of what they did and for what reasons. Hemp was cash because it was used to make rope, cloth, oils, and many other needed goods.It had little of the THC content and couldn’t get you high. Like ditchweed growing along the road today.
Yes, prohibition is bad and it causes the criminal elements to grow in power, but letting people do as they will with known harmful substances is not an answer either. It will not help any of us, addict or not, if drugs are made 100% legal. Has making alcohol legal again helped society at all?
Don’t fool yourself into thinking that making it legal will make it safe or keep you from those who do drugs from harming you. It won’t. We might as well make killing people legal. After all, that would rid us of those we wish to do without. Oh wait, you guys are all for abortion on demand so I can see where that will come along eventually. lol
“How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would,” he said to applause and laughter.
Applause and laughter for sure, from dope heads.
If it was given to them free of charge, I bet it would.
They wouldn’t have to go rob people to get it.
If you want to be taken seriously by conservatives, stop the ad hominem attacks.
That is Alinskyite, straight out of the left and doesn’t convince anyone.
The “nuts,” “crazy,” and all the other cheap shots just make you look like you lack a cogent argument and turns people off.
It isn’t helpful to you and it just pushes people like me further in Paul’s direction.
BTW, Paul is pro-life. The unborn have liberties too.
You do your thing and vote your way, I’ll do it mine.
It’s the libertarian way.
>> Gerson: “The de facto decriminalization of drugs in some neighborhoods”
That’s a bogus analogy. It actually contradicts the intended benefits of narcotics regulation.
On the domestic front, the House wouldn’t give Paul everything he wanted, but he’d certainly help pull the Country back away from the Marxism and Statism so many seem to enjoy. Congress would never allow for the deregulation that’s induced the beltway hysteria.
Paul’s greatest handicap is foreign policy, but given the nation’s war fatigue, he’d probably do well on FP. So for that, he will be mocked and disparaged for being consistent on the issue of liberties.
Paul’s a smart man. He knows the limits of his platform, but argues it well and is rewarded by his supporters. It’s a shame so many crucify him on the corner cases of his positions — not unlike the Left challenging Pro-Lifers with the question of incest and rape.
And how does that happen? Grow herion in the US.?
Glenn Beck is discussing the latest Soros quote that America is stopping Justice in the World. (Para)
Soros is one of the biggest drug legalizers in the Country. Now why would I even think about supporting a issue that is so important to the Satan that wants to destroy US. (not counting the obvious reasons)
I mean really, do like the idea of people laying around the streets (can’t work or live normal lives) emaciated, dirty and begging or robbing for money to get the next hit.
Or do you support the Feds providing income for the addicts to by H?
Ron Paul has a serios problem that he can not even bother to consider the human misery that these drugs force on individuals and society in General.
But hey, the money tree in D.C will help pay for the consequences. /s
I pray to God that many of you are confusing “wrong” with “properly illegal” or else this nation is truly doomed.
Drug abuse is wrong, true enough. Alcohol abuse is wrong. Smoking, prostitution and so many other things are wrong, on a personal basis. Agreed. I have no problem gambling my money in an online poker game, but many of you want to make me a criminal for doing so.
But NONE OF THOSE THINGS should be illegal!
Our American society is (was) based upon freedom, and that includes the freedom to fail in your own fashion. We should be APPALLED at the very thought of an American forcing his moral views on another American! If you’re not being harmed by it, then shut the hell up! Like that old saying: “Your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.”
If I choose to end my work day by banging down a dozen stiff Mojitos, that’s my business. But if I climb into my car afterward, then I’m endangering other people and that is the righteous province of societal restriction. I can do what I want, as a free man, until others are directly affected.
If states want to make certain things illegal, that is the choice of each state. But the federal government is expected to leave us the hell alone. And so are you, neighbor.
Many of you obviously disagree. So what next? What else are you going to make punishable by fines and imprisonment because YOU don’t like it? How about failure to salute the flag when it passes in a Fourth of July parade? Shouldn’t it be illegal to listen to rap music? And those nasty Habañero peppers, whew, too hot for me so they should be banned everywhere! Lordy ...
Liberty. Some of us still remember it.
Ping for later
If you require the law to restrain you from being stupid then you're already completely lost. Most of us don't need the law to restrain us. We're perfectly capable of restraining ourselves. The fact that you're too weak to do so doesn't make allowing the Federal Government to legislate un-Constitutionally a good idea.
Just like the Budweiser and Miller guys shoot it out on my block every single night. And everybody knows about the Jonny Walker/Jack Daniels wars that are raging in the heartland of America every single day.
Why tens of thousands of Americans are being cut down in the merciless crossfire between the Knob Creek Gang and Bookers Boys.
You sir or madame are a certifiable idiot.
His supporters plan for a worldwide, communist government. See their own “Zeitgeist” videos (1 & 2, with repeated campaign pleas for Ron Paul). And see the “Venus Project.”
The leftwingtards are so wrong ~ no, everything won’t be against the law. The rest of us will demand the right to DEFEND OURSELVES against the dopers ~ so it will be American patriots doing what their government can’t, and the dopers won’t like it at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.