Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul, Hookers, and Heroin (Is being free to do drugs the essence of American liberty?)
The Daily Beast ^ | 05/18/2011 | Michael Medved

Posted on 05/18/2011 9:12:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

The 2012 presidential candidate has gone off the deep end in defending the right to sell sex and drugs as personal liberty—and stretched libertarianism past the breaking point, writes Michael Medved.

How would you describe a perennial presidential candidate who insists in a televised debate that government has no more right to interfere with prostitution or heroin than it does to limit people’s right to “practice their religion and say their prayers”?

The phrase “crackpot” comes immediately to mind—and in any contemporary political dictionary that term would appear alongside a photograph of Congressman Ron Paul.

The Mad Doctor, who proudly consorts with 9/11 Truthers, announced his third race for the nation’s highest office on Friday the 13th (appropriately enough) by declaring that if he were president he never would have authorized a lethal strike against Osama bin Laden. The firestorm over this remark distracted attention from previous controversial comments just eight days earlier, when he used the first debate of the 2012 race to stake out exclusive territory on the lunatic libertarian fringe.

Asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News about his insistence that “the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits,” and his specific opposition to restrictions on cocaine, heroin, and prostitution, the candidate claimed that social conservatives would nonetheless vote for him “if they understand my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice their religion and say their prayers where they want to practice their life. But if you do not protect liberty across the board it’s the First Amendment-type issue… You know, it’s amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way but not when it comes to our personal habits.”

In other words, as long we’re free to seek salvation in heaven, we must be free to enjoy drugs and hookers while we’re alive?

This addle-brained attempt to equate religious freedom with liberty to pursue profit as pimps or pushers counts as daft rather than deft. As a preening “Constitutionalist,” Paul ought to understand that the First Amendment explicitly protects “free exercise” of religion but says nothing about a right to operate bordellos or market recreational drugs.

Wallace also asked the crotchety candidate if he was “suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise in liberty?” In effect, Paul agreed that they were. “Well, you know, I’d probably never use those words, you put those words some place,” he stammered, “but yes, in essence, if I leave it to the states, it’s going to be up to the states.”

This suggestion of leaving regulation to local authorities makes no sense at all when it comes to the drug trade, which usually involves international (or, at the very least, interstate) commerce. Moreover, his invoking of the First Amendment in the need to “protect liberty across the board” means that the states would have no more right to outlaw bongs and brothels than the federal government. The Supreme Court has federalized Bill of Rights protections since 1925 (Gitlow v. New York), meaning that First Amendment protections restrict state power (under the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection”) just as much as they limit the Washington bureaucracy. If the feds can’t interfere with selling smack or sex (under some bizarre misinterpretation of a constitutional right to free expression) then states can’t touch those activities either.

Reasonable people might disagree on the advisability of restrictive drug laws and the criminalization of prostitution; many thoughtful conservatives believe that society would benefit by decriminalizing recreational drugs (especially marijuana) and authorizing the sex trade under medically regulated circumstances. But the suggestion that such reforms amount to a sound shift in social policy isn’t the same as Paul’s provocative (and preposterous) claims.

The only possible argument for this constitutional interpretation would involve a sweeping expansion of the fictitious “right to privacy”—a whole-cloth invention of the Warren Court that conservatives (and originalists) generally hate. If the Constitution actually hints at a right to privacy so comprehensive that it protects a previously unrecognized right to sell sex, then how can it not guarantee the freedom to terminate your pregnancy? But Paul insists he remains fervently pro-life and speaks with (appropriate) contempt of Roe v. Wade.

Did the Founders ever intend to guard “personal habits” from governmental regulation? If so, then why did prior generations fail to employ Paul’s argument to challenge the long history of strict local, state, and federal supervision of the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages?

Enjoyment of booze (yes, I just poured myself a delicious Barleywine Ale from Full Sail brewery) represents perhaps the most commonly practiced “personal habit” in American culture, but that hasn’t stopped authorities from limiting the hours of bar service or, in numerous “dry” counties or states, prohibiting the marketing of liquor altogether, both before and after our ill-fated experiment with Prohibition.

At its rotten (in fact putrefying) core, the Paul logic obliterates the crucial distinction between private, intimate activity and commercial enterprise.

When it comes to alcohol, for instance, there’s a world of difference between enjoying ale in your dining room and operating a bar or liquor store. Even those who maintain that purely private activities (like sex between consenting adults) deserve constitutional protection can recognize that selling sex or drugs on street corners is hardly private, nor is setting up bordellos or pubs to lure customers.

Commercial transactions are by their very nature public, with an inevitable impact on the larger community. That’s why rules against growing and using weed in your own home seem far more intrusive and unreasonable than laws against mass marketing of marijuana.

In this context, one could argue that a “need to protect liberty across the board” should include a near absolute ability to do what you please in your own home, but it wouldn’t involve untrammeled freedom to make money in any way you choose. Building wealth inevitably involves others, and significant, impactful social interaction. Would anyone claim that protecting liberty guaranteed a right to advertise some phony, falsely packaged “miracle cure” for cancer that did significant harm to those who purchased it, or for a public market to offer dead cats labeled as ground sirloin?

Congressman Paul’s refusal to acknowledge any role for government in restricting drugs or prostitution—and his insistence that these “personal habits” deserve the same protection as prayer or worship—represents a sad caricature of conservative and libertarian ideology.

The good doctor added to the reckless pattern when announcing his candidacy on ABC’s Good Morning America by claiming that the successful raid against bin Laden represented the beginning of a planned “massive invasion” of Pakistan by the U.S. military. The Pakistani press will no doubt focus on his remarks, arousing an already alarmed public with reports that a “high American official” predicted the imminent occupation of their country.

Pakistanis don’t understand that Ron Paul isn’t a serious political figure, but most Americans do. Last time he ran for president, he raised and spent more than $28 million, but won far less than 1 percent of convention delegates (21 of 2,830). This time he’ll fare even worse, since his campaign rhetoric already seems to make less sense.

Dr. Paul will be 76 by the time of the election next year, so the good news is that 2012 will likely represent Dr. Demento’s Last Hurrah, or more precisely, his Last Harrumph.

-- Michael Medved hosts a nationally syndicated daily radio talk show heard by more than 4 million listeners. He is also the author of 12 nonfiction books, most recently The 5 Big Lies About American Business.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: drugs; libertarianism; prostitution; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 05/18/2011 9:12:24 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

No, but drug cartels with more money and arms than God are.


2 posted on 05/18/2011 9:13:26 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islamophobia: The fear of offending Muslims because they are prone to violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Freedom of Choice


3 posted on 05/18/2011 9:16:57 AM PDT by ▀udda▀udd (7 days - 7 ways a Guero y Guay Lao >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It always pisses off the libertarians here when I equate Ron Paul and Libertarianism. And that you cannot divorce libertarian principles from Ron Paul. And when you think of Ron Paul - you think of libertarians. And when you think of libertarians - you think of Ron Paul smoking crack with hookers.

And on and on...

It pisses ‘em off. But hey. It’s what I do.


4 posted on 05/18/2011 9:17:08 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (I'm a Birther - And a Deather)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Seek clearly the fact that you posted this makes you a braver man than I!


5 posted on 05/18/2011 9:18:19 AM PDT by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
FLAME SUIT ALERT!


6 posted on 05/18/2011 9:20:10 AM PDT by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Libertarians have long been huge fans of heavy drug use going all the way back to the founding of the country. I mean, how else would you come up with a flag with a talking rattlesnake?


7 posted on 05/18/2011 9:21:57 AM PDT by Eyes Unclouded ("The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -George Carlin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

The freedom to do drugs is different from the choice to do them. Just like Mitt Romney’s freedom to burn the flag is far different from his choice to do so.

That subtlety is often lost on the Romneybots. Romney vs Obama = Obamacare vs Obamacare light...not a choice.


8 posted on 05/18/2011 9:22:22 AM PDT by willyd (your credibility deficit is screwing up my bs meter...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Drugs are bad, but the war on drugs has just ended up being a war on liberty for all.


9 posted on 05/18/2011 9:22:22 AM PDT by rokkitapps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

This is where Libertarian’s get it wrong. We don’t just want liberty for liberty’s sake. The LLibertarian view of it has never really existed in functioning society; complete autonomy from authority.

Liberty as our founding fathers defined it was accountability and responsibility; first each individual’s accountability directly to God, then to ourselves. If you are accountable to God and yourself, then the authority others can wield over you is limited.


10 posted on 05/18/2011 9:23:02 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Did the Founders ever intend to guard “personal habits” from governmental regulation? If so, then why did prior generations fail to employ Paul’s argument to challenge the long history of strict local, state, and federal supervision of the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages?

I guess the author doesn't know that until the beginning of the temperance movement that coincided with the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, there were no restrictions. Today's laws are mostly political protection for special interest groups. Here in TN the liquor lobby far outspends any other on buying political favors. Thats why we still cant buy wine in the grocery store.

The federal government has no business legislating morality. So yes, heroin and hookers should be perfectly acceptable federally. If, on the other hand, your city, or perhaps even your state, want to legislate in that arena, feel free to do so.

11 posted on 05/18/2011 9:27:51 AM PDT by jdub (A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I am not an advocate for legalization - I support existing drug laws on the grounds of prudential judgement.

However, I agree with Mr. Paul that the apparatus necessary to actually achieve enforcement has many bad effects, and, it is possible that I could be convinced that my prudential judgement is wrong and that the laws should be repealed.

12 posted on 05/18/2011 9:28:38 AM PDT by Jim Noble (The Constitution is overthrown. The Revolution is betrayed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Liberty is not licence.


13 posted on 05/18/2011 9:31:09 AM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Ron Paul is a capital-L Libertarian—as in the modern Libertarian Party.

Overall, Libertarian Party thought is as far removed from Reagan conservatism as the Green Party is removed from Reagan conservatism.

In fact, the Libertarian Party and Green Party have more in common with each other than either does with Reagan conservatism.

Why do we waste time even entertaining the Paul supporters? Would we waste time debating someone pimping the current Libertarian Party candidate or the Green Party candidate?

The term RINO gets thrown out too much here, but in Ron Paul’s it is accurate. He is a Republican in Name Only, because he is in fact a member of the Libertarian Party masqurading as a Republican.

Instead of tolerating Ron Paul supporters, we should tell them to go find a Libertarian Party forum to post on.


14 posted on 05/18/2011 9:31:36 AM PDT by Brookhaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have listened to Medved often enough to know he is a socialist that votes Republican. If it neither picks my pocket, or breaks my leg, the govt has no business enforcing laws against it. The reasoning that someone else can do something that costs the society money is true, but that is a problem of too much socialism, not a reason to regulate behavior. We should not be paying for anyones medical, food, housing or treatment as taxpayers. Let people live or die on their own, bury them in Potters field when they pass. I will take care of my own, take care of yours, or have them taken away to be housed and fed by the state directly. THAT I would support. Let’s reopen the nut houses, and the orphanages. You can bet on how many pregnancies by single mothers would drop, if they cannot get govt support for the act.


15 posted on 05/18/2011 9:32:13 AM PDT by runninglips (Republicans = 99 lb weaklings of politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I don't consider myself a Libertarian because I don't believe in conspiracy theories and I don't want al Qaeda to win the war. But on this issue at least, I think Ron Paul makes sense. Doing drugs is not the essence of freedom anymore than drinking beer is. The problem is that preventing everyone from doing drugs requires that the Constitution be trashed. How did the DEA gain the power to break into peoples' homes by surprise? How did police agencies on all levels acquire the right to seize property without due process? I would rather have meth users on my street than go on granting governments such powers.
16 posted on 05/18/2011 9:32:52 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdub
"The federal government has no business legislating morality. "
I was in a discussion on another thread a while ago....I actually had a freeper tell me that since I do not support the war on drugs, that I was immoral, and with that being the case, had no qualms whatsoever forcing his morality on me through legislation. There are social conservatives. And then there are socialist conservatives.
17 posted on 05/18/2011 9:33:21 AM PDT by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

Libertarianism is nothing more that a set of theoretical constructs that has no basis in the reality of human nature.


18 posted on 05/18/2011 9:33:21 AM PDT by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Vice addiction is the Libertarian default position.


19 posted on 05/18/2011 9:33:28 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I don’t like Ron Paul, but talk radio is very boring on the subject of drugs etc. They don’t pay attention to the problems with our policies.


20 posted on 05/18/2011 9:33:51 AM PDT by Politics4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig
This is where Libertarian’s get it wrong. We don’t just want liberty for liberty’s sake. The LLibertarian view of it has never really existed in functioning society; complete autonomy from authority.

Liberty as our founding fathers defined it was accountability and responsibility; first each individual’s accountability directly to God, then to ourselves. If you are accountable to God and yourself, then the authority others can wield over you is limited.

The founders did not agree with you! All drugs, including hard drugs, were entirely legal during the time of the founders. Drug prohibion only came during the era of the nanny state progressives. You are out of step with their vision on this issue, not the libertarians.

21 posted on 05/18/2011 9:34:34 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
No, but drug cartels with more money and arms than God are....SUPPLIED BY ATF

There...fixed it for you.

22 posted on 05/18/2011 9:35:11 AM PDT by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists". (Die Ritter der Kokosnuss))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

All this is fine and swell but the fact remains, the nut known as Ron Paul will never be president.


23 posted on 05/18/2011 9:36:21 AM PDT by South40 (Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!" -- Jim Robinson, 09/30/07)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eyes Unclouded

Okay, now THAT was funny!


24 posted on 05/18/2011 9:36:32 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona

I have psoriaic arthritus...and I am allergic to aspirin and aspirin products. This removes 90% of all pain relief medicine from my use. There is really only one class of pain relievers left for me. Try to get a doctor to prescribe them for an extended period of time. The feds will be all over them. I currently am stuck living with the pain..


25 posted on 05/18/2011 9:37:17 AM PDT by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

I said nothing about legalizing drugs and prostitution, did I? I spoke to the reasoning I see behind the movement. Before accusing me of something get straight what I said, and don’t assume to know me with the intimacy you have assumed.


26 posted on 05/18/2011 9:40:48 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Three arguments.

1) In our society, any adult can voluntarily have sex with an unlimited number of other adults, legally. Like it or not, as tacky as it is or not, it is how the law is written. Likewise, people can give money to each other for anything or nothing, as long as any applicable taxes are paid on it, as long as the consideration is inherently legal.

But put the two together, and it is “prostitution”. Importantly, there is nothing more than is directly inherent in prostitution than that, despite arguments that unrelated things, like drug abuse, etc. are involved. No, they are not part of the transaction, and nothing directly relates them to it.

2) Right now, government around the world, including our own, are in the midst of a “frenzy of control issues”. They literally want to have a hand in everything and anything we do, in an obsessive-compulsive manner. And this is wrong and evil. It is not their job, but to them it is becoming, or has become, *more* important than their fundamental purpose. Our nation is suffering because they have neglected their job.

Just yesterday, news came out that the Australian government has decided to ban thousands of plants, because they contain trace amounts of illegal to possess chemicals. This includes their national flower. Irrational and bizarre, but this is just one insanity among vast numbers.

This is why drugs, and many other things, should be legal. NOT because there is any legitimate value in the abuse of them, but solely to prevent government involvement in what is NOT a government prerogative. As such, it has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars to do something that should not be done, *by them*.

3) I used to be in favor of America as international policeman. This attitude was based in the fear that small wars can become large ones. But now, with US military forces deployed to over 100 foreign nations, on the most insignificant of pretenses, it has become obvious that we are trying to prevent anyone from fighting anyone, for any reason. This is not a legitimate use of our treasure and blood.

It is time for us to pick and choose our fights. Unless we have a stake in a fight, then we should allow the combatants to use whatever savagery they want against each other. And while we may contribute to war crimes investigations after the fact, intercession on our part is just futile.


27 posted on 05/18/2011 9:42:40 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

“... complete autonomy from authority.”

That is inaccurate. That is not libertarianism, be it from Ayn Rand, Richard Epstein or Walter Williams, just to pick three. Limited government doesn’t equal no government.


28 posted on 05/18/2011 9:43:52 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

29 posted on 05/18/2011 9:48:17 AM PDT by VeniVidiVici (The last Democrat worth a damn was Stalin. He purged his whole Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg
That is inaccurate. That is not libertarianism,

My understanding comes from personal contact with Libertarians, so if I got the wrong impression, mia culpa.

30 posted on 05/18/2011 9:51:24 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Another thing, you are completely high, if you are going to try to tell me that the Founding Fathers thought drug abuse and prostitution were not morally reprehensible. If Libertarians are willing to substitute God’s authority for that which the state has taken, uprightly, then I recant my statement, otherwise, I stand by it.


31 posted on 05/18/2011 9:54:07 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If your school age daugther is sick and I say a prayer for her, you may be offened, but neither you or she is harmed in any manner.
If I suggest to that same daughter that she sell her body for money and snort a little coke is it possible she may be harmed by that?
We have an idiot as President now. Why go for another?


32 posted on 05/18/2011 9:55:02 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
The founders did not agree with you!

Yes they did agree with him. Public drunkeness, comminting acts while intoxicated, and prostitution were all illegal at the time. None of the founders sought to change that.

All drugs, including hard drugs, were entirely legal during the time of the founders.

Which drugs? You mean the ones that didn't exist at the time, don't you? Refined drugs like cocaine and heroine didn't exist at the time. You're right, the ones that didn't even exist were legal.

And there was minimal use of other drugs (marijuana, for example, was not smoked to any significant extent in the US until after the Mexican-American war). They weren't an issue at the time of the founding, because they were rarely found in society.

The Libertarian Party should be renamed the Libertine Party, because that is really what they espouse.

A libertine is someone that is free from restraints--legal, societal, religious, or moral. That's what the Libertarian Party espouses, but that is never what the founders espoused--not even close.

33 posted on 05/18/2011 9:55:14 AM PDT by Brookhaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

Well, there’s plenty of info out there. Thomas Sowell is a good starting point, as is Williams, if you like economics, and Williams hosts Rush’s show a lot.


34 posted on 05/18/2011 9:55:14 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

My challenge to Medved and others is this: defend the War on Drugs without sounding like a liberal defending the War on Poverty. Good luck with that.


35 posted on 05/18/2011 9:56:57 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Excelent quote from candidate Paul “the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits"

WORTH REPEATING

36 posted on 05/18/2011 10:01:42 AM PDT by Moleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ron Paul, a crack whore’s best friend.


37 posted on 05/18/2011 10:07:17 AM PDT by Avery Iota Kracker (Why get 'er done, when you can get 'er did twyst as fast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Unseemly for silly pants Medved to be calling anyone Dr. Demento.


38 posted on 05/18/2011 10:24:43 AM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig
Another thing, you are completely high, if you are going to try to tell me that the Founding Fathers thought drug abuse and prostitution were not morally reprehensible

Huh? I never said or implied anything of the sort! Being against legal prohibition of a particular behavior doesn't necessarily mean that you don't find it "morally reprehensible." For example, I think devil worship, failing to give presents on mothers day, and lying to friends or family is "morally reprehensible" but that doesn't mean I'd make these behaviors illegal. Do you feel otherwise?

Unlike the founders, who lived in a world of completely legal hard drugs and apparently had no problem with it, you seem to completely confuse this obvious distinction.

39 posted on 05/18/2011 10:27:39 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Medved usually has strong arguments for his positions, but this article is lame. I think he intends a smear job on Ron Paul, who is simply arguing that, because regulation of dope and prostitution is not among the enumerated powers of the Constitution, Congress has no authority in regulating such matters. Medved is smart enough to have a deeper understanding of libertarianism and the concept of enumerated powers than he describes here, but knows that a some conservatives are ignorant or prejudiced enough to lap it up. I suspect that he’s really far more concerned about a particular aspect of US foreign policy. He’s certainly not so hard on candidates with dubious records on the right to life.


40 posted on 05/18/2011 10:27:57 AM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven
Which drugs? You mean the ones that didn't exist at the time, don't you?

You might want to do some research before sounding off. Check out this timeline on the history of opium, which was a well-known drug at the time.

41 posted on 05/18/2011 10:33:42 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Being free to do drugs is your option on how you want to die.Stupidity never goes away with some folks.


42 posted on 05/18/2011 10:35:01 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz
Being free to do drugs is your option on how you want to die

I agree: if you smoke too many cigarettes and drink too many alcoholic beverages you will die.

43 posted on 05/18/2011 10:37:58 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
I agree: if you smoke too many cigarettes and drink too many alcoholic beverages you will die.

The bad news is if you don't, you're still going to die.

44 posted on 05/18/2011 10:42:11 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
I agree: if you smoke too many cigarettes and drink too many alcoholic beverages you will die.

The bad news is if you don't, you're still going to die.

45 posted on 05/18/2011 10:42:11 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
You might want to do some research before sounding off. Check out this timeline on the history of opium, which was a well-known drug at the time.

And which was not widely used in America in the 1700's. Which is exactly the point I made.

Refined drugs (like cocaine and heroin) had not been developed yet.

"Natural" drugs (like the marijuana example I used as well as opium) simply were not widely used at the time of the founding. Opium wasn't regulated for the same reason bamboo wasn't regulated, it didn't exist in any significant degree in early America.

46 posted on 05/18/2011 10:44:02 AM PDT by Brookhaven (The Libertarian Party = The Libertine Party = The Freedoom Without Responsibility Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

[ The phrase “crackpot” comes immediately to mind ]

Micheal Medved is indeed a “crackpot”..
Coburn bitch slapps the Senate—>> http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=599986131

Ron and Rand Paul have the answers to Americas problems..
LESS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.. by de-funding the whole shebang..


47 posted on 05/18/2011 10:45:25 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Dear yefragetuwrabrumuy,

You are a breath of fresh air! It is truly a pleasure reading you words - words without rancor, without a hidden agenda. Words that simply make sense.

Regards,


48 posted on 05/18/2011 10:49:27 AM PDT by alexander_busek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Brookhaven

You are actually making my point. Though legally available and quite well known (review my timeline), the founders who combined a belief in liberty and responsiblity were too smart to use them. The big spike in hard drug use took place after Prohibition. It has always been thus.


49 posted on 05/18/2011 10:50:14 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

you seem to believe that immoral equals a requirement to regulate. I think that is wrong. Sure, the founders would think drunkenness to be a immoral state of being. But they didn’t mention it in the constitution or any other founding documents, did they? And prostitution was far more accepted in their day than it is in ours. Generally cities had ordinances limiting the locations of brothels, not outright laws prohibiting them. Morality is not a valid justification of the excercise of state authority.


50 posted on 05/18/2011 11:13:32 AM PDT by jdub (A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson