Ron Paul, Hookers, and Heroin (Is being free to do drugs the essence of American liberty?)

The Daily Beast ^ | 05/18/2011 | Michael Medved

[Captain Kirk]

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.

[Vaduz]

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

[Captain Kirk]

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.

[tacticalogic]

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.

[tacticalogic]

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.

[Brookhaven]

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.

[hosepipe]

[ 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..

[alexander_busek]

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,

[Captain Kirk]

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.

[jdub]

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.

[jdub]

Yes they did agree with him. Public drunkeness, comminting acts while intoxicated, and prostitution were all illegal at the time.

They might have been legal, but that was the choice of the individual state, city or county, not the federal government. "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

[jdub]

that was supposed to have been “they might have been illegal”, not legal...

[CanuckYank]

Your point about “How did police agencies on all levels acquire the right to seize property without due process?” is the REAL POINT of the whole Drug War issue.

The rampant use of drugs by a substantial portion of society is simply the indicator of an undeniable but inconvenient truth, namely that somewhere between 10 and 15% of the human population will NEVER be worth much to the rest of us. That is a genetic issue, and NO amount of government intervention will EVER change that fact.

So, instead of letting the natural selection process gradually weed out these defective genetic lines, in the name of stamping out the sources of the drugs, we have allowed the government to trample on our rights and establish all sorts of unconstitutional jurisprudence and paramilitary invasion teams.

The existence of these teams and their uncontrolled assaults on the population is just a training program and ongoing “readiness drills” for their REAL purpose, namely so that they will be prepared to put down the insurrection that may eventually occur when people finally get fed up with the creeping loss of liberty that is progressing daily.

It’s pretty obvious to anyone with even half a functioning brain that the “War on Drugs” has been a dismal failure, succeeding only in assaulting the liberties of ALL the citizens, in in the supposed defense of a minority - but then most such assaults on freedom are committed for the same espoused “noble causes”, aren’t they?

[chris_bdba]

I personally beelvie if it isn’t in the constitution it isn’t the governemnt’s right to legislate. The simple truth is that you can not save people from themselves and if someone want to do heroin they will do what ever they need to do to raise the money to do it.

[chilepup]

The big issue with Ron Paul’s support of these “personal liberty” issues is that hard drug use and prostitution DO affect more than just the user. OK, so, we de-regulate heroine...will that make the effects of heroine on addicts and on society different or better in some way? No. The Paul people claim to want liberty for everyone, yet they fail to realize how some of these “liberties” will hinder the liberties of others.

[jmc813]

Michael Medved is a fag.